Walser Eric M, Nealon William H, Marroquin Santiago, Raza Syed, Hernandez J Alberto, Vasek James
Department of Radiology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX 77555, USA.
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2006 Jan-Feb;29(1):102-7. doi: 10.1007/s00270-004-0220-4.
To compare the clinical outcome of needle aspiration versus percutaneous catheter drainage of sterile fluid collections in patients with acute pancreatitis.
We reviewed the clinical and imaging data of patients with acute pancreatic fluid collections from 1998 to 2003. Referral for fluid sampling was based on elevated white blood cell count and fevers. Those patients with culture-negative drainages or needle aspirations were included in the study. Fifteen patients had aspiration of 10-20 ml fluid only (group A) and 22 patients had catheter placement for chronic evacuation of fluid (group C). We excluded patients with grossly purulent collections and chronic pseudocysts. We also recorded the number of sinograms and catheter changes and duration of catheter drainage. The CT severity index, Ranson scores, and maximum diameter of abdominal fluid collections were calculated for all patients at presentation. The total length of hospital stay (LOS), length of hospital stay after the drainage or aspiration procedure (LOS-P), and conversions to percutaneous and/or surgical drainage were recorded as well as survival.
The CT severity index and acute Ransom scores were not different between the two groups (p = 0.15 and p = 0.6, respectively). When 3 crossover patients from group A to group C were accounted for, the duration of hospitalization did not differ significantly, with a mean LOS and LOS-P of 33.8 days and 27.9 days in group A and 41.5 days and 27.6 days in group C, respectively (p = 0.57 and 0.98, respectively). The 60-day mortality was 2 of 15 (13%) in group A and 2 of 22 (9.1%) in group C. Kaplan-Meier survival curves for the two groups were not significantly different (p = 0.3). Surgical or percutaneous conversions occurred significantly more often in group A (7/15, 47%) than surgical conversions in group C (4/22, 18%) (p = 0.03). Patients undergoing catheter drainage required an average of 2.2 sinograms/tube changes and kept catheters in for an average of 52 days. Aspirates turned culture-positive in 13 of 22 patients (59%) who had chronic catheterization. In group A, 3 of the 7 patients converted to percutaneous or surgical drainage had infected fluid at the time of conversion (total positive culture rate in group A 3/15 or 20%).
There is no apparent clinical benefit for catheter drainage of sterile fluid collections arising in acute pancreatitis as the length of hospital stay and mortality were similar between patients undergoing aspiration versus catheter drainage. However, almost half of patients treated with simple aspiration will require surgical or percutaneous drainage at some point. Disadvantages of chronic catheter drainage include a greater than 50% rate of bacterial colonization and the need for multiple sinograms and tube changes over an average duration of about 2 months.
比较急性胰腺炎患者无菌性液体积聚的针吸术与经皮导管引流术的临床疗效。
我们回顾了1998年至2003年急性胰液积聚患者的临床和影像学资料。根据白细胞计数升高和发热情况进行液体采样送检。纳入那些引流液或针吸液培养阴性的患者。15例患者仅进行了10 - 20毫升液体的针吸(A组),22例患者放置了导管用于长期引流液体(C组)。我们排除了有大量脓性积液和慢性假性囊肿的患者。我们还记录了窦道造影次数、导管更换次数以及导管引流持续时间。计算所有患者就诊时的CT严重指数、兰森评分以及腹腔液体积聚的最大直径。记录住院总时长(LOS)、引流或针吸术后的住院时长(LOS - P)、转为经皮和/或手术引流的情况以及生存率。
两组的CT严重指数和急性兰森评分无差异(分别为p = 0.15和p = 0.6)。当把3例从A组转入C组的交叉患者考虑在内时,住院时长无显著差异,A组的平均LOS和LOS - P分别为33.8天和27.9天,C组分别为41.5天和27.6天(分别为p = 0.57和0.98)。A组15例中有2例(13%)60天死亡率,C组22例中有2例(9.1%)。两组的Kaplan - Meier生存曲线无显著差异(p = 0.3)。A组手术或经皮引流转换的发生率(7/15,47%)显著高于C组手术转换的发生率(4/22,18%)(p = 0.03)。接受导管引流患者平均需要2.2次窦道造影/导管更换,导管平均留置52天。22例长期置管患者中有13例(59%)吸出物培养转为阳性。A组7例转为经皮或手术引流的患者中,有3例在转换时有感染性液体(A组总培养阳性率为3/15或20%)。
急性胰腺炎中无菌性液体积聚的导管引流并无明显临床益处,因为针吸术与导管引流术患者的住院时长和死亡率相似。然而,几乎一半接受单纯针吸治疗的患者在某个阶段将需要手术或经皮引流。慢性导管引流的缺点包括细菌定植率超过50%,以及在约2个月的平均时长内需要多次窦道造影和导管更换。