A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ciprofloxacin prophylaxis in patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis

Early versus delayed necrosectomy in pancreatic necrosis: A population-based cohort study on readmission, healthcare utilization, and in-hospital mortality

BACKGROUND

Acute necrotizing pancreatitis is a severe and life-threatening condition. It poses a considerable challenge for clinicians due to its complex nature and the high risk of complications. Several minimally invasive and open necrosectomy procedures have been developed. Despite advancements in treatment modalities, the optimal timing to perform necrosectomy lacks consensus.

AIM

To evaluate the impact of necrosectomy timing on patients with pancreatic necrosis in the United States.

METHODS

A national retrospective cohort study was conducted using the 2016-2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Patients with non-elective admissions for pancreatic necrosis were identified. The participants were divided into two groups based on the necrosectomy timing: The early group received intervention within 48 hours, whereas the delayed group underwent the procedure after 48 hours. The various intervention techniques included endoscopic, percutaneous, or surgical necrosectomy. The major outcomes of interest were 30-day readmission rates, healthcare utilization, and inpatient mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 1309 patients with pancreatic necrosis were included. After propensity score matching, 349 cases treated with early necrosectomy were matched to 375 controls who received delayed intervention. The early cohort had a 30-day readmission rate of 8.6% compared to 4.8% in the delayed cohort (P = 0.040). Early necrosectomy had lower rates of mechanical ventilation (2.9% vs 10.9%, P < 0.001), septic shock (8% vs 19.5%, P < 0.001), and in-hospital mortality (1.1% vs 4.3%, P = 0.01). Patients in the early intervention group incurred lower healthcare costs, with median total charges of $52202 compared to $147418 in the delayed group. Participants in the early cohort also had a relatively shorter median length of stay (6 vs 16 days, P < 0.001). The timing of necrosectomy did not significantly influence the risk of 30-day readmission, with a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% confidence interval: 0.31-1.02, P = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

Our findings show that early necrosectomy is associated with better clinical outcomes and lower healthcare costs. Delayed intervention does not significantly alter the risk of 30-day readmission.

Epidemiology, treatment and outcomes of infected pancreatic necrosis in France: a bicenter study

INTRODUCTION

Acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) mortality increases when pancreatic necrosis is infected (IPN). Current treatment of IPN relies on prolonged antibiotic therapies associated with a step-up strategy of drainage. The objective of this study was to analyze IPN treatment outcomes in two referral centers in France.

METHODS

Data of consecutive patients with documented IPN hospitalized in two expert centers in France between 2014 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. The composite primary outcome was the proportion of unsuccessful management outcome, defined as new emergency drainage to treat sepsis with organ failure, an unplanned new antibiotic course, an unplanned prolongation of antibiotic course and/or death by septic shock, within three months following the diagnosis of ANP.

RESULTS

All in all, 187 patients (138 males; 74.0%), with documented IPN were included. The most frequently identified microorganism was Escherichia coli (26.2%). Ninety-eight patients (52.4%) were admitted to an intensive care unit or resuscitation ward within the first two days of ANP care. Overall, 126 patients (67.4%) endured an unsuccessful outcome: new emergency drainage to treat acute sepsis (62.0%), unplanned new antibiotic course (47.1%), unplanned prolongation of antibiotic course (44.9%) and/or death by septic shock complicating IPN (8.0%).

CONCLUSION

The unfavorable evolution in two thirds of patients shows that determination of optimal drainage timing and choice of antibiotic therapy remain major challenges in 2024.

Contemporary management of acute pancreatitis: What you need to know

ABSTRACT

Acute pancreatitis and management of its complications is a common consult for the acute care surgeon. With the ongoing development of both operative and endoscopic treatment modalities, management recommendations continue to evolve. We describe the current diagnostic and treatment guidelines for acute pancreatitis through the lens of acute care surgery. Topics, including optimal nutrition, timing of cholecystectomy in gallstone pancreatitis, and the management of peripancreatic fluid collections, are discussed. Although the management severe acute pancreatitis can include advanced interventional modalities including endoscopic, percutaneous, and surgical debridement, the initial management of acute pancreatitis includes fluid resuscitation, early enteral nutrition, and close monitoring with consideration of cross-sectional imaging and antibiotics in the setting of suspected superimposed infection. Several scoring systems including the Revised Atlanta Criteria, the Bedside Index for Severity in Acute Pancreatitis score, and the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grade have been devised to classify and predict the development of the severe acute pancreatitis. In biliary pancreatitis, cholecystectomy prior to discharge is recommended in mild disease and within 8 weeks of necrotizing pancreatitis, while early peripancreatic fluid collections should be managed without intervention. Underlying infection or ongoing symptoms warrant delayed intervention with technique selection dependent on local expertise, anatomic location of the fluid collection, and the specific clinical scenario. Landmark trials have shifted therapy from maximally invasive necrosectomy to more minimally invasive step-up approaches. The acute care surgeon should maintain a skill set that includes these minimally invasive techniques to successfully manage these patients. Overall, the management of acute pancreatitis for the acute care surgeon requires a strong understanding of both the clinical decisions and the options for intervention should this be necessary.

The Interaction of Microbiome and Pancreas in Acute Pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common acute abdomen disease characterized by the pathological activation of digestive enzymes and the self-digestion of pancreatic acinar cells. Secondary infection and sepsis are independent prognosticators for AP progression and increased mortality. Accumulating anatomical and epidemiological evidence suggests that the dysbiosis of gut microbiota affects the etiology and severity of AP through intestinal barrier disruption, local or systemic inflammatory response, bacterial translocation, and the regulatory role of microbial metabolites in AP patients and animal models. Recent studies discussing the interactions between gut microbiota and the pancreas have opened new scopes for AP, and new therapeutic interventions that target the bacteria community have received substantial attention. This review concentrates on the alterations of gut microbiota and its roles in modulating gut-pancreas axis in AP. The potential therapies of targeting microbes as well as the major challenges of applying those interventions are explored. We expect to understand the roles of microbes in AP diagnosis and treatment.

The Effect of Prophylactic Carbapenem Use on Outcomes in Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

This study aimed to determine the effect of prophylactic use of carbapenems for acute pancreatitis on clinical outcomes.

Materials and Methods

It was conducted according to the preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines by using the keywords "Pancrea * AND carbapenem OR imipenem OR ertapenem OR meropenem OR doripenem." Primer outcomes were mortality, surgical intervention, and pancreatic and non-pancreatic infection. Subgroup analyses were also performed to reduce the risk of bias.

Results

Ten studies with 4038 patients were included in the meta-analyses. While eight of ten were randomized controlled trials, two were observational studies. The prophylactic use of carbapenems had no statistically significant effect on mortality (OR=0.82, 95% CI=0.65-1.04, I²=0%) and surgical intervention. (OR=0.81, 95% CI=0.57-1.17, I²=0%). However, the real impact of prophylaxis on reducing the incidence of mortality and surgical intervention was uncertain due to the insufficient sample size. The prophylactic use of carbapenems was significantly associated with a lower risk of peripancreatic (OR=0.37, 95% CI=0.25-0.55, I²=61%) and non-pancreatic infection risk (OR=0.60, 95% CI=0.46-0.78, I²=65%). The definitions of infection in the articles were not clear, and the diagnostic approach to infection was based on subjective criteria. In addition, there was inadequate collateral damage and safety assessments. In high-quality studies with a low risk of bias, prophylactic carbapenems had no effect on peripancreatic infection (RR=1.54, 95% CI=0.65-3.47, I²=0%) and non-pancreatic infection (RR=0.72, 95% CI=0.48-1.07, I²=0%).

