Lower rate of pancreatobiliary complications after sludge and microlithiasis pancreatitis compared to gallstone pancreatitis

5Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background and Aims: Cholecystectomy is recommended to prevent recurrence of biliary pancreatitis, but supporting evidence is limited for sludge- and microlithiasis-induced acute pancreatitis (AP). This study aimed to compare relapse patterns and risk factors between patients with sludge/microlithiasis-induced AP and gallstone-induced AP. Methods: This analysis included 789 patients from the international, multicenter Relapstone cohort (Spain: 16 centers; Mexico: 2 centers), hospitalized between January 2018 and April 2020 with first-time biliary AP and no cholecystectomy during admission. Patients with sludge/microlithiasis-induced AP (n = 274) were compared to those with gallstone-induced AP (n = 515) regarding pancreatobiliary complications. Multivariate analysis was used to assess relapse risk factors. Results: Pancreatobiliary complications occurred in 41.7 % of the gallstone cohort versus 32.1 % in the sludge/microlithiasis cohort (p = 0.01). Correspondingly, the gallstone AP cohort showed a significantly lower complication-free survival rate (log-rank p = 0.0022; median follow-up: 6.1 vs. 8.1 months). In multivariate analysis, older age in the gallstone group was significantly associated with lower relapse risk (HR = 0.54, 95 % CI: 0.39–0.74). Conclusion: This multicenter study reveals distinct differences in relapse risk between gallstone- and sludge/microlithiasis-induced AP, with gallstone AP showing a higher rate of complications in the absence of cholecystectomy.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sirtl, S., Teodorescu, B., Gilberg, L., Schäfer, A., Beyer, G., Arnau, A., … Velamazán, R. (2025). Lower rate of pancreatobiliary complications after sludge and microlithiasis pancreatitis compared to gallstone pancreatitis. Digestive and Liver Disease, 57(9), 1810–1818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2025.06.005

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free