Prophylaxis with meropenem of septic complications in acute pancreatitis: a randomized, controlled trial versus imipenem

Meropenem versus piperacillin-tazobactam for the treatment of pancreatic necrosis

PURPOSE

To date, there are three published guidelines discussing management of infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) with conflicting recommendations. Specifically, The World Society of Emergency Surgery lists piperacillin-tazobactam as a treatment option in addition to meropenem and ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole. Piperacillin-tazobactam may serve as an effective carbapenem-sparing alternative. Although previous studies shed light on antimicrobial penetration data, there is a lack of clinical data comparing piperacillin-tazobactam to meropenem. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of meropenem and piperacillin-tazobactam for the treatment of IPN.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study conducted across three institutions. Patients with IPN who received either meropenem or piperacillin-tazobactam from January 2015 to December 2020 were included. The primary composite outcome was the incidence of 90-day clinical failure, which encompassed 90-day all-cause mortality and 90-day intra-abdominal infection recurrence. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, antimicrobial duration of therapy, and the need for surgical intervention.

RESULTS

We identified 229 patients with IPN that received either meropenem or piperacillin-tazobactam during hospital admission. After screening, 63 patients were included in the study. Incidence of 90-day clinical failure was observed in 33 % of the meropenem group and 50 % in the piperacillin-tazobactam group (OR, 1.98; 95 % CI 0.57 to 7.01, p = 0.259). The meropenem group had a lower incidence of 90-day infection recurrence in the piperacillin-tazobactam group (56 % vs 29 %, p = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

Piperacillin-tazobactam may be an efficacious carbapenem-sparing treatment alternative for infected pancreatic necrosis.

Physicochemical Characteristics of Antimicrobials and Practical Recommendations for Intravenous Administration: A Systematic Review

Most antimicrobial drugs need an intravenous (IV) administration to achieve maximum efficacy against target pathogens. IV administration is related to complications, such as tissue infiltration and thrombo-phlebitis. This systematic review aims to provide practical recommendations about diluent, pH, osmolarity, dosage, infusion rate, vesicant properties, and phlebitis rate of the most commonly used antimicrobial drugs evaluated in randomized controlled studies (RCT) till 31 March 2023. The authors searched for available IV antimicrobial drugs in RCT in PUBMED EMBASE®, EBSCO® CINAHL®, and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials. Drugs' chemical features were searched online, in drug data sheets, and in scientific papers, establishing that the drugs with a pH of <5 or >9, osmolarity >600 mOsm/L, high incidence of phlebitis reported in the literature, and vesicant drugs need the adoption of utmost caution during administration. We evaluated 931 papers; 232 studies were included. A total of 82 antimicrobials were identified. Regarding antibiotics, 37 reach the "caution" criterion, as well as seven antivirals, 10 antifungals, and three antiprotozoals. In this subgroup of antimicrobials, the correct vascular access device (VAD) selection is essential to avoid complications due to the administration through a peripheral vein. Knowing the physicochemical characteristics of antimicrobials is crucial to improve the patient's safety significantly, thus avoiding administration errors and local side effects.

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.

Compositional and drug-resistance profiling of pathogens in patients with severe acute pancreatitis: a retrospective study

Background

Infection is one of the important causes of death in patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP), but the bacterial spectrum and antibiotic resistance are constantly changing. Making good use of antibiotics and controlling multi-drug-resistant (MDR) bacterial infections are of vital importance in improving the cure rate of SAP. We conducted a retrospective study in the hope of providing references for antibiotic selection and control of drug-resistant bacteria.

Methods

Retrospective analysis was performed on the data of patients hospitalized in our hospital due to acute pancreatitis (AP) in the past 5 years. General data were classified and statistically analyzed. Subsequently, the bacterial spectrum characteristics and the data related to drug-resistant bacterial infection of 569 AP patients were analyzed. Finally, unconditional logistic regression analysis was conducted to analyze the risk factors of MDR infection.

Results

A total of 398 patients were enrolled in this study and the hospitalization data and associated results were analyzed. A total of 461 strains of pathogenic bacteria were detected, including 223 (48.4%) gram-negative bacterial strains, 190 (41.2%) gram-positive bacterial strains and 48 (10.4%) fungal strains. The detection rates of resistance in gram-negative and gram-positive bacterial strains were 48.0% (107/223) and 25.3% (48/190), respectively. There were significant differences between the MDR group and the non-MDR group for the factors of precautionary antibiotic use, kinds of antibiotics used, receipt of carbapenem, tracheal intubation, hemofiltration and number of hospitalization days in the intensive care unit. Unconditional logistic regression revealed 2 risk factors for MDR bacterial infection.

Conclusions

Our results illustrate that gram-negative bacteria were the most common pathogens in SAP infection, and the proportion of gram-positive bacteria increased notably. The rate of antibiotic resistance was higher than previously reported. Unconditional logistic regression analysis showed that using more types of antibiotics and the number of hospitalization days in the ICU were the risk factors associated with MDR bacterial infection.

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.

