Endoscopic necrosectomy for infected pancreatic necrosis
Ichiro Yasuda
Abstract
This review details the indications, technique, and outcomes of endoscopic necrosectomy for the treatment of pancreatic necrosis. Data from 14 previous reports revealed that the rate of complete resolution of pancreatic necrosis with endoscopic necrosectomy ranged from 53% to 100%. The procedure-related morbidity was 0–46% and the overall mortality was 0–13%. In particular, two recent multicenter studies with large cohort numbers reported that successful resolution was achieved in 80–91% of cases, morbidity was 14–26% and mortality was 5.8–7.5%. Interestingly, delayed intervention is currently preferred to early intervention, since maturation of the necrotic bed develops encapsulation and demarcation of peripancreatic collections, namely walled-off pancreatic necrosis. Such structural changes facilitate necrosectomy and improve conditions for intervention, thereby decreasing the risk of complications such as bleeding and perforation. It is now believed that intervention should be delayed to approximately 3–4 weeks after the onset of pancreatitis if the patient’s condition is kept stable by conservative treatment.
Introduction
Pancreatic necrosis affects approximately 20% of patients with acute pancreatitis, and is associated with a poor prognosis and high rate of mortality ranging from 10% to 25%.1 When pancreatic necrosis is accompanied by infection in the necrotic bed, mortality up to 40% has been reported.2 Surgical interventions, including open necrosectomy and drainage, are widely performed as a standard treatment, but they are also associated with high morbidity (19–62%) and mortality (6–28%).3–7 Endoscopic treatments have recently been attempted as a minimally invasive therapeutic alternative.
In 1996, Baron et al8 first described effective removal of infected pancreatic necrosis with endoscopic transmural drainage and lavage. Later, Seifert et al9 described the technique of direct endoscopic necrosectomy, which involved direct entry of the endoscope into the necrotic cavity with subsequent removal of necrotic tissue using endoscopic accessories. There have been several subsequent case reports describing the successful application of endoscopic necrosectomy for the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis.
The current status of endoscopic necrosectomy for infected pancreatic necrosis is assessed in this review.
Indications for endoscopic necrosectomy
What is walled-off pancreatic necrosis?
Endoscopic necrosectomy is indicates in cases of infected walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN). WOPN is a term used to describe encapsulated collections of fluid and solid debris that develop as a result of acute necrotizing pancreatitis.
According to the revised Atlanta classification of acute pancreatitis (2007),10 fluid collections arising in patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis are termed post-necrotic pancreatic/peripancreatic fluid collection (PNPFC; Fig. 1). PNPFC is distinguished from acute peripancreatic fluid collection (APFC) and pseudocyst because it results from necrotizing pancreatitis and contains necrotic tissue. As pancreatic parenchymal or peripancreatic necrosis matures, liquefaction develops as the necrotic tissue breaks down. This process usually begins 2–6 weeks after the onset of pancreatitis. PNPFC is characterized by distinct morphologic features that can be identified on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) of both necrotic tissues and fluid within the same circumscribed area. As the PNPFC matures, the interface between necrosis and the adjacent viable tissue becomes established; this is usually by a thickened wall lacking an epithelial lining. This entity is termed WOPN, which was referred to previously in the literature as organized necrosis.8
Timing of the procedure and current opinion
Recently, the timing of intervention in acute necrotizing pancreatitis has changed dramatically. Necrosectomy was once performed at a very early stage, whereas it is now believed that intervention should be delayed to approximately 3–4 weeks after the onset of pancreatitis.11
Basselink et al12 retrospectively examined the effect of early and late surgical intervention for the treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis in 53 patients. Patients who underwent surgery on Day 30 or later after admission had significantly lower mortality (8%) than those who underwent surgery within the first 14 days (75%) or between Days 15 and 29 (45%). A further systematic review of 11 studies with a total of 1136 patients also showed a significant correlation between timing of intervention and mortality (R = −0.603, P = 0.05).12
The Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group compared the outcomes of a step-up approach, which began with percutaneous drainage, and was followed if necessary, by minimally invasive retroperitoneal necrosectomy, to those of standard open necrosectomy in a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT).13 Major complications occurred less frequently with the step-up approach than with open necrosectomy (40% vs. 69%; P = 0.006), and 35% of patients in the step-up group were only treated with percutaneous drainage. Later, the same authors prospectively collected data from 639 consecutive patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Mortality was reduced among the 242 patients who underwent a radiologic, endoscopic, or surgical intervention, as the time between admission and intervention. In brief, incidence of mortality and complications on Days 0–14 days was 56% and 72%; on Days 14–29, it was 26% and 57%; and >29 days, it was 15% and 39%, respectively. In addition, fewer complications occurred in patients whose first intervention was catheter drainage compared with those undergoing primary necrosectomy (42% vs. 64%).14
More recently, Bakker et al15 compared the proinflammatory response [as measured by serum interleukin (IL)-6 levels] and clinical outcome of endoscopic transgastric and surgical necrosectomy in an RCT. Endoscopic necrosectomy reduced the post-procedural IL-6 levels compared with surgical necrosectomy. Major complications or death occurred less frequently after endoscopic necrosectomy than surgical necrosectomy (20% vs. 80%; P = 0.03).
