0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Article |

Timing of Surgical Intervention in Necrotizing Pancreatitis FREE

Marc G. H. Besselink, MD; Thomas J. Verwer, MD; Ernst J. P. Schoenmaeckers, MD; Erik Buskens, MD, PhD; Ben U. Ridwan, MD; Maarten R. Visser, MD, PhD; Vincent B. Nieuwenhuijs, MD, PhD; Hein G. Gooszen, MD, PhD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Departments of Surgery (Drs Besselink, Verwer, Schoenmaeckers, Nieuwenhuijs, and Gooszen) and Microbiology (Drs Ridwan and Visser), and Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (Dr Buskens), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.


Arch Surg. 2007;142(12):1194-1201. doi:10.1001/archsurg.142.12.1194.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objective  To determine the effect of timing of surgical intervention for necrotizing pancreatitis.

Design  Retrospective study of 53 patients and a systematic review.

Setting  A tertiary referral center.

Main Outcome Measure  Mortality.

Results  Median timing of the intervention was 28 days. Eighty-three percent of patients had infected necrosis and 55% had preoperative organ failure. The mortality rate was 36%. sixteen patients were operated on within 14 days of initial admission, 11 patients from day 15 to 29, and 26 patients on day 30 or later. This latter group received preoperative antibiotics for a longer period (P < .001), and Candida species and antibiotic-resistant organisms were more often cultured from the pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis in these patients (P = .02). The 30-day group also had the lowest mortality (8% vs 75% in the 1 to 14–days group and 45% in the 15 to 29–days group, P < .001); this difference persisted when outcome was stratified for preoperative organ failure. During the second half of the study, necrosectomy was further postponed (43 vs 20 days, P = .06) and mortality decreased (22% vs 47%, P = .09). We also reviewed 11 studies with a total of 1136 patients. Median surgical patient volume was 8.3 patients per year (range, 5.3-15.6), median timing of surgical intervention was 26 days (range, 3-31), and median mortality was 25% (range, 6%-56%). We observed a significant correlation between timing of intervention and mortality (R = − 0.603; 95% confidence interval, − 2.10 to − 0.02; P = .05).

Conclusion  Postponing necrosectomy until 30 days after initial hospital admission is associated with decreased mortality, prolonged use of antibiotics, and increased incidence of Candida species and antibiotic-resistant organisms.

Figures in this Article

Timing of surgical intervention in acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) has changed substantially during the last decade, from early necrosectomy, without respect to the state of infection, to delayed operation in case of documented or suspected infection of pancreatic necrosis. It has been hypothesized that postponing surgical intervention allows the immune system to encapsulate the necrotic tissue, thus technically facilitating necrosectomy and potentially reducing mortality.1 The beneficial effect of this strategy was confirmed in a randomized controlled trial comparing intervention within 72 hours of onset with operation after 12 days.2 There was a reduction in mortality from 56% to 27% in patients who underwent operation after 12 days. Consequently, recent surgical guidelines of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) state that surgical intervention should preferably be performed between 15 and 28 days (in the third or fourth week) after admission.3 A recent European survey demonstrated that there is still no consensus on this subject, as 43% of surgeons prefer intervention within the first 14 days, whereas 29% prefer to wait for at least 21 days.4 Furthermore, it was recently suggested that the delay in surgical intervention in ANP may lead to prolonged use of (prophylactic) antibiotics, leading to an increased incidence of Candida infections and antibiotic-resistant organisms.5

This study describes our increasing experience in postponing surgical intervention in necrotizing pancreatitis. This strategy may lead to necrosectomy being performed after the upper end of the interval suggested by the IAP guidelines, ie, after day 28. Furthermore, we assessed the impact of postponing surgical intervention on the use of antibiotics, fungal infections, and antibiotic resistance. Finally, we performed a systematic literature review to further explore potential associations between timing of surgical intervention and outcome.

TREATMENT PROTOCOL

We performed a search in the patient database of our tertiary referral center for the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), code for acute pancreatitis (577.0) in patients admitted from January 1995 to December 2004. Acute pancreatitis was diagnosed in 445 patients with clinical signs of acute abdominal pain and a serum amylase level above 1000 U/L (16.67 μkat/L). Pancreatic necrosis was detected using contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Fine needle aspiration (FNA) was only used if the outcome would influence the clinical strategy, ie, in a patient in whom the clinical signs of infected necrosis were not convincing. Antibiotic prophylaxis was used in most patients in whom pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis was detected. Antibiotics were used in all patients with documented or clinical suspicion of infection of pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis. Indication for necrosectomy was either persisting organ failure despite maximum medical management and/or documented infected necrosis. The surgical treatment results were previously described.6 In the first year of the current series, our preferred strategy changed from an open abdomen approach7 to closed lavage as described by Beger et al.8 Patients were managed either on the nursing ward, the medium-care unit, or on the intensive care unit (ICU).

SURGICAL STRATEGY

During laparotomy, the abdomen was inspected and blunt debridement of necrotic tissue was performed. Two double-lumen drainage tubes were inserted through separate incisions with their tips in the lesser sac and necrotic cavities. The abdomen was closed afterwards and local continuous lavage was started. Intervention was performed again because packing gauzes had been left in situ, but it was mainly reperformed because of clinical deterioration.

