OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of percutaneous drainage (PCD) versus peritoneal lavage (PL) for the treatment for severe acute pancreatitis patients with pancreatic ascites (PAs). METHODS:Severe acute pancreatitis patients with PAs were randomly assigned within 3 days of onset of symptoms to receive either PL or PCD. The primary end point was a composite of mortality or major complications during hospitalization and within 1 month of discharge. Per-protocol analyses were performed. RESULTS:Between September 2011 and June 2014, 86 patients were randomly assigned to intervention with PL or PCD. Ultimately, 41 patients in the PCD group and 39 patients in the PL group completed the study. The primary end point occurred in 15 (36.6%) of 41 patients in the PCD group and in 17 (43.6%) of 39 patients in the PL group (risk ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-1.44; P = 0.27). Mortality or major complications did not differ between the groups. Percutaneous drainage reduced intra-abdominal hypertension; however, PL reduced the incidence of deep venous thrombosis and pancreatic encephalopathy and was associated with a reduced need for intervention. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, the PCD was not superior to the PL in reducing mortality or major complications in severe acute pancreatitis patients with PAs.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of percutaneous drainage (PCD) versus peritoneal lavage (PL) for the treatment for severe acute pancreatitispatients with pancreatic ascites (PAs). METHODS: Severe acute pancreatitispatients with PAs were randomly assigned within 3 days of onset of symptoms to receive either PL or PCD. The primary end point was a composite of mortality or major complications during hospitalization and within 1 month of discharge. Per-protocol analyses were performed. RESULTS: Between September 2011 and June 2014, 86 patients were randomly assigned to intervention with PL or PCD. Ultimately, 41 patients in the PCD group and 39 patients in the PL group completed the study. The primary end point occurred in 15 (36.6%) of 41 patients in the PCD group and in 17 (43.6%) of 39 patients in the PL group (risk ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-1.44; P = 0.27). Mortality or major complications did not differ between the groups. Percutaneous drainage reduced intra-abdominal hypertension; however, PL reduced the incidence of deep venous thrombosis and pancreatic encephalopathy and was associated with a reduced need for intervention. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, the PCD was not superior to the PL in reducing mortality or major complications in severe acute pancreatitispatients with PAs.
Authors: Guruprasad P Aithal; Naaventhan Palaniyappan; Louise China; Suvi Härmälä; Lucia Macken; Jennifer M Ryan; Emilie A Wilkes; Kevin Moore; Joanna A Leithead; Peter C Hayes; Alastair J O'Brien; Sumita Verma Journal: Gut Date: 2020-10-16 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Raju Bhandari; Rajan Chamlagain; Saraswati Bhattarai; Eric H Tischler; Rajesh Mandal; Ramesh Singh Bhandari Journal: J Med Case Rep Date: 2020-09-15