In addition, Gardner et al16 compared direct endoscopic necrosectomy with conventional transmural endoscopic drainage for the treatment of WOPN in their retrospective study. Direct endoscopic necrosectomy achieved higher rates of successful resolution than standard endoscopic drainage (88% vs. 45%; P < 0.01), and complications were limited to mild periprocedural bleeding with equivalent rates between the two groups (32% vs. 20%).
Thus, delayed intervention is currently preferred to early intervention in cases of infected pancreatic necrosis. To postpone intervention, patients with infected pancreatic necrosis are initially treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics and maximal conservative support. This allows for encapsulation and demarcation of peripancreatic collections, and resulting structural changes facilitate necrosectomy, improve conditions for intervention, and thereby theoretically decrease the risk of complications such as bleeding and perforation.11 However, this is not feasible in some patients and dramatic clinical deterioration will require earlier intervention. In addition, minimally invasive interventions are becoming more popular than standard open necrosectomy. Endoscopic necrosectomy in particular appears to be a promising method for the treatment of WOPN.
Technique
The current standard approach for endoscopic necrosectomy involves the following steps15,17,18: (1) Linear-array endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is used to visualize the extent of the necrosis and to determine the optical puncture site. Under EUS guidance, the cavity is punctured using a 19-gauge needle. After withdrawal of the inner stylet, the cavity content is aspirated to confirm correct access and the aspirated material is sent for culture. A guidewire is advanced into the cavity through the needle under fluoroscopic guidance. The puncture tract is then dilated using a biliary dilator or an electrocautery cystogastrostomy, and further dilated by an 8-mm balloon catheter. Thereafter, two or more double-pigtail plastic stents and a nasocystic catheter are placed; (2) in the next session, usually several days later, the tract is dilated by up to 15–20 mm using a dilation balloon (Fig. 2A). After that, a conventional forward-viewing endoscope is advanced into the cavity and the necrotic tissue is evacuated using snares, forceps, or baskets with forceful irrigation of normal saline (Fig. 2B). At the end of each procedure, multiple double-pigtail plastic stents and a nasocystic catheter are placed; (3) at the intervals between two sessions, the necrotic cavity is irrigated with normal saline via the nasocystic catheter; and (4) repeated sessions at intervals of 1–4 days are carried out until the majority of the necrotic material is removed.
Treatment results
After the initial report by Seifert et al,9 several subsequent reports have described the successful application of endoscopic necrosectomy for the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis.15–27 However, most of these reports were small case series, which are summarized in Table 1.9,15–27 Haghshenasskashani et al28 analyzed data from 260 cases derived from previously published case reports.8,16,17,19–22,24–26 They reported that the rate of complete resolution of pancreatic necrosis with endoscopic intervention alone was 76%, while the mean procedure-related morbidity was 27% and the overall mortality was 5%.