VARIABLES

In the 53 consecutive adult patients who underwent necrosectomy, the following variables were collected: age, sex, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score during the first 24 hours, Ranson score during the first 48 hours, comorbidity, etiology of pancreatitis, time of first surgical intervention, organ failure at the time of first surgical intervention, results of microbiologic cultures for bacteria and Candida, exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics (amoxicillin/clavulanate, piperacillin/tazobactam, and imipenem/cilastatin), exposure to all antibiotics, duration of stay in the ICU, duration of hospital stay, and mortality during the hospital stay. If patients were referred from other hospitals, data from the initial admission were used to calculate preoperative hospital stay (timing of operation), APACHE II and Ranson scores, ICU and hospital stay, and antibiotic use. Antibiotic prophylaxis was defined as all antibiotics administered prior to the detection of infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Groups were analyzed on the basis of the timing from initial admission to the first surgical intervention: within 14 days, from day 15 to 29, or 30 days or later. These cutoff points were chosen in accordance with IAP guidelines.3

ORGAN FAILURE

Organ failure was defined as PaO2 less than 60 mm Hg despite receiving 4 L of oxygen per minute via a nasal tube or need for mechanical ventilation (pulmonary insufficiency); a serum creatinine level greater than 2.0 mg/dL (152.2 μmol/L) or need for hemofiltration or hemodialysis (renal failure); systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg or need for catecholamine support (cardiocirculatory insufficiency); and a serum calcium level less than 7.48 mg/dL (1.87 mmol/L) or a thrombocyte level less than 100 × 103/μL (100 × 109/L; metabolic disorder). This definition was adapted from the Atlanta symposium.9 Multiple organ failure was defined as failure of 2 or more organ systems.

MICROBIOLOGY

Intra-abdominal cultures were available from all 53 patients who were operated on. Culture results were derived from the hospital's central microbiology database and were checked by a single microbiologist (B.U.R.). The following genera and species were considered resistant to antibiotics, as they are intrinsically resistant to or have a high risk of becoming resistant to therapy with third-generation cephalosporins: Acinetobacter, Enterobacter cloacae, Enterobacter aerogenes, Pseudomonas, Stenothrophomonas maltophililia, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococci. All Candida species cultured from intra-abdominal specimens (ie, FNA material, lavage fluid, and tissue obtained at operation) were documented. A primarily positive Candida culture was defined as a positive Candida culture during FNA before the first necrosectomy or from material obtained during the first surgical intervention. All cultures for bacteria and Candida were performed using standard microbiologic methods.

TREATMENT TRENDS

To detect differences in treatment strategy over time, the 10-year period was divided into 2 periods of 5 years (1995-1999 and 2000-2004). The following variables were compared: prevalence of acute pancreatitis, timing of intervention since first hospital admission, antibiotic prophylaxis, patient referral, culturing of Candida species and antibiotic-resistant organisms, hospital and ICU stay, and mortality.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Our MEDLINE search comprised the following terms: acute pancreatitis, surgery, and necrosectomy. A cross-reference search was performed in the studies found. The search was limited to studies published in the previous 10 years (January 1, 1996, to January 1, 2006). Only papers published in the English language were included. To diminish the influence of selection bias, only studies that had at least 25 consecutive patients who underwent surgical intervention for ANP were included. Furthermore, the studies had to contain data on time of surgical intervention for the entire study population and mortality; subgroups of patients were not allowed. Data of a single arm of a randomized controlled trial were allowed, since the randomization process essentially excludes selection bias. Finally, because patient series are frequently described in multiple publications, only the last publication of a single institution was included.6 Outcome parameters were patient volume (number of patients operated on for ANP per year), documented infection of pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis, timing of surgical intervention, and mortality.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Categorical data were compared using the Fisher exact test. Results of continuous data are presented as median (range). Comparison of continuous variables with a skewed distribution was performed using Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis tests. Logistic regression was used to determine which factors contributed to mortality. Odds ratios are given with their respective 95% confidence intervals. Correlations between continuous outcomes were explored by linear regression. A 2-tailed P ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant.

During the 10-year period, 445 patients with acute pancreatitis were admitted (55% men; median age, 53 years [range, 18-86]). Fifty-three ANP patients underwent necrosectomy (34 men; median age, 57 years [range, 29-75]). Forty-two patients (79%) had been referred from other hospitals, all for surgical intervention. In total, 403 patients were admitted primarily; 11 of these patients underwent surgical intervention. Therefore, 2.7% (11 of 403) of the patients primarily admitted to our hospital had surgical interventions for acute pancreatitis.

