| Literature DB >> 35326883 |
Viktoria Hentschel1,2, Benjamin Walter1,2, Noemi Harder1, Frank Arnold1, Thomas Seufferlein1,2, Martin Wagner1,2, Martin Müller1,2, Alexander Kleger1,2.
Abstract
Pancreatic pseudocyst (PC) and walled-off necrosis (WON) are dreaded complications of acute pancreatitis. Standard therapy consists of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural placement of stents to expedite resolution through internal drainage of fluids or necrotic material. Either double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) or lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), or a combination of both, are available for this purpose. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of different stent types on infection rates in addition to clinical outcome measures such as periprocedural adverse events. We conducted a retrospective study comprising 77 patients who had undergone endoscopic drainage for PC or WON in a pancreatitis tertiary referral center. Analysis revealed that both bacterial and fungal infections occurred more frequently in patients treated with LAMS with or without DPPS compared to DPPS only. The use of antibiotics and antimycotics followed the same pattern. Furthermore, a prolonged length of hospital stay and a higher likelihood of transfer to an intermediate care unit were observed in patients with LAMS with or without DPPS. These differences were eliminated if only WON patients were analyzed. Our data imply that the clinical course is primarily influenced by the complexity of the pancreatic fluid collection (PFC) itself rather than the stent type. Prospective large-scale cohort studies are mandatory to underpin these findings.Entities:
Keywords: anti-infective agents; bacterial infections; mycoses; pancreatic pseudocyst; pancreatitis, acute necrotizing
Year: 2022 PMID: 35326883 PMCID: PMC8944472 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11030420
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6382
Figure 1(A) Flowchart of study population. (B) Composition of stent groups according to PFC type. Grading of disease severity according to APACHE-II score related to overall study population and stent group (C) and PFC type (D). (E) Grading of disease severity according to Glasgow Imrie score related to overall study population and stent group. (F) Number of necrosectomies performed per stent group. (G) Number of endoscopic necrosectomy sessions separated by PFC type. Total duration of in-hospital stay per patient related to overall study population and stent group (H) and PFC type (I). Proportion of patients requiring medical support at IMC level related to overall study population and stent group (J) and PFC type (K). Proportion of patients undergoing surgical PFC drainage related to overall study population and stent group (L) and PFC type (M). Hospital mortality rates related to overall study population and stent group (N) and PFC type (O).
Overview of the study population, including primary and secondary clinical endpoints.
| Overall | Group 1 | PC | WON | Group 2 | Group 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Patients | 77 | 35 | 16 | 19 | 11 | 31 |
| Female, | 23 (30) | 10 (29) | 3 (19) | 7 (37) | 4 (36) | 9 (29) |
| Male, | 54 (70) | 25 (71) | 13 (81) | 12 (63) | 7 (64) | 22 (71) |
| Age (years) (mean ± standard deviation) | 55 ± 17 | 55 ± 14 | 49 ± 14 | 59 ± 12 | 56 ± 17 | 55 ± 19 |
| Apache-II score | ||||||
| 0–9, | 47 (61) | 24 (69) | 12 (75) | 12 (63) | 5 (45) | 18 (58) |
| 10–19, | 20 (26) | 6 (17) | 3 (19) | 3 (16) | 4 (36) | 10 (32) |
| 20–29, | 2 (3) | 1 (3) | 0 (0) | 1 (5) | 1 (9) | 0 (0) |
| >30, | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Glasgow Imrie score | ||||||
| ≤3, | 54 (70) | 23 (66) | 9 (56) | 14 (74) | 8 (73) | 8 (73) |
| >3, | 4 (5) | 2 (6) | 1 (6) | 1 (5) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| not recorded, | 19 (25) | 10 (29) | 6 (38) | 4 (21) | 3 (27) | 3 (27) |
| Total duration of hospital stay per patient (days) (median, 25%; 75% quartile) | 38 (16; 54) | 32 (11; 56) | 11 (7.75; 33) | 42 (21; 72) | 30 (14.5; 43) | 43 (29; 55) |
| Number of endoscopic necrosectomy sessions (median, 25%; 75% quartile) | 0 (0; 2) | 0 (0; 0) | 0 (0; 0) | 0 (0; 0) | 2 (1; 2.75) | 1 (0; 3) |
| Conversion to surgery, | 11 (14; 8–24%) | 6 (17; 8–33%) | 1 (6; 0–30%) | 5 (26; 11–49%) | 1 (9; 0–40%) | 4 (13; 5–29%) |
| Transfer to IMC, | 41 (53, 42–64%) | 15 (43; 28–59%) | 3 (19; 6–44%) | 12 (63; 41–81%) | 6 (55; 28–79%) | 20 (65; 47–79%) |
| Mortality, | 8 (10; 5–19%) | 4 (11; 4–27%) | 2 (13; 2–37%) | 2 (11; 2–33%) | 2 (18; 4–49%) | 2 (6; 7–22%) |
Figure 2Proportion of patients suffering from any complications related to overall study population and stent group (A) and PFC type (B). (C) Occurrence of periprocedural complications related to overall study population and stent group. (D) Occurrence of disease-associated complications related to PFC type.
