Impact of Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Severe Acute Pancreatitis on the Development of Invasive Candidiasis: A Large Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study

The Ongoing Debate on the Use of Prophylactic Antibiotics in Acute Pancreatitis-Is There a Conclusion? A Comprehensive Narrative Review

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common but often self-limiting disease in the majority of patients. However, in the minority, who may progress to moderately severe or severe AP, high mortality risk has been reported. Infected pancreatitis necrosis (IPN) in necrotising pancreatitis has been shown to result in more than twice the mortality rate compared with in sterile pancreatic necrosis. This raises the question on whether prophylactic antibiotics (PABs) should be given in subgroups of AP to prevent superimposed infection to improve survival outcomes. Despite numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses, and guidelines on the management of AP, there is a lack of strong evidence to suggest the use of PABs in AP. Additionally, use of PABs is associated with antimicrobial resistance. Considerable heterogeneity exists and limits the interpretation of results-subgroup of AP benefitting from PAB use, choice/class of PAB, and timing of administration from symptom onset and duration of PAB use. Only a minority of existing meta-analyses suggest mortality benefits and reduction in IPN. The majority of existing guidelines do not recommend the use of PABs in AP. More research is required to make more definitive conclusions. Currently, PAB should only be administered after multidisciplinary discussions led by pancreatology experts.

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.

Supportive treatment during the periprocedural period of endoscopic treatment for pancreatic fluid collections: a critical review of current knowledge and future perspectives

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) commonly develop as complications of acute pancreatitis and ductal disruption due to chronic pancreatitis. In the revised Atlanta classification, PFCs were classified based on the presence of necrosis and duration following the onset of acute pancreatitis. Interventions are required in cases of symptomatic pancreatic pseudocysts or walled-off necrosis (WON). In the management of these PFCs, endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage and subsequent direct endoscopic necrosectomy for WON are increasingly utilized as less invasive treatment modalities compared to surgical debridement. To date, researchers have focused predominantly on the technical aspects of endoscopic therapy for symptomatic PFCs. Given the poor physical condition of patients receiving endoscopic treatment for PFCs, systemic support may have a substantial impact on the short- and long-term outcomes of these patients. A multidisciplinary approach is required to improve the clinical outcomes of patients with infected PFCs and their associated comorbidities. However, non-interventional support during the periprocedural period of endoscopic treatment of PFCs has not been fully discussed, and there have been considerable variations in the selection of treatment options between endoscopists and centers. To address these unmet needs in the clinical management of PFCs and promote future research to improve the clinical outcomes, we conducted a review of the literature within a multicenter consortium of expert endoscopists with specific expertise in the endoscopic treatment of PFCs. In this review, we summarize the current evidence on non-interventional supportive care (e.g., continuous lavage, medications, nutritional support, and antimicrobials) and propose potential topics for future research.

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.

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.

Management of Severe Acute Pancreatitis: An Update

BACKGROUND

Severe acute pancreatitis (AP) continues to be a serious gastrointestinal disease with relevant morbidity and mortality.

SUMMARY

Successful clinical management requires close interdisciplinary cooperation and coordination from experienced gastroenterologists, intensive care physicians, surgeons, and radiologists. While the early phase of the disease is characterized by intensive care aspects that focus primarily on treatment of organ failure, later complications are characterized especially by (infected) necrotic collections. Here, we discuss current clinical standards and developments for conservative and interventional management of patients with severe AP. Key messages: Early targeted fluid therapy within the first 48 h is critical to improve the outcome of severe AP. Thoracic epidural analgesia may have prognostically beneficial effects due to suspected anti-inflammatory effects and increased perfusion of splanchnic vessels. Enteral feeding should be started early during severe AP. Persistent organ failure (>48 h) is the strongest predictor of poor prognosis, and local complications such as infected walled-off necrosis should be primarily treated by minimally invasive endoscopic step-up approaches that are usually superior to surgical therapy options.

Multiple organ failure might be an indication for prophylactic antifungal therapy in acute pancreatitis

PURPOSE

Significant conflicts regarding prophylactic antifungal treatment in acute pancreatitis (AP) exist among current literatures and guidelines. The key to resolving this controversial issue is to identify risk factors for intra-abdominal fungal infection (AFI) among patients with AP.

METHODS

A single-center, retrospective cohort of 826 patients with AP between January 2014 to December 2019 was analysed to study the risk factors of AFI.

RESULTS

Of the 826 patients with AP, 10 patients (1.2%) developed AFI, including 2 cases in moderately severe AP (MSAP) and 8 in severe AP (SAP). The incidence of AFI was significantly higher in patients with SAP compared with MSAP and mild AP (10.3 vs. 0.8% vs. 0, P < 0.001). SAP patients with AFI were more likely to have multiple organ failure (MOF) (OR = 13.4; 95% CI 1.6-115.5), organ failure lasting more than 1 week (OR = 5.1; 95% CI 1.0-27.0), and surgical intervention within first week of admission (OR = 7.4; 95% CI 1.0-53.6). Multivariable analysis identified MOF (OR = 14.3; 95% CI 1.2-173.8) as the only independent risk factor of AFI.

