Cutting-edge information for the management of acute pancreatitis

JPN clinical practice guidelines 2021 with easy-to-understand explanations for the management of acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

In preparing the Japanese (JPN) guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis 2021, the committee focused the issues raised by the results of nationwide epidemiological survey in 2016 in Japan METHOD: In addition to a systematic search using the previous JPN guidelines, papers published from January 2014 to September 2019 were searched for the contents to be covered by the guidelines based on the concept of GRADE system.

RESULTS

Thirty-six clinical questions (CQ) were prepared in 15 subject areas. Base on the facts that patients diagnosed with severe disease by both Japanese prognostic factor score and contrast-enhanced CT grade had a high fatality rate and that little prognosis improvement after 2 weeks of disease onset was not obtained, we emphasized the importance of Pancreatitis Bundles, which was shown to be effective in improving prognosis, and the CQ sections for local pancreatic complications had been expanded to ensure adoption of a step-up approach. Furthermore, on the facts that enteral nutrition for severe acute pancreatitis was not started early within 48 hours of admission and that unnecessary prophylactic antibiotics was used in almost all cases, we emphasized early enteral nutrition in small amounts even if gastric feeding is used and no prophylactic antibiotics in mild pancreatitis.

CONCLUSION

All the members of the committee have put a lot of effort into preparing the extensively revised guidelines in the hope that more people will have a common understanding and that better medical care will be spread.

Continuous Regional Arterial Infusion of Protease Inhibitors Has No Efficacy in the Treatment of Severe Acute Pancreatitis: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness of continuous regional arterial infusion (CRAI) of protease inhibitors in patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) including acute necrotizing pancreatitis.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted among 44 institutions in Japan from 2009 to 2013. Patients 18 years or older diagnosed with SAP according to the criteria of the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare study group (2008) were consecutively enrolled. We evaluated the association between CRAI of protease inhibitors and mortality, incidence of infection, and the need for surgical intervention using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of 1159 patients admitted, 1097 patients with all required data were included for analysis. Three hundred and seventy-four (34.1%) patients underwent CRAI of protease inhibitors and 723 (65.9%) did not. In multivariable analysis, CRAI of protease inhibitors was not associated with a reduction in mortality, infection rate, or need for surgical intervention (odds ratio [OR] 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-1.32, P = 0.36; OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.61-1.54, P = 0.89; OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.50-1.15, P = 0.19; respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous regional arterial infusion of protease inhibitors was not efficacious in the treatment of patients with SAP.

The Practice Guidelines for Primary Care of Acute Abdomen 2015

BACKGROUND

Since acute abdomen requires accurate diagnosis and treatment within a particular time limit to prevent mortality, the Japanese Society for Abdominal Emergency Medicine in collaboration with four other medical societies launched the Practice Guidelines for Primary Care of Acute Abdomen that were the first English guidelines in the world for the management of acute abdomen. Here we provide the highlights of these guidelines [all clinical questions (CQs) and recommendations are shown in supplementary information].

METHODS

A systematic and comprehensive evaluation of the evidence for epidemiology, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and primary treatment for acute abdomen was performed to develop the Practice Guidelines for Primary Care of Acute Abdomen 2015. Because many types of pathophysiological events underlie acute abdomen, these guidelines cover the primary care of adult patients with nontraumatic acute abdomen.

RESULTS

A total of 108 questions based on 9 subject areas were used to compile 113 recommendations. The subject areas included definition, epidemiology, history taking, physical examination, laboratory test, imaging studies, differential diagnosis, initial treatment, and education. Japanese medical circumstances were considered for grading the recommendations to assure useful information. The two-step methods for the initial management of acute abdomen were proposed. Early use of transfusion and analgesia, particularly intravenous acetaminophen, were recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

The Practice Guidelines for Primary Care of Acute Abdomen 2015 have been prepared as the first evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute abdomen. We hope that these guidelines contribute to clinical practice and improve the primary care and prognosis of patients with acute abdomen.

Time Trend of Outcomes for Severe Acute Pancreatitis After Publication of Japanese Guidelines Based on a National Administrative Database

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the recent time trend of outcomes for severe acute pancreatitis after publication of Japanese guidelines based on a national administrative database.

METHODS

A total of 10,400 patients with severe acute pancreatitis were referred to 1021 hospitals between 2010 and 2012 in Japan. We collected patients' data from the administrative database to compare in-hospital mortality (within 28 days and overall), length of stay (LOS), and medical costs during hospitalization. The study periods were categorized into 3 groups according to fiscal year: 2010 (n = 2698), 2011 (n = 3842), and 2012 (n = 3860).