Periprocedural and disease-related adverse events.
| Overall | Group 1 | PC | WON | Group 2 | Group 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 60 (78; 67–86%) | 26 (74; 58–86%) | 8 (50; 28–72%) | 18 (95; 74–100%) | 9 (82; 51–96%) | 25 (81; 63–91%) |
|
| ||||||
| 13 (17; 10–27%) | 6 (17; 8–33%) | 2 (13; 2–37%) | 4 (21; 8–44%) | 2 (18; 4–49%) | 5 (16; 7–33%) | |
| 3 (4, 1–11%) | 1 (3; 0–16%) | 0 (0; 0–23%) | 1 (5; 0–26%) | 0 (0; 0–30%) | 2 (6; 1–22%) | |
| 15 (19, 12–30%) | 8 (23; 12–39%) | 2 (13; 2–37%) | 6 (32; 15–54%) | 0 (0; 0–30%) | 7 (23; 11–40%) | |
| 3 (4) | 1 (3) | 0 (0) | 1 (5) | 1 (9) | 1 (3) | |
|
| ||||||
| 2 (3) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (9) | 1 (3) | |
| 12 (16) | 6 (17) | 3 (19) | 3 (16) | 3 (27) | 3 (10) | |
| 4 (5) | 1 (3) | 1 (6) | 0 (0) | 2 (28) | 1 (3) | |
|
| ||||||
| 17 (22) | 7 (20) | 3 (19) | 4 (21) | 5 (45) | 5 (16) | |
| 5 (6) | 2 (6) | 1 (6) | 1 (5) | 1 (9) | 2 (6) | |
| 13 (17) | 5 (14) | 2 (13) | 3 (16) | 4 (36) | 4 (13) | |
| 32 (42) | 14 (40) | 1 (6) | 13 (68) | 5 (45) | 13 (42) | |
|
| ||||||
| 8 (10) | 4 (11) | 1 (6) | 3 (16) | 1 (9) | 3 (10) | |
| 18 (23) | 8 (23) | 3 (19) | 5 (26) | 3 (27) | 7 (23) | |
| 16 (21) | 5 (14) | 1 (6) | 4 (21) | 1 (9) | 10 (32) | |
| 4 (5) | 2 (6) | 0 (0) | 2 (11) | 1 (9) | 1 (3) | |
| 6 (8) | 5 (14) | 3 (19) | 2 (11) | 0 (0) | 1 (3) | |
| 2 (3, 0–10%) | 2 (6; 1–20%) | 0 (0; 0–23%) | 2 (11; 2–33%) | 0 (0; 0–30%) | 0 (0; 0–13%) | |
| 6 (8) | 4 (11) | 2 (13) | 2 (11) | 1 (9) | 1 (3) | |
|
| ||||||
| 18 (23) | 5 (14) | 2 (13) | 3 (16) | 5 (45) | 8 (26) |
Figure 3Occurrence of infectious complications related to overall study population and stent group (A) and PFC type (B).
Bacterial and fungal infections and anti-infective use.
| Overall | Group 1 | PC | WON | Group 2 | Group 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 66 (86, 76–92%) | 28 (80; 64–90%) | 9 (56; 33–77%) | 18 (95; 74–100%) | 10 (91; 60–100%) | 28 (90; 74–97%) |
|
| 56 (73; 62–81%) | 22 (63; 46–77%) | 8 (50; 28–72%) | 14 (74; 51–89%) | 9 (82; 51–96%) | 26 (84; 67–93%) |
| 145 (100) | 49 (100) | 11 (100) | 38 (100) | 21 (100) | 75 (100) | |
| 80 (55; 47–63%) | 26 (53; 39–66%) | 6 (55; 28–79%) | 20 (53; 37–68%) | 11 (52; 32–72%) | 43 (57; 46–68%) | |
| 65 (45; 37–53%) | 23 (47; 34–61%) | 5 (45; 21–72%) | 18 (47; 32–63%) | 10 (48; 28–68%) | 32 (43; 32–54%) | |
| 27 (19) | 7 (14) | 4 (36) | 5 (8) | 1 (5) | 19 (25) | |
| 87 (60) | 34 (69) | 6 (55) | 28 (74) | 14 (67) | 39 (52) | |
| Use of antibiotics, | 73 (95, 87–98%) | 32 (91; 77–98%) | 13 (81; 56–94%) | 19 (100; 80–100%) | 10 (91; 60–100%) | 31 (100; 87–100%) |
| Number of antibiotics per patient (median, 25%; 75% quartile) | 3 (1; 4) | 2 (1; 3) | 1 (1; 1.5) | 3 (1.5; 4.5) | 2 (1; 5.5) | 3 (2; 4.5) |
| Fluoroquinolones | 19 | |||||
| Cephalosporines | 23 | |||||
| Penicillins and β-lactamase inhibitors | 47 | |||||
| Carbapenems | 47 | |||||
| Linezolide | 29 | |||||
| Others | 31 | |||||
|
| 38 (49; 38–60%) | 14 (40; 26–56%) | 3 (19; 6–44%) | 11 (58; 36–77%) | 7 (64; 35–85%) | 17 (55; 38–71%) |
| 24 (31; 22–42%) | 9 (26; 14–42%) | 0 (0; 0–23%) | 9 (47; 27–68%) | 4 (36; 15–65%) | 11 (35; 21–53%) | |
| 9 (12; 6–21) | 4 (11; 4–27%) | 2 (13; 2–37%) | 2 (11; 2–33%) | 2 (18; 4–49%) | 3 (10; 3–26%) | |
| 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (9; 0–40%) | 0 (0) | |
| 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| Use of antimycotis, | 23 (31) | 8 (23;12–39%) | 0 (0; 0–23%) | 8 (42; 23–63%) | 4 (36; 15–65%) | 11 (36; 19–55%) |
| 0, | 54 (70) | 27 (77) | 16 (100) | 11 (58) | 7 (64) | 20 (65) |
| 1, | 17 (22) | 5 (14) | 0 (0) | 5 (26) | 2 (18) | 10 (32) |
| 2, | 6 (8) | 3 (9) | 0 (0) | 3 (16) | 2 (18) | 1 (3) |
| Voriconazole | 1 | |||||
| Fluconazole | 8 | |||||
| Caspofungin | 21 |