FIRST SURGICAL INTERVENTION

Median timing of the operation was 28 days (mean, 35 days [range, 1-105 days]). sixteen patients (30%) were operated on from day 1 to 14; 11 patients (21%) from day 15 to 29; and 26 patients (49%) from day 30 and on. The median APACHE II score on admission was 9 (range, 2-21). Baseline characteristics, etiology, and comorbidity did not differ between the 3 groups (Table 1).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Baseline Characteristics on Admission for Necrotizing Pancreatitisa
INDICATION FOR INTERVENTION

At the time of first surgical intervention, 29 patients (55%) had organ failure, 12 patients in 1 organ, 7 patients in 2 organs, and 10 patients in 3 or more organs. Thirty patients (57%) had been admitted or were admitted to the ICU. Neither preoperative organ failure (P = .2) nor ICU admission (P = .41) differed among the 3 groups. Table 2 presents patient characteristics at the first surgical intervention. Thirty of 53 (57%) patients had preoperative FNA; microorganisms were cultured in 22 patients (73%). The 8 patients with negative FNA results were all operated on because of their deteriorating clinical condition. In 4 of these 8 patients, microorganisms were cultured from the intraoperative samples, representing a negative predictive value of 50% for FNA. Of the 23 patients without a preoperative FNA, 18 patients (78%) had microorganisms cultured. Overall, infected ANP was documented in 44 of 53 patients (83%). Infected ANP was most often documented in the group of patients who were operated on at day 30 or later (P = .2) (Table 2). Four patients were operated on without organ failure or infected necrosis; 3 of these patients were initially operated on in referring hospitals for unclear reasons, and 1 patient, primarily admitted, was operated on for persisting high fevers.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Characteristics at Time of First Surgical Intervention for Necrotizing Pancreatitis
ANTIBIOTICS

Forty-five (85%) patients received antibiotic prophylaxis. The median duration of antibiotic treatment prior to first intervention was 14 days (range, 0-77), with a median of 2 antibiotics used (range, 0-9). Patients operated on at day 30 or later more often received antibiotic prophylaxis for longer than 30 days (P = .04) and received antibiotics for a longer period (< .001), whereas the number of antibiotics used prior to the first necrosectomy did not differ (P = .14) (Table 2). During the entire admission, the median total length of antibiotic treatment was 38 days (range, 1-200), and the length of broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment was 22 days (range, 0-82); a median of 4 antibiotics were used (range, 1-12). During admission, patients in the 30 or more–days group received antibiotics (P = .001) and broad-spectrum antibiotics (P = .002) for a longer period. The number of antibiotics used did not differ between the groups (P = .08) (Table 3).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Clinical Course and Outcome of Necrotizing Pancreatitisa
CANDIDA SPECIES

Candida species were isolated in 25 patients (47%). In 19 patients, only 1 Candida species was found, usually C albicans (n = 15). Combinations of C albicans, C glabrata, C parapsilosis, and C tropicalis were found in 6 patients. In 1 patient, Candida was cultured from a blood sample 1 month after hospital admission. By that time, the patient had received 11 different antibiotics; he died 1 month later of multiple organ failure. The incidence of positive fungal cultures during admission did not differ between the groups (P = .46) (Table 3).

ANTIBIOTIC-RESISTANT MICROORGANISMS

In 30 patients (57%), antibiotic-resistant microorganisms were cultured. In 24 patients (45%), 1 resistant microorganism was cultured, and in 6 patients, multiple resistant species were cultured. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was cultured in only 1 patient. Candida species or resistant organisms were more often cultured during FNA or during the first surgical intervention in the 30 or more–days group (P = .05) (Table 2). During admission, more resistant microorganisms were cultured in this group (P = .06) (Table 3).

ORGAN FAILURE AND OUTCOME

Overall mortality was 36% (19 of 53 patients). Mortality in patients without organ failure at the time of first operation was 21% (5 of 24), 33% (4 of 12) in patients with preoperative single organ failure, and 59% (10 of 17) in patients with multiple organ failure (P = .02). Of the 4 patients operated on with failure of 4 organ systems, all within 14 days, mortality was 100%. Table 4 compares the 3 groups with stratification for organ failure. In all strata (no organ failure, organ failure, and multiple organ failure), outcome was better in the group of patients who underwent operation at day 30 or later (P = .045, P < .001, and P = .001, respectively). There was a trend toward decreased mortality in patients operated on from 15 to 29 days compared with patients operated on within the first 14 days (5 of 11 [45%] vs 12 of 16 [75%], respectively; P = .08). In the 30 or more–days group, mortality was further improved compared with patients operated on from 15 to 29 days (2 of 26 [8%] vs 5 of 11 [45%], respectively; P = .02). Total median hospital stay was 89 days, 109 days for survivors and 35 days for nonsurvivors.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Hospital Mortality for Necrotizing Pancreatitis Stratified for the Presence of Organ Failure at Time of First Intervention
RISK FACTORS

Patients with preoperative organ failure had higher mortality (48% vs 21%, P = .04). There was no significant difference in mortality between (1) infected and noninfected pancreatic necrosis groups (32% vs 56%, respectively; P = .26), (2) patients with positive vs negative Candida cultures (36% in both groups), (3) patients with and patients without antibiotic-resistant organisms (27% vs 48%, respectively; P = .15), and (4) referred and primarily admitted patients (38% vs 27%, respectively; P = .73). There was no mortality in the 4 patients with sterile FNA before microorganisms were cultured from the intraoperative samples. Table 3 gives an overview of the clinical course in relation to timing of the operation. Model building by means of logistic regression demonstrated that, with age and sex entered as confounders, operation within 30 days (odds ratio, 28.2; 95% confidence interval, 4.72-168.0; P < .001) and the presence of preoperative multiple organ failure (odds ratio, 0.151; 95% confidence interval, 0.023-0.967; P = .03) were the only factors with an effect on mortality.

