PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12207856

Pancreatic Pseudocysts.

Abstract

Pseudocysts complicate acute pancreatitis in less than 5% of cases and chronic pancreatitis in 20% to 40% of cases. A pseudocyst is a localized collection of pancreatic fluid surrounded by a wall of granulation tissue and collagen. It takes 4 to 6 weeks for a fluid collection to mature and become a true pseudocyst. Unlike other cystic lesions of the pancreas from which they should be differentiated, pseudocysts lack an epithelial layer. Patients with pseudocysts present with a range of symptoms and signs. Pseudocysts are imaged using transabdominal ultrasound, CT, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and MRI. EUS confers an advantage over other imaging modalities in that certain EUS features are suggestive of pseudocysts over other cystic lesions. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS has improved further with the use of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Therapeutic options include watchful observation or intervention. In our opinion, if acute pseudocysts are uncomplicated, asymptomatic, and do not appear to be enlarging on serial imaging, it is preferable to withhold intervention because many of these cysts resolve spontaneously. However, one needs to beware of the possibility of complications such as infection in unresolved pseudocysts. Pseudocysts associated with chronic pancreatitis are less likely to resolve spontaneously and are drained by intervention more frequently. Of the three interventional options, namely endoscopic, percutaneous, and surgical drainage, endoscopic drainage should be the treatment of choice if certain criteria are met. Preinterventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is mandatory to define ductal anatomy. If there is communication between the pseudocyst and the pancreatic duct, a transpapillary approach is preferred. Use of EUS should increase the number of cases in which pseudocysts can be drained endoscopically. Surgery should be reserved for cases in which there is a concern about malignancy or when there is glandular disruption.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Michael F. Byrne, Robert M. Mitchell, John Baillie. 2002. Pancreatic Pseudocysts.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11938-002-0021-2

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