Figure 4Bacterial infection rates of PFC related to overall study population and stent group (A) and PFC type (B). (C) Classification of bacterial microorganisms based on response to Gram staining. (D) Classification of bacterial microorganisms based on metabolic properties. (E) Prevalence of the three most common Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial species related to overall study population and stent group. Administration rates of antibiotics related to overall study population and stent group (F) and PFC type (G). Number of antibiotic agents per patient related to overall study population and stent group (H) and PFC type (I). (J) Frequency of antibiotic use per single agent or class. (K) Results of antibiotic susceptibility testings for Enterococcus faecium, Enterococcus faecalis, and Streptococcus mitis. (L) Results of antibiotic susceptibility testings for Escherichia coli, Klebsiella oxytoca, and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Abbreviations: ampicillin (AMP), ampicillin-sulbactam (SAM), amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (AMC), cefotaxime (CTX), cefazolin (CFZ), ceftazidime (CAZ), ceftriaxone (CRO), cefuroxime (CXM), ciprofloxacin (CIP), clindamycin (CLI), gentamicin (GEN), imipenem (IPM), levofloxacin (LVX), linezolid (LZD), meropenem (MEM), moxifloxacin (MXF), penicillin (PEN), piperacillin-tazobactam (TZP), tigecycline (TGC), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (SXT), vancomycin (VAN).
Complete spectrum of bacterial species detected in PFC specimens.
| Overall | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gram-positive bacteria | 80 | 26 | 11 | 43 |
| Facultative anaerobes | 54 | 19 | 9 | 26 |
|
| 15 | 5 | 3 | 7 |
|
| 14 | 7 | 2 | 5 |
|
| 10 | 4 | 1 | 5 |
|
| 5 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
|
| 4 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Strict Anaerobes | 7 | 3 | 0 | 4 |
| 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Others | 19 | 4 | 2 | 13 |
|
| 9 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| 4 | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
| Other Gram-positive species | 5 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Gram-negative bacteria | 65 | 23 | 10 | 32 |
| Facultative Anaerobes | 33 | 15 | 5 | 13 |
|
| 12 | 8 | 2 | 2 |
|
| 7 | 3 | 0 | 4 |
|
| 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
|
| 4 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
|
| 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Strict Anaerobes | 20 | 4 | 1 | 15 |
|
| 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
|
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | |
|
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
|
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| Others | 12 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
|
| 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Other Gram-negative species | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Figure 5Fungal infection rates of PFC related to overall study population and stent group (A,B) and PFC type (C). (D) Percentage distribution of most prevalent Candida species. Candida albicans infection rates related to overall study population and stent group (E) and PFC type (F). (G) Proportion of patients treated with n = 0, n = 1, or n = 2 antimycotic agents. Administration rates of antimycotics related to overall study population and stent group (H) and PFC type (I). (J) Frequency of antimycotic use per single agent. (K) Results of antimycotic susceptibility testings for Candida albicans. (L) Results of antimycotic susceptibility testings for Candida glabrata. Abbreviations: amphotericin B (AMB), caspofungin (CAS), flucytosine (5FC), fluconazole (FLC), micafungin (MFG), voriconazole (VRC).