TREATMENT TRENDS

Figure 1 demonstrates that in the second 5-year period, pancreatic necrosectomy was performed at a later stage of disease (P = .06). This was accompanied by a trend toward lower mortality (P = .09) (Table 5). For all acute pancreatitis patients (including those conservatively treated), a slight but significant reduction in median hospital stay was observed during the second 5-year period (P = .003).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Time from initial admission to surgical intervention in necrotizing pancreatitis during a 10-year period. Horizontal lines show the median.

Graphic Jump Location
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Changes in the Treatment of Acute Pancreatitis During a 10-Year Perioda
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Of 123 manuscripts reviewed, only 10 studies contained the required data on timing and outcome (Table 6).2,1018 Several studies, though fulfilling all other inclusion criteria, did not mention timing of surgical intervention for the entire population and consequently were excluded.12,15,1926 The results of the delayed operation arm from the Mier et al2 trial were excluded, as this group only consisted of 11 patients. A review of 1136 patients from 11 series (including the present series) was performed. The median number of patients operated on for necrotizing pancreatitis was 8.3 per center per year; median timing of first surgical intervention was 26 days; and mortality was 25%. An association was observed between (postponed) timing and (decreased) mortality (R = − 0.603; 95% confidence interval, − 2.10 to − 0.02; P = .05) (Figure 2). No association between patient volume (number of acute pancreatitis patients operated on per year) and mortality (P = .93) nor between infection of pancreatic necrosis and mortality (P = .32) could be demonstrated.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 6. Systematic Review of Series With at Least 25 Patients Operated on for Necrotizing Pancreatitis
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Association between time of surgical intervention (from initial admission) for necrotizing pancreatitis and mortality.

Graphic Jump Location

Current surgical guidelines recommend performing necrosectomy in infected necrotizing pancreatitis between days 15 and 28 after onset of disease.3 In contrast, the present series demonstrates that surgical intervention performed after day 29 is associated with a lower mortality rate. This postponed intervention does lead to prolonged use of antibiotics with a concomitant increase in the incidence of fungal infections and infections with antibiotic-resistant microorganisms from pancreatic necrosis. Also, in the systematic review, a significant association between postponed timing of surgical intervention and lower mortality was observed. Interestingly, the median time of first surgical intervention in the review was 26 days, demonstrating that nearly 50% of ANP patients in tertiary referral centers are operated on after the interval indicated by the IAP guidelines.

In a randomized controlled trial, Mier et al2 showed that delaying intervention in patients with ANP beyond the first 12 days is beneficial compared with operating within 72 hours. These results are reflected in the IAP guidelines, which state that an early operation, within 14 days after onset of the disease, is not recommended in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis.3 Our results do indeed show a trend toward decreased mortality for intervention in the third and fourth weeks compared with the first 14 days. However, mortality was further improved significantly if surgical intervention was performed after day 29.

Although APACHE II scores on admission were similar, the mortality in this series (36%) is higher as reported in 3 large series from the United States (10% in 150 patients).10,11,14 However, the present mortality, and especially the 22% mortality in the last 5 years, does not differ greatly from mortality reported in 6 European tertiary referral centers (29% in 908 patients).12,13,1518 Because intercontinental timing of intervention did not differ in the review, the explanation for this difference in mortality has not yet been found.

During our study period, the worldwide trend to postpone operations influenced our management of ANP patients. This strategy has been adopted more and more in our hospital since the turn of the century. This is reflected by the delayed intervention in the second study period. There is no data to suggest that patients treated in the second 5 years of the study period differed in severity of pancreatitis from the patients treated in the first 5 years. All patients were treated at our surgical medium-care unit and ICU, at which the treatment for acute pancreatitis patients did not essentially change during the 10-year study period. Therefore, apparently it is possible to delay surgical intervention in a subgroup of ANP patients.

Strikingly, there was no mortality in patients with multiple organ failure operated on 30 or more days after initial admission. Because these patients had similar preoperative ICU stays as the other 2 groups, it is clear that they developed multiple organ failure at a later stage of their disease. The patients in the 30 or more–days group developed multiple organ failure at a later stage of their disease. The stratification further indicates that surgical intervention in patients with multiple organ failure within the first 14 days carries a mortality of 100% and may therefore be omitted. Because improved intensive care treatment makes it possible to essentially avoid mortality within the first 2 weeks,27 it would also seem possible to withhold surgical intervention within the first 2 weeks.

In the literature, there is only 1 study that reports on the outcome of surgical intervention in ANP after the first 4 weeks of admission. Fernández-del Castillo et al10 reported on 64 consecutive ANP patients requiring surgical intervention in a 7-year period. This study's data also suggests that intervention in the weeks preceding day 27 has the likelihood of a worse outcome compared with intervention in the weeks after day 27 (C. Fernández-del Castillo, MD, personal communication, February 24, 2006). Because of the impressive low overall mortality (6.2%) in their series, the difference in mortality between both groups did not reach significance.