Conclusion

Although there is a reduction in the infection risk, routine carbapenem use in acute pancreatitis cases should not be recommended based on current evidence. Cooperation with Infectious Disease specialists and developing diagnostic algorithms are required instead of routine prophylaxis to prevent infection, especially non-pancreatic infection.

Antibiotic Utilization in Acute Pancreatitis: A Narrative Review

Acute pancreatitis is a complex inflammatory disease with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite advances in its management, the role of antibiotics in the prophylaxis and treatment of acute pancreatitis remains controversial. The aim of this comprehensive review is to analyze current evidence on the use of antibiotics in acute pancreatitis, focusing on prophylactic and therapeutic strategies. Prophylactic use aims to prevent local and systemic infections. However, recent studies have questioned the routine use of antibiotics for prophylaxis and highlighted the potential risks of antibiotic resistance and adverse effects. In selected high-risk cases, such as infected necrotizing pancreatitis, prophylactic antibiotic therapy may still be beneficial. As for therapeutic use, antibiotics are usually used to treat infected pancreatic necrosis and extrapancreatic infections. When selecting an antibiotic, the microbiologic profile and local resistance patterns should be considered. Combination therapy with broad-spectrum antibiotics is often recommended to cover both Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens. Recent research has highlighted the importance of individualized approaches to antibiotic use in acute pancreatitis and underscored the need for a tailored approach based on patient-specific factors. This review also highlights the potential role of new antimicrobial agents and alternative strategies, such as probiotics, in the management of acute pancreatitis.

Current trends in acute pancreatitis: Diagnostic and therapeutic challenges

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is an inflammatory disease of the pancreas, which can progress to severe AP, with a high risk of death. It is one of the most complicated and clinically challenging of all disorders affecting the abdomen. The main causes of AP are gallstone migration and alcohol abuse. Other causes are uncommon, controversial and insufficiently explained. The disease is primarily characterized by inappropriate activation of trypsinogen, infiltration of inflammatory cells, and destruction of secretory cells. According to the revised Atlanta classification, severity of the disease is categorized into three levels: Mild, moderately severe and severe, depending upon organ failure and local as well as systemic complications. Various methods have been used for predicting the severity of AP and its outcome, such as clinical evaluation, imaging evaluation and testing of various biochemical markers. However, AP is a very complex disease and despite the fact that there are of several clinical, biochemical and imaging criteria for assessment of severity of AP, it is not an easy task to predict its subsequent course. Therefore, there are existing controversies regarding diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, their effectiveness and complications in the treatment of AP. The main reason being the fact, that the pathophysiologic mechanisms of AP have not been fully elucidated and need to be studied further. In this editorial article, we discuss the efficacy of the existing diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, complications and treatment failure in the management of AP.

Revised Clinical Practice Guidelines of the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association for Acute Pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis can range from a mild, self-limiting disease requiring no more than supportive care, to severe disease with life-threatening complications. With the goal of providing a recommendation framework for clinicians to manage acute pancreatitis, and to contribute to improvements in national health care, the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association (KPBA) established the Korean guidelines for acute pancreatitis management in 2013. However, many challenging issues exist which often lead to differences in clinical practices. In addition, with newly obtained evidence regarding acute pancreatitis, there have been great changes in recent knowledge and information regarding this disorder. Therefore, the KPBA committee underwent an extensive revision of the guidelines. The revised guidelines were developed using the Delphi method, and the main topics of the guidelines include the following: diagnosis, severity assessment, initial treatment, nutritional support, convalescent treatment, and the treatment of local complications and necrotizing pancreatitis. Specific recommendations are presented, along with the evidence levels and recommendation grades.

Systematic Review with Trial Sequential Analysis of Prophylactic Antibiotics for Acute Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Prophylactic antibiotics (PAB) are being still widely used for treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP) despite trials showing no firm evidence of efficacy. We aimed to evaluate effects of PAB for AP in a meta-analysis and the need for further research by trial sequential analysis (TSA).

METHODS

Medline, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for randomized clinical trials. Primary outcomes were all infections and mortality. Secondary outcomes comprised infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN), specific infections, organ failure, surgical interventions, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Twenty-one trials with 1383 pts were included. PAB were received by 703 pts, while 680 were controls. Mortality was similar with RR 0.85 (95% CI 0.66-1.10). Infections were significantly reduced (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.49-0.74), mainly due to decreased risk of sepsis (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.25-0.73) and urinary tract infections (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.25-0.86). No significant reduction for IPN was shown (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.63-1.04). Length of hospital stay was diminished by MD -6.65 (95% CI -8.86 to -4.43) days. TSA for all infections showed that the cumulative Z score crossed both conventional and monitoring boundaries at 526 pts from a heterogeneity-corrected required information size of 1113 pts based on a 40% incidence of infections in the control group, RRR of 30%, alpha 5%, beta 20%, and heterogeneity 56%.

CONCLUSIONS

PABs decrease the rate of infections in AP, mainly due to RRR of extra-pancreatic infections, requiring no further research. No significant effect is shown on IPN and mortality, although firmer evidence is needed.

Case Report: Brentuximab Vedotin Associated Acute Pancreatitis in a Pediatric Hodgkin Lymphoma Patient: Case Report and Literature Review

Brentuximab vedotin is a conjugate drug used mainly in Hodgkin lymphoma, systemic and primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphomas, and CD30-expressing peripheral T-cell lymphoma. We report a unique case of acute pancreatitis associated with brentuximab vedotin in a 17-year-old male patient suffering from classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Diagnosed in 2020, the patient was classified to an intermediate therapeutic group and disease’s grade was IIIAE. The patient was treated with brentuximab vedotin and bendamustine in the third line. Two weeks after the drug administration, the patient developed acute epigastric pain. Laboratory and radiological findings confirmed the clinical suspicion of acute pancreatitis that was managed with opioid pain medications, meropenem, parenteral nutrition, ondansetron and omeprazole. This is the first case report of brentuximab vedotin-associated acute pancreatitis in the pediatric patient reported in the literature to the best of our knowledge.

Guidelines for the management of patients with severe acute pancreatitis, 2021

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidelines for the management of the intensive care patient with severe acute pancreatitis.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 22 experts was convened. A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the beginning of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guideline construction process was conducted independently of any industrial funding (i.e. pharmaceutical, medical devices). The authors were required to follow the rules of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasised.

METHODS

The most recent SFAR and SNFGE guidelines on the management of the patient with severe pancreatitis were published in 2001. The literature now is sufficient for an update. The committee studied 14 questions within 3 fields. Each question was formulated in a PICO (Patients Intervention Comparison Outcome) format and the relevant evidence profiles were produced. The literature review and recommendations were made according to the GRADE® methodology.

RESULTS

The experts' synthesis work and their application of the GRADE® method resulted in 24 recommendations. Among the formalised recommendations, 8 have high levels of evidence (GRADE 1+/-) and 12 have moderate levels of evidence (GRADE 2+/-). For 4 recommendations, the GRADE method could not be applied, resulting in expert opinions. Four questions did not find any response in the literature. After one round of scoring, strong agreement was reached for all the recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

There was strong agreement among experts for 24 recommendations to improve practices for the management of intensive care patients with severe acute pancreatitis.