Recently, multicenter study data with a large number of subjects was reported from Germany17 and the United States.18 Seifert et al17 reported a large series dataset with long-term follow-up in 2009. They collected the data of 93 patients from 6 different centers retrospectively. Initial clinical success was obtained in 80% of patients, with a 26% complication and a 7.5% mortality rate at 30 days. Complications included 13 cases of bleeding, five perforations of the necrotic cavity, two cases with fistula formation, two cases of air embolism, and two cases of complications at other organs. In total, seven patients died during the initial hospital stay (7.5%); one patient died after surgery and six died prior to surgery. Overall, one death was due to fatal bleeding, one was due to air embolism, four were due to sepsis, and one occurred after surgery due to multiple organ failure. One of the most feared complications, namely air embolism, was encountered twice during this series. Therefore, after the publication of this study, carbon dioxide is used instead of room air for endoscopic insufflation in many centers. With respect to long-term outcomes, 16% of the patients experienced recurrent pancreatitis, 10% received further endoscopic treatment, and 4% received surgical treatment for recurrent cavities after a mean follow-up period of 43 months.
Gardner et al18 analyzed data from 104 patients, which was collected retrospectively from six U.S. tertiary medical centers. Successful resolution was achieved in 91% of the patients, with a 32% complication rate and 5.8% mortality rate. Complications included 19 cases of bleeding requiring endoscopic intervention during their initial necrosectomy, three cases of bleeding that could not be controlled endoscopically, two cases of retrogastric perforation, three cases of pneumoperitoneum, four cases of infections, one case of balloon dilation in retroperitoneum, and one case of periprocedural hypotension and subsequent cardiac arrest. The patient with periprocedural hypotension is thought to have died because of an air embolism during the initial necrosectomy, while another patient died due to massive duodenal bleeding. Death in another five patients resulted from acute superior mesenteric artery thrombosis, myocardial infarction, progressive renal failure, massive bleeding from a small gastroduodenal artery pseudoaneurysm, and an unknown reason during the follow-up period before cavity resolution.
The previous studies suggest a high success rate and acceptable complication rate with endoscopic necrosectomy for the treatment of pancreatic necrosis.
Conclusions
Endoscopic necrosectomy is a promising method with a relatively high success rate and acceptable complication rate. The minimally invasive technique can be attempted in patients who are already severely ill. Delayed intervention is currently preferred to early intervention, because maturation of the necrotic tissue (WOPN) facilitates the procedure of necrosectomy and thereby theoretically reduces the risk of complications such as bleeding and perforation.
Article information
Articles from Gastrointestinal Intervention are provided here courtesy of Gastrointestinal Intervention
References
- Whitcomb DC. Clinical practice. Acute pancreatitis. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:2142-50.
- Banks PA, Freeman ML. Practice guidelines in acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:2379-400.
- Ashley SW, Perez A, Pierce EA, Brooks DC, Moore FD, Whang EE. Necrotizing pancreatitis:
contemporary analysis of 99 consecutive cases. Ann Surg. 2001;234:572-9.
- Connor S, Alexakis N, Raraty MG, Ghaneh P, Evans J, Hughes M. Early and late complications
after pancreatic necrosectomy. Surgery. 2005;137:499-505.
- Fernandez-del Castillo C, Rattner DW, Makary MA, Mostafavi A, McGrath D, Warshaw AL.
Debridement and closed packing for the treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis. Ann Surg. 1998;228:676-84.
- Hartwig W, Werner J, Muller CA, Uhl W, Buchler MW. Surgical management of severe pancreatitis
including sterile necrosis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2002;9:429-35.
- Nieuwenhuijs VB, Besselink MG, van Minnen LP, Gooszen HG. Surgical management of acute
necrotizing pancreatitis: a 13-year experience and a systematic review. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl. 2003;239:111-6.
- Baron TH, Thaggard WG, Morgan DE, Stanley RJ. Endoscopic therapy for organized pancreatic
necrosis. Gastroenterology. 1996;111:755-64.
- Seifert H, Wehrmann T, Schmitt T, Zeuzem S, Caspary WF. Retroperitoneal endoscopic
debridement for infected peripancreatic necrosis. Lancet. 2000;356:653-5.
