The Role of Antibiotics in Endoscopic Transmural Drainage of Post-Inflammatory Pancreatic and Peripancreatic Fluid Collections.
antibiotic prophylaxis
antibiotic therapy
antibiotics
endoscopic drainage
endoscopy
pancreatic fluid collection
pancreatitis
Journal
Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology
ISSN: 2235-2988
Titre abrégé: Front Cell Infect Microbiol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101585359
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
08
05
2022
accepted:
13
06
2022
entrez:
22
7
2022
pubmed:
23
7
2022
medline:
26
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although endoscopic treatment of symptomatic post-inflammatory pancreatic and peripancreatic fluid collections (PPPFCs) is an established treatment method, some aspects of endotherapy and periprocedural management remain controversial. The role of antibiotics is one of the most controversial issues in interventional endoscopic management of local complications of pancreatitis. This study was a randomized, non-inferiority, placebo-controlled, and double-blinded clinical trial to investigate the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in endoscopic transmural drainage in patients with symptomatic non-infected PPPFCs and assess the influence of antibiotic treatment on the results of endotherapy in patients with symptomatic infected PPPFCs.This trial included 62 patients treated endoscopically for PPPFCs in 2020 at our medical center. Patients were divided into two groups; group 1 comprised patients who had received empirical intravenous antibiotic therapy during endotherapy and group 2 comprised patients who did not receive antibiotic therapy during endoscopic drainage of PPPFCs. The end points were clinical success and long-term success of endoscopic treatment. Thirty-one patients were included in group 1 (walled-off pancreatic necrosis [WOPN, 51.6%; pseudocyst, 48.4%) and 31 patients in group 2 (WOPN, 58.1%; pseudocyst, 41.9%) (p=0.6098/nonsignificant statistical [NS]). Infection with PPPFCs was observed in 15/31 (48.39%) patients in group 1 and in 15/31 (48.39%) patients in group 2 (p=1.0/NS). The average time of active (with flushing through nasocystic drainage) drainage in group 1 was 13.0 (6 - 21) days and was 14.0 (7 - 25) days in group 2 (p=0.405/NS). The average total number endoscopic procedures on one patient was 3.3 (2 - 5) in group 1 and 3.4 (2 - 7) in group 2 (p=0.899/NS). Clinical success of PPPFCs was observed in 29/31 (93.5%) patients from group 1 and in 30/31 (96.8%) patients from group 2 (p=0.5540/NS). Complications of endotherapy were noted in 8/31 (25.8%) patients in group 1 and in 10/31 (32.3%) patients in group 2 (p=0.576/NS). Long-term success in group 1 and 2 was reported in 26/31 (83.9%) and 24/31 (77.4%) patients, respectively (p=0.520/NS). The effective endoscopic drainage of sterile PPPFCs requires no preventive or prophylactic use of antibiotics. In infected PPPFCs, antibiotic therapy is not required for effective endoscopic transmural drainage.
Sections du résumé
Background
Although endoscopic treatment of symptomatic post-inflammatory pancreatic and peripancreatic fluid collections (PPPFCs) is an established treatment method, some aspects of endotherapy and periprocedural management remain controversial. The role of antibiotics is one of the most controversial issues in interventional endoscopic management of local complications of pancreatitis.
Methods
This study was a randomized, non-inferiority, placebo-controlled, and double-blinded clinical trial to investigate the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in endoscopic transmural drainage in patients with symptomatic non-infected PPPFCs and assess the influence of antibiotic treatment on the results of endotherapy in patients with symptomatic infected PPPFCs.This trial included 62 patients treated endoscopically for PPPFCs in 2020 at our medical center. Patients were divided into two groups; group 1 comprised patients who had received empirical intravenous antibiotic therapy during endotherapy and group 2 comprised patients who did not receive antibiotic therapy during endoscopic drainage of PPPFCs. The end points were clinical success and long-term success of endoscopic treatment.