Multidisciplinary Management of Complicated Pancreatitis: What Every Interventional Radiologist Should Know

Management of acute pancreatitis is challenging in the presence of local complications that include pancreatic and peripancreatic collections and vascular complications. This review, targeted for interventional radiologists, describes minimally invasive endoscopic, image-guided percutaneous, and surgical procedures for management of complicated pancreatitis and provides insight into the procedures' algorithmic application. Local complications are optimally managed in a multidisciplinary team setting that includes advanced endoscopists; pancreatic surgeons; diagnostic and interventional radiologists; and specialists in infectious disease, nutrition, and critical care medicine. Large symptomatic or complicated sterile collections and secondary infected collections warrant drainage or débridement. The drainage is usually delayed for 4-6 weeks unless clinical deterioration warrants early intervention. If collections are accessible by endoscopy, endoscopic procedures are preferred to avoid pancreaticocutaneous fistulas. Image-guided percutaneous drainage is indicated for symptomatic collections that are not accessible for endoscopic drainage or that present in the acute setting before developing a mature wall. Peripancreatic arterial pseudoaneurysms should be embolized before necrosectomy procedures to prevent potentially life-threatening hemorrhage. Surgical procedures are reserved for symptomatic collections that persist despite endoscopic or interventional drainage attempts. Understanding these procedures facilitates their integration by interventional radiologists into the complex longitudinal care of patients with complicated pancreatitis.

Occurrence and Risk Factors of Infected Pancreatic Necrosis in Intensive Care Unit-Treated Patients with Necrotizing Severe Acute Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

In patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP), infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) is associated with a worsened outcome. We studied risk factors and consequences of IPN in patients with necrotizing SAP.

METHODS

The study consisted of a retrospective cohort of 163 consecutive patients treated for necrotizing SAP at a university hospital intensive care unit (ICU) between 2010 and 2018.

RESULTS

All patients had experienced at least one persistent organ failure and approximately 60% had multiple organ failure within the first 24 h from admission to the ICU. Forty-seven (28.8%) patients had IPN within 90 days. Independent risk factors for IPN were more extensive anatomical spread of necrotic collections (unilateral paracolic or retromesenteric (OR 5.7, 95% CI 1.5-21.1) and widespread (OR 21.8, 95% CI 6.1-77.8)) compared to local collections around the pancreas, postinterventional pancreatitis (OR 13.5, 95% CI 2.4-76.5), preceding bacteremia (OR 4.8, 95% CI 1.3-17.6), and preceding open abdomen treatment for abdominal compartment syndrome (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.4-9.3). Patients with IPN had longer ICU and overall hospital lengths of stay, higher risk for necrosectomy, and higher readmission rate to ICU.

CONCLUSIONS

Wide anatomical spread of necrotic collections, postinterventional etiology, preceding bacteremia, and preceding open abdomen treatment were identified as independent risk factors for IPN.

Experimental Acute Pancreatitis Models: History, Current Status, and Role in Translational Research

Acute pancreatitis is a potentially severe inflammatory disease that may be associated with a substantial morbidity and mortality. Currently there is no specific treatment for the disease, which indicates an ongoing demand for research into its pathogenesis and development of new therapeutic strategies. Due to the unpredictable course of acute pancreatitis and relatively concealed anatomical site in the retro-peritoneum, research on the human pancreas remains challenging. As a result, for over the last 100 years studies on the pathogenesis of this disease have heavily relied on animal models. This review aims to summarize different animal models of acute pancreatitis from the past to present and discuss their main characteristics and applications. It identifies key studies that have enhanced our current understanding of the pathogenesis of acute pancreatitis and highlights the instrumental role of animal models in translational research for developing novel therapies.

Effects of Prophylactic Antibiotics on Length of Stay and Total Costs for Pediatric Acute Pancreatitis: A Nationwide Database Study in Japan

OBJECTIVES

Acute pancreatitis (AP) guidelines for adult patients do not recommend routine prophylactic use of antibiotics because of no clinical merit on mortality, infectious complications, or length of stay. Although the mortality of pediatric AP is low, no studies have explored the rationale for antibiotic use in pediatric patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of early prophylactic antibiotics on length of stay and total costs in pediatric patients.

METHODS

Using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database from 2010 to 2017, we used the stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting method using propensity scores to balance the background characteristics in the antibiotics group and the control group, and compared length of stay and total costs between the groups.

RESULTS

We found significant differences between the antibiotics group (n = 652) and the control group (n = 467) in length of stay (11 days vs 9 days; percent difference, 15.4%; 95% confidence interval, 5.0%-26.8%) and total costs (US $4085 vs US $3648; percent difference, 19.8%; 95% confidence interval, 8.0%-32.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic antibiotics were associated with longer length of stay and higher total costs. Our results do not support routine use of prophylactic antibiotics in pediatric AP populations.

Assessment of prophylactic antibiotics administration for acute pancreatitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence has shown that prophylactic antibiotic treatment in patients with acute pancreatitis is not associated with a significant decrease in mortality or morbidity. The use and efficacy of prophylactic antibiotic treatment in acute pancreatitis remain controversial. This meta-analysis was conducted to assess whether antibiotic prophylaxis is beneficial in patients with acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of prophylactic use of antibiotics using Medline (PubMed), Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3 software. We performed pooled analyses for infected pancreatic necrosis, mortality, surgical intervention, and non-pancreatic infection. Odds ratios (ORs) from each trial were pooled using a random or fixed effects model, depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies. Sub-group analysis or sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore potential sources of heterogeneity, when necessary.

RESULTS

Totally, 11 RCTs involving 747 participants were included, with an intervention group (prophylactic use of antibiotics, n = 376) and control group (n = 371). No significant differences were found regarding antibiotic prophylaxis with respect to incidence of infected pancreatic necrosis (OR, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-1.09; P = 0.13), surgical intervention (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.62-1.38; P = 0.70), and morality (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.44-1.15; P = 0.16). However, antibiotic prophylaxis was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of non-pancreatic infection (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.42-0.84; P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic antibiotics can reduce the incidence of non-pancreatic infection in patients with AP.

American Gastroenterological Association Clinical Practice Update: Management of Pancreatic Necrosis

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update is to review the available evidence and expert recommendations regarding the clinical care of patients with pancreatic necrosis and to offer concise best practice advice for the optimal management of patients with this highly morbid condition.

