Objective: The primary objective of this article is to identify risk factors for infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for severe acute pancreatitis. We also described outcomes of IPN. Background: Acute pancreatitis is common and associated with multiple, potentially life-threatening complications. Over the last decade, minimally invasive procedures have been developed to treat IPN. Methods: We retrospectively studied consecutive patients admitted for severe acute pancreatitis to the ICUs of the Nantes University Hospital in France, between 2012 and 2015. Logistic regression was used to evaluate potential associations linking IPN to baseline patient characteristics and outcomes. Results: Of the 148 included patients, 26 (17.6%) died. IPN developed in 62 (43%) patients and consistently required radiological, endoscopic, and/or surgical intervention. By multivariate analysis, factors associated with IPN were number of organ failure (OF) (for ! 3: OR, 28.67 (6.23-131.96), p < 0.001) and portosplenomesenteric venous thrombosis (OR, )).Conclusion: IPN occurred in nearly half our ICU patients with acute pancreatitis and consistently required interventional therapy. Number of OFs and portosplenomesenteric venous thrombosis were significantly associated with IPN. Early management of OF may reduce IPN incidence, and management of portosplenomesenteric venous thrombosis should be investigated. KeywordsSevere acute pancreatitis, infected pancreatic necrosis, risk factors, intensive care, portosplenomesenteric venous thrombosis Received: 6 November 2017; accepted: 10 February 2018 Key summaryInfected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) increases the already high morbidity and mortality rates in severe acute pancreatitis. Whereas the step-up approach is now advocated for management of IPN, few clinical risk factors are known.Half the patients in a retrospective cohort developed IPN. Independent risk factors of IPN were portosplenomesenteric venous thrombosis and multiple organ failure. Anticoagulation for portosplenomesenteric venous thrombosis did not protect from the development of cavernoma.

Introduction: Surveillance of gastric precancerous lesions (GPL) is recommended, but the data on their clinical and endoscopic management in a "real-life" practice are limited. Our aim was to study the modalities of endoscopic management of patients with GPL in France. Design: All the patients diagnosed with GPL in our center between 2000 and 2015 were grouped and analyzed according to the most severe GPL found, in the following order: atrophic gastritis only (AG), intestinal metaplasia (IM), low grade dysplasia (LGD), high grade dysplasia (HGD). Results: Out of 16,764 patients having undergone upper endoscopy with gastric biopsies, 507 were identified with GPL (detection rate 3.2%). Overall, Helicobacter pylori infection was found in 41% of patients. IM was by far the most frequently found lesion (79%), followed by LGD (17%), HGD (2%), and AG only (2%). H. pylori infection rate was decreasing, while the age of the patients was increasing, together with the increasing severity of GPL (p = 0.005). Only 28% of the patients had at least one follow-up endoscopy. No correlation was found between the endoscopist's appreciation of the mucosa and histological results. Conclusion: In France, GPL can be expected in about 3% of patients undergoing upper endoscopy with gastric biopsies for any reason. The correlation between the endoscopic evaluation and histology is poor. Spreading of published guidelines should improve the management of patients with GPL in the future.

Background: Recent guidelines advise against prophylactic antibiotics in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis, advocating instead a step-up drainage and necrosectomy strategy with antibiotics as dictated by microbiological findings. However, prompt antibiotic therapy is recommended in patients with sepsis or septic shock, a possible presentation of infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN). Consequently, in many critically ill patients with IPN, pancreatic samples are collected only after broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy initiation. Whether this prior antibiotic exposure alters the microbiological findings is unknown. The main objective was to determine whether prior antibiotic exposure sterilized the samples collected during procedures for suspected IPN in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for acute pancreatitis with suspected IPN. We retrospectively studied 56 consecutive ICU patients admitted with suspected IPN. We collected details on the microbiological samples and antimicrobials used. A definite diagnosis of IPN was given when bacteria were identified in pancreatic samples. Results: In all, 137 pancreatic samples were collected, including 91 (66.4%) after antibiotic therapy initiation. IPN was confirmed in 48 (86%) patients. The proportion of positive samples was 74 (81.3%) in antibiotic-exposed patients and 32/46 (69.5%) in unexposed patients (p = 0.58). Of the 74 positive samples from exposed patients, 62 (84%) had organisms susceptible to the antibiotics used. One-third of samples contained more than one organism. Among patients with IPN, 37.5% had positive blood cultures. Multidrug-or extensively drug-resistant bacteria were identified at some point in half the patients. Enterobacter cloacae complex was more frequent in the exposed group (p = 0.02), as were Gram-negative anaerobic bacteria (p = 0.03). Conclusion: Antibiotic exposure before sampling did not seem to affect culture positivity of pancreatic samples to confirm IPN, but may affect microbiological findings. Our results suggest that, in patients with sepsis and suspected IPN, antibiotics should be started immediately and pancreatic samples obtained as soon as possible thereafter. In other situations, antibiotics can be withheld until the microbiological results of pancreatic samples are available, to ensure accurate targeting of the spectrum to bacterial susceptibility patterns.

INTRODUCTION: Data on the evolution of gastric precancerous lesions (GPL), especially in countries of a Low gastric cancer incidence area are limited. Our objective was to study a long-term evolution of GPL in France. METHODS: All the patients diagnosed with GPL (atrophic gastritis, intestinal metaplasia [IM], and dysplasia) between 2000 and 2015 and fulfilling criteria for evolution assessment (at least 2 endoscopies, minimal follow-up of 6 months, and at least 2 biopsies obtained from the antrum and corpus) were included. Clinical and endoscopic data were analyzed, and histological samples were reviewed by an expert pathologist with evaluation of the Operative Link on Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia Assessment stage and type of IM. RESULTS: From the 507 patients with GPL, 79 fulfilled the strict criteria. During a mean follow-up of 66 months, during which the patients had a mean number of 4 endoscopies (min–max: 2–21) with 9 biopsies/endoscopy, a stability was observed in 70% of patients. Progression occurred in 14% of patients, within a mean delay of 62.1 months (min–max: 17–99). Progression of the lesions was significantly higher in patients with incomplete type of IM (relative risk of progression for incomplete IM: 11.5; 95% confidence interval 2.5–53.1). Regression of IM occurred in 16% of the patients, after a mean delay of 90 months. DISCUSSION: This study shows that the patients with antrum-limited IM, especially of incomplete type, are at the highest risk of developing gastric cancer. In most patients, however, the lesions remain stable, which highlights the need for additional markers to better target the patients at risk of progression.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Surveillance of gastric precancerous lesions (GPL) may reduce gastric cancer (GC)-related mortality, but some patients with GPL are lost to follow-up. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of a "phone-call" strategy in surveillance of the lost to follow-up patients. Patients and Methods: Among all the patients diagnosed with GPL (atrophic gastritis, intestinal metaplasia, low-grade dysplasia) between 2000 and 2015, we identified those who should undergo surveillance endoscopy according to the current guidelines. They were contacted by telephone and invited to undergo endoscopy with gastric biopsies for histological analysis. Results: Among 535 patients with GPL, 134 were contacted. Sixty-two (46%) could not be joined, 36 did not have endoscopy for other reasons, and finally, 36 patients (22 males, median age 65 years) were included. After the median time interval of 57 months between 2 endoscopies, 18 patients showed stability, 11 regression, and 7 progression of GPL, including 1 patient who developed GC. Conclusion: Despite several telephone calls, only one-third of the contacted patients could be brought to surveillance endoscopy. Most of the patients showed stability of GPL, but 1 progressed to GC and could be successfully treated.