Antibiotic-Induced Pathobiont Dissemination Accelerates Mortality in Severe Experimental Pancreatitis

Although antibiotic-induced dysbiosis has been demonstrated to exacerbate intestinal inflammation, it has been suggested that antibiotic prophylaxis may be beneficial in certain clinical conditions such as acute pancreatitis (AP). However, whether broad-spectrum antibiotics, such as meropenem, influence the dissemination of multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria during severe AP has not been addressed. In the currently study, a mouse model of obstructive severe AP was employed to investigate the effects of pretreatment with meropenem on bacteria spreading and disease outcome. As expected, animals subjected to biliopancreatic duct obstruction developed severe AP. Surprisingly, pretreatment with meropenem accelerated the mortality of AP mice (survival median of 2 days) when compared to saline-pretreated AP mice (survival median of 7 days). Early mortality was associated with the translocation of MDR strains, mainly Enterococcus gallinarum into the blood stream. Induction of AP in mice with guts that were enriched with E. gallinarum recapitulated the increased mortality rate observed in the meropenem-pretreated AP mice. Furthermore, naïve mice challenged with a mouse or a clinical strain of E. gallinarum succumbed to infection through a mechanism involving toll-like receptor-2. These results confirm that broad-spectrum antibiotics may lead to indirect detrimental effects during inflammatory disease and reveal an intestinal pathobiont that is associated with the meropenem pretreatment during obstructive AP in mice.

Clinical practice guideline for post-ERCP pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERPC) is used for the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic and biliary diseases. Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is a complication which needs special care and clinical practice guideline for this morbidity is also needed.

METHODS

The key clinical issues of diagnosis and treatment of PEP were listed and checked, and then the clinical questions were formulated. PubMed (MEDLINE) and Ichushi-web (Japanese medical literature) were used as databases. For the study of diagnostic test accuracy, items similar to QUADAS-2, i.e., random selection from a population to which the diagnostic test is applied, blinding of index tests and reference tests, completeness of reference standard, completeness of test implementations, the same timing of tests, and missing data were assessed as well as the indirectness of the study subjects, index tests, reference standard, and outcomes. Grading of recommendations was determined as strong or weak. In clinical practice, the judgment of attending doctors should be more important than recommendations described in clinical practice guidelines. Gastroenterologists are the target users of this clinical practice guideline. General practitioners or general citizens are not supposed to use this guideline. The guideline committee has decided to include wide clinical issues such as etiological information, techniques of ERCP, the diagnosis, treatments, and monitoring of PEP in this guideline.

RESULTS

In this concise report, we described ten clinical questions, recommendations, and explanations pertaining to risk factors, diagnosis, prognostic factors, treatments, and preventive interventions in the medical practice for PEP.

CONCLUSIONS

We reported here the essence of the clinical practice guideline for PEP.

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).

Prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis: endless debate

INTRODUCTION The development of pancreatic infection is associated with the development of a deteriorating disease with subsequent high morbidity and mortality. There is agreement that in mild pancreatitis there is no need to use antibiotics; in severe pancreatitis it would appear to be a logical choice to use antibiotics to prevent secondary pancreatic infection and decrease associated mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS A non-systematic review of current evidence, meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials was conducted to assess the role of prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis and whether it might improve morbidity and mortality in pancreatitis. RESULTS Mixed evidence was found to support and refute the role of prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis. Most studies have failed to demonstrate much benefit from its routine use. Data from our unit suggested little benefit of their routine use, and showed that the mortality of those treated with antibiotics was significantly higher compared with those not treated with antibiotics (9% vs 0%, respectively, P = 0.043). In addition, the antibiotic group had significantly higher morbidity (36% vs 5%, respectively, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS Antibiotics should be used in patients who develop sepsis, infected necrosis-related systemic inflammatory response syndrome, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome or pancreatic and extra-pancreatic infection. Despite the many other factors that should be considered, prompt antibiotic therapy is recommended once inflammatory markers are raised, to prevent secondary pancreatic infection. Unfortunately, there remain many unanswered questions regarding the indications for antibiotic administration and the patients who benefit from antibiotic treatment in acute pancreatitis.

Prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis: endless debate

INTRODUCTION The development of pancreatic infection is associated with the development of a deteriorating disease with subsequent high morbidity and mortality. There is agreement that in mild pancreatitis there is no need to use antibiotics; in severe pancreatitis it would appear to be a logical choice to use antibiotics to prevent secondary pancreatic infection and decrease associated mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS A non-systematic review of current evidence, meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials was conducted to assess the role of prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis and whether it might improve morbidity and mortality in pancreatitis. RESULTS Mixed evidence was found to support and refute the role of prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis. Most studies have failed to demonstrate much benefit from its routine use. Data from our unit suggested little benefit of their routine use, and showed that the mortality of those treated with antibiotics was significantly higher compared with those not treated with antibiotics (9% vs 0%, respectively, P = 0.043). In addition, the antibiotic group had significantly higher morbidity (36% vs 5%, respectively, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS Antibiotics should be used in patients who develop sepsis, infected necrosis-related systemic inflammatory response syndrome, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome or pancreatic and extra-pancreatic infection. Despite the many other factors that should be considered, prompt antibiotic therapy is recommended once inflammatory markers are raised, to prevent secondary pancreatic infection. Unfortunately, there remain many unanswered questions regarding the indications for antibiotic administration and the patients who benefit from antibiotic treatment in acute pancreatitis.

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.

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.

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.

Increased expression of the intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1) on peripheral blood neutrophils in acute pancreatitis

PURPOSE

Considering the important role of neutrophils' activation in the pathogenesis of acute pancreatitis (AP), the aim of our study was to evaluate the expression of leukocytes' adhesion molecules in patients with AP.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Thirty-five patients (16 women and 19 men; age 32-77 years, median 56 years) with AP were prospectively included into our study. The absolute number of leukocytes was estimated by haematologic analyser. Surface neutrophils antigens (CD) were assayed by the direct fluorescence method for whole blood, using a flow cytometer.