METHODS

This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. This review is framed around the 15 best practice advice points agreed upon by the authors, which reflect landmark and recent published articles in this field. This expert review also reflects the experiences of the authors, who are advanced endoscopists or hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons with extensive experience in managing and teaching others to care for patients with pancreatic necrosis. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Pancreatic necrosis is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality and optimal management requires a multidisciplinary approach, including gastroenterologists, surgeons, interventional radiologists, and specialists in critical care medicine, infectious disease, and nutrition. In situations where clinical expertise may be limited, consideration should be given to transferring patients with significant pancreatic necrosis to an appropriate tertiary-care center. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Antimicrobial therapy is best indicated for culture-proven infection in pancreatic necrosis or when infection is strongly suspected (ie, gas in the collection, bacteremia, sepsis, or clinical deterioration). Routine use of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent infection of sterile necrosis is not recommended. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: When infected necrosis is suspected, broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics with ability to penetrate pancreatic necrosis should be favored (eg, carbapenems, quinolones, and metronidazole). Routine use of antifungal agents is not recommended. Computed tomography-guided fine-needle aspiration for Gram stain and cultures is unnecessary in the majority of cases. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: In patients with pancreatic necrosis, enteral feeding should be initiated early to decrease the risk of infected necrosis. A trial of oral nutrition is recommended immediately in patients in whom there is absence of nausea and vomiting and no signs of severe ileus or gastrointestinal luminal obstruction. When oral nutrition is not feasible, enteral nutrition by either nasogastric/duodenal or nasojejunal tube should be initiated as soon as possible. Total parenteral nutrition should be considered only in cases where oral or enteral feeds are not feasible or tolerated. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Drainage and/or debridement of pancreatic necrosis is indicated in patients with infected necrosis. Drainage and/or debridement may be required in patients with sterile pancreatic necrosis and persistent unwellness marked by abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and nutritional failure or with associated complications, including gastrointestinal luminal obstruction; biliary obstruction; recurrent acute pancreatitis; fistulas; or persistent systemic inflammatory response syndrome. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Pancreatic debridement should be avoided in the early, acute period (first 2 weeks), as it has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Debridement should be optimally delayed for 4 weeks and performed earlier only when there is an organized collection and a strong indication. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Percutaneous drainage and transmural endoscopic drainage are both appropriate first-line, nonsurgical approaches in managing patients with walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON). Endoscopic therapy through transmural drainage of WON may be preferred, as it avoids the risk of forming a pancreatocutaneous fistula. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Percutaneous drainage of pancreatic necrosis should be considered in patients with infected or symptomatic necrotic collections in the early, acute period (<2 weeks), and in those with WON who are too ill to undergo endoscopic or surgical intervention. Percutaneous drainage should be strongly considered as an adjunct to endoscopic drainage for WON with deep extension into the paracolic gutters and pelvis or for salvage therapy after endoscopic or surgical debridement with residual necrosis burden. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Self-expanding metal stents in the form of lumen-apposing metal stents appear to be superior to plastic stents for endoscopic transmural drainage of necrosis. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: The use of direct endoscopic necrosectomy should be reserved for those patients with limited necrosis who do not adequately respond to endoscopic transmural drainage using large-bore, self-expanding metal stents/lumen-apposing metal stents alone or plastic stents combined with irrigation. Direct endoscopic necrosectomy is a therapeutic option in patients with large amounts of infected necrosis, but should be performed at referral centers with the necessary endoscopic expertise and interventional radiology and surgical backup. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Minimally invasive operative approaches to the debridement of acute necrotizing pancreatitis are preferred to open surgical necrosectomy when possible, given lower morbidity. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Multiple minimally invasive surgical techniques are feasible and effective, including videoscopic-assisted retroperitoneal debridement, laparoscopic transgastric debridement, and open transgastric debridement. Selection of approach is best determined by pattern of disease, physiology of the patient, experience and expertise of the multidisciplinary team, and available resources. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: Open operative debridement maintains a role in the modern management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis in cases not amenable to less invasive endoscopic and/or surgical procedures. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: For patients with disconnected left pancreatic remnant after acute necrotizing mid-body necrosis, definitive surgical management with distal pancreatectomy should be undertaken in patients with reasonable operative candidacy. Insufficient evidence exists to support the management of the disconnected left pancreatic remnant with long-term transenteric endoscopic stenting. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 15: A step-up approach consisting of percutaneous drainage or endoscopic transmural drainage using either plastic stents and irrigation or self-expanding metal stents/lumen-apposing metal stents alone, followed by direct endoscopic necrosectomy, and then surgical debridement is reasonable, although approaches may vary based on the available clinical expertise.

Effect of clinical pharmacist intervention on the treatment of acute pancreatitis

Background The participation of clinical pharmacists in the treatment of acute pancreatitis has rarely been reported. Objective The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the impact of intervention of clinical pharmacists on the treatment of acute pancreatitis. Setting An academic teaching hospital in Taizhou, Jiangsu, China. Method Two hundred and twenty-eight patients with acute pancreatitis were retrospectively enrolled from July 2017 to July 2018 and divided into an intervention group (n = 119) and a control group (n = 109) according to whether a clinical pharmacist was involved. No significant differences in the baseline clinical characteristics were found between the groups. Clinical pharmacists participated in drug formulation and adjustment, pharmaceutical care, and follow-up. Main outcome measure Clinical outcomes, average hospital stays, costs, incidence of adverse drug reactions, 1-month subsequent visit rate, and patient satisfaction between the two groups were measured. Results The clinical symptoms of patients in both groups were relieved after treatment. There were no significant differences between the groups in computed tomography grades after treatment, incidence of adverse drug reactions, or average hospital stays. However, the intervention group had lower total costs of hospitalization, drugs and antibiotics but higher rates of 1-month subsequent visits and satisfaction compared with the control group. Conclusion The intervention of clinical pharmacists in the treatment of acute pancreatitis can effectively reduce costs of hospitalization, drug and antibiotics and improve follow-up compliance and patient satisfaction.

Noninfectious causes of fever in adults

Fever is a common clinical sign encountered in hospitalized patients and often represents the cardinal sign of infectious processes. However, a number of noninfectious etiologies causing fever should be considered prior to initiating broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy. Reducing unnecessary antibiotic use is crucial in an era of increasing resistance.

Current status of diagnosis and Mesenchymal stem cells therapy for acute pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is an acute gastrointestinal disorder that is the most common and requiring emergency hospitalization. Its incidence is increasing worldwide, thus increasing the burden of medical services. Approximately 20% of the patients develop moderate to severe necrotizing pancreatitis associated with pancreatic or peri-pancreatic tissue necrosis and multiple organ failure. There are many reports about the anti-inflammatory effect of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) on pancreatitis and the repair of tissue damage. MSCs cells come from a wide range of sources, autologous MSCs come from bone marrow and allogeneic MSCs such as umbilical cord blood MSCs, placenta-derived MSCs, etc. The wide source is not only an advantage of MSCs but also a disadvantage of MSCs. Because of different cell sources and different methods of collection and preparation, it is impossible to establish a unified standard method for evaluation of efficacy. The biggest advantage of iMSCs is that it can be prepared by a standardized process, and can be prepared on a large scale, which makes it easier to commercialize. This paper reviews the present status of diagnosis and progress of MSCs therapy for AP.

Prevention of Infectious Complications in Acute Pancreatitis: Results of a Single-Center, Randomized, Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the efficiency of imipenem to prevent infectious complications in predicted severe acute pancreatitis (AP).

METHODS

Consecutive AP patients were randomized to imipenem 3 × 500 mg intravenously daily or an identical placebo. Exclusion criteria were prior AP, chronic pancreatitis, active malignancy, immune deficiency, active infection, concomitant antibiotic treatment, pregnancy, and patients younger than 18 years. Infectious complications including infected pancreatic necrosis, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, positive blood cultures, sepsis, and other infections were assessed as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included mortality, persistent organ failure, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, local complications, serious adverse events, and need for surgical intervention.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients were randomized to each group. Infectious complications were present in 10 versus 12 of 49 patients (relative risk [RR], 0.833; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.398-1.747). There were no significant differences in infected pancreatic necrosis (RR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.262-8.588), pneumonia (RR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.262-8.588), urinary tract infection (RR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.152-2.374), positive blood cultures (RR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.047-5.336), sepsis (RR, 0.333; 95% CI, 0.036-3.095), and other (RR, 1.333; 95% CI, 0.315-5.648). We found no significant differences in secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Concordantly to available evidence, there is currently no ground to support prophylactic use of antibiotics in predicted severe AP.

Acute Pancreatitis Task Force on Quality: Development of Quality Indicators for Acute Pancreatitis Management

INTRODUCTION

Detailed recommendations and guidelines for acute pancreatitis (AP) management currently exist. However, quality indicators (QIs) are required to measure performance in health care. The goal of the Acute Pancreatitis Task Force on Quality was to formally develop QIs for the management of patients with known or suspected AP using a modified version of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary expert panel composed of physicians (gastroenterologists, hospitalists, and surgeons) who are acknowledged leaders in their specialties and who represent geographic and practice setting diversity was convened. A literature review was conducted, and a list of proposed QIs was developed. In 3 rounds, panelists reviewed literature, modified QIs, and rated them on the basis of scientific evidence, bias, interpretability, validity, necessity, and proposed performance targets.

