Search

01 januari 2023, Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVE: Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are believed to clinically improve endoscopic transluminal drainage of infected necrosis when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents. However, comparative data from prospective studies are very limited. DESIGN: Patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, who underwent an endoscopic step-up approach with LAMS within a multicentre prospective cohort study were compared with the data of 51 patients in the randomised TENSION trial who had been assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach with double-pigtail plastic stents. The clinical study protocol was otherwise identical for both groups. Primary end point was the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. Secondary end points included mortality, major complications, hospital stay and healthcare costs. RESULTS: A total of 53 patients were treated with LAMS in 16 hospitals during 27 months. The need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy was 64% (n=34) and was not different from the previous trial using plastic stents (53%, n=27)), also after correction for baseline characteristics (OR 1.21 (95% CI 0.45 to 3.23)). Secondary end points did not differ between groups either, which also included bleeding requiring intervention-5 patients (9%) after LAMS placement vs 11 patients (22%) after placement of plastic stents (relative risk 0.44; 95% CI 0.16 to 1.17). Total healthcare costs were also comparable (mean difference -€6348, bias-corrected and accelerated 95% CI -€26 386 to €10 121). CONCLUSION: Our comparison of two patient groups from two multicentre prospective studies with a similar design suggests that LAMS do not reduce the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis. Also, the rate of bleeding complications was comparable.

Contains fulltext : 296781.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Practice variation exists in venous resection during pancreatoduodenectomy, but little is known about the potential causes and consequences as large studies are lacking. This study explores the potential causes and consequences of practice variation in venous resection during pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer in the Netherlands. METHODS: This nationwide retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer in 18 centers from 2013 through 2017. RESULTS: Among 1,311 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy, 351 (27%) had a venous resection, and the overall median annual center volume of venous resection was 4. No association was found between the center volume of pancreatoduodenectomy and the rate of venous resections, nor between patient and tumor characteristics and the rate of venous resections per center. Female sex, lower body mass index, neoadjuvant therapy, venous involvement, and stenosis on imaging were predictive for venous resection. Adjusted for these factors, 3 centers performed significantly more, and 3 centers performed significantly fewer venous resections than expected. In patients with venous resection, significantly less major morbidity (22% vs 38%) and longer overall survival (median 16 vs 12 months) were observed in centers with an above-median annual volume of venous resections (>4). CONCLUSION: Patient and tumor characteristics did not explain significant practice variation between centers in the Netherlands in venous resection during pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. The clinical outcomes of venous resection might be related to the volume of the procedure.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Somatostatin analogues (SA) are currently used to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) development. However, its use is controversial. This study investigated the effect of different SA protocols on the incidence of POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy in a nationwide population. METHODS: All patients undergoing elective open pancreatoduodenectomy were included from the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014-2017). Patients were divided into six groups: no SA, octreotide, lanreotide, pasireotide, octreotide only in high-risk (HR) patients and lanreotide only in HR patients. Primary endpoint was POPF grade B/C. The updated alternative Fistula Risk Score was used to compare POPF rates across various risk scenarios. RESULTS: 1992 patients were included. Overall POPF rate was 13.1%. Lanreotide (10.0%), octreotide-HR (9.4%) and no protocol (12.7%) POPF rates were lower compared to the other protocols (varying from 15.1 to 19.1%, p = 0.001) in crude analysis. Sub-analysis in patients with HR of POPF showed a significantly lower rate of POPF when treated with lanreotide (10.0%) compared to no protocol, octreotide and pasireotide protocol (21.6-26.9%, p = 0.006). Octreotide-HR and lanreotide-HR protocol POPF rates were comparable to lanreotide protocol, however not significantly different from the other protocols. Multivariable regression analysis demonstrated lanreotide protocol to be positively associated with a low odds-ratio (OR) for POPF (OR 0.387, 95% CI 0.180-0.834, p = 0.015). In-hospital mortality rates were not affected. CONCLUSION: Use of lanreotide in all patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy has a potential protective effect on POPF development. Protocols for HR patients only might be favorable too. However, future studies are warranted to confirm these findings.