Results
Thirty-one patients were included in group 1 (walled-off pancreatic necrosis [WOPN, 51.6%; pseudocyst, 48.4%) and 31 patients in group 2 (WOPN, 58.1%; pseudocyst, 41.9%) (p=0.6098/nonsignificant statistical [NS]). Infection with PPPFCs was observed in 15/31 (48.39%) patients in group 1 and in 15/31 (48.39%) patients in group 2 (p=1.0/NS). The average time of active (with flushing through nasocystic drainage) drainage in group 1 was 13.0 (6 - 21) days and was 14.0 (7 - 25) days in group 2 (p=0.405/NS). The average total number endoscopic procedures on one patient was 3.3 (2 - 5) in group 1 and 3.4 (2 - 7) in group 2 (p=0.899/NS). Clinical success of PPPFCs was observed in 29/31 (93.5%) patients from group 1 and in 30/31 (96.8%) patients from group 2 (p=0.5540/NS). Complications of endotherapy were noted in 8/31 (25.8%) patients in group 1 and in 10/31 (32.3%) patients in group 2 (p=0.576/NS). Long-term success in group 1 and 2 was reported in 26/31 (83.9%) and 24/31 (77.4%) patients, respectively (p=0.520/NS).
Conclusions
The effective endoscopic drainage of sterile PPPFCs requires no preventive or prophylactic use of antibiotics. In infected PPPFCs, antibiotic therapy is not required for effective endoscopic transmural drainage.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35865817
doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.939138
pmc: PMC9294148
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
939138Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Jagielski, Kupczyk, Piątkowski and Jackowski.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
World J Emerg Surg. 2017 Jul 10;12:29
pubmed: 28702076
Endoscopy. 2017 Oct;49(10):989-1006
pubmed: 28898917
Surg Clin North Am. 2013 Jun;93(3):549-62
pubmed: 23632143
Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Sep;108(9):1400-15; 1416
pubmed: 23896955
Endoscopy. 2018 May;50(5):524-546
pubmed: 29631305
Br J Surg. 2014 Jan;101(1):e65-79
pubmed: 24272964
Crit Care Med. 1998 Nov;26(11):1793-800
pubmed: 9824069
World J Surg. 2008 Nov;32(11):2383-94
pubmed: 18670801
Radiology. 2012 Mar;262(3):751-64
pubmed: 22357880
Gastroenterology. 2020 May;158(6):1642-1649.e1
pubmed: 31972236
Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2014 Jun;9(2):170-8
pubmed: 25097683
Intensive Care Med. 1996 Jul;22(7):707-10
pubmed: 8844239
Arch Surg. 1989 Mar;124(3):356-61
pubmed: 2919969
J Clin Med. 2021 Feb 14;10(4):
pubmed: 33672814
Pancreatology. 2013 Jul-Aug;13(4 Suppl 2):e1-15
pubmed: 24054878
Br J Surg. 2014 Dec;101(13):1721-8
pubmed: 25329330
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 May 12;(5):CD002941
pubmed: 20464721
J Clin Med. 2020 Jan 01;9(1):
pubmed: 31906294
Int J Infect Dis. 2020 Oct;99:140-148
pubmed: 32739433
Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2009 Apr;11(2):134-41
pubmed: 19281701
Gut. 2013 Jan;62(1):102-11
pubmed: 23100216
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jan;81(1):81-9
pubmed: 25442089
Ann Surg. 2018 Feb;267(2):357-363
pubmed: 27805963
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Nov 14;11:MR000030
pubmed: 23152285
Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2018 Apr 01;2018:8149410
pubmed: 29805446
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Aug;33(8):1548-1552
pubmed: 29392766
Am J Emerg Med. 2018 Jun;36(6):1022-1026
pubmed: 29426799
Dig Dis Sci. 2019 Aug;64(8):2308-2315
pubmed: 31065897
Gastroenterology. 2018 Mar;154(4):1096-1101
pubmed: 29409760
Pancreas. 2012 Nov;41(8):1176-94
pubmed: 23086243
World J Gastroenterol. 2010 Apr 14;16(14):1707-12
pubmed: 20380001
Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2021 Oct 13;2021:4351151
pubmed: 34691174