Proactive Versus Standard Percutaneous Catheter Drainage for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis
Pancreas , Volume 46 - Issue 4 p. 518- 523
Objectives Percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) is often the first invasive treatment step for infected necrotizing pancreatitis. A proactive PCD strategy, including frequent and early drain revising and upsizing, may reduce the need for surgical necrosectomy and could improve outcomes, but data are lacking. Methods Necrotizing pancreatitis patients were identified from in-hospital databases (2004-2014). Patients with primary PCD for infected necrotizing pancreatitis were included. Outcomes of patients from 1 center using a proactive PCD strategy were compared with 3 standard strategy centers. Results In total, 369 (25.9%) of 1427 patients received a diagnosis of necrotizing pancreatitis, and 117 (31.7%) of 369 patients underwent primary PCD for infected necrosis: 42 in the proactive group versus 75 in the standard group. Patients in the proactive group had more drain-related procedures (median, 3; interquartile range [IQR], 2-4; versus 2; IQR, 1-2; P < 0.001) and larger final drain sizes (median, 16F; IQR, 14F-20F; versus 14F; IQR, 12F-14F; P < 0.001). Fewer patients underwent additional necrosectomy in the proactive group, 12 (28.6%) versus 39 (52.0%) (adjusted odds ratio, 0.349; 95% confidence interval, 0.137-0.889; P = 0.027), with similar hospital stay and mortality. Conclusions A proactive PCD strategy is associated with reduced need for necrosectomy in infected necrotizing pancreatitis, compared with standard PCD, with similar clinical outcomes.
|drain revising, drain upsizing, infected necrotizing pancreatitis, necrosectomy, percutaneous catheter drainage, step-up approach|
|Organisation||Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam|
van Grinsven, J, Timmerman, P. (Pieter), van Lienden, K.P, Haveman, J.W, Boerma, D, van Eijck, C.H.J, … Besselink, M.G. (2017). Proactive Versus Standard Percutaneous Catheter Drainage for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis. Pancreas, 46(4), 518–523. doi:10.1097/MPA.0000000000000785