Immediate vs. On-demand Endoscopy Necrosectomy in Infected Walled-off Pancreatic Necrosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial
:Author(s)
Mehdi Mohamadnejad, MD FASGE, Morteza Hassanzadeh, MD, Amir Anushirvani, MD, Majid Sorouri, MD, Nasir Fakhar, MD, Amir Reza Radmard, MD, Samaneh Mirzaei, MSc, Amir Kasaeian, PhD, Atie Moghtadaie, MD, Reza Malekzadeh, MD AGAF, Mohammad Al-Haddad, MD AGAF FASGE
:Abstract
Background & Aims
Endoscopic drainage is established treatment for infected walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON). However, the optimal timing of necrosectomy remains controversial, with limited tier 1 evidence comparing immediate vs on-demand necrosectomy strategies. This study compares the efficacy and safety of immediate vs on-demand endoscopic necrosectomy in patients with infected WON undergoing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage.
Methods
This is a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled superiority trial. Patients presenting with infected pancreatic necrosis were randomly assigned (1:1) to immediate necrosectomy or on-demand necrosectomy after initial EUS-guided drainage. Clinical success was defined as a reduction in the collection diameter to less than 3 cm, accompanied by complete resolution of the WON-related symptoms. The primary outcome was the number of reinterventions to achieve clinical success. The secondary outcomes were procedure-related adverse events, length of hospital stay, necrosectomy procedure duration, and mortality.
Results
Between September 2022 and December 2024, we screened 84 patients, of whom 50 patients were randomly assigned to immediate necrosectomy (n = 25) or on-demand necrosectomy (n = 25). Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Clinical success was achieved in 23 (92%) of the immediate and 22 (88%) of the on-demand necrosectomy patients (P = .5). The median number of reinterventions was 1 (interquartile range [IQR], 0–2) in both groups (difference, −0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.42 to 0.1; P = .5). The median number of necrosectomy sessions, including the index procedure was 2 (IQR, 1–3) in the immediate necrosectomy, compared with 1 (IQR, 0–2) in the on-demand group (difference: −0.44; 95% CI, −0.63 to −0.25; P ≤ .01). Forty-four percent of the on-demand group resolved WON without necrosectomy. Procedure-related adverse events were 10 (40%) vs 6 (24%) in the immediate and on-demand groups, respectively (relative risk, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.7–3.9; P = .2). Moderate to severe adverse events occurred in 4 (16%) in the immediate necrosectomy as compared with none in the on-demand necrosectomy group (relative risk, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.7–0.99; P = .1). Major bleeding occurred in 2 (8%) of the immediate but in none of the on-demand group. Hospital stay (median, 14 vs 8 days; P = .8) and mortality (8% vs 12%; P = .5) were similar between the 2 groups.
Conclusions
In patients with infected walled-off pancreatic necrosis, immediate necrosectomy was not superior to on-demand necrosectomy. However, the on-demand strategy was associated with fewer necrosectomy sessions and fewer adverse events.
:Keywords
Walled-off pancreatic necrosis; Endoscopic necrosectomy; Acute pancreatitis; Randomized controlled trial; Interventional endoscopy.
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2026.02.014
Available online 19 February 2026
ارسال نظر