RESULTS

In-hospital mortality within 28 days and overall in-hospital mortality were significantly decreased according to fiscal year (6.3% [2010] vs 5.7% [2011] vs 4.5% [2012], P = 0.005; 7.6% vs 7.1% vs 5.6%, P = 0.002, respectively). However, mean LOS and medical costs were not different between fiscal years (27.0 vs 27.1 vs 26.9 days, P = 0.218; 13,998.0 vs 14,156.4 vs 14,319.2 USD, P = 0.232, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that mortality of severe acute pancreatitis was reduced according to the time course, whereas LOS or medical costs were stable after publication of the Japanese guidelines.

Practice Guidelines for Primary Care of Acute Abdomen 2015

Since acute abdomen requires accurate diagnosis and treatment within a particular time limit to prevent mortality, the Japanese Society for Abdominal Emergency Medicine, in collaboration with four other medical societies, launched the Practice Guidelines for Primary Care of Acute Abdomen that were the first English guidelines in the world for the management of acute abdomen. Here we provide the highlights of these guidelines (all clinical questions and recommendations were shown in supplementary information). A systematic and comprehensive evaluation of the evidence for epidemiology, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and primary treatment for acute abdomen was performed to develop the Practice Guidelines for Primary Care of Acute Abdomen 2015. Because many types of pathophysiological events underlie acute abdomen, these guidelines cover the primary care of adult patients with nontraumatic acute abdomen. A total of 108 questions based on nine subject areas were used to compile 113 recommendations. The subject areas included definition, epidemiology, history taking, physical examination, laboratory test, imaging studies, differential diagnosis, initial treatment, and education. Japanese medical circumstances were considered for grading the recommendations to assure useful information. The two-step methods for the initial management of acute abdomen were proposed. Early use of transfusion and analgesia, particularly intravenous acetaminophen, were recommended. The Practice Guidelines for Primary Care of Acute Abdomen 2015 have been prepared as the first evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute abdomen. We hope that these guidelines contribute to clinical practice and improve the primary care and prognosis of patients with acute abdomen.

Japanese guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis: Japanese Guidelines 2015

BACKGROUND

Japanese (JPN) guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis were published in 2006. The severity assessment criteria for acute pancreatitis were later revised by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) in 2008, leading to their publication as the JPN Guidelines 2010. Following the 2012 revision of the Atlanta Classifications of Acute Pancreatitis, in which the classifications of regional complications of pancreatitis were revised, the development of a minimally invasive method for local complications of pancreatitis spread, and emerging evidence was gathered and revised into the JPN Guidelines.

METHODS

A comprehensive evaluation was carried out on the evidence for epidemiology, diagnosis, severity, treatment, post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis and clinical indicators, based on the concepts of the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). With the graded recommendations, where the evidence was unclear, Meta-Analysis team for JPN Guidelines 2015 conducted an additional new meta-analysis, the results of which were included in the guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine questions were prepared in 17 subject areas, for which 43 recommendations were made. The 17 subject areas were: Diagnosis, Diagnostic imaging, Etiology, Severity assessment, Transfer indication, Fluid therapy, Nasogastric tube, Pain control, Antibiotics prophylaxis, Protease inhibitor, Nutritional support, Intensive care, management of Biliary Pancreatitis, management of Abdominal Compartment Syndrome, Interventions for the local complications, Post-ERCP pancreatitis and Clinical Indicator (Pancreatitis Bundles 2015). Meta-analysis was conducted in the following four subject areas based on randomized controlled trials: (1) prophylactic antibiotics use; (2) prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis; (3) prophylactic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis; and (4) peritoneal lavage. Using the results of the meta-analysis, recommendations were graded to create useful information. In addition, a mobile application was developed, which made it possible to diagnose, assess severity and check pancreatitis bundles.

CONCLUSIONS

The JPN Guidelines 2015 were prepared using the most up-to-date methods, and including the latest recommended medical treatments, and we are confident that this will make them easy for many clinicians to use, and will provide a useful tool in the decision-making process for the treatment of patients, and optimal medical support. The free mobile application and calculator for the JPN Guidelines 2015 is available via http://www.jshbps.jp/en/guideline/jpn-guideline2015.html.

Guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy in patients undergoing antithrombotic treatment

Guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy in patients undergoing antithrombotic treatment have been produced by the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society in collaboration with the Japan Circulation Society, the Japanese Society of Neurology, the Japan Stroke Society, the Japanese Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis and the Japan Diabetes Society. Previous guidelines from the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society have focused primarily on prevention of hemorrhage after gastroenterological endoscopy as a result of continuation ofantithrombotic therapy, without considering the associated risk of thrombosis. The new edition of the guidelines includes discussions of gastroenterological hemorrhage associated with continuation of antithrombotic therapy, as well as thromboembolism associated with withdrawal of antithrombotic therapy.

Minimally invasive necrosectomy versus conventional surgery in the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis: a systematic review and a meta-analysis of comparative studies

AIM

The purpose of this meta-analysis and systematic review is to compare minimally invasive necrosectomy (MIN) versus open necrosectomy (ON) surgery for infected necrosis of acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

One randomized controlled trial and 3 clinical controlled trials were selected, with a total of 336 patients (215 patients who underwent MIN and 121 patients underwent ON) included after searching in the following databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, BioMed Central, Science Citation Index (from inception to August 2011), Greynet, SIGLE (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe), National Technological Information Service, British Library Integrated catalogue, and the Current Controlled Trials. Statistical analysis is performed using the odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

After the analysis of the data amenable to polling, significant advantages were found in favor of the MIN in terms of: incidence of multiple organ failure (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.39) (P < 0.0001), incisional hernias (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.90) (P = 0.03), new-onset diabetes (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.12-0.88) (P = 0.03), and for the use of pancreatic enzymes (OR, 0.005; 95% CI, 0.04-0.57) (P = 0.005). No differences were found in terms of mortality rate (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.18-1.05) (P = 0.06), multiple systemic complications (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.01-8.60) (P = 0.51), surgical reintervention for further necrosectomy (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.00-3.07) (P = 0.19), intra-abdominal bleeding (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.41-1.50) (P = 0.46), enterocutaneous fistula or perforation of visceral organs (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-1.00) (P = 0.05), pancreatic fistula (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.30-1.46) (P = 0.30), and surgical reintervention for postoperative complications (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.23-1.08) (P = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of comparative studies and high heterogeneity of the data present in the literature did not permit to draw a definitive conclusion on this topic. The results of the present meta-analysis might be helpful to design future high-powered randomized studies that compare MIN with ON for acute necrotizing pancreatitis.

Lack of consensus on the role of endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in acute biliary pancreatitis in published meta-analyses and guidelines: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Several randomized controlled trials studied the role of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) in acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP). No study assessed whether these trials resulted in international consensus in published meta-analyses and treatment guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic review, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, of meta-analyses and guidelines on ERCP in ABP was performed in PubMed until August 2011.The methodological quality of the meta-analysis and guidelines was assessed by a validated quality assessment tool.

RESULTS

Eight meta-analyses and 12 guidelines fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There is consensus that ERCP is indicated in case of ABP with coexistent cholangitis and/or persistent cholestasis. By exception of the first meta-analysis, all included studies disapproved early ERCP in predicted mild ABP. Consensus is lacking regarding the role of early ERCP in predicted severe ABP, as 3 meta-analyses and 1 guideline do not advice this strategy. Routine early ERCP in predicted severe ABP is recommended in 7 of the 11 guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

There is consensus in guidelines and meta-analyses that ERCP/ES is indicated in patients with ABP and coexisting cholangitis and/or persistent cholestasis. Consensus is lacking on the role of routine early ERCP/ES in patients with predicted severe ABP.

Survey of the management of acute pancreatitis in surgical departments in Sweden

OBJECTIVE

Several international guidelines concerning the treatment of acute pancreatitis has been published during the last decades. However, Scandinavian guidelines are still lacking. The aim of the present study is to identify current treatment strategies for acute pancreatitis in Sweden and to evaluate if there is a need for improvement and the role of guidelines.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A questionnaire was e-mailed to the surgical departments at all Swedish hospitals (n = 58) managing patients with acute pancreatitis. Comparisons were made both between university and non-university hospitals, and between hospitals with more versus less than 150,000 persons in the primary catchment population.