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVE: To quantify the impact of individual complications on mortality, organ failure, hospital stay, and readmission after pancreatoduodenectomy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: An initial complication may provoke a sequence of adverse events potentially leading to mortality after pancreatoduodenectomy. This study was conducted to aid prioritization of quality improvement initiatives. METHODS: Data from consecutive patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (2014-2017) were extracted from the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. Population attributable fractions (PAF) were calculated for the association of each complication (ie, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, bile leakage, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, and pneumonia) with each unfavorable outcome [ie, in-hospital mortality, organ failure, prolonged hospital stay (>75th percentile), and unplanned readmission), whereas adjusting for confounders and other complications. The PAF represents the proportion of an outcome that could be prevented if a complication would be eliminated completely. RESULTS: Overall, 2620 patients were analyzed. In-hospital mortality occurred in 95 patients (3.6%), organ failure in 198 patients (7.6%), and readmission in 427 patients (16.2%). Postoperative pancreatic fistula and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage had the greatest independent impact on mortality [PAF 25.7% (95% CI 13.4-37.9) and 32.8% (21.9-43.8), respectively] and organ failure [PAF 21.8% (95% CI 12.9-30.6) and 22.1% (15.0-29.1), respectively]. Delayed gastric emptying had the greatest independent impact on prolonged hospital stay [PAF 27.6% (95% CI 23.5-31.8)]. The impact of individual complications on unplanned readmission was smaller than 11%. CONCLUSION: Interventions focusing on postoperative pancreatic fistula and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage may have the greatest impact on in-hospital mortality and organ failure. To prevent prolonged hospital stay, initiatives should in addition focus

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Venous resection of the superior mesenteric or portal vein is increasingly performed in pancreatic cancer surgery, whereas results of studies on short- and long-term outcomes are contradictory. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the type of venous resection in pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer on postoperative morbidity and overall survival. METHODS: This nationwide retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer in 18 centres (2013-2017). RESULTS: A total of 1311 patients were included, of whom 17 per cent underwent wedge resection and 10 per cent segmental resection. Patients with segmental resection had higher rates of major morbidity (39 versus 20 versus 23 per cent, respectively; P < 0.001) and portal or superior mesenteric vein thrombosis (18 versus 5 versus 1 per cent, respectively; P < 0.001) and worse overall survival (median 12 versus 16 versus 20 months, respectively; P < 0.001), compared to patients with wedge resection and those without venous resection. Multivariable analysis showed patients with segmental resection, but not those who had wedge resection, had higher rates of major morbidity (odds ratio = 1.93, 95 per cent c.i. 1.20 to 3.11) and worse overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.40, 95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 1.78), compared to patients without venous resection. Among patients who received neoadjuvant therapy, there was no difference in overall survival among patients with segmental and wedge resection and those without venous resection (median 32 versus 25 versus 33 months, respectively; P = 0.470), although there was a difference in major morbidity rates (52 versus 19 versus 21 per cent, respectively; P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: In pancreatic surgery, the short- and long-term outcomes are worse in patients with venous segmental resection, compared to patients with wedge resection and those without venous resection.

Item does not contain fulltext, IMPORTANCE: There is currently no consensus on the indication for cholecystectomy in patients with uncomplicated gallstone disease. OBJECTIVE: To report on the development and validation of a multivariable prediction model to better select patients for surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study evaluates data from 2 multicenter prospective trials (the previously published Scrutinizing (In)efficient Use of Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Trial Concerning Variation in Practice [SECURE] and the Standardized Work-up for Symptomatic Cholecystolithiasis [Success] trial) collected from the outpatient clinics of 25 Dutch hospitals between April 2014 and June 2019 and including 1561 patients with symptomatic uncomplicated cholelithiasis, defined as gallstone disease without signs of complicated cholelithiasis (ie, biliary pancreatitis, cholangitis, common bile duct stones or cholecystitis). Data were analyzed from January 2020 to June 2020. EXPOSURES: Patient characteristics, comorbidity, surgical outcomes, pain, and symptoms measured at baseline and at 6 months' follow-up. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: A multivariable regression model to predict a pain-free state or a clinically relevant reduction in pain after surgery. Model performance was evaluated using calibration and discrimination. RESULTS: A total of 1561 patients were included (494 patients in 7 hospitals in the development cohort and 1067 patients in 24 hospitals in the validation cohort; 6 hospitals included patients in both cohorts). In the development cohort, 395 patients (80.0%) underwent cholecystectomy. After surgery, 225 patients (57.0%) reported that they were pain free and 295 (74.7%) reported a clinically relevant reduction in pain. A multivariable prediction model showed that increased age, no history of abdominal surgery, increased visual analog scale pain score at baseline, pain radiation to the back, pain reduction with simple analgesics, nausea, and no heartburn were independent predictors o

