2
|
Yokoe M, Takada T, Mayumi T, Yoshida M, Isaji S, Wada K, Itoi T, Sata N, Gabata T, Igarashi H, Kataoka K, Hirota M, Kadoya M, Kitamura N, Kimura Y, Kiriyama S, Shirai K, Hattori T, Takeda K, Takeyama Y, Hirota M, Sekimoto M, Shikata S, Arata S, Hirata K. Japanese guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis: Japanese Guidelines 2015. JOURNAL OF HEPATO-BILIARY-PANCREATIC SCIENCES 2015; 22:405-32. [PMID: 25973947 DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.259] [Citation(s) in RCA: 267] [Impact Index Per Article: 29.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2015] [Accepted: 04/10/2015] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Masamichi Yokoe
- General Internal Medicine, Japanese Red Cross Nagoya Daini Hospital, Nagoya, Japan
| | - Tadahiro Takada
- Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Toshihiko Mayumi
- Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, KitaKyushu, Japan
| | - Masahiro Yoshida
- Department of Hemodialysis and Surgery, Chemotherapy Research Institute, International University of Health and Welfare, Ichikawa, Japan
| | - Shuji Isaji
- Hepatobiliary Pancreatic & Transplant Surgery Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, Mie, Japan
| | - Keita Wada
- Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Takao Itoi
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Naohiro Sata
- Department of Surgery, Jichi Medical University, Shimotsuke, Tochigi, Japan
| | - Toshifumi Gabata
- Department of Radiology, Kanazawa University, School of Medical Science, Kanazawa, Japan
| | - Hisato Igarashi
- Clinical Education Center, Kyushu University Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan
| | - Keisho Kataoka
- Otsu Municipal Hospital, Shiga.,Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan
| | - Masahiko Hirota
- Department of Surgery, Kumamoto Regional Medical Center, Kumamoto, Japan
| | - Masumi Kadoya
- Department of Radiology, Shinshu University School of Medicine, Matsumoto, Japan
| | - Nobuya Kitamura
- Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Kimitsu Chuo Hospital, Kisarazu, Chiba, Japan
| | - Yasutoshi Kimura
- Department of Surgery, Surgical Oncology and Science, Sapporo Medical University, Sapporo, Japan
| | - Seiki Kiriyama
- Department of Gastroenterology, Ogaki Municipal Hospital, Ogaki, Japan
| | - Kunihiro Shirai
- Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Ichinomiya Municipal Hospital, Ichinomiya, Japan
| | - Takayuki Hattori
- Department of Radiology, Tokyo Metropolitan Health and Medical Treatment Corporation, Ohkubo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Kazunori Takeda
- Department of Surgery, National Hospital Organization Sendai Medical Center, Sendai, Japan
| | - Yoshifumi Takeyama
- Department of Surgery, Kinki University Faculty of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
| | - Morihisa Hirota
- Division of Gastroenterology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan
| | - Miho Sekimoto
- The University of Tokyo Graduate School of Public Policy, Health Policy Unit, Tokyo
| | - Satoru Shikata
- Department of Family Medicine, Mie Prefectural Ichishi Hospital, Mie, Japan
| | - Shinju Arata
- Gastroenterological Center, Yokohama City University Medical Center, Yokohama, Japan
| | - Koichi Hirata
- Department of Surgery, Surgical Oncology and Science, Sapporo Medical University, Sapporo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Hamada T, Yasunaga H, Nakai Y, Isayama H, Horiguchi H, Matsuda S, Fushimi K, Koike K. Continuous regional arterial infusion for acute pancreatitis: a propensity score analysis using a nationwide administrative database. CRITICAL CARE : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE CRITICAL CARE FORUM 2013; 17:R214. [PMID: 24088324 PMCID: PMC4055985 DOI: 10.1186/cc13029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2013] [Accepted: 07/26/2013] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
Introduction Although continuous regional arterial infusion (CRAI) of a protease inhibitor and an antibiotic may be effective in patients with severe acute pancreatitis, CRAI has not yet been validated in large patient populations. We therefore evaluated the effectiveness of CRAI based on data from a national administrative database covering 1,032 Japanese hospitals. Methods In-hospital mortality, length of stay and costs were compared in the CRAI and non-CRAI groups, using propensity score analysis to adjust for treatment selection bias. Results A total of 17,415 eligible patients with acute pancreatitis were identified between 1 July and 30 September 2011, including 287 (1.6%) patients who underwent CRAI. One-to-one propensity-score matching generated 207 pairs with well-balanced baseline characteristics. In-hospital mortality rates were similar in the CRAI and non-CRAI groups (7.7% vs. 8.7%; odds ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.44–1.78, P = 0.720). CRAI was associated with significantly longer median hospital stay (29 vs. 18 days, P < 0.001), significantly higher median total cost (21,800 vs. 12,600 United States dollars, P < 0.001), and a higher rate of interventions for infectious complications, such as endoscopic/surgical necrosectomy or percutaneous drainage (2.9% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.061). Conclusions CRAI was not effective in reducing in-hospital mortality rate in patients with acute pancreatitis, but was associated with longer hospital stay and higher costs. Randomized controlled trials in large numbers of patients are required to further evaluate CRAI for this indication.
Collapse
|