RESULTS

Supporting literature and a list of 71 proposed QIs across 10 AP domains (Diagnosis, Etiology, Initial Assessment and Risk Stratification, etc.) were sent to the expert panel to review and independently rate in round 1 (95% of panelists participated). Based on a round 2 face-to-face discussion of QIs (75% participation), 41 QIs were classified as valid. During round 3 (90% participation), panelists rated the 41 valid QIs for necessity and proposed performance thresholds. The final classification determined that 40 QIs were both valid and necessary.

DISCUSSION

Hospitals and providers managing patients with known or suspected AP should ensure that patients receive high-quality care and desired outcomes according to current evidence-based best practices. This physician-led initiative formally developed 40 QIs and performance threshold targets for AP management. Validated QIs provide a dependable quantitative framework for health systems to monitor the quality of care provided to patients with known or suspected AP.

Antibiotic therapy in acute pancreatitis: From global overuse to evidence based recommendations

BACKGROUND

Unwarranted administration of antibiotics in acute pancreatitis presents a global challenge. The clinical reasoning behind the misuse is poorly understood. Our aim was to investigate current clinical practices and develop recommendations that guide clinicians in prescribing antibiotic treatment in acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

Four methods were used. 1) Systematic data collection was performed to summarize current evidence; 2) a retrospective questionnaire was developed to understand the current global clinical practice; 3) five years of prospectively collected data were analysed to identify the clinical parameters used by medical teams in the decision making process, and finally; 4) the UpToDate Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was applied to provide evidence based recommendations for healthcare professionals.

RESULTS

The systematic literature search revealed no consensus on the start of AB therapy in patients with no bacterial culture test. Retrospective data collection on 9728 patients from 22 countries indicated a wide range (31-82%) of antibiotic use frequency in AP. Analysis of 56 variables from 962 patients showed that clinicians initiate antibiotic therapy based on increased WBC and/or elevated CRP, lipase and amylase levels. The above mentioned four laboratory parameters showed no association with infection in the early phase of acute pancreatitis. Instead, procalcitonin levels proved to be a better biomarker of early infection. Patients with suspected infection because of fever had no benefit from antibiotic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors formulated four consensus statements to urge reduction of unjustified antibiotic treatment in acute pancreatitis and to use procalcitonin rather than WBC or CRP as biomarkers to guide decision-making.

Mis-use of antibiotics in acute pancreatitis: Insights from the United Kingdom's National Confidential Enquiry into patient outcome and death (NCEPOD) survey of acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

International guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis state that antibiotics should only be used to treat infectious complications. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended. The aim of this study was to analyse antibiotic use, and its appropriateness, from a national review of acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

Data were collected from The National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) study into the management of acute pancreatitis. Adult patients admitted to hospitals in England and Wales between January and June 2014 with a coded diagnosis of acute pancreatitis were included. Clinical and organisational questionnaires were used to collect data and these submissions subjected to peer review. Antibiotic use, including indication and duration were analysed.

RESULTS

439/712 (62%) patients received antibiotics, with 891 separate prescriptions and 23 clinical indications. A maximum of three courses of antibiotics were prescribed, with 41% (290/712) of patients receiving a second course and 24% (174/712) a third course. For the first antibiotic prescription, the most common indication was "unspecified" (85/439). The most common indication for the second course was sepsis (54/290), "unspecified" was the most common indication for the third course (50/174). In 72/374 (19.38%) the indication was deemed inappropriate by the clinicians and in 72/393 (18.3%) by case reviewers.

CONCLUSIONS

Inappropriate use of antibiotics in acute pancreatitis is common. Healthcare providers should ensure that antimicrobial policies are in place as part of an antimicrobial stewardship process. This should include specific guidance on their use and these policies must be accessible, adherence audited and frequently reviewed.

Management of infected pancreatic necrosis: state of the art

Pancreatic necrosis occurs in 15% of acute pancreatitis. The presence of infection is the most important factor in the evolution of pancreatitis. The diagnosis of infection is still challenging. Mortality in infected necrosis is 20%; in the presence of organic dysfunction, mortality reaches 60%. In the last three decades, there has been a real revolution in the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis. However, the challenges persist and there are many unsolved questions: antibiotic treatment alone, tomography-guided percutaneous drainage, endoscopic drainage, video-assisted extraperitoneal debridement, extraperitoneal access, open necrosectomy? A step up approach has been proposed, beginning with less invasive procedures and reserving the operative intervention for patients in which the previous procedure did not solve the problem definitively. Indication and timing of the intervention should be determined by the clinical course. Ideally, the intervention should be done only after the fourth week of evolution, when it is observed a better delimitation of necrosis. Treatment should be individualized. There is no procedure that should be the first and best option for all patients. The objective of this work is to critically review the current state of the art of the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis.

Association of Systemic Inflammatory and Anti-inflammatory Responses with Adverse Outcomes in Acute Pancreatitis: Preliminary Results of an Ongoing Study

INTRODUCTION

This paper reports preliminary data of an ongoing study that evaluates the association of systemic inflammatory response (SIRS) with early severe acute pancreatitis (ESAP) and compensatory anti-inflammatory response syndrome (characterized by HLA-DR down-regulation) with infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN).

METHODS

Consecutive patients presenting within 72 h of symptom onset with organ dysfunction and/or local complications were included. Following parameters were recorded: demographics, etiology, SIRS, APACHE II, creatinine, BUN. Circulating IL-8, IL-6, IL-10, TNF-alpha concentrations and expression of HLA-DR and IL-10 by qRT-PCR in PBMCs were measured. Strength of associations of cytokine concentration and HLA-DR/IL-10 expression with outcomes was expressed as Hedges' G and relative risk (95% CI).

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients (10 MSAP; 18 SAP) fulfilled inclusion criteria. Twelve patients had ESAP and eight presented with organ failure. Admission SIRS worsened in eight (28.6%) patients over 48 h. Sixteen (57.1%) patients developed primary IPN. Twenty-one (75%) patients had HLA-DR down-regulation during the first week, which persisted to the second week in 12 (42.9%) patients. IL-8, IL-6, and TNF-α progressively increased from healthy controls to MAP to MSAP to SAP. IL-6 and TNF-α was higher in the patients who developed ESAP (p = 0.01 and 0.05, respectively). Patients who died within the first week also had a significantly elevated concentration of IL-6 and TNF-α (p = 0.02 and 0.01, respectively). The relative risk (95% CI) of developing primary IPN with persistent HLA-DR down-regulation till the second week of illness was 11.3 (1.6-82.4; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study objectively demonstrates significant association of ESAP and early mortality with primary cytokine response, and development of IPN with persistent HLA-DR down-regulation.

Acute pancreatitis: recent advances through randomised trials

Acute pancreatitis is one of the most common GI conditions requiring acute hospitalisation and has a rising incidence. In recent years, important insights on the management of acute pancreatitis have been obtained through numerous randomised controlled trials. Based on this evidence, the treatment of acute pancreatitis has gradually developed towards a tailored, multidisciplinary effort, with distinctive roles for gastroenterologists, radiologists and surgeons. This review summarises how to diagnose, classify and manage patients with acute pancreatitis, emphasising the evidence obtained through randomised controlled trials.

Early management of acute pancreatitis: A review of the best evidence

In the 20th century early management of acute pancreatitis often included surgical intervention, despite overwhelming mortality. The emergence of high-quality evidence (randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses) over the past two decades has notably shifted the treatment paradigm towards predominantly non-surgical management early in the course of acute pancreatitis. The present evidence-based review focuses on contemporary aspects of early management (which include analgesia, fluid resuscitation, antibiotics, nutrition, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) with a view to providing clear and succinct guidelines on early management of patients with acute pancreatitis in 2017 and beyond.