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Infected necrotizing pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that is treated with the use of a step-up approach, with catheter drainage often delayed until the infected necrosis is encapsulated. Whether outcomes could be improved by earlier catheter drainage is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized superiority trial involving patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, in which we compared immediate drainage within 24 hours after randomization once infected necrosis was diagnosed with drainage that was postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis was reached. The primary end point was the score on the Comprehensive Complication Index, which incorporates all complications over the course of 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were randomly assigned to immediate drainage (55 patients) or postponed drainage (49 patients). The mean score on the Comprehensive Complication Index (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe complications) was 57 in the immediate-drainage group and 58 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, -1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12 to 10; P = 0.90). Mortality was 13% in the immediate-drainage group and 10% in the postponed-drainage group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.42 to 3.68). The mean number of interventions (catheter drainage and necrosectomy) was 4.4 in the immediate-drainage group and 2.6 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.0). In the postponed-drainage group, 19 patients (39%) were treated conservatively with antibiotics and did not require drainage; 17 of these patients survived. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This trial did not show the superiority of immediate drainage over postponed drainage with regard to complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Patients randomly assigned to the postponed-drainage strategy received fewer invas

Contains fulltext : 238990.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: Based on excellent outcomes from high-volume centres, laparoscopic liver resection is increasingly being adopted into nationwide practice which typically includes low-medium volume centres. It is unknown how the use and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection compare between high-volume centres and low-medium volume centres. This study aimed to compare use and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection in three leading European high-volume centres and nationwide practice in the Netherlands. METHOD: An international, retrospective multicentre cohort study including data from three European high-volume centres (Oslo, Southampton and Milan) and all 20 centres in the Netherlands performing laparoscopic liver resection (low-medium volume practice) from January 2011 to December 2016. A high-volume centre is defined as a centre performing >50 laparoscopic liver resections per year. Patients were retrospectively stratified into low, moderate- and high-risk Southampton difficulty score groups. RESULTS: A total of 2425 patients were included (1540 high-volume; 885 low-medium volume). The median annual proportion of laparoscopic liver resection was 42.9 per cent in high-volume centres and 7.2 per cent in low-medium volume centres. Patients in the high-volume centres had a lower conversion rate (7.4 versus 13.1 per cent; P < 0.001) with less intraoperative incidents (9.3 versus 14.6 per cent; P = 0.002) as compared to low-medium volume centres. Whereas postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were similar in the two groups, a lower reintervention rate (5.1 versus 7.2 per cent; P = 0.034) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (3 versus 5 days; P < 0.001) were observed in the high-volume centres as compared to the low-medium volume centres. In each Southampton difficulty score group, the conversion rate was lower and hospital stay shorter in high-volume centres. The rate of intraoperative incidents did not differ in the low-risk group, whilst in the moderate-risk

Background: Pancreatic duct disruption or disconnection is a potentially severe complication of necrotizing pancreatitis. With no existing treatment guidelines, it is unclear whether there is any consensus among experts in clinical practice. We evaluated current expert opinion regarding the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic duct disruption and disconnection in an international case vignette study. Methods: An online case vignette survey was sent to 110 international expert pancreatologists. Expert selection was based on publications in the last 5 years and/or participation in development of IAP/APA and ESGE guidelines on acute pancreatitis. Consensus was defined as agreement by at least 75% of the experts. Results: The response rate was 51% (n = 56). Forty-four experts (79%) obtained a MRI/MRCP and 52 experts (93%) measured amylase levels in percutaneous drain fluid to evaluate pancreatic duct integrity. The majority of experts favored endoscopic transluminal drainage for infected (peri)pancreatic necrosis and pancreatic duct disruption (84%, n = 45) or disconnection (88%, n = 43). Consensus was lacking regarding the treatment of patients with persistent percutaneous drain production, and with persistent sterile necrosis. Conclusion: This international survey of experts demonstrates that there are many areas for which no consensus existed, providing clear focus for future investigation.