RESULTS

At the day 1, significant increase of ICAM-1 expression was found in patients with severe AP (S-AP) (7280 mm(-3) vs 2850 mm(-3) in healthy control; p<0.05). In the days 2, 3 and 5 it sharply decreased and peaked again to 4860 mm(-3) at the day 10. In patients with mild AP (M-AP), not significant elevation of ICAM-1 quickly returned to normal level. In both forms of AP, neutrophil CD62L (L-selectin) expression reached the highest level at the day 1 (8800 mm(-3) and 9020 mm(-3), respectively in M-AP and S-AP, in comparison to 3400 mm(-3) in control; p<0.05). Expression of CD69 (neutrophils' marker of early activation) significantly increased in both M-AP and S-AP.

CONCLUSIONS

We have found an early and significant increase of peripheral blood neutrophil CD54/ICAM-1 expression, specific for S-AP but not for M-AP. It may provide a good marker predicting severe course of pancreatitis.

Clinical pharmacokinetics of meropenem in pancreatic juice and site-specific pharmacodynamic target attainment against Gram-negative bacteria: dosing considerations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Very few studies have revealed the dynamics of meropenem penetration into the pancreas or pancreatic juice in humans. This study of the clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of meropenem in human pancreatic juice was performed to establish a basis for the validation of dosing regimens for pancreatic infections.

METHODS

Ten patients with endoscopic naso-pancreatic drainage received 500 mg meropenem over 0.5 h via intravenous infusion. Venous blood and pancreatic juice samples were collected post-infusion for up to 5.0 h and used to obtain measures of meropenem concentration. The probability of attaining the pharmacodynamic target (40% of the time above the minimum inhibitory concentration [MIC]) in pancreatic juice against MIC distributions for clinical isolates of Gram-negative bacteria was determined using a Monte Carlo simulation.

RESULTS

The mean maximum concentration of meropenem in pancreatic juice was 2.08 ± 0.94 μg/mL at 1.025 ± 0.18 h. The pancreatic juice/plasma ratio was 0.055 ± 0.028. A 0.5-h infusion of 500 mg meropenem every 8 h achieved a 99.4% probability of target attainment against Escherichia coli, 96.4% against Klebsiella species, 94.3% against Enterobacter species and 96.2% against Proteus species, but only 41.3% against Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous meropenem exhibits low penetrance into pancreatic juice. However, a dosing regimen of 500 mg meropenem (0.5-h infusion) every 8 h provides sufficient drug-exposure time in pancreatic juice against the four common Gram-negative bacteria populations.

Effects of prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis

OBJECTIVES

The use of prophylactic antibiotics in severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) is controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of antibiotics administered as prophylaxis and as treatment on demand, respectively, in two prospective, non-randomized cohorts of patients.

METHODS

The study population consisted of 210 patients treated for SAP. In Group 1 (n= 103), patients received prophylactic antibiotics (ciprofloxacin, metronidazole). In Group 2 (n= 107), patients were treated on demand. Ultrasound-guided drainage and/or surgical debridement of infected necrosis were performed when the presence of infected pancreatic necrosis was demonstrated. The primary endpoints were infectious complication rate, need for and timing of surgical interventions, incidence of nosocomial infections and mortality rate.

RESULTS

Ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration [in 18 (16.8%) vs. 13 (12.6%) patients; P= 0.714], ultrasound-guided drainage [in 15 (14.0%) vs. six (5.8%) patients; P= 0.065] and open surgical necrosectomy [in 10 (9.3%) vs. five (4.9%) patients; P= 0.206] were performed more frequently and earlier [at 16.6 ± 7.8 days vs. 17.2 ± 6.7 days (P= 0.723); at 19.5 ± 9.4 days vs. 24.5 ± 14.2 days (P= 0.498), and at 22.6 ± 13.5 days vs. 26.7 ± 18.1 days (P= 0.826), respectively] in Group 2 compared with Group 1. There were no significant differences between groups in mortality and duration of stay in the surgical ward or intensive care unit.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study support the suggestion that the use of prophylactic antibiotics does not affect mortality rate, but may decrease the need for interventional and surgical management, and lower the number of reoperations.

Acute pancreatitis: should we use antibiotics?

Acute pancreatitis is a common cause of hospitalization and a major source of morbidity worldwide. When it is severe, and especially when it progresses to include necrosis of the pancreas, the risk of infection rises and mortality increases. Early reports suggested prophylactic antibiotics given in severe pancreatitis prevent infection and death. More recent clinical trials do not support this benefit, and meta-analyses on the topic offer conflicting recommendations. In this article, we evaluate the body of published literature examining the use of antibiotics as a preventive measure in acute pancreatitis. The highest quality, currently available data fail to support prophylactic use of antibiotics, which should be added to treatment regimens only where infection has been proven.

Severe acute pancreatitis: advances and insights in assessment of severity and management

The patients with acute pancreatitis are at risk to develop different complications from ongoing pancreatic inflammation. Often, there is no correlation between the degree of structural damage to pancreas and clinical manifestation of the disease. The effectiveness of any treatment is related to the ability to predict severity accurately, but there is no ideal predictive system or biochemical marker. Severity assessment is indispensable to the selection of proper initial treatment in the management of acute pancreatitis. The use of multiparametric criteria and the evaluation of severity index permit us to select high-risk patients. Furthermore, contrast-enhanced computed tomographic scanning and contrast-enhanced MRI play an important role in severity assessment. The adoption of multiparametric criteria proposed together with morphological evaluation consents the formulation of a discreetly reliable prognosis on the evolution of the disease a few days from onset.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of antibiotic prophylaxis in severe acute pancreatitis

OBJECTIVE

The incidence of acute pancreatitis varies from 5 to 80 per 100,000 throughout the world. The most common cause of death in these patients is infection of pancreatic necrosis by enteric bacteria, spurring the discussion of whether or not prophylactic antibiotic administration could be a beneficial approach. In order to provide evidence of the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis in severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) we performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on this topic.

