The Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation, Fonds NutsOhra, and the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.

BACKGROUNDInfected necrotizing pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that is treated with the use of a step-up approach, with catheter drainage often delayed until the infected necrosis is encapsulated. Whether outcomes could be improved by earlier catheter drainage is unknown. METHODSWe conducted a multicenter, randomized superiority trial involving patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, in which we compared immediate drainage within 24 hours after randomization once infected necrosis was diagnosed with drainage that was postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis was reached. The primary end point was the score on the Comprehensive Complication Index, which incorporates all complications over the course of 6 months of follow-up. RESULTSA total of 104 patients were randomly assigned to immediate drainage (55 patients) or postponed drainage (49 patients). The mean score on the Comprehensive Complication Index (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe complications) was 57 in the immediate-drainage group and 58 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, −1; 95% confidence interval [CI], −12 to 10; P = 0.90). Mortality was 13% in the immediate-drainage group and 10% in the postponed-drainage group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.42 to 3.68). The mean number of interventions (catheter drainage and necrosectomy) was 4.4 in the immediate-drainage group and 2.6 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.0). In the postponed-drainage group, 19 patients (39%) were treated conservatively with antibiotics and did not require drainage; 17 of these patients survived. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONSThis trial did not show the superiority of immediate drainage over postponed drainage with regard to complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Patients randomly assigned to the postponed-drainage strategy received fewer invasive interventions. (Funded by Fonds NutsOhra and Amsterdam UMC; POINTER ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN33682933.

This study demonstrates the potential of a systematic approach of atherosclerotic plaque assessment with multisequence MR imaging by using the information provided from five different MR weightings in a stepwise logistic regression model.

Purpose:To investigate the performance of high-resolution T1-weighted (T1w) turbo field echo (TFE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the identification of the high-risk component intraplaque hemorrhage, which is described in the literature as a troublesome component to detect. Materials and Methods:An MRI scan was performed preoperatively on 11 patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy because of symptomatic carotid disease with a stenosis larger than 70%. A commonly used double inversion recovery (DIR) T1w turbo spin echo (TSE) served as the T1w control for the T1w TFE pulse sequence. The MR images were matched slice by slice with histology, and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the MR images were calculated. Additionally, two readers, who were blinded for the histological results, independently assessed the MR slices concerning the presence of intraplaque hemorrhage.Results: More than 80% of the histological proven intraplaque hemorrhage could be detected using the TFE sequence with a high interobserver agreement (Kappa ϭ 0.73). The TFE sequence proved to be superior to the TSE sequence concerning SNR and CNR, but also in the qualitative detection of intraplaque hemorrhage. The false positive TFE results contained fibrous tissue and were all located outside the main plaque area. Conclusion:The present study shows that in vivo highresolution T1w TFE MRI can identify the high-risk component intraplaque hemorrhage with a high detection rate in patients with symptomatic carotid disease. Larger clinical trials are warranted to investigate whether this technique can identify patients at risk for an ischemic attack.

BackgroundInfected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that nearly always requires intervention. Traditionally, primary open necrosectomy has been the treatment of choice. In recent years, the surgical step-up approach, consisting of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by (minimally invasive) surgical necrosectomy has become the standard of care. A promising minimally invasive alternative is the endoscopic transluminal step-up approach. This approach consists of endoscopic transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. We hypothesise that the less invasive endoscopic step-up approach is superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes.Methods/DesignThe TENSION trial is a randomised controlled, parallel-group superiority multicenter trial. Patients with (suspected) infected necrotising pancreatitis with an indication for intervention and in whom both treatment modalities are deemed possible, will be randomised to either an endoscopic transluminal or a surgical step-up approach. During a 4 year study period, 98 patients will be enrolled from 24 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. The primary endpoint is a composite of death and major complications within 6 months following randomisation. Secondary endpoints include complications such as pancreaticocutaneous fistula, exocrine or endocrine pancreatic insufficiency, need for additional radiological, endoscopic or surgical intervention, the need for necrosectomy after drainage, the number of (re-)interventions, quality of life, and total direct and indirect costs.DiscussionThe TENSION trial will answer the question whether an endoscopic step-up approach reduces the combined primary endpoint of death and major complications, as well as hospital stay and related costs compared with a surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis.