Ling Ding, Lei Li, Jingwen Rao, Yong Zhu, Liang Xia, Pi Liu, Lingyu Luo, Huifang Xiong, Yang Hu, Yao Wu, Huajing Ke, Xin Huang, Yupeng Lei, Xu Shu, Zhijian Liu, Youxiang Chen, Nonghua Lu, Yin Zhu, Wenhua He
{"title":"Outcomes of percutaneous versus endoscopic transmural necrosectomy for necrotizing pancreatitis: A propensity score-matched study.","authors":"Ling Ding, Lei Li, Jingwen Rao, Yong Zhu, Liang Xia, Pi Liu, Lingyu Luo, Huifang Xiong, Yang Hu, Yao Wu, Huajing Ke, Xin Huang, Yupeng Lei, Xu Shu, Zhijian Liu, Youxiang Chen, Nonghua Lu, Yin Zhu, Wenhua He","doi":"10.1016/j.pan.2024.11.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Few published studies exist that compare the outcomes of different endoscopic necrosectomy methods for necrotizing pancreatitis (NP). We compared the safety and efficacy of percutaneous versus transmural endoscopic necrosectomy for NP patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed adult NP patients who underwent either percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy (PEN) or endoscopic transmural necrosectomy (ETN), and compared safety and efficacy between the two groups. Propensity score-matched analysis and multivariable logistic regression analysis were conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 280 patients were enrolled, among which 142 underwent PEN and 138 underwent ETN. There were differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups, including body mass index, C-reactive protein, systemic inflammatory response syndrome score. The incidences of sepsis, respiratory failure, and intensive care unit stay were higher among patients who underwent PEN than those who underwent ETN (all P < 0.01). Ninety-one pairs were matched with comparable baseline characteristics and severity. The incidence of postoperative complications, open surgery, clinical success, radiological success, collection recurrence, and reintervention were not significantly different between the ETN group and PEN group (all P > 0.05). Multivariate analysis also showed that the approaches (PEN vs ETN) was not associated with postoperative complications or mortality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In real world setting, sicker patients tend to be more effectively managed through PEN compared to ETN. PEN demonstrates comparable efficacy and safety to ETN in the treatment of NP patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":19976,"journal":{"name":"Pancreatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pancreatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pan.2024.11.004","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Few published studies exist that compare the outcomes of different endoscopic necrosectomy methods for necrotizing pancreatitis (NP). We compared the safety and efficacy of percutaneous versus transmural endoscopic necrosectomy for NP patients.
Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed adult NP patients who underwent either percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy (PEN) or endoscopic transmural necrosectomy (ETN), and compared safety and efficacy between the two groups. Propensity score-matched analysis and multivariable logistic regression analysis were conducted.
Results: A total of 280 patients were enrolled, among which 142 underwent PEN and 138 underwent ETN. There were differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups, including body mass index, C-reactive protein, systemic inflammatory response syndrome score. The incidences of sepsis, respiratory failure, and intensive care unit stay were higher among patients who underwent PEN than those who underwent ETN (all P < 0.01). Ninety-one pairs were matched with comparable baseline characteristics and severity. The incidence of postoperative complications, open surgery, clinical success, radiological success, collection recurrence, and reintervention were not significantly different between the ETN group and PEN group (all P > 0.05). Multivariate analysis also showed that the approaches (PEN vs ETN) was not associated with postoperative complications or mortality.
Conclusions: In real world setting, sicker patients tend to be more effectively managed through PEN compared to ETN. PEN demonstrates comparable efficacy and safety to ETN in the treatment of NP patients.
期刊介绍:
Pancreatology is the official journal of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP), the European Pancreatic Club (EPC) and several national societies and study groups around the world. Dedicated to the understanding and treatment of exocrine as well as endocrine pancreatic disease, this multidisciplinary periodical publishes original basic, translational and clinical pancreatic research from a range of fields including gastroenterology, oncology, surgery, pharmacology, cellular and molecular biology as well as endocrinology, immunology and epidemiology. Readers can expect to gain new insights into pancreatic physiology and into the pathogenesis, diagnosis, therapeutic approaches and prognosis of pancreatic diseases. The journal features original articles, case reports, consensus guidelines and topical, cutting edge reviews, thus representing a source of valuable, novel information for clinical and basic researchers alike.