METHODS

The review of randomized controlled trials was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. We conducted a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. For assessment of the treatment effects we calculated the risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data of included studies.

RESULTS

Fourteen trials were included with a total of 841 patients. The use of antibiotic prophylaxis was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in mortality (RR 0.74 [95% CI 0.50-1.07]), in the incidence of infected pancreatic necrosis (RR 0.78 [95% CI 0.60-1.02]), in the incidence of non-pancreatic infections (RR 0.70 [95% CI 0.46-1.06]), and in surgical interventions (RR 0.93 [95% CI 0.72-1.20]).

CONCLUSION

In summary, to date there is no evidence that supports the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with SAP.

Analysis of the delayed approach to the management of infected pancreatic necrosis

AIM: To analyze outcomes of delayed single-stage necrosectomy after early conservative management of patients with infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) associated with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP).

METHODS: Between January 1998 and December 2009, data from patients with SAP who developed IPN and were managed by pancreatic necrosectomy were analyzed.

RESULTS: Fifty-nine of 61 pancreatic necrosectomies were performed by open surgery and 2 laparoscopically. In 55 patients, single-stage necrosectomy could be performed (90.2%). Patients underwent surgery at a median of 29 d (range 13-46 d) after diagnosis of acute pancreatitis. Sepsis and multiple organ failure accounted for the 9.8% mortality rate. Pancreatic fistulae (50.8%) predominantly accounted for the morbidity. The median hospital stay was 23 d, and the median interval for return to regular activities was 110 d.

CONCLUSION: This series supports the concept of delayed single-stage open pancreatic necrosectomy for IPN. Advances in critical care, antibiotics and interventional radiology have played complementary role in improving the outcomes.

Pharmacotherapy for acute pancreatitis

Our knowledge of acute pancreatitis is still far from complete and there is no unanimous agreement concerning the pathophysiological processes leading to typical alterations during the course of acute pancreatitis. We reviewed the paper published in the last decade on the pathophysiology and treatment of acute pancreatitis. It is difficult to translate the experimental therapeutic results into clinical practice. For example, lexipafant was efficacious in decreasing the severity and mortality of lethal pancreatitis in rats, but seems to have no effect on severe acute pancreatitis in humans. Thus, the main problem in acute pancreatitis, especially in the severe form of the disease, is the difficulty of designing clinical studies capable of giving reliable statistically significant answers regarding the benefits of the various proposed therapeutic agents previously tested in experimental settings. Thus, analgesia, supportive care, and treatment of the pulmonary and renal complications remain the cornerstones of the treatment of acute pancreatitis, especially in the severe form of the disease.

Fundamental and intensive care of acute pancreatitis

Patients who have been diagnosed as having acute pancreatitis should be, on principle, hospitalized. Crucial fundamental management is required soon after a diagnosis of acute pancreatitis has been made and includes monitoring of the conscious state, the respiratory and cardiovascular system, the urinary output, adequate fluid replacement and pain control. Along with such management, etiologic diagnosis and severity assessment should be conducted. Patients with a diagnosis of severe acute pancreatitis should be transferred to a medical facility where intensive respiratory and cardiovascular management as well as interventional treatment, blood purification therapy and nutritional support are available. The disease condition in acute pancreatitis changes every moment and even symptoms that are mild at the time of diagnosis may become severe later. Therefore, severity assessment should be conducted repeatedly at least within 48 h following diagnosis. An adequate dose of fluid replacement is essential to stabilize cardiovascular dynamics and the dose should be adjusted while assessing circulatory dynamics constantly. A large dose of fluid replacement is usually required in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Prophylactic antibiotic administration is recommended to prevent infectious complications in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Although the efficacy of intravenous administration of protease inhibitors is still a matter of controversy, there is a consensus in Japan that a large dose of a synthetic protease inhibitor should be given to patients with severe acute pancreatitis in order to prevent organ failure and other complications. Enteral feeding is superior to parenteral nutrition when it comes to the nutritional support of patients with severe acute pancreatitis. The JPN Guidelines recommend, as optional continuous regional arterial infusion and blood purification therapy.

