Time period from onset of pain to hospital admission and patients' awareness in acute pancreatitis

The risk of developing splanchnic vein thrombosis in acute pancreatitis increases 3 days after symptom onset: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Splanchnic vein thrombosis is a complication of acute pancreatitis (AP) and is likely often underdiagnosed.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to understand the time course and risk factors of splanchnic vein thrombosis in the early phase of AP.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration CRD42022367578). Inclusion criteria were appropriate imaging techniques in adult AP patients, studies that reported splanchnic vein thrombosis data from the early phase, and reliable information on the timing of imaging in relation to the onset of pancreatitis symptoms or hospital admission. The proportion of patients with thrombosis with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated using random-effects meta-analyses, and multiple subgroup analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Data from 1951 patients from 14 studies were analyzed. The proportion of patients with splanchnic vein thrombosis within 12 days after symptom onset was 0.13 (CI 0.07-0.23). The occurrence was lowest at 0.06 (CI 0.03-0.1) between 0 and 3 days after symptom onset, and increased fourfold to 0.23 (CI 0.16-0.31) between 3 and 11 days. On hospital admission, the proportion of patients affected was 0.12 (CI 0.02-0.49); it was 0.17 (CI 0.03-0.58) 1-5 days after admission. The prevalence in mild, moderate, and severe AP was 0.15 (CI 0.05-0.36), 0.26 (CI 0.15-0.43), and 0.27 (CI 0.17-0.4), respectively. Alcoholic etiology (0.31, CI 0.13-0.58) and pancreatic necrosis (0.55, CI 0.29-0.78, necrosis above 30%) correlated with increased SVT prevalence.

CONCLUSION

The risk of developing splanchnic vein thrombosis is significant in the early stages of AP and may affect up to a quarter of patients. Alcoholic etiology, pancreatic necrosis, and severity may increase the prevalence of splanchnic vein thrombosis.

Controversies in the management of acute pancreatitis: An update

This review summarized the current controversies in the management of acute pancreatitis (AP). The controversies in management range from issues involving fluid resuscitation, nutrition, the role of antibiotics and antifungals, which analgesic to use, role of anticoagulation and intervention for complications in AP. The interventions vary from percutaneous drainage, endoscopy or surgery. Active research and emerging data are helping to formulate better guidelines. The available evidence favors crystalloids, although the choice and type of fluid resuscitation is an area of dynamic research. The nutrition aspect does not have controversy as of now as early enteral feeding is preferred most often than not. The empirical use of antibiotics and antifungals are gray zones, and more data is needed for conclusive guidelines. The choice of analgesic is being studied, and the recommendations are still evolving. The position of using anticoagulation is still awaiting consensus. The role of intervention is well established, although the modality is constantly changing and favoring endoscopy or percutaneous drainage rather than surgery. It is evident that more multicenter randomized controlled trials are required for establishing the standard of care in these crucial management issues of AP to improve the morbidity and mortality worldwide.

The safety and efficacy of epidural anaesthesia in acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis (AP) has variable clinical courses. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the safety, efficacy, and impact of epidural anaesthesia (EA) use in AP.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched between 1980 and 2022 using the PRISMA guidelines, to identify observational and comparative studies reporting on EA in AP. The meta-analysis was performed in R Foundation for Statistical Computing using the meta R Package for Meta-Analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 9 studies with 2006 patients of which 726 (36%) patients had EA were included. All studies demonstrated high safety and feasibility of EA in AP with no reported major local or neurological complications. One randomised controlled trial demonstrated an improvement in pain severity using a 0-10 visual analogue scale (VAS) at the outset (1.6 in EA vs 3.5 in non-EA, P = 0.02) and on day 10 (0.2 in EA vs 2.33 in non-EA, P = 0.034). There was also improvement in pancreatic perfusion with EA measured with computerised tomography 13 (43%) in EA vs 2 (7%) in non-EA, P = 0.003. The need for ventilatory support and overall mortality was lower in EA patients 40 (19%) vs 285 (24%) P = 0.025 (OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.28-0.84) and 16 (7%) vs 214 (20%), P = 0.050 (OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.15-1.00), respectively.