Contains fulltext : 226022.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: Textbook outcome (TO) is a multidimensional measure for quality assurance, reflecting the "ideal" surgical outcome. METHODS: Post-hoc analysis of patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) or distal pancreatectomy (DP) for all indications between 2014 and 2017, queried from the nationwide prospective Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. An international survey was conducted among 24 experts from 10 countries to reach consensus on the requirements for TO in pancreatic surgery. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify TO predictors. Between-hospital variation in TO rates was compared using observed-versus-expected rates. RESULTS: Based on the survey (92% response rate), TO was defined by the absence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, bile leak, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (all ISGPS grade B/C), severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥III), readmission, and in-hospital mortality. Overall, 3341 patients were included (2633 (79%) PD and 708 (21%) DP) of whom 60.3% achieved TO; 58.3% for PD and 67.4% for DP. On multivariable analysis, ASA class 3 predicted a worse TO rate after PD (ASA 3 OR 0.59 [0.44-0.80]), whereas a dilated pancreatic duct (>3 mm) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) were associated with a better TO rate (OR 2.22 [2.05-3.57] and OR 1.36 [1.14-1.63], respectively). For DP, female sex and the absence of neoadjuvant therapy predicted better TO rates (OR 1.38 [1.01-1.90] and OR 2.53 [1.20-5.31], respectively). When comparing institutions, the observed-versus-expected rate for achieving TO varied from 0.71 to 1.46 per hospital after casemix-adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: TO is a novel quality measure in pancreatic surgery. TO varies considerably between pancreatic centers, demonstrating the potential benefit of quality assurance programs.

Contains fulltext : 225994.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), INTRODUCTION: Definitions regarding resectability and hence indications for preoperative chemotherapy vary. Use of preoperative chemotherapy may influence postoperative outcomes. This study aimed to assess the variation in use of preoperative chemotherapy for CRLM and related postoperative outcomes in the Netherlands. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2018 were included from a national database. Case-mix factors contributing to the use of preoperative chemotherapy, hospital variation and postoperative outcomes were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Postoperative outcomes were postoperative complicated course (PCC), 30-day morbidity and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: In total, 4469 patients were included of whom 1314 patients received preoperative chemotherapy and 3155 patients did not. Patients receiving chemotherapy were significantly younger (mean age (+SD) 66.3 (10.4) versus 63.2 (10.2) p < 0.001) and had less comorbidity (Charlson scores 2+ (24% versus 29%, p = 0.010). Unadjusted hospital variation concerning administration of preoperative chemotherapy ranged between 2% and 55%. After adjusting for case-mix factors, three hospitals administered significantly more preoperative chemotherapy than expected and six administered significantly less preoperative chemotherapy than expected. PCC was 12.1%, 30-day morbidity was 8.8% and 30-day mortality was 1.5%. No association between preoperative chemotherapy and PCC (OR 1.24, 0.98-1.55, p = 0.065), 30-day morbidity (OR 1.05, 0.81-1.39, p = 0.703) or with 30-day mortality (OR 1.22, 0.75-2.09, p = 0.467) was found. CONCLUSION: Significant hospital variation in the use of preoperative chemotherapy for CRLM was present in the Netherlands. No association between postoperative outcomes and use of preoperative chemotherapy was found.

Contains fulltext : 226028.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: The relation between type of postoperative complication and not receiving chemotherapy after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is unclear. The aim was to investigate which patient factors and postoperative complications were associated with not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients who underwent resection (2014-2017) for PDAC were identified from the nationwide mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. The association between patient-, tumor-, center-, treatment characteristics, and the risk of not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy was analyzed with multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, of 1306 patients, 24% (n = 312) developed postoperative Clavien Dindo ≥3 complications. In-hospital mortality was 3.5% (n = 46). Some 433 patients (33%) did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Independent predictors (all p < 0.050) for not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy were older age (odds ratio (OR) 0.96), higher ECOG performance status (OR 0.57), postoperative complications (OR 0.32), especially grade B/C pancreatic fistula (OR 0.51) and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (OR 0.36), poor tumor differentiation grade (OR 0.62), and annual center volume of <40 pancreatoduodenectomies (OR 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that a third of patients do not receive chemotherapy after resection of PDAC. Next to higher age, worse performance status and lower annual surgical volume, this is mostly related to surgical complications, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage.