Treatment strategy for acute pancreatitis

When a diagnosis of acute pancreatitis (AP) is made, fundamental medical treatment consisting of fasting, intravenous (IV) fluid replacement, and analgesics with a close monitoring of vital signs should be immediately started. In parallel with fundamental medical treatment, assessment of severity based on clinical signs, blood test, urinalysis and imaging tests should be performed to determine the way of treatment for each patient. A repeat evaluation of severity is important since the condition is unstable especially in the early stage of AP. At the time of initial diagnosis, the etiology should be investigated by means of blood test, urinalysis and diagnostic imaging. If a biliary pancreatitis accompanied with acute cholangitis or biliary stasis is diagnosed or suspected, an early endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with or without endoscopic sphincterotomy (ERCP/ES) is recommended in addition to the fundamental medical treatment. In mild cases, the fundamental medical treatment should be continued until clinical symptom is subsided with normal laboratory data. In cases with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) referral should be considered to medical centers experienced in the treatment of SAP, and intensive care is recommended for preventing both organ failures and infectious complications. Hemodynamic stabilization with vigorous fluid resuscitation, respiratory support and antibiotics are the major parts of intensive care in the early period of SAP. Continuous hemodiafiltration (CHDF) and continuous regional arterial infusion (CRAI) of protease inhibitor and/or antibiotics may be effective to improve pathophysiology of AP especially in the early stage of the disease. In the late stage of AP, infectious complications are critical. If an infectious complication is suspected based on clinical signs, blood test and imaging, a fine needle aspiration (FNA) is recommended to establish a diagnosis. The accuracy of FNA is reported to be 89 ~ 100%. For patients with sterile pancreatitis, non-surgical treatment should be indicated. For patients with infected pancreatic necrosis, therapeutic intervention either by percutaneous, endoscopic, laparoscopic or surgical approach are indicated. The most preferred surgical intervention is necrosectomy, however, non-surgical treatment with antibiotics is still the treatment of choice if the general condition is stable. Necrosectomy should be performed as late as possible. For patients with pancreatic abscess, drainage is recommended.

Early infection of peripancreatic tissue in mild acute pancreatitis: report of a case

Mild acute pancreatitis (AP) is rarely complicated by infection, and the value of prophylactic antibiotics is questionable. We report a case of mild AP complicated by infection, which developed within 1 week after the onset. A 66-year-old woman was referred to our hospital where a diagnosis of mild AP was made, based on laboratory data and computed tomography (CT) findings. She was managed conservatively with fluid resuscitation, intravenous antibiotics, and protease inhibitor. Her general condition improved initially, but a high fever redeveloped on hospital day 3. On hospital day 7, a repeat CT scan showed a peripancreatic fluid collection with gas, indicating peripancreatic abscess. A drainage operation was performed, and the organism cultured from the abscess was Escherichia coli. Her postoperative course was uneventful. We report this case to stress that infection may develop even in mild AP, and even in the early phase.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in acute necrotizing pancreatitis revisited

OBJECTIVE

To review studies of antibiotic prophylaxis in acute necrotizing pancreatitis published in the last decade and update recommendations.

DATA SOURCES

A search of PubMed (1998-July 2009) was conducted using the terms necrotizing pancreatitis, antibiotics, prophylaxis, and treatment. Clinical studies, meta-analyses, and review articles published in English were included. Additional references were obtained from article bibliographies. Randomized trials published before 1998 were included if indicated.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant studies or meta-analyses on antibiotic prophylaxis since our previous review in 1998 were evaluated; older data were included if still relevant.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Since our previous review, 4 more randomized trials, including 2 double-blind trials, have been conducted. The blinded studies found no significant difference in mortality with antibiotic prophylaxis compared with placebo, while the unblinded studies found a significant decrease in infections. Given these disparate results, available guidelines and meta-analyses provide different conclusions, usually based on exclusion or inclusion of a single trial. Based on all available data, antibiotic prophylaxis should not be used in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Instead, a more measured, on-demand use of antibiotics is preferred. Antibiotics should be added if signs and symptoms of infection are present (eg, fever, leukocytosis, positive results of cultures). Given improvements in intensive care and nutritional support, recent trials have found a lower incidence of infected necrotizing pancreatitis than before. Therefore, future trials are likely to need higher numbers of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with necrotizing pancreatitis is not indicated, based on 2 blinded trials. Instead, on-demand use of antibiotics appears to be appropriate. Given progress in intensive care and the high crossover rate in studies, the need for antibiotic prophylaxis may continue to be debated for decades.

Effect of antibiotic prophylaxis on acute necrotizing pancreatitis: results of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study addresses whether antibiotic prophylaxis is beneficial for acute necrotizing pancreatitis.

METHODS

This randomized, controlled trial enrolled 276 patients with severe acute pancreatitis. There were 56 patients with 30% or more necrosis proved by contrast-enhanced computerized tomography who were eligible for randomization: 29 in the study group and 27 in the control group, who received i.v. imipenem-cilastatin (3 x 500 mg/day) within 72 h of the onset of symptoms for 7-14 days, and no antibiotic prophylaxis, respectively. The primary end-point was the incidence of infectious complication. The secondary end-points were mortality, the incidence of necrosectomy for infected necrosis, the incidence of organ complication and hospital courses.

RESULTS

Characteristics of baseline data were similar in the two groups. No significant differences were found in the incidence of infected pancreatic necrosis (37% vs 27.6%), mortality (10.3% vs 14.8%) and the incidence of operative necrosectomy (29.6% vs 34.6%) between the study group and the control group (P > 0.05). The incidence of extrapancreatic infections, organ complications and hospital courses between the groups were also not significantly different. However, a significantly increased incidence of fungal infection was observed in the study group versus the control group (36.1% vs 14.2%, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

There was no benefit in the outcomes when antibiotic prophylaxis was routinely used in patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis.