The incidence of cultures positive for Candida and antibiotic-resistant organisms in this series is relatively high; fortunately, neither influenced mortality. In the literature, there is controversy regarding the relevance of fungal infection. Three retrospective studies demonstrated a higher mortality in cases of fungal infection,2830 whereas 2 prospective studies failed to demonstrate such an effect.31,32 No study has yet demonstrated an effect of antibiotic resistance on mortality in acute pancreatitis. It may well be that restrictive use of broad-spectrum (prophylactic) antibiotics will decrease the number of infections with Candida and antibiotic-resistant microorganisms. Because 2 recent placebo-controlled trials33,34 did not show any evidence for the use of antibiotic prophylaxis, we are currently tailoring our antibiotic treatment on the basis of blood, FNA, and intraoperative culture results. Some investigators also advocate for the use of percutaneous drainage of infected pancreatic or peripancreatic collections as a means of temporizing, or even averting, operating until day 30.35

The results of this systematic review are in line with the findings from our series. Although the demonstrated association between timing and mortality may not be considered proof of a causal relationship, the findings are very suggestive indeed. The fact that an association between patient volume and outcome could not be detected may be because only large series (> 25 patients) from tertiary referral centers were included. As demonstrated by median timing of intervention in the review, apparently many tertiary referral centers worldwide postpone surgical intervention when possible.

Because this study is not a randomized controlled trial, selection bias may have played a role in the positive outcome in patients operated on after the first 29 days. However, both the APACHE II and Ranson scores were similar for the 3 groups. Furthermore, stratification for the presence of organ failure did not indicate the presence of any selection bias either. The systematic review may be subject to some extent of information bias, as several studies did not report data on timing of intervention.

In conclusion, our study demonstrates that necrosectomy for documented or suspected infected ANP performed after 29 days is associated with lower mortality. However, an increase in fungal colonization and resistant microorganisms is to be expected owing to the increased use of antibiotics. Our results also recommend tailored use of antibiotics and critical review of the patients' clinical condition to select cases in which the operation may be delayed. We feel that our study provides strong arguments to withhold surgical intervention in the first 14 days, even in the presence of multiple organ failure. Whenever possible, surgical intervention should be postponed until day 30. Based on the findings in this study, this strategy is currently being practiced in a Dutch randomized, controlled, multi-center trial on surgical intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis, which recently started including patients.36,37 To compare interinstitutional data, future studies on surgical intervention in ANP should report on the median timing of first surgical intervention.

Correspondence: Hein G. Gooszen, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Room G.04.228, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands (h.gooszen@umcutrecht.nl).

Accepted for Publication: March 7, 2006.

Author Contributions:Study concept and design: Besselink, Nieuwenhuijs, and Gooszen. Acquisition of data: Besselink, Verwer, and Schoenmaeckers. Analysis and interpretation of data: Besselink, Verwer, Schoenmaeckers, Buskens, Ridwan, Visser, Nieuwenhuijs, and Gooszen. Drafting of the manuscript: Besselink. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Besselink, Verwer, Schoenmaeckers, Buskens, Ridwan, Visser, Nieuwenhuijs, and Gooszen. Statistical analysis: Besselink, Verwer, Schoenmaeckers, and Buskens. Obtained funding: Besselink and Gooszen. Administrative, technical, and material support: Besselink, Verwer, and Schoenmaeckers. Study supervision: Visser, Nieuwenhuijs, and Gooszen. Microbiologic analysis: Besselink and Ridwan.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: Dr Besselink received funding from Senter, an agency of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, for studies on infection prophylaxis in acute pancreatitis (grant TSGE3109). He is also a medical research trainee for the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (grant 920-03-368).

Additional Contributions: Paul Westers, PhD, Centre for Biostatistics, Utrecht University, assisted with statistical analysis; Leslie J.M. Beks, Department of Health Registration, University Medical Center Utrecht, helped with the search for ICD-9 codes; L. Paul van Minnen, MD, PhD, helped with data retrieval; and Louis M.A. Akkermans reviewed the manuscript.

