Endoscopic or Percutaneous Drainage
Pancreatic drainage should be avoided in the early phase of the disease (first two weeks) and should be optimally delayed for four weeks when a mature wall has developed. Drainage of infected WON is effective in 35–70% of cases without the need for an additional necrosectomy [11,17].
Figure 14.2 CT scan of a patient with infected walled‐off necrosis after placement of a transgastric lumen apposing metal stent (short arrows) and a 7 Fr tube deep in the collection for local antibiotic infusion (long arrows).
Source: courtesy of J.E. Domínguez‐Muñoz.
Drainage of infected necrosis can be performed either endoscopically (endoscopic ultrasound guided) or percutaneously (CT guided). If drainage fails to treat infected necrosis, endoscopic drainage is followed by endoscopic necrosectomy, and percutaneous drainage is followed by laparoscopic necrosectomy according to the step‐up approach. Both approaches have been shown to be equally effective in terms of major complications or death, although the endoscopic approach is associated with less pancreatic fistulas and shorter hospital stay [17].
Based on a previously reported theoretical approach to local infusion of antibiotics for infected pancreatic necrosis [21], we have recently developed a protocol that combines local antibiotic therapy delivered via a single‐pigtail 7–8.5 Fr naso‐cystic tube with systemic antibiotics and endoscopic drainage for infected WON (Figure 14.2). This method may reduce the need for necrosectomy by increasing the antibiotic concentration in the necrotic tissue. The efficacy of this approach should be tested in randomized controlled trials.
Figure 14.3 Step‐up approach for the management of infected pancreatic necrosis. EUS, endoscopic ultrasound.
Although evidence favoring either metal or plastic stents for EUS‐guided endoscopic drainage of infected WON is lacking [35], lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) are generally preferred in order to facilitate endoscopic necrosectomy if needed [36]. LAMS should be removed as soon as the collection resolves in order to minimize the risk of complications, mainly bleeding, migration, and stent occlusion [37].
Together with anatomical factors (location and extent of the necrosis), the decision about whether to drain infected WON endoscopically or percutaneously should be based on clinical expertise. In addition, the combination of percutaneous and endoscopic drainage should be considered for patients with WON that extends into the paracolic gutters and pelvis [36].
Endoscopic or Laparoscopic Necrosectomy
Endoscopic and minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy are safe procedures even in high‐risk patients, and significantly safer than open necrosectomy [15]. As previously stated, selection of the endoscopic or minimally invasive surgical approach depends on anatomical features of WON and on clinical expertise. Both endoscopic and minimally invasive surgical procedures are extensively discussed in the following two chapters of this book. Independently of this, patients with infected WON who require any invasive intervention should be managed in high‐volume expert centers after a multidisciplinary evaluation. Figure 14.3 summarizes the step‐up approach to patients with infected pancreatic necrosis.
References
1 1 Rau B, Bothe A, Beger HG. Surgical treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis by necrosectomy and closed lavage: changing patient characteristics and outcome in a 19‐year, single‐center series. Surgery 2005; 138(1):28–39.
2 2 Ratschko M, Fenner T, Lankisch PG. The role of antibiotic prophylaxis in the treatment of acute pancreatitis. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 1999; 28(3):641–659, ix–x.
3 3 Moyshenyat I, Mandell E, Tenner S. Antibiotic prophylaxis of pancreatic infection in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis: rationale, evidence, and recommendations. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2006; 8(2):121–126.
4 4 Barreda L, Targarona J, Milian W, et al. [Is the prophylactic antibiotic therapy with imipenem effective for patients with pancreatic necrosis?] Acta Gastroenterol Latinoam 2009; 39(1):24–29.
5 5 Xue P, Deng L‐H, Zhang Z‐D, et al. Effect of antibiotic prophylaxis on acute necrotizing pancreatitis: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 24(5):736–742.
6 6 García‐Barrasa A, Borobia FG, Pallares R, et al. A double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial of ciprofloxacin prophylaxis in patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis. J Gastrointest Surg 2009; 13(4):768–774.
7 7 Isenmann R, Rünzi M, Kron M, et al. Prophylactic antibiotic treatment in patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis: a placebo‐controlled, double‐blind trial. Gastroenterology 2004; 126(4):997–1004.
8 8 Dellinger EP, Tellado JM, Soto NE, et al. Early antibiotic treatment for severe acute necrotizing pancreatitis: a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study. Ann Surg 2007; 245(5):674–683.
9 9 Wittau M, Mayer B, Scheele J, et al. Systematic review and meta‐analysis of antibiotic prophylaxis in severe acute pancreatitis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2011; 46(3):261–270.
10 10 Banks PA, Bollen TL, Dervenis C, et al. Classification of acute pancreatitis – 2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut 2013; 62(1):102–111.
11 11 van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, Bakker OJ, et al. A step‐up approach or open necrosectomy for necrotizing pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 2010; 362(16):1491–1502.
12 12 Jones JD, Clark CJ, Dyer R, et al. Analysis of a step‐up approach versus primary open surgical necrosectomy in the management of necrotizing pancreatitis: experience in a cohort of patients at a US academic medical center. Pancreas 2018; 47(10):1317–1321.
13 13 Tenner S, Baillie J, DeWitt J, Vege SS. American College of Gastroenterology guideline: management of acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108(9):1400–1415; 1416.
14 14 Working Group IAP/APA Acute Pancreatitis Guidelines. IAP/APA evidence‐based guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis. Pancreatology 2013; 13(4 Suppl 2):e1–e15.
15 15 van Brunschot S, Hollemans RA, Bakker OJ, et al. Minimally invasive and endoscopic versus open necrosectomy for necrotising pancreatitis: a pooled analysis of individual data for 1980 patients. Gut 2018; 67(4):697–706.
16 16 Bang JY, Arnoletti JP, Holt BA, et al. An endoscopic transluminal approach, compared with minimally invasive surgery, reduces complications and costs for patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 2019; 156(4):1027–1040.e3.
17 17 van Brunschot S, van Grinsven J, van Santvoort HC, et al. Endoscopic or surgical step‐up approach for infected necrotising pancreatitis: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2018; 391(10115):51–58.
18 18 Bakker OJ, van Santvoort HC, Besselink MGH, et al. Prevention, detection, and management of infected necrosis in severe acute pancreatitis. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2009; 11(2):104–110.
19 19 Inoue K, Hirota M, Kimura Y, et al. Further evidence for endothelin as an important mediator of pancreatic and