CONCLUSION

EA is infrequently used for pain management in AP and yet the available evidence suggests that it is safe and effective in reducing pain severity, improving pancreatic perfusion, and decreasing mortality.

Analgesia in the Initial Management of Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

The optimal analgesic strategy for patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of different analgesic modalities trialled in AP.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, SCOPUS and Web of Science conducted up until June 2021, identified all randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing analgesic modalities in AP. A pooled analysis was undertaken of the improvement in pain scores as reported on visual analogue scale (VAS) on day 0, day 1 and day 2.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs were identified including 542 patients. Seven trial drugs were compared: opiates, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs), metamizole, local anaesthetic, epidural, paracetamol, and placebo. Across all modalities, the pooled VAS scores showed global improvement from baseline to day 2. Epidural analgesia appears to provide the greatest improvement in VAS within the first 24 h but is equivalent to opiates by 48 h. Within 24 h, NSAIDs offered similar pain-relief to opiates, while placebo also showed equivalence to other modalities but then plateaued. Local anaesthetics demonstrated least overall efficacy. VAS scores for opiate and non-opiate analgesics were comparable at baseline and day 1. The identified RCTs demonstrated significant statistical and methodological heterogeneity in pain-relief reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

There is remarkable paucity of level 1 evidence to guide pain management in AP with small datasets per study. Epidural administration appears effective within the first 24 h of AP although infrequently used and featured in only a single RCT. NSAIDs are an effective opiate sparing alternative during the first 24 h.

Pain Management in Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Background: Pain management is an important priority in the treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP). Current evidence and guideline recommendations are inconsistent on the most effective analgesic protocol. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of analgesics for pain relief in AP.

Methods: A literature search was performed to identify all RCTs assessing analgesics in patients with AP. The primary outcome was the number of participants who needed rescue analgesia. Study quality was assessed using Jadad score. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were analysed using a random-effects model.

Results: Twelve studies comprising 699 patients with AP (83% mild AP) were analysed. The tested analgesics significantly decreased the need for rescue analgesia (3 studies, OR.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.60) vs. placebo or conventional treatment. The analgesics also improved the pain score [Visual Analogue Scale (Δ-VAS)] at 24 h (WMD 18.46, 0.84 to 36.07) and by the 3rd to 7th days (WMD 11.57, 0.87 to 22.28). Opioids vs. non-opioids were associated with a decrease in the need for rescue analgesia (6 studies, OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.86, p = 0.03) but without significance in pain score. In subgroup analyses, opioids were similar to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) regarding the primary outcome (4 studies, OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.32, p = 0.18). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes and rate of adverse events. Other studies, comparing epidural anaesthesia vs. patient-controlled analgesia and opioid (buprenorphine) vs. opioid (pethidine) did not show significant difference in primary outcome. Study quality issues significantly contributed to overall study heterogeneity.

Conclusions: NSAIDs and opioids are equally effective in decreasing the need for rescue analgesia in patients with mild AP. The relative paucity of trials and high-quality data in this setting is notable and the optimal analgesic strategy for patients with moderately severe and severe AP still requires to be determined.

The characteristics and prognostic role of acute abdominal on-admission pain in acute pancreatitis: A prospective cohort analysis of 1432 cases

INTRODUCTION

Pain is the most common symptom in acute pancreatitis (AP) and is among the diagnostic criteria. Therefore, we aimed to characterize acute abdominal pain in AP.

METHODS

The Hungarian Pancreatic Study Group prospectively collected multicentre clinical data on 1435 adult AP patients between 2012 and 2017. Pain was characterized by its intensity (mild or intense), duration prior to admission (hours), localization (nine regions of the abdomen) and type (sharp, dull or cramping).

RESULTS

97.3% of patients (n = 1394) had pain on admission. Of the initial population with acute abdominal pain, 727 patients answered questions about pain intensity, 1148 about pain type, 1134 about pain localization and 1202 about pain duration. Pain was mostly intense (70%, n = 511/727), characterized by cramping (61%, n = 705/1148), mostly starting less than 24 h prior to admission (56.7%, n = 682/1202). Interestingly, 50.9% of the patients (n = 577/1134) had atypical pain, which means pain other than epigastric or belt-like upper abdominal pain. We observed a higher proportion of peripancreatic fluid collection (19.5% vs. 11.0%; p = 0.009) and oedematous pancreas (8.4% vs. 3.1%; p = 0.016) with intense pain. Sharp pain was associated with AP severity (OR = 2.481 95% CI: 1.550-3.969) and increased mortality (OR = 2.263, 95% CI: 1.199-4.059) compared to other types. Longstanding pain (>72 h) on admission was not associated with outcomes. Pain characteristics showed little association with the patient's baseline characteristics.