The Surgical Infection Society Revised Guidelines on the Management of Intra-Abdominal Infection

BACKGROUND

Previous evidence-based guidelines on the management of intra-abdominal infection (IAI) were published by the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) in 1992, 2002, and 2010. At the time the most recent guideline was released, the plan was to update the guideline every five years to ensure the timeliness and appropriateness of the recommendations.

METHODS

Based on the previous guidelines, the task force outlined a number of topics related to the treatment of patients with IAI and then developed key questions on these various topics. All questions were approached using general and specific literature searches, focusing on articles and other information published since 2008. These publications and additional materials published before 2008 were reviewed by the task force as a whole or by individual subgroups as to relevance to individual questions. Recommendations were developed by a process of iterative consensus, with all task force members voting to accept or reject each recommendation. Grading was based on the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system; the quality of the evidence was graded as high, moderate, or weak, and the strength of the recommendation was graded as strong or weak. Review of the document was performed by members of the SIS who were not on the task force. After responses were made to all critiques, the document was approved as an official guideline of the SIS by the Executive Council.

RESULTS

This guideline summarizes the current recommendations developed by the task force on the treatment of patients who have IAI. Evidence-based recommendations have been made regarding risk assessment in individual patients; source control; the timing, selection, and duration of antimicrobial therapy; and suggested approaches to patients who fail initial therapy. Additional recommendations related to the treatment of pediatric patients with IAI have been included.

SUMMARY

The current recommendations of the SIS regarding the treatment of patients with IAI are provided in this guideline.

Pharmacological interventions for acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

In people with acute pancreatitis, it is unclear what the role should be for medical treatment as an addition to supportive care such as fluid and electrolyte balance and organ support in people with organ failure.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different pharmacological interventions in people with acute pancreatitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trial registers to October 2016 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only RCTs performed in people with acute pancreatitis, irrespective of aetiology, severity, presence of infection, language, blinding, or publication status for inclusion in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We did not perform a network meta-analysis as planned because of the lack of information on potential effect modifiers and differences of type of participants included in the different comparisons, when information was available. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the binary outcomes and rate ratios with 95% CIs for count outcomes using a fixed-effect model and random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 84 RCTs with 8234 participants in this review. Six trials (N = 658) did not report any of the outcomes of interest for this review. The remaining 78 trials excluded 210 participants after randomisation. Thus, a total of 7366 participants in 78 trials contributed to one or more outcomes for this review. The treatments assessed in these 78 trials included antibiotics, antioxidants, aprotinin, atropine, calcitonin, cimetidine, EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), gabexate, glucagon, iniprol, lexipafant, NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), octreotide, oxyphenonium, probiotics, activated protein C, somatostatin, somatostatin plus omeprazole, somatostatin plus ulinastatin, thymosin, ulinastatin, and inactive control. Apart from the comparison of antibiotics versus control, which included a large proportion of participants with necrotising pancreatitis, the remaining comparisons had only a small proportion of patients with this condition. Most trials included either only participants with severe acute pancreatitis or included a mixture of participants with mild acute pancreatitis and severe acute pancreatitis (75 trials). Overall, the risk of bias in trials was unclear or high for all but one of the trials.

SOURCE OF FUNDING

seven trials were not funded or funded by agencies without vested interest in results. Pharmaceutical companies partially or fully funded 21 trials. The source of funding was not available from the remaining trials.Since we considered short-term mortality as the most important outcome, we presented only these results in detail in the abstract. Sixty-seven studies including 6638 participants reported short-term mortality. There was no evidence of any differences in short-term mortality in any of the comparisons (very low-quality evidence). With regards to other primary outcomes, serious adverse events (number) were lower than control in participants taking lexipafant (rate ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96; N = 290; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), octreotide (rate ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.89; N = 770; 5 studies; very low-quality evidence), somatostatin plus omeprazole (rate ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.70; N = 140; 1 study; low-quality evidence), and somatostatin plus ulinastatin (rate ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.60; N = 122; 1 study; low-quality evidence). The proportion of people with organ failure was lower in octreotide than control (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; N = 430; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). The proportion of people with sepsis was lower in lexipafant than control (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.83; N = 290; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of differences in any of the remaining comparisons in these outcomes or for any of the remaining primary outcomes (the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event and the occurrence of infected pancreatic necrosis). None of the trials reported heath-related quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low-quality evidence suggests that none of the pharmacological treatments studied decrease short-term mortality in people with acute pancreatitis. However, the confidence intervals were wide and consistent with an increase or decrease in short-term mortality due to the interventions. We did not find consistent clinical benefits with any intervention. Because of the limitations in the prognostic scoring systems and because damage to organs may occur in acute pancreatitis before they are clinically manifest, future trials should consider including pancreatitis of all severity but power the study to measure the differences in the subgroup of people with severe acute pancreatitis. It may be difficult to power the studies based on mortality. Future trials in participants with acute pancreatitis should consider other outcomes such as complications or health-related quality of life as primary outcomes. Such trials should include health-related quality of life, costs, and return to work as outcomes and should follow patients for at least three months (preferably for at least one year).

Pancreatic Necrosis and Gas in the Retroperitoneum: Treatment with Antibiotics Alone

OBJECTIVE:

To present our experience in the management of patients with infected pancreatic necrosis without drainage.

METHODS:

The records of patients with pancreatic necrosis admitted to our facility from 2011 to 2015 were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS:

We identified 61 patients with pancreatic necrosis. Six patients with pancreatic necrosis and gas in the retroperitoneum were treated exclusively with clinical support without any type of drainage. Only 2 patients had an APACHE II score >8. The first computed tomography scan revealed the presence of gas in 5 patients. The Balthazar computed tomography severity index score was >9 in 5 of the 6 patients. All patients were treated with antibiotics for at least 3 weeks. Blood cultures were positive in only 2 patients. Parenteral nutrition was not used in these patients. The length of hospital stay exceeded three weeks for 5 patients; 3 patients had to be readmitted. A cholecystectomy was performed after necrosis was completely resolved; pancreatitis recurred in 2 patients before the operation. No patients died.

CONCLUSIONS:

In selected patients, infected pancreatic necrosis (gas in the retroperitoneum) can be treated without percutaneous drainage or any additional surgical intervention. Intervention procedures should be performed for patients who exhibit clinical and laboratory deterioration.

Antibiotic use in acute pancreatitis: An audit of current practice in a tertiary centre

INTRODUCTION

Intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended in acute pancreatitis. According to current international guidelines antibiotics together with further intervention should be considered in the setting of infected necrosis. Appropriate antibiotic therapy particularly avoiding over-prescription is important. This study examines antibiotic use in acute pancreatitis in a tertiary centre using the current IAP/APA guidelines for reference.

METHODS

Data were collected on a consecutive series of patients admitted with acute pancreatitis over a 12 month period. Data were dichotomized by patients admitted directly to the centre and tertiary transfers. Information was collected on clinical course with specific reference to antibiotic use, episode severity, intervention and outcome.

RESULTS

111 consecutive episodes of acute pancreatitis constitute the reported population. 31 (28%) were tertiary transfers. Overall 65 (58.5%) patients received antibiotics. Significantly more tertiary transfer patients received antibiotics. Mean person-days of antibiotic use was 23.9 (sd 29.7) days in the overall study group but there was significantly more use in the tertiary transfer group as compared to patients having their index admission to the centre (40.9 sd 37.1 vs 10.2 sd 8.9; P < 0.005). Thirty four (44%) of patients with clinically mild acute pancreatitis received antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial use of antibiotics in acute pancreatitis, in particular in patients with severe disease. Over-use is seen in mild acute pancreatitis. Better consideration must be given to identification of prophylaxis or therapy as indication. In relation to repeated courses of antibiotics in severe disease there must be clear indications for use.