Contains fulltext : 181861.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: Infected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease and an indication for invasive intervention. The surgical step-up approach is the standard treatment. A promising alternative is the endoscopic step-up approach. We compared both approaches to see whether the endoscopic step-up approach was superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, superiority trial, we recruited adult patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis and an indication for invasive intervention from 19 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned to either the endoscopic or the surgical step-up approach. The endoscopic approach consisted of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic necrosectomy. The surgical approach consisted of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or death during 6-month follow-up. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN09186711. FINDINGS: Between Sept 20, 2011, and Jan 29, 2015, we screened 418 patients with pancreatic or extrapancreatic necrosis, of which 98 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach (n=51) or the surgical step-up approach (n=47). The primary endpoint occurred in 22 (43%) of 51 patients in the endoscopy group and in 21 (45%) of 47 patients in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR] 0.97, 95% CI 0.62-1.51; p=0.88). Mortality did not differ between groups (nine [18%] patients in the endoscopy group vs six [13%] patients in the surgery group; RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.53-3.59, p=0.50), nor did any of the major complications included in the primary endpoint. INTERPRETATION: In patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgica

Background: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) are widely accepted techniques to eliminate small unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Although previous studies labelled thermal ablation inferior to surgical resection, the apparent selection bias when comparing patients with unresectable disease to surgical candidates, the superior safety profile, and the competitive overall survival results for the more recent reports mandate the setup of a randomized controlled trial. The objective of the COLLISION trial is to prove non-inferiority of thermal ablation compared to hepatic resection in patients with at least one resectable and ablatable CRLM and no extrahepatic disease. Methods: In this two-arm, single-blind multi-center phase-III clinical trial, six hundred and eighteen patients with at least one CRLM (≤3cm) will be included to undergo either surgical resection or thermal ablation of appointed target lesion(s) (≤3cm). Primary endpoint is OS (overall survival, intention-to-treat analysis). Main secondary endpoints are overall disease-free survival (DFS), time to progression (TTP), time to local progression (TTLP), primary and assisted technique efficacy (PTE, ATE), procedural morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay, assessment of pain and quality of life (QoL), cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Discussion: If thermal ablation proves to be non-inferior in treating lesions ≤3cm, a switch in treatment-method may lead to a reduction of the post-procedural morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay and incremental costs without compromising

Contains fulltext : 175667.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)

Background: Observational cohort studies have suggested that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with better short-term outcomes compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), such as less intraoperative blood loss, lower morbidity, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced total costs. Confounding by indication has probably influenced these findings, given that case-matched studies failed to confirm the superiority of MIDP. This accentuates the need for multicenter randomized controlled trials, which are currently lacking. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIDP compared with ODP even in an enhanced recovery setting. Methods: LEOPARD is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, superiority trial in all 17 centers of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. A total of 102 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant or malignant disease will be randomly allocated to undergo MIDP or ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. The primary outcome is time (days) to functional recovery, defined as all of the following: independently mobile at the preoperative level, sufficient pain control with oral medication alone, ability to maintain sufficient (i.e. >50%) daily required caloric intake, no intravenous fluid administration and no signs of infection. Secondary outcomes are operative and postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant complications, mortality, quality of life and costs. Discussion: The LEOPARD trial is designed to investigate whether MIDP reduces the time to functional recovery compared with ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register, NTR5188. Registered on 9 April 2015

Background The optimal diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis is subject to debate. We performed a survey on these topics amongst a group of international expert pancreatologists. Methods An online survey including case vignettes was sent to 118 international pancreatologists. We evaluated the use and timing of fine needle aspiration (FNA), antibiotics, catheter drainage and (minimally invasive) necrosectomy. Results The response rate was 74% (N = 87). None of the respondents use FNA routinely, 85% selectively and 15% never. Most respondents (87%) use a step-up approach in patients with infected necrosis. Walled-off necrosis (WON) is considered a prerequisite for endoscopic drainage and percutaneous drainage by 66% and 12%, respectively. After diagnosing infected necrosis, 55% routinely postpone invasive interventions, whereas 45% proceed immediately to intervention. Lack of consensus about timing of intervention was apparent on day 14 with proven infected necrosis (58% intervention vs. 42% non-invasive) as well as on day 20 with only clinically suspected infected necrosis (59% intervention vs. 41% non-invasive). Discussion The step-up approach is the preferred treatment strategy in infected necrotizing pancreatitis amongst expert pancreatologists. There is no uniformity regarding the use of FNA and timing of intervention in the first 2–3 weeks of infected necrotizing pancreatitis.