CONCLUSION

MOF might be the indication of prophylactic antifungal therapy in patients with AP.

Candidemia indicates poor outcome in patients with infected pancreatic necrosis

BACKGROUND

Intra-abdominal fungal infection (AFI) and candidemia are common in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP), but with limited and conflicting reports on their clinical impacts. This study aims to evaluate the clinical impacts of AFI and candidemia in infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN).

METHODS

A single-centre, prospective cohort including 235 consecutive patients with IPN between January 2010 and September 2020 was analysed to study the clinical impacts of AFI and candidemia.

RESULTS

Of the 235 patients with IPN, 69 patients (29.4%) developed AFI and 13 patients (5.5%) developed candidemia. AFI was associated with higher intestinal leakage rate (27.5% vs 12.7%, P = .006), higher pancreatic fistula rate (53.6% vs 34.3%, P = .006) and longer hospital stays (72 vs 58 days, P = .003), but with similar mortality rate compared with patients without AFI (23.2% vs 24.7%, P = .806). However, candidemia was associated with significantly higher mortality rate compared with patients without candidemia (69.2% vs 21.6%, P < .001). Patients with candidemia had higher rate of multiple organ failure and AFI (69.2% vs 36.5%, P = .018; 69.2% vs 27.0%, P = .001, respectively). Multivariable analysis showed that age ≥ 50 years (OR = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3-5.8; P = .007), severe category (OR = 11.2; 95% CI, 3.5-35.7; P < .001), multidrug-resistant organisms infection (OR = 2.5; 95% CI, 1.0-6.2; P = .039), candidemia (OR = 11.8; 95% CI, 2.5-56.5; P = .002), step-down surgical approach (OR = 3.2; 95% CI, 1.5-7.0; P = .004) were the independent predictors associated with higher mortality in IPN patients.

CONCLUSION

Although AFI did not increase the mortality of IPN, patients with candidemia carried significantly higher mortality.

Risk factors for walled-off necrosis associated with severe acute pancreatitis: A multicenter retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to identify the risk factors for walled-off necrosis (WON) associated with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP).

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted in eight institutions in Japan between 2014 and 2017. We analyzed WON incidence, patient characteristics, and risk factors for WON in patients with SAP who were observed for >28 days.

RESULTS

Of 134 patients with SAP, WON occurred in 40 (29.9%). Male sex (P = .045), body mass index (BMI) ≥25 (P < .001), post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (P = .020), and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) (P = .001) were more frequent in the WON group than in the non-WON group. On admission, the frequency of white blood cell counts ≥ 12 000/µL (P = .037) and hypoenhanced pancreatic lesion on computed tomography (P = .047) were significantly higher in the WON group. In multivariate analysis, BMI ≥ 25 (odds ratio [OR] 5.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.95-16.8; P = .002), post-ERCP (OR 8.08, 95% CI 1.57-41.7; P = .013), and DIC (OR 3.52, 95% CI 1.20-10.4; P = .022) were independent risk factors for WON.

CONCLUSIONS

High BMI, post-ERCP pancreatitis, and DIC are risk factors for the development of WON associated with SAP.

Etiology and mortality in severe acute pancreatitis: A multicenter study in Japan

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) has a high mortality rate despite ongoing attempts to improve prognosis through a various therapeutic modalities. This study aimed to delineate etiology-based routes that may guide clinical decisions for the treatment of SAP.

METHODS

Using data from a recent retrospective multicenter study in Japan, we analyzed the association between clinical outcomes, mainly in-hospital mortality and pancreatic infection, and various etiologies while considering confounding factors. We performed additional multivariate analyses and built decision tree models.

RESULTS

The 1097 participating patients were classified into the following groups by etiology: alcohol (n = 436, 39.7%); cholelithiasis (n = 230, 21.0%); idiopathic (n = 227, 20.7%); and others (n = 204, 18.6%). Mortality at hospital discharge was 8.4%, 12.2%, 16.7%, and 16.2% in the alcohol, cholelithiasis, idiopathic, and others groups, respectively. According to multivariable analysis, early enteral nutrition (EN) was significantly associated with reduced in-hospital mortality only in the cholelithiasis group. However, there was a consistent association between age and the need for mechanical ventilation and increased mortality, regardless of etiology. Our decision tree models presented different contributing factors depending on the etiology and patient background. Interaction analysis showed that EN and the use of prophylactic antibiotics may influence these results differently according to etiology.

CONCLUSIONS

No study has yet used comprehensive models to investigate etiology-related prognostic factors for SAP; our results can, therefore, be used as a reference for improving clinical decisions.