Infection increases mortality in necrotizing pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the influence of infection on mortality in necrotizing pancreatitis.

METHODS

Eligible prospective and retrospective studies were identified through manual and electronic searches (August 2015). The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analyses were performed with subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses to evaluate sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

We included 71 studies (n = 6970 patients). Thirty-seven (52%) studies used a prospective design and 25 scored ≥5 points on the NOS suggesting a low risk of bias. Forty studies were descriptive and 31 studies evaluated invasive interventions. In total, 801 of 2842 patients (28%) with infected necroses and 537 of 4128 patients (13%) with sterile necroses died with an odds ratio [OR] of 2.57 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.00-3.31) based on all studies and 2.02 (95%CI, 1.61-2.53) in the studies with the lowest bias risk. The OR for prospective studies was 2.96 (95%CI, 2.51-3.50). In sensitivity analyses excluding studies evaluating invasive interventions, the OR was 3.30 (95%CI, 2.81-3.88). Patients with infected necrosis and organ failure had a mortality of 35.2% while concomitant sterile necrosis and organ failure was associated with a mortality of 19.8%. If the patients had infected necrosis without organ failure the mortality was 1.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with necrotizing pancreatitis are more than twice as likely to die if the necrosis becomes infected. Both organ failure and infected necrosis increase mortality in necrotizing pancreatitis.

Decision Making in Necrotizing Pancreatitis

The management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) has undergone a change of paradigms during the last 2 decades with a decreasing impact of surgical interventions. Modern ANP management is done conservatively as long as possible and therapeutic approaches aim at volume resuscitation, pain management and early enteral nutrition. The diagnostic gold standard of contrast-enhanced CT scan helps to evaluate the extent of necrosis of the pancreas, which correlates with the risk of tissue infection. The crucial point for decision making is the proven existence of infected pancreatic necrosis. This can be achieved by diagnostic needle aspiration of the necrotic material and staining to prove bacterial and/or fungal infection. In case of infected necrosis - besides calculated antimicrobial treatment - an interventional or surgical approach is required to prevent systemic septic progression of the disease. As the first step, percutaneous interventional drainage and spilling of the necrosis are preferable. In case of insufficient clearing of the infectious focus, a step-up approach must be considered, which implies a retroperitoneoscopic or transabdominal minimally invasive necrosectomy and drain placement. Postoperatively, a continuous lavage should be performed using these drains. In case of further deterioration of the patient or development of associated intra-abdominal complications (e.g. bowel perforation or uncontrolled bleeding), an open surgical intervention must always be regarded as a salvage therapy and this offers the possibility to control complications and perform a further necrosectomy and extensive lavage for focus control. However, associated morbidity (e.g. pancreatic fistula, fluid collections, pseudocysts) is about 50-60% and mortality up to 20%. In summary, ANP is managed primarily by a conservative therapy. In case of infected necrosis, interventional and minimally invasive approaches are the therapy of choice. Open surgery should be considered for patients deteriorating despite other measures and should be postponed as long as possible.

Acute pancreatitis as a complication of childhood cancer treatment

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is now well recognized as a possible complication of childhood cancer treatment, interrupting the chemotherapy regimen, and requiring prolonged hospitalization, possibly with intensive care and surgical intervention, thereby compromising the effect of chemotherapy and the remission of the underlying malignant disease. This review summarizes the current literature and presents the various etiological factors for AP during chemotherapy as well as modern trends in the diagnosis and therapy of AP in children.

Antibiotic use in acute pancreatitis: Global overview of compliance with international guidelines

INTRODUCTION

Practice guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis make recommendations in relation to antibiotic prophylaxis and treatment in acute pancreatitis. However, it is difficult to ascertain whether this information translates into clinical practice. The aim of this study is to obtain a global overview assessing reports from across the world of the use of antibiotic use in acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

A computerised literature search was performed from January 1992 to September 2015. Studies were either national physician surveys or national database reports on antibiotic prophylaxis in acute pancreatitis. Using these criteria, 10 studies were identified which comprise the final study population.

RESULTS

Eight studies report on the questionnaire responses of 2397 physicians. The range of response rate was 38-96%. A separate study reported on outcome of a national insurance database outcomes in 7193 patients. The lowest incidence of use of antibiotic prophylaxis was 41% and the highest 88%.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a unique global perspective on antibiotic use in acute pancreatitis and indicates that the use of antibiotics, both as prophylaxis and as treatment in this disease is widespread.

Necrotizing pancreatitis: new definitions and a new era in surgical management

BACKGROUND

Necrotizing pancreatitis is a challenging condition that requires surgical treatment commonly and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Over the past decade, new definitions have been developed for standardization of severity of acute and necrotizing pancreatitis, and new management techniques have emerged based on prospective, randomized clinical trials.

METHODS

Review of English-language literature.

RESULTS

A new international classification of acute pancreatitis has been developed by PANCREA (Pancreatitis Across Nations Clinical Research and Education Alliance) to replace the Atlanta Classification. It is based on the actual local (whether pancreatic necrosis is present or not, whether it is sterile or infected) and systemic determinants (whether organ failure is present or not, whether it is transient or persistent) of severity. Early management requires goal-directed fluid resuscitation (with avoidance of over-resuscitation and abdominal compartment syndrome), assessment of severity of pancreatitis, diagnostic computed tomography (CT) imaging to assess for necrotizing pancreatitis, consideration of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for biliary pancreatitis and early enteral nutrition support. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended. Therapeutic antibiotics are required for treatment of documented infected pancreatic necrosis. The initial treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis is percutaneous catheter or endoscopic (transgastric/transduodenal) drainage with a second drain placement as required. Lack of clinical improvement after these initial procedures warrants consideration of minimally invasive techniques for pancreatic necrosectomy including video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement (VARD), minimally invasive retroperitoneal pancreatectomy (MIRP), or transluminal direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN). Open necrosectomy is associated with substantial morbidity, but to date no randomized trial has documented superiority of either minimally invasive or open surgical technique. Additional trials are underway to address this.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe acute and necrotizing pancreatitis requires a multi-disciplinary treatment strategy that must be individualized for each patient. Optimal treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis now requires a staged, multi-disciplinary, minimally invasive "step-up" approach that includes a team of interventional radiologists, therapeutic endoscopists, and surgeons.

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.

Is antibiotic prophylaxis beneficial in acute pancreatitis?--First update

This Living FRISBEE (Living FRIendly Summary of the Body of Evidence using Epistemonikos) is an update of the summary published in August 2014, based on two systematic reviews appeared in January and February 2015. There is controversy about the effects of prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis. Searching in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening 30 databases, we identified 18 systematic reviews including 19 randomised studies overall. We combined the evidence using meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings following the GRADE approach. We concluded that prophylactic antibiotics may reduce mortality and length of hospitalization in patients with acute pancreatitis, but the certainty of the evidence is low. The probability that future evidence change what we know is high.

C-reactive protein may influence decisively the prescription of prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis: a population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Prescription of prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis (AP) is controversial. We aimed to identify the patients' characteristics that may prompt clinicians to prescribe prophylactic antibiotics in AP.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective cohort study included 299 consecutive patients with AP from a Portuguese hospital in 2009 to 2010. Logistic regression was used to study the association of patients' characteristics with prescription of prophylactic antibiotics in AP.