Prophylactic antibiotic treatment in acute necrotizing pancreatitis: results from a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The effect of prophylactic antibiotic treatment on infection and survival of acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term efficacy of prophylactic antibiotic treatment for ANP.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Searches were carried out of electronic databases including Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the Science Citation Index, and PubMed (updated to December 2007), and manual bibliographical searches were also conducted. A meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic antibiotic treatment with placebo or no treatment was performed.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs including 540 patients were assessed. The outcomes included infected necrosis, death, non-pancreatic infection, surgical intervention, and length of hospital stay. Prophylactic antibiotic use leads to a significant reduction of infected necrosis (relative risk (RR) 0.69, 95% CI, 0.50-0.95; p=0.02), non-pancreatic infections (RR 0.66 95% CI, 0.48-0.91; p=0.01), and length of hospital stay (p=0.004) but was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in mortality (RR 0.76 95% CI, 0.50-1.18; p=0.22) and surgical intervention (RR 0.90 95% CI, 0.66-1.23; p=0.52). In a subgroup analysis, carbapenem was associated with a significant reduction in infected necrosis (p=0.009) and non-pancreatic infections (p=0.006), whereas other antibiotics were not.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic antibiotic treatment is associated with a significant reduction of pancreatic or peripancreatic infection, non-pancreatic infection, and length of hospital stay, but cannot prevent death and surgical intervention in acute necrotizing pancreatitis.

Continuous regional arterial infusion therapy for acute necrotizing pancreatitis due to Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection in a child

A case of acute necrotizing pancreatitis due to Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection was treated in an 8-year-old girl. She experienced acute pancreatitis during treatment for M. pneumoniae. Contrast-enhanced computed tomographic scan revealed necrotizing pancreatitis. The computed tomographic severity index was 8 points (grade E). A protease inhibitor, ulinastatin, was provided via intravenous infusion but was ineffective. Continuous regional arterial infusion therapy was provided with gabexate mesilate (FOY-007, a protease inhibitor) and meropenem trihydrate, and the pancreatitis improved. This case suggests that infusion therapy is safe and useful in treating necrotizing pancreatitis in children.

Value of pancreatic antibiotic concentration in treatment of secondary infection of serve acute pancreatitis

Secondary pancreatic infection represents the most serious complication with fatal outcome in severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). Preventing and curing secondary infection of pancreas is the key obstacle to minimize the mortality of these patients. The studies on blood-pancreatic juice barrier as well as penetration and pancreatic tissue concentration of antibiotics have improved the antibiotic prophylaxis or treatment of pancreatic infection. In the future, potential therapeutics that can enhance the antibiotic concentration and efficacy may help to prevent and treat the secondary infection of SAP.

Meropenem: a review of its use in the treatment of serious bacterial infections

Meropenem (Merrem, Meronem) is a broad-spectrum antibacterial agent of the carbapenem family, indicated as empirical therapy prior to the identification of causative organisms, or for disease caused by single or multiple susceptible bacteria in both adults and children with a broad range of serious infections. Meropenem is approved for use in complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI), complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI) and bacterial meningitis (in paediatric patients aged > or = 3 months) in the US, and in most other countries for nosocomial pneumonia, cIAI, septicaemia, febrile neutropenia, cSSSI, bacterial meningitis, complicated urinary tract infection (UTI), obstetric and gynaecological infections, in cystic fibrosis patients with pulmonary exacerbations, and for the treatment of severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Meropenem has a broad spectrum of in vitro activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)- and AmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae. It has similar efficacy to comparator antibacterial agents, including: imipenem/cilastatin in cIAI, cSSSI, febrile neutropenia, complicated UTI, obstetric or gynaecological infections and severe CAP; clindamycin plus tobramycin or gentamicin in cIAI or obstetric/gynaecological infections; cefotaxime plus metronidazole in cIAI; cefepime and ceftazidime plus amikacin in septicaemia or febrile neutropenia; and ceftazidime, clarithromycin plus ceftriaxone or amikacin in severe CAP. Meropenem has also shown similar efficacy to cefotaxime in paediatric and adult patients with bacterial meningitis, and to ceftazidime when both agents were administered with or without tobramycin in patients with cystic fibrosis experiencing acute pulmonary exacerbations. Meropenem showed greater efficacy than ceftazidime or piperacillin/tazobactam in febrile neutropenia, and greater efficacy than ceftazidime plus amikacin or tobramycin in patients with nosocomial pneumonia. Meropenem is well tolerated and has the advantage of being suitable for administration as an intravenous bolus or infusion. Its low propensity for inducing seizures means that it is suitable for treating bacterial meningitis and is the only carbapenem approved in this indication. Thus, meropenem continues to be an important option for the empirical treatment of serious bacterial infections in hospitalized patients.

Prophylactic use of antibiotics in treatment of severe acute pancreatitis

Necrotic pancreatic infection is the most serious complication of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). Although prophylactic antibiotics are widely used to reduce its death rate, its practical efficiency still remains controversial. Therefore, the clinical experiences with prophylactic use of antibiotics are summarized in this paper, hoping to offer certain guides to its treatment. However, results from recent studies do not support prophylactic use of antibiotics in all cases of necrotic pancreatic infection and suggest that only imipenem or meropenem can be used for no more than three weeks in patients with their pancreatic necrosis area >30% or in patients with biliogenic pancreatitis to decrease the risk of necrotic infection and its mortality rate.

Monocyte subsets and natural killer cells in acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Alteration of the immune system is one of the major mechanisms responsible for complications in severe acute pancreatitis (AP). The aim of our study was to provide a complex evaluation of peripheral blood monocyte subsets, natural killer cells (NK cells) and cytotoxic T lymphocytes in patients with different severity forms of AP.

METHODS

20 patients with mild AP and 15 with severe AP (S-AP) were included in our study. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were studied on days 1-3, 5, 10 and 30, by means of flow cytometry.

RESULTS

In peripheral blood of patients with pancreatitis, we found a marked increase in total monocyte count. In S-AP, circulating monocytes were significantly activated, which was presumed from increased expression of HLA-DR, CD54, CD69 and CD25. Concurrent increased expression of CD95 (FasR) may indicate enhanced susceptibility of these cells to apoptosis. In patients with S-AP, a dramatic depletion of circulating NK cells (CD16/56 and CD3- CD8+) was found along with a reduction of circulating CD3+ CD8+ lymphocytes (cytotoxic T lymphocytes).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest profound disturbances of innate cellular immunity in patients with S-AP.

