OBJECTIVE: Because of the low incidence of pancreatic ascites, only case reports and case series have been published, and no randomized controlled trials have been performed to find out which is the best therapeutic approach. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of the different treatments for pancreatic ascites by a thorough review of all case reports described in the literature in which an independent analysis of the efficacy of the treatment administered to each patient is possible. METHODS: We conducted an analysis of all case reports and case series of pancreatic ascites published between 1975 and 2000 in which clinical data of every patient could be identified individually. A total of 139 cases were studied. Clinical characteristics, treatments administered, and response to therapy of every patient were registered. Conservative therapy included drainage of ascitic fluid, total parenteral nutrition and diet, and somatostatin analogues. Interventional therapy was either endoscopic or surgical. RESULTS: After multivariate analysis, the only treatments related to success were surgery (adjusted OR = 8.2, 95% CI = 3.0-22.9) and transpapillary stent (adjusted OR = 7.3, 95% CI = 0.8-62.9). No significant relationship was found between failure or death and the use of other treatments, age, sex, year of publication, underlying disease, site of leakage, or serum amylase levels. The apparent lack of effect of somatostatin analogues could be attributed to the small number of cases and the heterogeneity of the dosages. CONCLUSIONS: Conservative therapy is not advisable for pancreatic ascites because of the high proportion of failures. Interventional therapy with surgery or transpapillary stent has a positive effect in the clinical outcome.
OBJECTIVE: Because of the low incidence of pancreatic ascites, only case reports and case series have been published, and no randomized controlled trials have been performed to find out which is the best therapeutic approach. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of the different treatments for pancreatic ascites by a thorough review of all case reports described in the literature in which an independent analysis of the efficacy of the treatment administered to each patient is possible. METHODS: We conducted an analysis of all case reports and case series of pancreatic ascites published between 1975 and 2000 in which clinical data of every patient could be identified individually. A total of 139 cases were studied. Clinical characteristics, treatments administered, and response to therapy of every patient were registered. Conservative therapy included drainage of ascitic fluid, total parenteral nutrition and diet, and somatostatin analogues. Interventional therapy was either endoscopic or surgical. RESULTS: After multivariate analysis, the only treatments related to success were surgery (adjusted OR = 8.2, 95% CI = 3.0-22.9) and transpapillary stent (adjusted OR = 7.3, 95% CI = 0.8-62.9). No significant relationship was found between failure or death and the use of other treatments, age, sex, year of publication, underlying disease, site of leakage, or serum amylase levels. The apparent lack of effect of somatostatin analogues could be attributed to the small number of cases and the heterogeneity of the dosages. CONCLUSIONS: Conservative therapy is not advisable for pancreatic ascites because of the high proportion of failures. Interventional therapy with surgery or transpapillary stent has a positive effect in the clinical outcome.