View clinical trials related to Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing.
Filter by:Acute pancreatitis is one of the most common gastrointestinal disorders requiring hospitalization worldwide. Pancreatic fluid collections can occur as a consequence of acute and chronic pancreatitis and can result in significant morbidity and mortality, including significant abdominal pain, gastric outlet obstruction, biliary obstruction, organ failure, persistent unwellness, infection and sepsis. Symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections require treatment, and endoscopic drainage is considered standard of care. The aim of this study is to evaluate the treatment outcomes in patients undergoing standard of care, endoscopic treatment of pancreatic fluid collections.
Patients with the diagnosis of acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) present with a wide spectrum of severity. These patients frequently require intensive care management. According to the revised Atlanta classification (2012), acute pancreatitis is divided into distinct subtypes, based on the presence or absence of necrosis. The mortality rates for sterile necrosis though comparatively low (5%-10%), but superinfection of the necrotic pancreas and peri-pancreatic tissue/ fluid collections increases the mortality rate considerably (up to one-third). The most common organisms isolated from the infected pancreatic necrosum are gram-negative bacteria mainly Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae followed by gram-positive bacteria; however, with the increased use of antibiotic therapies in the ICU, the incidence of pancreatic fungal infections is also on a rise. Traditionally, critically ill patients have been considered immunocompetent but the immunomodulatory effects of sepsis may lead to reactivation of dormant viral infections. In recent years, Cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation in critically ill patients has been recognized with as high as 71% incidence with associated higher mortality, organ failure rates, duration of mechanical ventilation, nosocomial infections, and ICU length of stay. CMV reactivation had been studied in various cohorts in the ICU population, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and septic shock exhibiting their impact on mortality. However, currently, no study is available investigating the role of CMV reactivation in patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Therefore, the investigators aimed to study the prevalence of CMV reactivation and its viral load kinetics in critically ill patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis.
The goal of this study is to investigate the encapsulation of fluid collections in patients with ANP using serial MRI. The main questions it aims to answer are: - Evaluating the timing of encapsulation of necrotic fluid collection using serial non-enhanced MRI. - Identifying the factors that affect the timing of encapsulation of necrotic fluid collections Participants will undergo serial MRI scans (all with the same protocol) performed starting at day 15. Subsequent scans will be performed at 5 days interval till the clinically significant encapsulation (for all the collections in an individual patient) is seen or patients are excluded from the protocol due to intervention.
The goal of this clinical trial is to compare a conventional endoscopic step-up approach with an accelerated treatment algorithm using direct endoscopic necrosectomy in patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis and walled of necroses exceeding a diameter of 15 cm. It will be investigated whether an aggressive treatment algorithm instead of a classical step-up approach will shorten the length of stay in the hospital and also reduce the mortality in patients treated for large walled off necroses.
Acute pancreatitis is one of the most common diagnoses made in gastroenterology wards worldwide which causes a great deal of pain and expense along with fatal complications. Approximately, 10-20% of patients progress to necrotizing pancreatitis that result in significant morbidity and mortality. Initial conservative management may be feasible in necrotizing pancreatitis, however the majority of patients with infected necrosis or persistent symptoms will eventually require a drainage procedure. Drainage procedures for necrotizing pancreatitis include open surgery, minimally invasive surgery, percutaneous drainage, and endoscopic drainage. In the recent years, minimally invasive approaches have largely replaced open surgical necrosectomy. Endoscopic drainage of walled off pancreatic necrosis involves creation of a transmural fistula between the enteral lumen and WOPN cavity with stent placement under endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guidance. Furthermore, direct endoscopic necrosectomy can be performed through the fistula track. The best timing for endoscopic necrosectomy is not yet defined. A recent retrospective study suggested that immediate necrosectomy after stent placement results in earlier resolution of WOPN with fewer sessions of endoscopic necrosectomy. The aim of this study is to compare immediate vs. on-demand endoscopic necrosectomy in patients with infected WOPN who undergo EUS-guided transmural drainage of WOPN.
Walled-off necrosis (WON) is a pancreatic fluid collection, which contains necrotic tissue after four weeks of the onset of acute pancreatitis. Interventions are required to manage patients with infected WON, for which endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided drainage has become a first-line treatment modality. For patients who are refractory to EUS-guided drainage, the step-up treatment including endoscopic necrosectomy (EN) and/or additional drainage is considered to subside the infection. Recent evidence suggests that EN immediately after EUS-guided drainage may shorten treatment duration without increasing adverse events. In this randomized trial, the investigators will compare treatment duration between EN immediately after EUS-guided drainage versus the step-up approach in patients with symptomatic WON.
Walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON) is associated with a mortality of 20-30%. The current evidence supports a minimally invasive drainage approach to infected WON. The current suggested approach in international guidelines is the endoscopic step-up approach. However, recent evidence from large national cohorts support the use of direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) at the time of stent placement, resulting in earlier resolution of WON and less number of necrosectomies. This study aims to investigate the clinical outcomes of the DEN versus the step-up approach for necrosectomy after endoscopic drainage of WON.
