ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
Trends and outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage and pancreatic necrosectomy for acute necrotizing pancreatitis.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided interventions has resulted in an expanding domain of non-surgical endoscopic methods for treating acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP). We examined the current trends and outcomes of EUS-guided drainage and endoscopic necrosectomy in the United States. Methods: This observational retrospective study used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (2016-2020) to identify adult patients with ANP who underwent endoscopic necrosectomy, based on ICD-10-CM codes. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression, and linear models were used to examine the outcomes of ANP in patients who underwent endoscopic necrosectomy in comparison to patients who had no such interventions. Results: Among 11,212 ANP cases identified, 493 (4.4%) underwent endoscopic necrosectomy. The patients' mean age was 49.6 years and they were predominantly male (66.8%). There was a steady increase in ANP admissions (542 to 3180) and endoscopic necrosectomy (0% to 5.8%) from 2016-2020. Endoscopic intervention had lower odds for systemic inflammatory response syndrome (P=0.038), but higher odds for venous thromboembolism (P=0.006). Hospital costs (P<0.001), charges (P<0.001), and length of hospital stay (LOS) (P<0.001) were greater for patients with endoscopic intervention. Procedural adverse events were rare (5.9%), and were associated with significantly greater LOS (P=0.004), higher hospital costs (P=0.018) and charges (P=0.004), but no difference in mortality (P=0.899). Conclusions: Endoscopic necrosectomy for ANP increased from 2016-2020 and was associated with low risk for adverse events or mortality, but greater LOS and costs compared to conservative non-interventional management. Further research is required to optimize patient selection and address the economic implications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.