ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2025
Common Practice of Percutaneous Drainage in Necrotising Pancreatitis-A Multicentre Retrospective Study (DRACULA).
Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Drainage to Strategy: A Call for Standardization in Necrotizing Pancreatitis.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Article
- Common Practice of Percutaneous Drainage in Necrotising Pancreatitis-A Multicentre Retrospective Study (DRACULA).United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
56 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsAcute necrotising pancreatitis carries high mortality, especially if infected necrosis occurs. While percutaneous drainage may be required when internal drainage is not feasible, reliable guidelines for managing percutaneous drains are lacking. This study aimed to assess the common practice of percutaneous drainage therapy for infected pancreatic necrosis.
methodsThis retrospective study among 29 tertiary care centres included all patients hospitalised for necrotising acute pancreatitis from 01/2016 until 12/2022 with at least one percutaneous drain. The length of hospital stay was the primary endpoint, with mortality as the secondary endpoint. Between-group comparisons were conducted using the ratio of restricted mean survival time (RMST) after adjusting for confounders.
results585 patients (67% male) from 29 tertiary care centres in 15 countries in Europe, Canada and Bolivia were included in the analysis. Length of hospitalisation or mortality did not differ between the flushed (n = 398) and non-flushed groups (RMST ratio 1.04, p-value = 0.42 and RMST ratio 1.05, p-value = 0.1 respectively). Mortality was significantly lower in those patients who received a combination of percutaneous and internal drains (dual-modality drainage, n = 243) as compared to those who received percutaneous drains only (RMST ratio 1.05, p-value = 0.01). Flushing with antibiotics as compared to saline was not associated with shorter length of hospital stay or lower mortality (RMST ratio 0.98, p-value = 0.78 and 0.97, p-value = 0.48 respectively).
conclusionsThis study reveals notable differences in therapeutic concepts and flushing management for percutaneous drains. While flushing itself was not associated with a shorter length of hospitalisation or lower in-hospital mortality, a lower mortality was observed when internal and percutaneous drainage were used in combination. CLINICAL
trial registrationThe study was prospectively registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien, DRKS) under the registration number DRKS00032231.
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.