Search

ObjectiveFollowing an episode of acute biliary pancreatitis, cholecystectomy is advised to prevent recurrent biliary events. There is limited evidence regarding the optimal timing and safety of cholecystectomy in patients with necrotising biliary pancreatitis.DesignA post hoc analysis of a multicentre prospective cohort. Patients with biliary pancreatitis and a CT severity score of three or more were included in 27 Dutch hospitals between 2005 and 2014. Primary outcome was the optimal timing of cholecystectomy in patients with necrotising biliary pancreatitis, defined as: the optimal point in time with the lowest risk of recurrent biliary events and the lowest risk of complications of cholecystectomy. Secondary outcomes were the number of recurrent biliary events, periprocedural complications of cholecystectomy and the protective value of endoscopic sphincterotomy for the recurrence of biliary events.ResultsOverall, 248 patients were included in the analysis. Cholecystectomy was performed in 191 patients (77%) at a median of 103 days (P25–P75: 46–222) after discharge. Infected necrosis after cholecystectomy occurred in four (2%) patients with persistent peripancreatic collections. Before cholecystectomy, 66 patients (27%) developed biliary events. The risk of overall recurrent biliary events prior to cholecystectomy was significantly lower before 10 weeks after discharge (risk ratio 0.49 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.90); p=0.02). The risk of recurrent pancreatitis before cholecystectomy was significantly lower before 8 weeks after discharge (risk ratio 0.14 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.0); p=0.02). The complication rate of cholecystectomy did not decrease over time. Endoscopic sphincterotomy did not reduce the risk of recurrent biliary events (OR 1.40 (95% CI 0.74 to 2.83)).ConclusionThe optimal timing of cholecystectomy after necrotising biliary pancreatitis, in the absence of peripancreatic collections, is within 8 weeks after discharge.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with biliary sphincterotomy improves the outcome of patients with gallstone pancreatitis without concomitant cholangitis. We did a randomised trial to compare urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment in patients with predicted severe acute gallstone pancreatitis.METHODS: In this multicentre, parallel-group, assessor-masked, randomised controlled superiority trial, patients with predicted severe (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score ≥8, Imrie score ≥3, or C-reactive protein concentration >150 mg/L) gallstone pancreatitis without cholangitis were assessed for eligibility in 26 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a web-based randomisation module with randomly varying block sizes to urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy (within 24 h after hospital presentation) or conservative treatment. The primary endpoint was a composite of mortality or major complications (new-onset persistent organ failure, cholangitis, bacteraemia, pneumonia, pancreatic necrosis, or pancreatic insufficiency) within 6 months of randomisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN97372133.FINDINGS: Between Feb 28, 2013, and March 1, 2017, 232 patients were randomly assigned to urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy (n=118) or conservative treatment (n=114). One patient from each group was excluded from the final analysis because of cholangitis (urgent ERCP group) and chronic pancreatitis (conservative treatment group) at admission. The primary endpoint occurred in 45 (38%) of 117 patients in the urgent ERCP group and in 50 (44%) of 113 patients in the conservative treatment group (risk ratio [RR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·64-1·18; p=0·37). No relevant differences in the individual components of the primary endpoint were recorded between groups, apart from the occurrence of cholangitis (two [2%] of 117 in the urgent ERCP group vs 11 [10%] of 113 in the conservative treatment group; RR 0·18, 95% CI 0·04-0·78; p=0·010). Adverse events were reported in 87 (74%) of 118 patients in the urgent ERCP group versus 91 (80%) of 114 patients in the conservative treatment group.INTERPRETATION: In patients with predicted severe gallstone pancreatitis but without cholangitis, urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy did not reduce the composite endpoint of major complications or mortality, compared with conservative treatment. Our findings support a conservative strategy in patients with predicted severe acute gallstone pancreatitis with an ERCP indicated only in patients with cholangitis or persistent cholestasis.FUNDING: The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, Fonds NutsOhra, and the Dutch Patient Organization for Pancreatic Diseases.