Early antibiotic treatment for severe acute necrotizing pancreatitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

In patients with severe, necrotizing pancreatitis, it is common to administer early, broad-spectrum antibiotics, often a carbapenem, in the hope of reducing the incidence of pancreatic and peripancreatic infections, although the benefits of doing so have not been proved.

METHODS

A multicenter, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized study set in 32 centers within North America and Europe.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred patients with clinically severe, confirmed necrotizing pancreatitis: 50 received meropenem and 50 received placebo.

INTERVENTIONS

Meropenem (1 g intravenously every 8 hours) or placebo within 5 days of the onset of symptoms for 7 to 21 days.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary endpoint: development of pancreatic or peripancreatic infection within 42 days following randomization. Other endpoints: time between onset of pancreatitis and the development of pancreatic or peripancreatic infection; all-cause mortality; requirement for surgical intervention; development of nonpancreatic infections within 42 days following randomization.

RESULTS

Pancreatic or peripancreatic infections developed in 18% (9 of 50) of patients in the meropenem group compared with 12% (6 of 50) in the placebo group (P = 0.401). Overall mortality rate was 20% (10 of 50) in the meropenem group and 18% (9 of 50) in the placebo group (P = 0.799). Surgical intervention was required in 26% (13 of 50) and 20% (10 of 50) of the meropenem and placebo groups, respectively (P = 0.476).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups for pancreatic or peripancreatic infection, mortality, or requirement for surgical intervention, and did not support early prophylactic antimicrobial use in patients with severe acute necrotizing pancreatitis.

Prevention of infectious complications in severe acute pancreatitis with systemic antibiotics: where are we now?

Infectious complications are the leading cause of death in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Currently, there is controversy concerning the therapeutic possibilities to reduce the incidence of bacterial infection in this disease. Numerous studies are available which apparently support the prophylactic use of antibiotics in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. The results, however, are contradicting and interpretation is difficult as these studies have used various antibiotic drugs with different application schemes and heterogeneous study end points. This article gives a critical overview of the background of antibiotic treatment in severe acute pancreatitis, the published data on antibiotic treatment and an outlook on the topics that need to be addressed by future research.

Meta-analysis of prophylactic antibiotic use in acute necrotizing pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Death from infected necrosis in acute pancreatitis is common and prevention has focused on prophylactic antibiotics. This study assesses whether intravenous prophylactic antibiotic use reduces infected necrosis and death in acute necrotizing pancreatitis.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was carried out. Medline, Web of Science, the Cochrane controlled trials register and international conference proceedings were searched, with a citation review of relevant primary and review articles.

RESULTS

Six of 328 studies assessed were included in data extraction. Primary outcome measures were infected necrosis and death. Secondary outcome measures were non-pancreatic infections, surgical intervention and length of hospital stay. Prophylactic antibiotic use was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in infected necrosis (relative risk (RR) 0.77 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.54 to 1.12); P = 0.173), mortality (RR 0.78 (95 per cent c.i. 0.44 to 1.39); P = 0.404), non-pancreatic infections (RR 0.71 (95 per cent c.i. 0.32 to 1.58); P = 0.402) and surgical intervention (RR 0.78 (95 per cent c.i. 0.55 to 1.11); P = 0.167). It was, however, associated with a statistically significant reduction in hospital stay (P = 0.040).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic antibiotics do not prevent infected necrosis or death in acute necrotizing pancreatitis.

JPN Guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis: medical management of acute pancreatitis

The basic principles of the initial management of acute pancreatitis are adequate monitoring of vital signs, fluid replacement, correction of any electrolyte imbalance, nutritional support, and the prevention of local and systemic complications. Patients with severe acute pancreatitis should be transferred to a medical facility where adequate monitoring and intensive medical care are available. Strict cardiovascular and respiratory monitoring is mandatory for maintaining the cardiopulmonary system in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Maximum fluid replacement is needed to stabilize the cardiovascular system. Prophylactic antibiotic administration is recommended to prevent infectious complications in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Although the efficacy of the intravenous administration of protease inhibitors is still a matter of controversy, there is a consensus in Japan that a large dose of a synthetic protease inhibitor should be given to patients with severe acute pancreatitis in order to prevent organ failure and other complications. Enteral feeding is superior to parenteral nutrition when it comes to the nutritional support of patients with severe acute pancreatitis. The JPN Guidelines recommend, as optional measures, blood purification therapy and continuous regional arterial infusion of a protease inhibitor and antibiotics, depending on the patient's condition.