RESULTS

Persistent organ failure developed in 7% of patients (9/136). The median C-reactive protein at 48 hours after hospital admission was 154 mg/L (interquartile range, 55-271 mg/L). Bedside Index for Severity in AP score greater than or equal to 3 occurred in 14% of patients (42/299). Pancreatic necrosis was diagnosed in 21% of the patients (35/169). Computerized Tomography Severity Index score greater than 3 occurred in 23% of patients (38/169). In-hospital mortality rate was 4% (10/299). Prophylactic antibiotics were prescribed to 14% of patients (42/299). After adjusting for persistent organ failure and Computerized Tomography Severity Index score greater than 3, C-reactive protein at 48 hours after hospital admission greater than or equal to 150 mg/L was significantly associated with higher likelihood of receiving prophylactic antibiotics (odds ratio, 12.2). Prophylactic antibiotics did not improve in-hospital mortality rate (P = 0.637).

CONCLUSIONS

C-reactive protein was the most influential in prescribing prophylactic antibiotics in AP. Clinicians may need better tools to support the decision to prescribe prophylactic antibiotics in AP.

Hepato-pancreato-biliary emergencies for the acute care surgeon: etiology, diagnosis and treatment

Hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) emergencies include an ample range of conditions with overlapping clinical presentations and diverse therapeutic options. The most common etiologies are related to cholelithiasis (acute cholecystitis, pancreatitis, and cholangitis) and non-traumatic injuries (common bile duct or duodenal). Although the true incidence of HPB emergencies is difficult to determine due to selection and reporting biases, a population-based report showed a decline in the global incidence of all severe complications of cholelithiasis, primarily based on a reduction in acute cholecystitis. Even though patients may present with overlapping symptoms, treatment options can be varied. The treatment of these conditions continues to evolve and patients may require endoscopic, surgical, and/or percutaneous techniques. Thus, it is essential that a multidisciplinary team of HPB surgeons, interventional gastroenterologists and radiologists are available on an as needed basis to the Acute Care Surgeon. This focused manuscript is a contemporary review of the literature surrounding HPB emergencies in the context of the acute care surgeon. The main aim of this review is to offer an update of the diagnosis and management of HPB issues in the acute care setting to improve the care of patients with potential HPB emergencies.

Role of antibiotic prophylaxis in necrotizing pancreatitis: a meta-analysis

Several studies have yielded conflicting results on the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in improving outcomes in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. A meta-analysis was carried out to investigate the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis in the incidence of infected pancreatic necrosis and mortality.

METHODOLOGY

Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies investigating impact of prophylactic systemic antibiotic used in acute necrotizing pancreatitis were retrieved from online databases. An overall analysis was done with all studies (Group 1), followed by subgroup analyses with randomized controlled trials (Group 2) and cohort studies (Group 3). Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis in the incidence of infected pancreatic necrosis and mortality in each group using random effects model.

RESULTS

Eleven studies involving 864 patients were included. No significant differences in the incidence of infected pancreatic necrosis were observed with prophylactic antibiotic use in all groups. Prophylactic antibiotic use was not associated with significant differences in all-cause mortality in Group 2 (RR = 0.75; p = 0.24) but was associated with a reduction in Groups 1 (RR = 0.66, p = 0.02) and 3 (RR = 0.55, p = 0.04). There was no statistical difference in the incidence of fungal infections and surgical interventions.

CONCLUSION

Antibiotic prophylaxis does not significantly reduce the incidence of infected pancreatic necrosis but may affect all-cause mortality in acute necrotizing pancreatitis.

Acute pancreatitis secondary to ciprofloxacin therapy in patients with infectious colitis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Ciprofloxacin is considered to be a safe and effective treatment for acute infectious colitis. However, this drug may cause drug-induced pancreatitis, albeit rarely.

METHODS

From March 2007 to February 2012, we studied 227 patients who were hospitalized for infectious colitis at St. Mary's Hospital. All of the patients received ciprofloxacin therapy for the treatment of infectious colitis. We observed a few cases of rare adverse events, including ciprofloxacin-induced acute pancreatitis diagnosed based on the Naranjo algorithm.

RESULTS

During ciprofloxacin therapy, seven of 227 patients (3.1%) developed rare pancreatitis as defined by the Naranjo algorithm; pancreatic enzyme activity was sporadically elevated with ciprofloxacin use. After ciprofloxacin administration, the average interval until the development of pancreatitis was 5.5 days (range, 4 to 7 days). On abdominal computed tomography, pancreatic swelling and homogenous enhancement was noted in three of seven patients. Complicating acute pancreatitis was gradually but completely resolved after cessation of ciprofloxacin administration. The mean recovery time was 11.3 days (range, 8 to 15 days).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that ciprofloxacin-induced pancreatitis may occur with an incidence of approximately 3%. Ciprofloxacin-induced pancreatitis presents a short latency, suggesting an idiosyncratic hypersensitivity reaction. Practitioners should be aware that drug-induced pancreatitis can occur during ciprofloxacin therapy.

A systematic review of the extra-pancreatic infectious complications in acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Extra-pancreatic infectious complications in acute pancreatitis increase morbidity, but their incidence and association with infected pancreatic necrosis is unknown. Half of bacterial cultures of pancreatic necrosis are of non-enteric origin, raising the possibility of other sources of infection. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the incidence of extra-pancreatic infectious complications in acute pancreatitis, their timing, and relation to severity of pancreatitis and mortality.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Libraries, following PRISMA guidelines. Search terms were "Pancreatitis" AND "Infection" AND ("Complication" OR "Outcome").

RESULTS

19 studies with 1741 patients were included. Extra-pancreatic infectious complication incidence was 32% (95% CI 23-41%), with the commonest being respiratory infection (9.2%) and bacteraemia (8.4%). Extra-pancreatic infectious complications were not associated with the predicted severity or the mortality of acute pancreatitis. Only 3 studies reported a relation of timing between extra-pancreatic and pancreatic infectious complications.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first systematic review to evaluate the incidence of extra-pancreatic infectious complications in acute pancreatitis, which a third of patients with acute pancreatitis will develop. Implications are vigilance and prompt treatment of extra-pancreatic infection, to reduce possibility of progression to infected pancreatic necrosis.

Antibiotic use in acute pancreatitis: an Indian multicenter observational study

INTRODUCTION

Prophylactic antibiotics are used frequently for acute pancreatitis (AP). Consensus guidelines do not recommend this currently, based on moderate quality evidence. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the antibiotic use pattern in AP in India and propose a risk-directed approach to antibiotic use in AP.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This multicenter study was conducted from 1 May 2013 to 31 July 2013. Eleven participants from eight tertiary centers completed a questionnaire that captured patient demographics, etiology, admission status, presence of (peri)pancreatic necrosis, severity of pancreatitis, details of antibiotic use, and clinical outcomes (total hospital stay, persistent organ failure, need for ICU, total days in ICU, development of infections, in-hospital mortality).

RESULTS

A total of 200 proformas were analyzed. Seventy-three (36.5 %) had acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP). Eighty-nine (44.5 %), 52 (26 %), and 55 (27.5 %) patients had mild AP (MAP), moderately severe AP (MSAP), and severe AP (SAP), respectively. Forty-five (22.5 %) patients developed infections (unifocal 29; multifocal 16). One hundred thirty-four (67 %) patients received antibiotics, of which 89 (66.4 %) received prophylactic, while 45 (33.6 %) received therapeutic antibiotics. The distribution of antibiotic use according to the severity of AP was 43 (48.3 %) in patients with MAP (prophylactic in 41; therapeutic in 2), 36 (69.2 %) in patients with MSAP (prophylactic in 29; therapeutic in 7), and 55 (100 %) in patients with SAP (prophylactic in 19; therapeutic in 36). Therapeutic antibiotics were prescribed based on culture and sensitivity in 21 (46.7 %) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite nonrecommendation, prophylactic antibiotics are used frequently in AP. We emphasize on the need for multicenter randomized controlled trials on prophylactic antibiotics for AP based on a risk-directed approach, rather than a "blanket approach."