Büchler  MUhl  WBeger  HG Surgical strategies in acute pancreatitis. Hepatogastroenterology 1993;40 (6) 563- 568
PubMed
Mier  JLuque-de León  ECastillo  ARobledo  FBlanco  R Early versus late necrosectomy in severe necrotizing pancreatitis. Am J Surg 1997;173 (2) 71- 75
PubMed Link to Article
Uhl  WWarshaw  AImrie  C  et al.  IAP Guidelines for the Surgical Management of Acute Pancreatitis. Pancreatology 2002;2 (6) 565- 573
PubMed Link to Article
King  NKSiriwardena  AK European survey of surgical strategies for the management of severe acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99 (4) 719- 728
PubMed Link to Article
De Waele  JJVogelaers  DBlot  SColardyn  F Fungal infections in patients with severe acute pancreatitis and the use of prophylactic therapy. Clin Infect Dis 2003;37 (2) 208- 213
PubMed Link to Article
Nieuwenhuijs  VBBesselink  MGvan Minnen  LPGooszen  HG Surgical management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis: a 13-year experience and a systematic review. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 2003; (239) 111- 116
PubMed
Bosscha  KHulstaert  PFHennipman  A  et al.  Fulminant acute pancreatitis and infected necrosis: results of open management of the abdomen and “planned” reoperations. J Am Coll Surg 1998;187 (3) 255- 262
PubMed Link to Article
Beger  HGBuchler  MBittner  RBlock  SNevalainen  TRoscher  R Necrosectomy and postoperative local lavage in necrotizing pancreatitis. Br J Surg 1988;75 (3) 207- 212
PubMed Link to Article
Bradley  EL  III A clinically based classification system for acute pancreatitis: summary of the International Symposium on Acute Pancreatitis, Atlanta, GA, September 11 through 13, 1992. Arch Surg 1993;128 (5) 586- 590
PubMed Link to Article
Fernández-del Castillo  CRattner  DWMakary  MAMostafavi  AMcGrath  DWarshaw  AL Debridement and closed packing for the treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis. Ann Surg 1998;228 (5) 676- 684
PubMed Link to Article
Branum  GGalloway  JHirchowitz  WFendley  MHunter  J Pancreatic necrosis: results of necrosectomy, packing, and ultimate closure over drains. Ann Surg 1998;227 (6) 870- 877
PubMed Link to Article
Farkas  GMárton  JMándi  YSzederkényi  EBalogh  Á Progress in the management and treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 1998;22831- 37
PubMed Link to Article
Büchler  MWGloor  BMuller  CAFriess  HSeiler  CAUhl  W Acute necrotizing pancreatitis: treatment strategy according to the status of infection. Ann Surg 2000;232 (5) 619- 626
PubMed Link to Article
Ashley  SWPerez  APierce  EA  et al.  Necrotizing pancreatitis: contemporary analysis of 99 consecutive cases. Ann Surg 2001;234 (4) 572- 579
PubMed Link to Article
Beattie  GCMason  JSwan  DMadhavan  KKSiriwardena  AK Outcome of necrosectomy in acute pancreatitis: the case for continued vigilance. Scand J Gastroenterol 2002;37 (12) 1449- 1453
PubMed Link to Article
Götzinger  PWamser  PExner  R  et al.  Surgical treatment of severe acute pancreatitis: timing of operation is crucial for survival. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2003;4 (2) 205- 211
PubMed Link to Article
Connor  SAlexakis  NRaraty  MG  et al.  Early and late complications after pancreatic necrosectomy. Surgery 2005;137 (5) 499- 505
PubMed Link to Article
Rau  BBothe  ABeger  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
PubMed Link to Article
Gambiez  LPDenimal  FAPorte  HLSaudemont  AChambon  J-PMQuandalle  PA Retroperitoneal approach and endoscopic management of peripancreatic necrosis collections. Arch Surg 1998;133 (1) 66- 72
PubMed Link to Article
Hartwig  WMaksan  SMFoitzik  TSchmidt  JHerfarth  CKlar  E Reduction in mortality with delayed surgical therapy of severe pancreatitis. J Gastrointest Surg 2002;6 (3) 481- 487
PubMed Link to Article
Kasperk  RRiesener  KPSchumpelick  V Surgical therapy of severe acute pancreatitis: a flexible approach gives excellent results. Hepatogastroenterology 1999;46 (25) 467- 471
PubMed
Kriwanek  SGschwantler  MBeckerhinn  PArmbruster  CRoka  R Complications after surgery for necrotising pancreatitis: risk factors and prognosis. Eur J Surg 1999;165 (10) 952- 957
PubMed Link to Article