Consensus of primary care in acute pancreatitis in Japan

The incidence of acute pancreatitis in Japan is increasing and ranges from 187 to 347 cases per million populations. Case fatality was 0.2% for mild to moderate, and 9.0% for severe acute pancreatitis in Japan in 2003. Experts in pancreatitis in Japan made this document focusing on the practical aspects in the early management of patients with acute pancreatitis. The correct diagnosis of acute pancreatitis and severity stratification should be made in all patients using the criteria for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis and the multifactor scoring system proposed by the Research Committee of Intractable Diseases of the Pancreas as early as possible. All patients diagnosed with acute pancreatitis should be managed in the hospital. Monitoring of blood pressure, pulse and respiratory rate, body temperature, hourly urinary volume, and blood oxygen saturation level is essential in the management of such patients. Early vigorous intravenous hydration is of foremost importance to stabilize circulatory dynamics. Adequate pain relief with opiates is also important. In severe acute pancreatitis, prophylactic intravenous administration of antibiotics at an early stage is recommended. Administration of protease inhibitors should be initiated as soon as the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis is confirmed. A combination of enteral feeding with parenteral nutrition from early stage is recommended if there are no clear signs and symptoms of ileus and gastrointestinal bleeding. Patients with severe acute pancreatitis should be transferred to ICU as early as possible to perform special measures such as continuous regional arterial infusion of protease inhibitors and antibiotics, and continuous hemodiafiltration. The Japanese Government covers medical care expense for severe acute pancreatitis as one of the projects of Research on Measures for Intractable Diseases.

Timing of antibiotic prophylaxis in acute pancreatitis: a controlled randomized study with meropenem

OBJECTIVES

Antibiotic prophylaxis improves the outcome of acute pancreatitis. Since bacterial translocation from the gut occurs in the first h of disease, early therapy is likely to achieve the maximal effect. The study compares early antibiotic treatment with treatment started after the demonstration of pancreatic necrosis.

METHODS

Two hundred fifteen patients with pancreatitis were randomized to either group A (N=108), who started antibiotic therapy (meropenem 500 mg t.i.d.) at admission, or group B (N=107), who received antibiotics after the demonstration of necrosis at computed tomography (CT). CT was performed in both groups after at least 48 hr of hospitalization. The clinical course of disease was compared in the two groups.

RESULTS

Thirty patients in group A and 29 in B showed necrosis on CT. The two groups were similar in demographics and characteristics of disease. Antibiotic treatment was started after 4.56+/-1.2 days from hospitalization in group B and after 1.07+/-0.6 days in A. Pancreatic infection occurred in four patients in group A (13.3%) and in nine in B (31%) (p=0.1). Extrapancreatic infection occurred in 16.6% of patients in group A and in 44.8% in B (p<0.05). Need for surgery and length of hospitalization were also higher in group B. Mortality rates were similar in the two groups, but, 3 of 4 patients with infected necrosis in group A and only 2 of 9 in group B died.

CONCLUSIONS

Early antibiotic treatment is associated with a significant improvement in the prognosis of necrotizing acute pancreatitis (AP), because of a reduction in the occurrence of septic complications.

The role of antibiotic prophylaxis in the treatment of acute pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis is an inflammatory disorder, but it is not generally caused by infectious agents. Yet, in tertiary referral hospitals, the majority of patients who die of necrotizing pancreatitis do so as a consequence of infectious complications. These generally develop late (2-4 weeks) in the disease process. This finding prompted the hypothesis that infectious pancreatitis complications, such as an abscess or an infected necrosis which can lead to death, can be reduced by treating patients who suffer, at least initially, from a sterile inflammatory disorder, with broad-spectrum antibiotics. Here we review the experimental foundations of this hypothesis, as well as the difficulties that were encountered when clinical trials were undertaken to confirm it. At present, there is still a case for treating necrotizing pancreatitis patients with broad-spectrum antibiotics (specifically carbapenems), but the extent of the beneficial effect and the number of patients expected to profit from this approach should not be overestimated.

Evidence-based treatment of acute pancreatitis: a look at established paradigms

BACKGROUND

The management of acute pancreatitis (AP) is still based on speculative and unproven paradigms in many centers. Therefore, we performed an evidence-based analysis to assess the best available treatment.

METHODS

A comprehensive Medline and Cochrane Library search was performed evaluating the indication and timing of interventional and surgical approaches, and the value of aprotinin, lexipafant, gabexate mesylate, and octreotide treatment. Each study was ranked according to the evidence-based methodology of Sackett; whenever feasible, we performed new meta-analyses using the random-effects model. Recommendations were based on the available level of evidence (A=large randomized; B=small randomized; C=prospective trial).

RESULTS

None of the evaluated medical treatments is recommended (level A). Patients with AP should receive early enteral nutrition (level B). While mild biliary AP is best treated by primary cholecystectomy (level B), patients with severe biliary AP require emergency endoscopic papillotomy followed by interval cholecystectomy (level A). Patients with necrotizing AP should receive imipenem or meropenem prophylaxis to decrease the risk of infected necrosis and mortality (level A). Sterile necrosis per se is not an indication for surgery (level C), and not all patients with infected necrosis require immediate surgery (level B). In general, early necrosectomy should be avoided (level B), and single necrosectomy with postoperative lavage should be preferred over "open-packing" because of fewer complications with comparable mortality rates (level C).

CONCLUSIONS

While providing new insights into key aspects of AP management, this evidence-based analysis highlights the need for further clinical trials, particularly regarding the indications for antibiotic prophylaxis and surgery.

Pharmacological prevention and treatment of acute pancreatitis: where are we now?

Acute pancreatitis is a disease of increasing prevalence, unchanged mortality over many decades, and limited treatment strategies. Progress has been made in developing therapies that reduce the rate of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-associated pancreatitis and in preventing infected pancreatic necrosis with intravenous carbapenems. Attempts at reducing pancreatic enzyme output or inhibiting the activity of digestive enzyme proteases have not yielded encouraging results - nor have anti-inflammatory strategies for the treatment of acute pancreatitis been found to be effective so far. Future therapeutic options that are presently being developed or under investigation attempt to restore pancreatic secretory function, interfere with inflammatory pathways in a more effective manner, or inhibit digestive enzyme proteases more selectively.