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive patient interview should include questions about pain characteristics, including pain type. Patients with sharp and intense pain might need special monitoring and tailored pain management.

SIGNIFICANCE

Acute abdominal pain is the leading presenting symptom in acute pancreatitis; however, we currently lack specific guidelines for pain assessment and management. In our cohort analysis, intense and sharp pain on admission was associated with higher odds for severe AP and several systemic and local complications. Therefore, a comprehensive patient interview should include questions about pain characteristics and patients with intense and sharp pain might need closer monitoring.

Adherence to the evidence-based guidelines in the management of acute biliary pancreatitis: A case series

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is considered one of the most common gastrointestinal disorders; the annual worldwide incidence for AP is 4.9-73.4 cases / 100,000 people and the total mortality rate is 4-8%, increasing to 33% in patients with infected necrosis. This study aims to assess the outcome of providing standardized evidence-based care to patients with acute biliary pancreatitis.

METHODS

Thirty patients diagnosed with acute biliary pancreatitis, were enrolled in this study and managed according to the Japanese guidelines, 2015 with a complementary scope on other recent guidelines.

RESULTS

Out of 30 patients in the study, 60% were females. Twenty-five cases were presented in the early phase of the disease while the rest presented in the late phase. Gallstones were the commonest cause (80%). The complications encountered were a systemic complication in one case, organ failure in three cases, and the local complications in the form of fluid collections in (43.3%) of cases.Out of 30 patients, 6 patients had an intervention. The main approach was minimally invasive techniques (4 cases), Open approach was performed in 2 cases. The total mortality rate was 10%. Most mild cases were discharged within one week from admission. Cases readmitted with recurrent attacks of acute pancreatitis were 3 cases, one male and 2 females.

CONCLUSION

By applying guidelines in the management of acute biliary pancreatitis, we can reduce disease-related morbidity and mortality. Besides, we can reduce the costs of medical services with the proper investment of healthcare resources.

Comparison of efficacy of diclofenac and tramadol in relieving pain in patients of acute pancreatitis: A randomized parallel group double blind active controlled pilot study

BACKGROUND

Opioids and non steroidal anti inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used for pain relief in acute pancreatitis (AP). Opioids carry risk of sphincter of oddi constriction. Although diclofenac prevents post endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis, few reports of diclofenac associated AP are also present. Although, both tramadol and diclofenac are commonly used for pain relief in AP, no study has evaluated their comparative efficacy and safety.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-six eligible participants were randomized to either diclofenac or tramadol. Primary objectives of our study were improvement in pain intensity on visual analogue scale (VAS pain score after 1 hr of drug administration) and number of patients requiring supplementary analgesia. The secondary objectives were total number of times of supplementary analgesia requirement, time to significant decrease (33%) in VAS pain score from baseline, number of painful days (VAS pain score >5), VAS pain score on 7th day, side effects, all cause death and complications of pancreatitis between the two groups.

RESULTS

Although 46 patients were randomized, the final analysis included 41 participants. Five patients were withdrawn from the study (intubation = 3, altered sensorium = 2). No significant difference was seen in terms of VAS score after 1 hr of drug administration, number of patients requiring supplementary analgesic and number of painful days. However, time taken to significant reduction of pain was lower in the diclofenac group (p = .028). Both the agents were comparable in terms of safety. Although complications were less in the diclofenac group, the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Both diclofenac and tramadol are equally effective in controlling pain in AP with similar safety profile.

SIGNIFICANCE

There are no studies that have compared the safety and efficacy of two commonly used analgesics for pain relief in patients with AP. We found that both diclofenac and tramadol are equally effective in decreasing the pain associated with AP. There is also no significant difference in the incidence of side effects between both the groups. Hence both diclofenac and tramadol can be used safely and effectively for pain control in AP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered with clinical trials registry India (Number- CTRI/2018/05/014309).

