Development of pancreatic diseases during long-term follow-up after acute pancreatitis: a post-hoc analysis of a prospective multicenter cohort.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: More insight into the incidence of and factors associated with progression following a first episode of acute pancreatitis (AP) would offer opportunities for improvements in disease management and patient counseling. METHODS: A long-term post hoc analysis of a prospective cohort of patients with AP (2008-2015) was performed. Primary endpoints were recurrent acute pancreatitis (RAP), chronic pancreatitis (CP), and pancreatic cancer. Cumulative incidence calculations and risk analyses were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 1184 patients with a median follow-up of 9 years (IQR: 7-11) were included. RAP and CP occurred in 301 patients (25%) and 72 patients (6%), with the highest incidences observed for alcoholic pancreatitis (40% and 22%). Pancreatic cancer was diagnosed in 14 patients (1%). Predictive factors for RAP were alcoholic and idiopathic pancreatitis (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.51-4.82 and OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.40-3.02), and no pancreatic interventions (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.10-3.01). Non-biliary etiology (alcohol: OR 5.24, 95% CI 1.94-14.16, idiopathic: OR 4.57, 95% CI 2.05-10.16, and other: OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.11-7.94), RAP (OR 4.93, 95% CI 2.84-8.58), prior pancreatic interventions (OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.20-8.02), smoking (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.14-4.78), and male sex (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.05-4.05) were independently associated with CP. CONCLUSION: Disease progression was observed in a quarter of pancreatitis patients. We identified several risk factors that may be helpful to devise personalized strategies with the intention to reduce the impact of disease progression in patients with AP.

The revised Atlanta criteria more accurately reflect severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis compared to the consensus criteria.

Background and objective: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most prevalent complication after ERCP with an incidence of 3.5%. PEP severity is classified according to either the consensus criteria or the revised Atlanta criteria. In this international cohort study we investigated which classification is the strongest predictor of PEP-related mortality. Methods: We reviewed 13,384 consecutive ERCPs performed between 2012 and 2017 in eight hospitals. We gathered data on all pancreatitis-related adverse events and compared the predictive capabilities of both classifications. Furthermore, we investigated the correlation between the two classifications and identified reasons underlying length of stay. Results: The total sample consisted of 387 patients. The revised Atlanta criteria have a higher sensitivity (100 vs. 55%), specificity (98 vs. 72%) and positive predictive value (58 vs. 5%). There is a significant difference (p < 0.001) between the two classifications. In 124 patients (32%), the length of stay was influenced by concomitant diseases. Conclusion: The revised Atlanta classification is superior in predicting mortality and better reflects PEP severity. This has important implications for researchers, clinicians and patients. For the diagnosis of PEP pancreatitis, the consensus criteria remain the golden standard. However, the revised Atlanta criteria are preferable for defining PEP severity.