Peripancreatic collections in acute pancreatitis: Correlation between computerized tomography and operative fi ndings

AIM: To evaluate the ability of contrast-enhanced computerized tomography (CECT) to characterize the nature of peripancreatic collections.METHODS: Twenty five patients with peripancreatic collections on CECT and who underwent operative intervention for severe acute pancreatitis were retrospectively studied. The collections were classified into (1) necrosis without frank pus; (2) necrosis with pus; and (3) fluid without necrosis. A blinded radiologist assessed the preoperative CTs of each patient for necrosis and peripancreatic fluid collections. Peripancreatic collections were described in terms of volume, location, number, heterogeneity, fluid attenuation, wall perceptibility, wall enhancement, presence of extraluminal gas, and vascular compromise.RESULTS: Fifty-four collections were identif ied at operation, of which 45 (83%) were identif ied on CECT. Of these, 25/26 (96%) had necrosis without pus, 16/19 (84%) had necrosis with pus, and 4/9 (44%) had fluid without necrosis. Among the study characteristics, fluid heterogeneity was seen in a greater proportion of collections in the group with necrosis and pus, compared to the other two groups (94% vs 48% and 25%, P = 0.002 and 0.003, respectively). Among the wall characteristics, irregularity was seen in a greater proportion of collections in the groups with necrosis with and without pus, when compared to the group with fluid without necrosis (88% and 71% vs 25%, P = 0.06 and P < 0.01, respectively). The combination of heterogeneity and presence of extraluminal gas had a specif icity and positive likelihood ratio of 92% and 5.9, respectively, in detecting pus. CONCLUSION: Most of the peripancreatic collections seen on CECT in patients with severe acute pancreatitis who require operative intervention contain necrotic tissue. CECT has a somewhat limited role in differentiating the different types of collections.

Association between acute peripancreatic fluid collections and early readmission in acute pancreatitis:A propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND Patients with acute pancreatitis(AP)frequently experience hospital readmissions,posing a significant burden to healthcare systems.Acute peripancreatic fluid collection(APFC)may negatively impact the clinical course of AP.It could worsen symptoms and potentially lead to additional complications.However,clinical evidence regarding the specific association between APFC and early readmission in AP remains scarce.Understanding the link between APFC and readmission may help improve clinical care for AP patients and reduce healthcare costs.AIM To evaluate the association between APFC and 30-day readmission in patients with AP.METHODS This retrospective cohort study is based on the Nationwide Readmission Database for 2016-2019.Patients with a primary diagnosis of AP were identified.Participants were categorized into those with and without APFC.A 1:1 propensity score matching for age,gender,and Elixhauser comorbidities was performed.The primary outcome was early readmission rates.Secondary outcomes included the incidence of inpatient complications and healthcare utilization.Unadjusted analyses used Mann-Whitney U andχ2 tests,while Cox regression models assessed 30-day readmission risks and reported them as adjusted hazard ratios(aHR).Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests verified readmission risks.RESULTS A total of 673059 patients with the principal diagnosis of AP were included.Of these,5.1%had APFC on initial admission.After propensity score matching,each cohort consisted of 33914 patients.Those with APFC showed a higher incidence of inpatient complications,including septic shock(3.1%vs 1.3%,P<0.001),portal venous thrombosis(4.4%vs 0.8%,P<0.001),and mechanical ventilation(1.8%vs 0.9%,P<0.001).The length of stay(LOS)was longer for APFC patients[4(3-7)vs 3(2-5)days,P<0.001],as were hospital charges($29451 vs$24418,P<0.001).For 30-day readmissions,APFC patients had a higher rate(15.7%vs 6.5%,P<0.001)and a longer median readmission LOS(4 vs 3 days,P<0.001).The APFC group also had higher readmission charges($28282 vs$22865,P<0.001).The presence of APFC increased the risk of readmission twofold(aHR 2.52,95%confidence interval:2.40-2.65,P<0.001).The independent risk factors for 30-day readmission included female gender,Elixhauser Comorbidity Index≥3,chronic pulmonary diseases,chronic renal disease,protein-calorie malnutrition,substance use disorder,depression,portal and splenic venous thrombosis,and certain endoscopic procedures.CONCLUSION Developing APFC during index hospitalization for AP is linked to higher readmission rates,more inpatient complications,longer LOS,and increased healthcare costs.Knowing predictors of readmission can help target high-risk patients,reducing healthcare burdens.