RESULTS

Fifty-one hospitals responded (88%). In median, 65 (12-200) patients with acute pancreatitis are treated yearly at each hospital. Of 51 hospitals, 18 perform a severity classification, with APACHE II being the most commonly used. A majority are of the opinion that a scoring system is not better than the judgment of a senior consultant. In severe acute pancreatitis, 29/48 routinely administer antibiotics, 29/48 use enteral nutrition, and 25/49 have a standardized follow-up plan. The majority considered administration of intravenous fluids as the most important treatment in severe acute pancreatitis. After mild gallstone-induced acute pancreatitis, the corresponding response was cholecystectomy, especially at larger hospitals (p = 0.002). Of 47, 42 are interested in developing a Scandinavian quality register.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this first Swedish national survey provide an insight into current traditions of treatment of acute pancreatitis and points, for example, at the lack of early severity stratification. A majority of hospitals are interested in developing a quality register in acute pancreatitis.

SIRS score reflects clinical features of non-acetaminophen-related acute liver failure with hepatic coma

OBJECTIVE

In acetaminophen-induced acute liver failure (ALF), the hepatic coma grade worsens and mortality rates increase, as the number of systemic inflammatory response syndrome components fulfilled (SIRS score) increases. This study aimed to investigate the impact of SIRS score on clinical features of non-acetaminophen-related ALF.

METHODS

Ninety-nine patients with non-acetaminophen-related ALF with hepatic coma who did not undergo liver transplantation were investigated. Each patient was given a SIRS score of 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 at the time of diagnosis.

RESULTS

At the diagnosis of ALF with hepatic coma, with the increase of SIRS score, hepatic coma grade and prothrombin activity were deteriorated. After the diagnosis of ALF with hepatic coma, 25 patients (25%) developed acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), 31 patients (31%) developed disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), and 21 patients (22%) developed acute renal failure (ARF). Thirty-eight patients (38%) developed MOF. With the increase of SIRS score, frequencies of the development of ARDS, DIC and MOF increased. ARF was more frequently developed in patients with a SIRS score of 2 or higher. Overall, 36 patients (36%) survived. Overall survival rate was 66% in 29 patients with a score of 0, 43% in 21 patients with a score of 1, 17% in 29 patients with a score of 2 and 15% in 20 patients with a score of 3 or 4.

CONCLUSION

SIRS score will be useful for predicting not only the overall survival but also the development of complications such as ARDS, DIC and MOF in non-acetaminophen-related ALF with hepatic coma.

Post-ERCP pancreatitis

Pancreatitis remains the most common severe complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Detailed information about the findings of previous studies concerning post-ERCP pancreatitis has not been utilized sufficiently. The purpose of the present article was to present guidelines for the diagnostic criteria of post-ERCP pancreatitis, and its incidence, risk factors, and prophylactic procedures that are supported by evidence. To achieve this purpose, a critical examination was made of the articles on post-ERCP pancreatitis, based on the data obtained by research studies published up to 2009. At present, there are no standardized diagnostic criteria for post-ERCP pancreatitis. It is appropriate that post-ERCP pancreatitis is defined as acute pancreatitis that has developed following ERCP, and its diagnosis and severity assessment should be made according to the diagnostic criteria and severity assessment of the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The incidence of acute pancreatitis associated with diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP is 0.4-1.5 and 1.6-5.4%, respectively. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation is associated with a high risk of acute pancreatitis compared with endoscopic sphincterotomy. It was made clear that important risk factors include dysfunction of the Oddi sphincter, being of the female sex, past history of post-ERCP pancreatitis, and performance of pancreaticography. Temporary prophylactic placement of pancreatic stents in the high-risk group is useful for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis [odds ratio (OR) 3.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6-6.4, number needed to treat (NNT) 10]. Use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is associated with a reduction in the development of post-ERCP pancreatitis (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.32-0.65). Single rectal administration of NSAIDs is useful for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis [relative risk (RR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.22-0.60, NNT 15] and decreases the development of pancreatitis in both the low-risk group (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12-0.71) and the high-risk group (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23-0.72) of post-ERCP pancreatitis. As for somatostatin, a bolus injection may be most useful compared with short- or long-term infusion (OR 0.271, 95% CI 0.138-0.536, risk difference 8.2%, 95% CI 4.4-12.0%). The usefulness of gabexate mesilate was not apparent in any of the following conditions: acute pancreatitis (control 5.7 vs. 4.8% for gabexate mesilate), hyperamylasemia (40.6 vs. 36.9%), and abdominal pain (1.7 vs. 8.9%). Formulation of diagnostic criteria for post-ERCP pancreatitis is needed. Temporary prophylactic placement of pancreatic stents in the high-risk group offers the most promise as a means of preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis. As for pharmacological attempts, there are high expectations concerning NSAIDs because they are excellent in terms of cost-effectiveness, ease of use, and safety. There was no evidence of effective prophylaxis with the use of protease inhibitors, especially gabexate mesilate.