- Acute Pancreatitis Classification Working Group. Revision of the Atlanta classification of acute pancreatitis.Available from: http://pancreasclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/AtlantaClassification.pdf. Accessed June 26, 2012
- van Brunschot S, Bakker OJ, Besselink MG, Bollen TL, Fockens P, Gooszen HG. Treatment
of necrotizing pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012.
- Besselink MG, Verwer TJ, Schoenmaeckers EJ, Buskens E, Ridwan BU, Visser MR. Timing
of surgical intervention in necrotizing pancreatitis. Arch Surg. 2007;142:1194-201.
- van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, Bakker OJ, Hofker HS, Boermeester MA, Dejong CH. A
step-up approach or open necrosectomy for necrotizing pancreatitis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1491-502.
- van Santvoort HC, Bakker OJ, Bollen TL, Besselink MG, Ahmed Ali U, Schrijver AM. A
conservative and minimally invasive approach to necrotizing pancreatitis improves
outcome. Gastroenterology. 2011;141:1254-63.
- Bakker OJ, van Santvoort HC, van Brunschot S, Geskus RB, Besselink MG, Bollen TL.
Endoscopic transgastric vs surgical necrosectomy for infected necrotizing pancreatitis:
a randomized trial. JAMA. 2012;307:1053-61.
- Gardner TB, Chahal P, Papachristou GI, Vege SS, Petersen BT, Gostout CJ. A comparison
of direct endoscopic necrosectomy with transmural endoscopic drainage for the treatment
of walled-off pancreatic necrosis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:1085-94.
- Seifert H, Biermer M, Schmitt W, Jurgensen C, Will U, Gerlach R. Transluminal endoscopic
necrosectomy after acute pancreatitis: a multicentre study with long-term follow-up
(the GEPARD Study). Gut. 2009;58:1260-6.
- Gardner TB, Coelho-Prabhu N, Gordon SR, Gelrud A, Maple JT, Papachristou GI. Direct
endoscopic necrosectomy for the treatment of walled-off pancreatic necrosis: results
from a multicenter U.S. series. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:718-26.
- Seewald S, Groth S, Omar S, Imazu H, Seitz U, de Weerth A. Aggressive endoscopic therapy
for pancreatic necrosis and pancreatic abscess: a new safe and effective treatment
algorithm (videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62:92-100.
- Charnley RM, Lochan R, Gray H, O’Sullivan CB, Scott J, Oppong KE. Endoscopic necrosectomy
as primary therapy in the management of infected pancreatic necrosis. Endoscopy. 2006;38:925-8.
- Papachristou GI, Takahashi N, Chahal P, Sarr MG, Baron TH. Peroral endoscopic drainage/debridement
of walled-off pancreatic necrosis. Ann Surg. 2007;245:943-51.
- Voermans RP, Veldkamp MC, Rauws EA, Bruno MJ, Fockens P. Endoscopic transmural debridement
of symptomatic organized pancreatic necrosis (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;66:909-16.
- Kang SG, Park do H, Kwon TH, Park JY, Park SH, Park JH. Transduodenal endoscopic necrosectomy
via pancreaticoduodenal fistula for infected peripancreatic necrosis with left pararenal
space extension (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:380-3.
- Mathew A, Biswas A, Meitz KP. Endoscopic necrosectomy as primary treatment for infected
peripancreatic fluid collections (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68:776-82.
- Escourrou J, Shehab H, Buscail L, Bournet B, Andrau P, Moreau J. Peroral transgastric/transduodenal
necrosectomy: success in the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis. Ann Surg. 2008;248:1074-80.
- Schrover IM, Weusten BL, Besselink MG, Bollen TL, van Ramshorst B, Timmer R. EUS-guided
endoscopic transgastric necrosectomy in patients with infected necrosis in acute pancreatitis.
Pancreatology. 2008;8:271-6.
- Seewald S, Ang TL, Richter H, Teng KY, Zhong Y, Groth S. Long-term results after endoscopic
drainage and necrosectomy of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections. Dig Endosc. 2012;24:36-41.
- Haghshenasskashani A, Laurence JM, Kwan V, Johnston E, Hollands MJ, Richardson AJ.
Endoscopic necrosectomy of pancreatic necrosis: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:3724-30.
