Abstract:BackgroundThe role of percutaneous drainage in the management of infected pancreatic necrosis remains controversial, and ultrasound-guided technique is rarely used for this indication. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of sonographically guided percutaneous catheter drainage for infected pancreatic necrosis.MethodsThe patient group consisted of 16 men and 2 women. The mean age of the patients was 47 years. The median computed tomography severity index of acute pancreatitis was 1… Show more
“…Percutaneous drainage in our series was successful for 33 % of the patients [ 3 ], similar to the success rate reported in a recent prospective study by van Santvoort et al [ 4 ] (35 %). We think the lower success rate for PCD in our series was mainly due to a few technical complications that occurred early in our experience with this technique, and this issue is thoroughly explained in our article.…”
“…Percutaneous drainage in our series was successful for 33 % of the patients [ 3 ], similar to the success rate reported in a recent prospective study by van Santvoort et al [ 4 ] (35 %). We think the lower success rate for PCD in our series was mainly due to a few technical complications that occurred early in our experience with this technique, and this issue is thoroughly explained in our article.…”
“…However, in some cases, indications for drainage such as infection or pressure effects to the surrounding organ may occur earlier, warranting early intervention. Feasibility of percutaneous drainage within 4 weeks has been reported 12 13 14 but study regarding the feasible timing of endoscopic drainage for pancreatic fluid collection (PFC) has been limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate feasibility and safety of early (< 4 weeks) endoscopic drainage for PFC.…”
Background and study aims
While endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collection (PFC) is recommended to be performed ≥ 4 weeks after onset of acute pancreatitis (AP), early (< 4 weeks) interventions are needed in some symptomatic cases. Despite feasibility of early percutaneous drainage, there have been few studies about early EUS-guided drainage of PFC.
Patients and methods
Consecutive patients who received EUS-guided drainage (EUS-PCD) of infected or symptomatic PFC at the University of Tokyo were retrospectively studied. Contraindications for EUS-PCD are lack of encapsulation or adhesion to the gastrointestinal tract. Safety and effectiveness of early vs delayed (≥ 4 weeks) EUS-PCD were compared.
Results
A total of 35 patients underwent EUS-PCD (12 early and 23 delayed) using 19 large-bore fully-covered metallic stent and 16 plastic stents. The median diameter of PFC was 110 mm (40 – 180) and 122 mm (17 – 250) in the early and delayed drainage groups, respectively. Median time from onset of AP to drainage was 23 and 85 days for early and delayed drainage, respectively. The technical success rate of EUS-guided drainage was 100 %. Endoscopic necrosectomy was performed in six early and 16 cases of delayed drainage. The adverse event rate was 25 % (3 bleeding) and 13 % (2 perforations and 1 CO
2
retention) in the early and delayed drainage groups, respectively. Two patients died (1 early and 1 delayed) due to multiorgan failure.
Conclusion
Endoscopic drainage and subsequent necrosectomy of symptomatic PFC within 4 weeks after onset of acute pancreatitis was feasible, given that the collection was encapsulated and attached to the gastrointestinal tract.
“…Percutaneous pigtail tube drainage became the first-line treatment for IPN because of simple operation, convenience, and small disturbance to the patient. However, it was reported that the success rate of percutaneous drainage therapy for IPN was only 33% [ 10 ].…”
BackgroundInfected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) is a serious local complication of acute pancreatitis, with high mortality. Minimally invasive therapy including percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) has become the preferred method for IPN instead of traditional open necrosectomy. However, the efficacy of double-catheter lavage in combination with percutaneous flexible endoscopic debridement after PCD failure is unknown compared with surgical necrosectomy.MethodsA total of 27 cases of IPN patients with failure PCD between Jan 2014 and Dec 2015 were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. Fifteen patients received double-catheter lavage in combination with percutaneous flexible endoscopic debridement, and 12 patients underwent open necrosectomy. The primary endpoint was the composite end point of major complications or death. The secondary endpoint included mortality, major complication rate, ICU admission length of stay, and overall length of stay.ResultsThe primary endpoint occurrence rate in double-catheter lavage in combination with percutaneous flexible endoscopic debridement group (8/15, 53%) was significantly lower than that in open necrosectomy group (11/12, 92%) (RR = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.04 – 2.84, P < 0.05). Though the mortality between two groups showed no statistical significance (0% vs. 17%, P = 0.19), the rate of new-onset multiple organ failure and ICU admission length of stay in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in open necrosectomy group (13% vs. 58%, P = 0.04; 0 vs. 17, P = 0.02, respectively). Only 40% of patients required ICU admission after percutaneous debridement, which was markedly lower than the patients who underwent surgery (83%; P < 0.05).ConclusionsDouble-catheter lavage in combination with percutaneous flexible endoscopic debridement showed superior effectiveness, safety, and convenience in patients with IPN after PCD failure as compared to open necrosectomy.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12876-017-0717-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.