Bhansali  SKShah  SCDesai  SBSunawala  JD Infected necrosis complicating acute pancreatitis: experience with 131 cases. Indian J Gastroenterol 2003;22 (1) 7- 10
PubMed
Nordback  ISand  JSaaristo  RPaajanen  H Early treatment with antibiotics reduces the need for surgery in acute necrotizing pancreatitis: a single-center randomized study. J Gastrointest Surg 2001;5 (2) 113- 118
PubMed Link to Article
Tsiotos  GGLuque-de León  ESöreide  JA  et al.  Management of necrotizing pancreatitis by repeated operative necrosectomy using a zipper technique. Am J Surg 1998;175 (2) 91- 98
PubMed Link to Article
Tzovaras  GParks  RWDiamond  TRowlands  BJ Early and long-term results of surgery for severe necrotising pancreatitis. Dig Surg 2004;21 (1) 41- 46
PubMed Link to Article
Gloor  BMuller  CAWorni  MMartignoni  MEUhl  WBuchler  MW Late mortality in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg 2001;88 (7) 975- 979
PubMed Link to Article
Götzinger  PWamser  PBarlan  MSautner  TJakesz  RFugger  R Candida infection of local necrosis in severe acute pancreatitis is associated with increased mortality. Shock 2000;14 (3) 320- 323
PubMed Link to Article
Hoerauf  AHammer  SMuller-Myhsok  BRupprecht  H Intra-abdominal Candida infection during acute necrotizing pancreatitis has a high prevalence and is associated with increased mortality. Crit Care Med 1998;26 (12) 2010- 2015
PubMed Link to Article
Isenmann  RSchwarz  MRau  BTrautmann  MSchober  WBeger  HG Characteristics of infection with Candida species in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. World J Surg 2002;26 (3) 372- 376
PubMed Link to Article
Gloor  BMuller  CAWorni  M  et al.  Pancreatic infection in severe pancreatitis: the role of fungus and multiresistant organisms. Arch Surg 2001;136 (5) 592- 596
PubMed Link to Article
Grewe  MTsiotos  GGLuque de-Leon  ESarr  MG Fungal infection in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. J Am Coll Surg 1999;188 (4) 408- 414
PubMed Link to Article
Dellinger  EPTelado  JMSoto  N  et al.  Early antibiotic treatment for severe acute necrotizing pancreatitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Ann Surg 2007;245 (5) 674- 683
PubMed Link to Article
Isenmann  RRunzi  MKron  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
PubMed Link to Article
Baril  NBRalls  PWWren  SM  et al.  Does an infected peripancreatic fluid collection or abscess mandate operation? Ann Surg 2000;231 (3) 361- 367
PubMed Link to Article
Besselink  MGHDe Bruijn  MTRutten  JPBoermeester  MAHofker  HSGooszen  HGDutch Acute Pancreatitis Study Group, Surgical intervention in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Br J Surg 2006;93 (5) 593- 599
Link to Article
Besselink  MGVan Santvoort  HCNieuwenhuijs  VB  et al.  Minimally invasive ‘step-up approach' versus maximal necrosectomy in patients with acute necrotising pancreatitis (PANTER trial): design and rationale of a randomised controlled multicenter trial [ISRCTN38327949]. BMC Surg 2006;6 (1) 6
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Time from initial admission to surgical intervention in necrotizing pancreatitis during a 10-year period. Horizontal lines show the median.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Association between time of surgical intervention (from initial admission) for necrotizing pancreatitis and mortality.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Baseline Characteristics on Admission for Necrotizing Pancreatitisa
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Characteristics at Time of First Surgical Intervention for Necrotizing Pancreatitis
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Clinical Course and Outcome of Necrotizing Pancreatitisa
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Hospital Mortality for Necrotizing Pancreatitis Stratified for the Presence of Organ Failure at Time of First Intervention
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Changes in the Treatment of Acute Pancreatitis During a 10-Year Perioda
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 6. Systematic Review of Series With at Least 25 Patients Operated on for Necrotizing Pancreatitis

