Venous Thromboembolism in Necrotizing Pancreatitis: an Underappreciated Risk.

BACKGROUND: Necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) is a severe systemic inflammatory process. We have observed a high incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in NP patients. However, remarkably few data exist to document the true incidence of VTE-including splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT), extremity deep venous thrombosis (eDVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE)-in NP. Therefore, we sought to determine the incidence and risk factors for VTE in NP patients. METHODS: Retrospective review of all NP patients treated at a single academic center between 2005 and 2015. VTE diagnosis was confirmed by ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and/or ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) scan. Descriptive statistics and univariate analysis were applied where appropriate; p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Five hundred and forty-five NP patients (median age 53 years; 65% males) were reviewed. VTE was diagnosed in 312 patients (57%). SVT was found in 50%, eDVT in 16%, and PE in 6%. VTE in multiple sites was found in 22% of patients. VTE was diagnosed a median of 37 days following pancreatitis diagnosis. Seventy-nine percent of patients required at least one surgical procedure over the course of their NP. Patients requiring surgery had a DVT incidence of 58%; however, VTE was diagnosed preoperatively in 63%. Male gender, history of previous DVT, infected necrosis, development of organ failure, and development of respiratory failure were identified as risk factors for VTE (p = 0.001-0.04) by univariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Venous thromboembolism is extremely common in necrotizing pancreatitis. Regular ultrasound screening may be considered to facilitate early diagnosis in this extremely high-risk population.

Evolving treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, the treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) has incorporated greater use of minimally invasive techniques, including percutaneous drainage and endoscopic debridement. No study has yet compared outcomes of patients treated with all available techniques. We sought to evaluate the evolution of NP treatment at our high volume pancreas center. We hypothesized that minimally invasive techniques (medical only, percutaneous, and endoscopic) were used more frequently in later years. METHODS: Treatment strategy of NP patients at a single academic medical center between 2005 and 2014 was reviewed. Definitive management of pancreatic necrosis was categorized as: 1) medical treatment only; 2) surgical only; 3) percutaneous (interventional radiology - IR) only; 4) endoscopic only; and 5) combination (Surgery ± IR ± Endoscopy). RESULTS: 526 NP patients included biliary (45%), alcoholic (17%), and idiopathic (20%) etiology. Select patients were managed exclusively by medical, IR, or endoscopic treatment; use of these therapies remained relatively consistent over time. A combination of therapies was used in about 30% of patients. Over time, the percentage of NP patients managed without operation increased from 28% to 41%. 247 (47%) of patients had operation as the only NP treatment; an additional 143 (27%) required surgery as part of a multidisciplinary management. CONCLUSION: Select NP patients may be managed exclusively by medical, IR, or endoscopic treatment. Combination treatment is necessary in many NP patients, and surgical treatment continues to play an important role in the definitive therapy of necrotizing pancreatitis patients.