Endoscopic intramural cystogastrostomy for treatment of peripancreatic fluid collection: A viewpoint from a surgeon

Percutaneous or endoscopic drainage is the initial choice for the treatment of peripancreatic fluid collection in symptomatic patients.Endoscopic transgastric fenestration(ETGF)was first reported for the management of pancreatic pseu-docysts of 20 patients in 2008.From a surgeon’s viewpoint,ETGF is a similar procedure to cystogastrostomy in that they both produce a wide outlet orifice for the drainage of fluid and necrotic debris.ETGF can be performed at least 4 wk after the initial onset of acute pancreatitis and it has a high priority over the surgical approach.However,the surgical approach usually has a better success rate because surgical cystogastrostomy has a wider outlet(>6 cm vs 2 cm)than ETGF.However,percutaneous or endoscopic drainage,ETGF,and surgical approach offer various treatment options for peripancreatic fluid collection patients based on their conditions.

Acute pancreatitis:A pictorial review of early pancreatic fluid collections

Acute pancreatitis is a common acute inflammatory disease involving the pancreas and peripancreatic tissues or remote organs.The revised Atlanta classification 2012 of acute pancreatitis divides patients into mild,moderately severe and severe groups.Major changes of the classification include acute fluid collection terminology.However,some inappropriate terms of the radiological diagnosis reports in the daily clinical work or available literature may still be found.The aim of this review article is:to present an image-rich overview of different morphologic characteristics of the early-stage(within 4 wk after symptom onset)local complications associated with acute pancreatitis by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging;to clarify confusing imaging concepts for pancreatic fluid collections and underline standardised reporting nomenclature;to assist communication among treating physicians;and to facilitate the implications for clinical management decision-making.

Surgical cystogastrostomy: Is it still worthwhile?

The article by Ker et al explores the treatment of peripancreatic fluid collection(PFC).The use of percutaneous drainage,endoscopy,and surgery for managing PFC are discussed.Percutaneous drainage is noted for its low risk profile,while endoscopic cystogastrostomy is more effective due to the wider orifice of the metallic stent.Surgical cystogastrostomy is a definitive treatment with a reduced need for reintervention,especially for cases with extensive collections and significant necrosis.The choice of treatment modality should be tailored to individual patient characteristics and disease factors,considering the expertise available.

Comments on the article about correlation between computerized tomography and surgery in acute pancreatitis

We read with great interest the article by Vege et al published in issue 34 of World J Gastroenterol 2010. The article evaluates the ability of contrast-enhanced computerized tomography (CECT) to characterize the nature of peripancreatic collections found at surgery. The results of their study indicate that most of the peripancreatic collections seen on CECT in patients with severe acute pancreatitis who require operative intervention contain necrotic tissue and CECT has a limited role in differentiating various types of collections. However, there are some points that need to be addressed, including data about the stage of acute pancreatitis in which CECT was done and the time span between CECT examination and surgery.

Imaging lexicon for acute pancreatitis:2012 Atlanta Classification revisited

The original 1992 Atlanta Classification Systemfor acute pancreatitis was revised in 2012 by the Atlanta Working Group,assisted by various national and international societies,through web-based consensus.This revised classification identifies two phases of acute pancreatitis:early and late.Acute pancreatitis can be either oedematous interstitial pancreatitis or necrotizing pancreatitis.Severity of the disease is categorized into three levels:mild,moderately severe and severe,depending upon organ failure and local/systemic complications.According to the type of pancreatitis,collections are further divided into acute peripancreatic fluid collection,pseudocyst,acute necrotic collection,and walled-off necrosis.Insight into the revised terminology is essential for accurate communication of imaging findings.In this review article,we will summarize the updated nomenclature and illustrate corresponding imaging findings using examples.