References

Büchler  MUhl  WBeger  HG Surgical strategies in acute pancreatitis. Hepatogastroenterology 1993;40 (6) 563- 568
PubMed
Mier  JLuque-de León  ECastillo  ARobledo  FBlanco  R Early versus late necrosectomy in severe necrotizing pancreatitis. Am J Surg 1997;173 (2) 71- 75
PubMed Link to Article
Uhl  WWarshaw  AImrie  C  et al.  IAP Guidelines for the Surgical Management of Acute Pancreatitis. Pancreatology 2002;2 (6) 565- 573
PubMed Link to Article
King  NKSiriwardena  AK European survey of surgical strategies for the management of severe acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99 (4) 719- 728
PubMed Link to Article
De Waele  JJVogelaers  DBlot  SColardyn  F Fungal infections in patients with severe acute pancreatitis and the use of prophylactic therapy. Clin Infect Dis 2003;37 (2) 208- 213
PubMed Link to Article
Nieuwenhuijs  VBBesselink  MGvan Minnen  LPGooszen  HG Surgical management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis: a 13-year experience and a systematic review. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 2003; (239) 111- 116
PubMed
Bosscha  KHulstaert  PFHennipman  A  et al.  Fulminant acute pancreatitis and infected necrosis: results of open management of the abdomen and “planned” reoperations. J Am Coll Surg 1998;187 (3) 255- 262
PubMed Link to Article
Beger  HGBuchler  MBittner  RBlock  SNevalainen  TRoscher  R Necrosectomy and postoperative local lavage in necrotizing pancreatitis. Br J Surg 1988;75 (3) 207- 212
PubMed Link to Article
Bradley  EL  III A clinically based classification system for acute pancreatitis: summary of the International Symposium on Acute Pancreatitis, Atlanta, GA, September 11 through 13, 1992. Arch Surg 1993;128 (5) 586- 590
PubMed Link to Article
Fernández-del Castillo  CRattner  DWMakary  MAMostafavi  AMcGrath  DWarshaw  AL Debridement and closed packing for the treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis. Ann Surg 1998;228 (5) 676- 684
PubMed Link to Article
Branum  GGalloway  JHirchowitz  WFendley  MHunter  J Pancreatic necrosis: results of necrosectomy, packing, and ultimate closure over drains. Ann Surg 1998;227 (6) 870- 877
PubMed Link to Article
Farkas  GMárton  JMándi  YSzederkényi  EBalogh  Á Progress in the management and treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 1998;22831- 37
PubMed Link to Article
Büchler  MWGloor  BMuller  CAFriess  HSeiler  CAUhl  W Acute necrotizing pancreatitis: treatment strategy according to the status of infection. Ann Surg 2000;232 (5) 619- 626
PubMed Link to Article
Ashley  SWPerez  APierce  EA  et al.  Necrotizing pancreatitis: contemporary analysis of 99 consecutive cases. Ann Surg 2001;234 (4) 572- 579
PubMed Link to Article
Beattie  GCMason  JSwan  DMadhavan  KKSiriwardena  AK Outcome of necrosectomy in acute pancreatitis: the case for continued vigilance. Scand J Gastroenterol 2002;37 (12) 1449- 1453
PubMed Link to Article
Götzinger  PWamser  PExner  R  et al.  Surgical treatment of severe acute pancreatitis: timing of operation is crucial for survival. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2003;4 (2) 205- 211
PubMed Link to Article
Connor  SAlexakis  NRaraty  MG  et al.  Early and late complications after pancreatic necrosectomy. Surgery 2005;137 (5) 499- 505
PubMed Link to Article
Rau  BBothe  ABeger  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
PubMed Link to Article
Gambiez  LPDenimal  FAPorte  HLSaudemont  AChambon  J-PMQuandalle  PA Retroperitoneal approach and endoscopic management of peripancreatic necrosis collections. Arch Surg 1998;133 (1) 66- 72
PubMed Link to Article
Hartwig  WMaksan  SMFoitzik  TSchmidt  JHerfarth  CKlar  E Reduction in mortality with delayed surgical therapy of severe pancreatitis. J Gastrointest Surg 2002;6 (3) 481- 487
PubMed Link to Article
Kasperk  RRiesener  KPSchumpelick  V Surgical therapy of severe acute pancreatitis: a flexible approach gives excellent results. Hepatogastroenterology 1999;46 (25) 467- 471
PubMed
Kriwanek  SGschwantler  MBeckerhinn  PArmbruster  CRoka  R Complications after surgery for necrotising pancreatitis: risk factors and prognosis. Eur J Surg 1999;165 (10) 952- 957
PubMed Link to Article
Bhansali  SKShah  SCDesai  SBSunawala  JD Infected necrosis complicating acute pancreatitis: experience with 131 cases. Indian J Gastroenterol 2003;22 (1) 7- 10
PubMed
Nordback  ISand  JSaaristo  RPaajanen  H Early treatment with antibiotics reduces the need for surgery in acute necrotizing pancreatitis: a single-center randomized study. J Gastrointest Surg 2001;5 (2) 113- 118
PubMed Link to Article
Tsiotos  GGLuque-de León  ESöreide  JA  et al.  Management of necrotizing pancreatitis by repeated operative necrosectomy using a zipper technique. Am J Surg 1998;175 (2) 91- 98
PubMed Link to Article
Tzovaras  GParks  RWDiamond  TRowlands  BJ Early and long-term results of surgery for severe necrotising pancreatitis. Dig Surg 2004;21 (1) 41- 46
PubMed Link to Article
Gloor  BMuller  CAWorni  MMartignoni  MEUhl  WBuchler  MW Late mortality in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg 2001;88 (7) 975- 979
PubMed Link to Article
Götzinger  PWamser  PBarlan  MSautner  TJakesz  RFugger  R Candida infection of local necrosis in severe acute pancreatitis is associated with increased mortality. Shock 2000;14 (3) 320- 323
PubMed Link to Article
Hoerauf  AHammer  SMuller-Myhsok  BRupprecht  H Intra-abdominal Candida infection during acute necrotizing pancreatitis has a high prevalence and is associated with increased mortality. Crit Care Med 1998;26 (12) 2010- 2015
PubMed Link to Article
Isenmann  RSchwarz  MRau  BTrautmann  MSchober  WBeger  HG Characteristics of infection with Candida species in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. World J Surg 2002;26 (3) 372- 376
PubMed Link to Article
Gloor  BMuller  CAWorni  M  et al.  Pancreatic infection in severe pancreatitis: the role of fungus and multiresistant organisms. Arch Surg 2001;136 (5) 592- 596
PubMed Link to Article
Grewe  MTsiotos  GGLuque de-Leon  ESarr  MG Fungal infection in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. J Am Coll Surg 1999;188 (4) 408- 414
PubMed Link to Article
Dellinger  EPTelado  JMSoto  N  et al.  Early antibiotic treatment for severe acute necrotizing pancreatitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Ann Surg 2007;245 (5) 674- 683
PubMed Link to Article
Isenmann  RRunzi  MKron  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
PubMed Link to Article
Baril  NBRalls  PWWren  SM  et al.  Does an infected peripancreatic fluid collection or abscess mandate operation? Ann Surg 2000;231 (3) 361- 367
PubMed Link to Article
Besselink  MGHDe Bruijn  MTRutten  JPBoermeester  MAHofker  HSGooszen  HGDutch Acute Pancreatitis Study Group, Surgical intervention in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Br J Surg 2006;93 (5) 593- 599
Link to Article
Besselink  MGVan Santvoort  HCNieuwenhuijs  VB  et al.  Minimally invasive ‘step-up approach' versus maximal necrosectomy in patients with acute necrotising pancreatitis (PANTER trial): design and rationale of a randomised controlled multicenter trial [ISRCTN38327949]. BMC Surg 2006;6 (1) 6
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 79

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Clinical Resolution

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Clinical Scenario