Acute pancreatitis (AP) is an inflammatory disease of the pancreas, most commonly caused by gallstones, or excessive use of alcohol. It represents a management challenge and a significant healthcare burden. The incidence of AP ranges globally from 5 to 30 cases per 100.000 inhabitants/year, and there is evidence that the incidence has been rising in recent years. The overall case-fatality rate for AP is roughly 5%, and it is expectedly higher for more severe stages of the disease. In most cases (80%), the outcome of AP is rapidly favorable. However, acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) may develop in up to 20% of cases, and is associated with significant rates of early organ failure (38%), needing some type of surgical/endoscopic intervention (38%) and death (15%). In the United States, AP is a leading cause of inpatient care among gastrointestinal conditions: more than 270.000 patients are hospitalized for AP annually, at an aggregate cost of over 2.5 billion dollars per year. In Europe, the UK incidence of AP is estimated as 15-42 cases per 100.000/year and is rising by 2.7% each year. Despite existing evidence-based practice guidelines for the management of biliary AP, clinical compliance with recommendations is poor, with studies on this field identifying major discrepancies between evidence-based recommendations and daily clinical practice. Audits about biliary AP have been performed in Italy, Germany, France, and England, with quite disappointing results. Indeed, in these audits, the treatment of biliary AP differed substantially from the recommendations. For example, less than 15% of the responders stated that they strictly followed all recommendations included in the guidelines in Germany and 25.8% of patients did not receive definitive treatment for biliary AP within 1 year in the UK. These findings support the view that publication alone of nationally or internationally developed and approved guidelines is insufficient to modify the practice of non-specialists and raises the question of how best to spread guideline recommendations. In 2020, the spread of the virus Covid-19 has represented a pandemic that also had a profound impact on the surgical community. There are many ways through which the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic could have influenced daily clinical practice for patients with biliary AP also leading to a failure to adhere to the recommendations coming from the guidelines, especially those regarding the early and definitive treatment with cholecystectomy or ERCP and sphincterotomy. First of all, the recommendation to postpone all non-urgent endoscopic procedures during the peak of the pandemic. Second, the recommendation to conservatively treat inflammatory conditions such as acute cholecystitis and acute appendicitis wherever possible. Since the clinical compliance with recommendations about AP is poor and the impact of implementing guideline recommendations in biliary AP has not been well studied on a global basis, we launched the MANCTRA-1 study with the aim to demonstrate areas where there is currently a sub-optimal implementation of contemporary guidelines on biliary AP. Moreover, we argue that during the Covid-19 pandemic the tendency to disregard the guidelines recommendations has been more marked than usual and we will try to find out if AP patients' care during the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in a higher rate of adverse outcomes compared to non-pandemic times due to the lack in the compliance of the guidelines. The MANCTRA-1 can identify a number of areas for quality improvement that will require new implementation strategies. Our aim is to summarize the main areas of sub-optimal care to provide the basis for introducing a number of bundles in the management of AP patients to be implemented during the next years. The primary objective of the study is to evaluate which items of the current AP guidelines if disregarded, correlate with negative clinical outcomes according to the different clinical presentations of the disease. Secondary objectives are to assess the compliance of surgeons worldwide to the most up-to-date international guidelines on biliary AP, to evaluate the medical and surgical practice in the management of biliary AP during the non-pandemic (2019) and pandemic Covid-19 periods (2020), and to investigate outcomes of patients with biliary AP treatment during the two study periods.
The LPN procedure is performed under general anesthesia. The transperitoneal access to peripancreatic space is via the gastro-colic ligament and greater omentum, effusion and pus is removed by laparoscopic forceps and suction. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is performed during the LPN procedure on patients with indication. The NPN procedure is followed by the standard retroperitoneal approach. After the catheter is exchanged over a guide wire and serially dilated up from 6F to 24F followed by Seldinger technique, the access track to the necrotic cavity is established. A nephroscope is inserted into the cavity through the track for debridement. Using forceps and suction, the peripancreatic solid necrotic tissue and pus is grasped and removed. A large-bore irrigating drain is left in the cavity, with continuous irrigation by warm normal saline solution at a rate of 100-125 ml/h after surgery.
The infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) should be treated by debridement and drainage. In recent years, the results of clinical research show that minimally invasive debridement such as video-assisted (laparoscope, nephroscope, endoscopy, etc.) and total laparoscopic debridement can significantly improve the prognosis of IPN patients. After a long period of clinical practice, laparoscope-assisted debridement was selected as the main surgical method in our center. In many large-scale clinical studies, patients after surgery underwent necrotic cavity lavage (such as small omental sac lavage, retroperitoneal space lavage, peripancreatic lavage, etc.), but its necessity and clinical significance were not clearly stated in the guidelines. At present, the clinical research mainly focuses on the improvement of minimally invasive debridement, and less on the necessity of lavage. In the past, necrotic cavity lavage was performed in IPN patients, but long-term clinical observation showed that lavage may lead to spread of infection and increase the incidence of lower extremity venous thrombosis which is not accorded with ERAS(Enhanced Recovery After Surgery). Therefore, since 2012, our center has stopped necrotic cavity lavage for IPN patients after debridement. We retrospectively analyzed the therapeutic effect from February 2014 to August 2017 and found that even without necrotic cavity lavage, better therapeutic effect could be achieved. Meanwhile it can simplify the operation process and avoid infection spread. This treatment method provides a new idea. However, it is a retrospective study not a randomized controlled trials(RCT) which is low effectiveness of proof. Therefore, we design this RCT to verify the necessity of necrotic cavity lavage after laparoscope-assisted debridement for patients with infected pancreatic necrosis.