Evidence Hub

Early versus delayed catheter drainage for patients with necrotizing pancreatitis and early persistent organ failure (TIMING): a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Lu Ke, Gang Li, Wen-Jian Mao, Gordon S. Doig, Tao Chen, Chao Li, Cheng Qu, Lan-Ting Wang et al.

Intensive Care Medicine, 2025

120 participants · 10 citations

Abstract

Acute necrotic collection (ANC) is an early, local complication of necrotizing pancreatitis, and guidelines recommend a deliberate delay in treating ANC. In patients with early persistent organ failure, such delay may be harmful. This study aimed to assess whether early intervention for ANC confers clinical benefits in this patient population. This is a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial. At 7 days after disease onset, patients with ANC and persistent organ failure were screened for: (1) organ failure lasting longer than 7 days; (2) organ failure worsening in severity; or (3) new-onset organ failure. If one or more criteria were met, they were randomized to receive either early percutaneous catheter drainage or standard care. The primary outcome was a composite of major complications and/or death during the index admission. Overall, 120 patients were randomized to early intervention (N = 63) or standard care (N = 57). There was no difference in the primary composite outcome (33.3% [21/63] versus 36.8% [21/57]; risk difference [RD] − 3.5%; 95% CI, − 20.6 to 13.6%) or the individual components, including mortality. The study groups did not differ in terms of organ failure free days to 21 days after randomization (4 days [interquartile range 0–14] versus 1 day [interquartile range 0–15]). The requirement for minimally invasive debridement and open surgery was comparable between groups. Early catheter drainage for ANCs in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 120 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free