Background Occult biliary disease has been suggested as a frequent underlying cause of idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP). Cholecystectomy has been proposed as a strategy to prevent recurrent IAP. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy of cholecystectomy in reducing the risk of recurrent IAP. Methods PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched systematically for studies including patients with IAP treated by cholecystectomy, with data on recurrence of pancreatitis. Studies published before 1980 or including chronic pancreatitis and case reports were excluded. The primary outcome was recurrence rate. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Meta‐analyses were undertaken to calculate risk ratios using a random‐effects model with the inverse‐variance method. Results Overall, ten studies were included, of which nine were used in pooled analyses. The study population consisted of 524 patients with 126 cholecystectomies. Of these 524 patients, 154 (29·4 (95 per cent c.i. 25·5 to 33·3) per cent) had recurrent disease. The recurrence rate was significantly lower after cholecystectomy than after conservative management (14 of 126 (11·1 per cent) versus 140 of 398 (35·2 per cent); risk ratio 0·44, 95 per cent c.i. 0·27 to 0·71). Even in patients in whom IAP was diagnosed after more extensive diagnostic testing, including endoscopic ultrasonography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, the recurrence rate appeared to be lower after cholecystectomy (4 of 36 (11 per cent) versus 42 of 108 (38·9 per cent); risk ratio 0·41, 0·16 to 1·07). Conclusion Cholecystectomy after an episode of IAP reduces the risk of recurrent pancreatitis. This implies that current diagnostics are insufficient to exclude a biliary cause., Idiopathic acute pancreatitis recurs more often than acute pancreatitis of known cause. In at least some of these patients, standard diagnostics (laboratory tests, transabdominal ultrasonography) may fail to detect biliary disease. The literature on cholecystectomy as a preventive measure for recurrence of pancreatitis in presumed idiopathic acute pancreatitis was reviewed systematically. Cholecystectomy can reduce pancreatitis

Introduction: After standard diagnostic work-up, the aetiology of acute pancreatitis remains unknown in 16–27% of cases, a condition referred to as idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP). Determining the aetiology of pancreatitis is essential, as it may direct treatment in the acute phase and guides interventions to prevent recurrent pancreatitis. Methods: Between 2008 and 2015, patients with acute pancreatitis were registered prospectively in 19 Dutch hospitals. Patients who had a negative initial diagnostic work-up with regard to the underlying aetiology of their pancreatitis were labelled ‘presumed’ IAP. The aim of this study was to assess the use of diagnostic modalities and their yield to establish an aetiology in ‘presumed’ IAP, and to assess recurrence rates both with and without treatment. Results: Out of the 1632 registered patients, 191 patients had a first episode of ‘presumed’ IAP, of whom 176 (92%) underwent additional diagnostic testing: CT (n = 124, diagnostic yield 8%), EUS (n = 62, yield 35%), MRI/MRCP (n = 56, yield 33%), repeat ultrasound (n = 97, yield 21%), IgG4 (n = 54, yield 9%) and ERCP (n = 15, yield 47%). In 64 of 176 patients (36%) an aetiological diagnosis was established, mostly biliary (n = 39). In 13 out of 176 of patients (7%) a neoplasm was diagnosed. If additional diagnostic workup revealed an aetiology, the recurrence rate was lower in the treated patients than in the patients without a definite aetiology (15% versus 43%, p = 0.014). Conclusion: Additional diagnostic testing revealed an aetiology in one-third of ‘presumed’ IAP patients. The aetiology found was mostly biliary, but occasionally neoplasms were found. Identification of an aetiology with subsequent treatment reduced the rate of recurrence.

Contains fulltext : 177888.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) Acute pancreatitis is one of the most common GI conditions requiring acute hospitalisation and has a rising incidence. In recent years, important insights on the management of acute pancreatitis have been obtained through numerous randomised controlled trials. Based on this evidence, the treatment of acute pancreatitis has gradually developed towards a tailored, multidisciplinary effort, with distinctive roles for gastroenterologists, radiologists and surgeons. This review summarises how to diagnose, classify and manage patients with acute pancreatitis, emphasising the evidence obtained through randomised controlled trials.

IntroductionIdiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) remains a dilemma for physicians as it is uncertain whether patients with IAP may actually have an occult aetiology. It is unclear to what extent additional diagnostic modalities such as endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) are warranted after a first episode of IAP in order to uncover this aetiology. Failure to timely determine treatable aetiologies delays appropriate treatment and might subsequently cause recurrence of acute pancreatitis. Therefore, the aim of the Pancreatitis of Idiopathic origin: Clinical added value of endoscopic UltraSonography (PICUS) Study is to determine the value of routine EUS in determining the aetiology of pancreatitis in patients with a first episode of IAP.Methods and analysisPICUS is designed as a multicentre prospective cohort study of 106 patients with a first episode of IAP after complete standard diagnostic work-up, in whom a diagnostic EUS will be performed. Standard diagnostic work-up will include a complete personal and family history, laboratory tests including serum alanine aminotransferase, calcium and triglyceride levels and imaging by transabdominal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography after clinical recovery from the acute pancreatitis episode. The primary outcome measure is detection of aetiology by EUS. Secondary outcome measures include pancreatitis recurrence rate, severity of recurrent pancreatitis, readmission, additional interventions, complications, length of hospital stay, quality of life, mortality and costs, during a follow-up period of 12 months.Ethics and disseminationPICUS is conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. Five medical ethics review committees assessed PICUS (Medical Ethics Review Committee of Academic Medical Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Radboud University Medical Center, Erasmus Medical Center and Maastricht University Medical Center). The results will be submitted for publication in an international peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNetherlands Trial Registry (NL7066). Prospectively registered.

BACKGROUND: High-resolution anoscopy is increasingly advocated to screen HIV+ men who have sex with men for anal cancer and its precursor lesions, anal intraepithelial neoplasia. A systematic comparison between clinical features and the histopathology of suspect lesions is lacking. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze interobserver agreement in classifying features of intra-anal lesions suspect for anal intraepithelial neoplasia and to compare these features with their histopathological outcome. DESIGN: This study is a cross-sectional survey regarding high-resolution anoscopy with images and biopsies of suspect lesions. Two dermatologists experienced in high-resolution anoscopy, blinded for histopathological outcome, independently classified the lesions on clinical features. SETTING: This investigation was conducted at the Dermatology outpatient clinic of the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. PATIENTS: Included in the study were 163 HIV+ men who have sex with men, older than 18 years, with no history of anal cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the -coefficient for interobserver agreement and the proportions of anal intraepithelial neoplasia per clinical feature. RESULTS: Three hundred four biopsies were taken from 163 patients. One hundred sixty-eight biopsies (55%) showed anal intraepithelial neoplasia, and 67/304 (22%) showed high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia. The -coefficient was 0.65 for condylomatous lesions, 0.14 for surface configuration, 0.54 for punctation, 0.08 for mosaicism, and 0.43 for atypical vessels. Condylomatous lesions showed high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia in 18% (95% CI, 11%-27%). In lesions with flat leukoplakia, punctation, and atypical vessels, high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia was seen in 25%, 30%, and 23%. In lesions with the combination punctation/atypical vessels and punctation/flat leukoplakia/atypical vessels, high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia was found in 38% and 40%. LIMITATIONS: We did not take biopsies of healthy-looking mucosa. Furthermore, the real-time description of features during high-resolution anoscopy, instead of the use of images, would improve the recognition of subtle mucosal abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: A moderate to substantial interobserver agreement was demonstrated in recognizing condylomas, punctation, and atypical vessels. Furthermore, high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia is present in a high proportion of intra-anal condylomata. A combination of punctation, flat leukoplakia, and atypical vessels is the best predictor for high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia

Background Acute pancreatitis is mostly caused by gallstones or sludge. Early decompression of the biliary tree by endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) with sphincterotomy may improve outcome in these patients. Whereas current guidelines recommend early ERC in patients with concomitant cholangitis, early ERC is not recommended in patients with mild biliary pancreatitis. Evidence on the role of routine early ERC with endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients without cholangitis but with biliary pancreatitis at high risk for complications is lacking. We hypothesize that early ERC with sphincterotomy improves outcome in these patients. Methods/Design The APEC trial is a randomized controlled, parallel group, superiority multicenter trial. Within 24 hours after presentation to the emergency department, patients with biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis and at high risk for complications, based on an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE-II) score of 8 or greater, Modified Glasgow score of 3 or greater, or serum C-reactive protein above 150 mg/L, will be randomized. In 27 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group, 232 patients will be allocated to early ERC with sphincterotomy or to conservative treatment. The primary endpoint is a composite of major complications (that is, organ failure, pancreatic necrosis, pneumonia, bacteremia, cholangitis, pancreatic endocrine, or exocrine insufficiency) or death within 180 days after randomization. Secondary endpoints include ERC-related complications, infected necrotizing pancreatitis, length of hospital stay and an economical evaluation. Discussion The APEC trial investigates whether an early ERC with sphincterotomy reduces the composite endpoint of major complications or death compared with conservative treatment in patients with biliary pancreatitis at high risk of complications. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN97372133 (date registration: 17-12-2012) Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-1132-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.