BACKGROUNDInfected 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... Show moreBACKGROUNDInfected 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.METHODSWe 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.RESULTSA 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.CONCLUSIONSThis 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 invasive interventions. Show less
Weiland, C.J.S.; Smeets, X.J.N.M.; Kievit, W.; Verdonk, R.C.; Poen, A.C.; Bhalla, A.; ... ; Dutch Pancreatitis Study G 2021
Background Pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Prophylactic rectal administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs... Show moreBackground Pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Prophylactic rectal administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is considered as standard of care to reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. It has been suggested that aggressive hydration might further reduce this risk. Guidelines already recommend aggressive hydration in patients who are unable to receive rectal NSAIDs, although it is laborious and time consuming. We aimed to evaluate the added value of aggressive hydration in patients receiving prophylactic rectal NSAIDs.Methods FLUYT, a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial done across 22 Dutch hospitals, included patients aged between 18 and 85 years with moderate to high risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a web-based module with varying block sizes to a combination of aggressive hydration and rectal NSAIDs (100 mg diclofenac or indomethacin; aggressive hydration group) or rectal NSAIDs (100 mg diclofenac or indomethacin) alone (control group). Randomisation was stratified according to treatment centre. Aggressive hydration comprised 20 mL/kg intravenous Ringer's lactate solution within 60 min from the start of ERCP, followed by 3 mL/kg per h for 8 h. The control group received normal intravenous saline with a maximum of 1.5 mL/kg per h and 3 L per 24 h. The primary endpoint was post-ERCP pancreatitis and was analysed on a modified intention-to-treat basis (including all patients who underwent randomisation and an ERCP and for whom data regarding the primary outcome were available). The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN13659155.Findings Between June 5, 2015, and June 6, 2019, 826 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 388 in the aggressive hydration group and 425 in the control group were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 30 (8%) patients in the aggressive hydration group and in 39 (9%) patients in the control group (relative risk 0.84, 95% CI 0.53-1.33, p=0.53). There were no differences in serious adverse events, including hydration-related complications (relative risk 0.99, 95% CI 0.59-1.64; p=1.00), ERCP-related complications (0.90, 0.62-1.31; p=0.62), intensive care unit admission (0.37, 0.07-1.80; p=0.22), and 30-day mortality (0.95, 0.50-1.83; p=1.00).Interpretation Aggressive periprocedural hydration did not reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with moderate to high risk of developing this complication who routinely received prophylactic rectal NSAIDs. Therefore, the burden of laborious and time-consuming aggressive periprocedural hydration to further reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis is not justified. Copyright (c) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