Development and validation of a risk prediction score for severe acute pancreatitis

INTRODUCTION

The available prognostic scoring systems for severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) have limitations that restrict their clinical value. The aim of this study was to develop a simple model (score) that could rapidly identify those at risk for SAP.

METHODS

We derived a risk model using a retrospective cohort of 700 patients by logistic regression and bootstrapping methods. The discriminative power of the risk model was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC). The classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was used to create risk categories. The model was internally validated by a tenfold cross-validation and externally validated in a separate prospective cohort of 194 patients.

RESULTS

The incidence of SAP was 9.7% in the derivation cohort and 9.3% in the validation cohort. A prognostic score (We denoted it as the SABP score), ranging from 0 to 10, consisting of systemic inflammatory response syndrome, serum albumin, blood urea nitrogen and pleural effusion, was developed by logistic regression and bootstrapping analysis. Patients could be divided into three risk categories according to total SABP score based on CART analysis. The mean probability of developing SAP was 1.9%, 12.8% and 41.6% in patients with low (0-3), moderate (4-6) and high (7-10) SABP score, respectively. The AUCs of prognostic score in tenfold cross-validation was 0.873 and 0.872 in the external validation.

CONCLUSION

Our risk prediction score may assist physicians in predicting the development of SAP.

Electroacupuncture for abdominal pain relief in patients with acute pancreatitis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown that electroacupuncture (EA) reduces the severity of acute pancreatitis. However, the effect of EA for pain relief in patients with acute pancreatitis has not been evaluated yet. The purpose of this study was to prove the efficacy of EA for pain relief in patients with acute pancreatitis compared with conventional treatment.

METHODS

This study is a randomized, controlled, three-arm, parallel-group, multi-center trial. Patients diagnosed with acute pancreatitis are enrolled and randomly assigned to EA 1, EA 2, or a control group in a 1:1:1 ratio. All the enrolled patients basically receive the conventional standard-of-care therapy for acute pancreatitis. Local EA is given in group EA 1, while local with additional distal EA is given in group EA 2. Local EA includes two acupoints, Zhong Wan (CV12) and Shang Wan (CV13), located in the abdomen, while distal EA includes 12 peripheral acupoints, Zhong Wan (CV12), Shang Wan (CV13), He Gu (LI4), Nei Guan (PC6), San Yin Jiao (SP6), Xuan Zhong (GB39), Zu San Li (ST36), and Shang Ju Xu (ST37). The patients randomized to the EA 1 and EA 2 groups undergo one session of EA daily from day 1 until day 4, or until pain resolves. The primary endpoint is the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) change for pain on day 5. Secondary endpoints include daily VAS, requirement of analgesics, changes of inflammatory markers, time to pain disappearance, and hospital days.

DISCUSSION

The results of this trial are expected to prove the efficacy of EA for pain relief in patients with acute pancreatitis. Based upon the results, EA would be applied to a variety of clinical practices for reducing pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03173222 . Registered on 1 August 2017.

Morphine worsens the severity and prevents pancreatic regeneration in mouse models of acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Opioids such as morphine are widely used for the management of pain associated with acute pancreatitis. Interestingly, opioids are also known to affect the immune system and modulate inflammatory pathways in non-pancreatic diseases. However, the impact of morphine on the progression of acute pancreatitis has never been evaluated. In the current study, we evaluated the impact of morphine on the progression and severity of acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

Effect of morphine treatment on acute pancreatitis in caerulein, L-arginine and ethanol-palmitoleic acid models was evaluated after induction of the disease. Inflammatory response, gut permeability and bacterial translocation were compared. Experiments were repeated in mu (µ) opioid receptor knockout mice (MORKO) and in wild-type mice in the presence of opioid receptor antagonist naltrexone to evaluate the role of µ-opioid receptors in morphine's effect on acute pancreatitis. Effect of morphine treatment on pathways activated during pancreatic regeneration like sonic Hedgehog and activation of embryonic transcription factors like pdx-1 and ptf-1 were measured by immunofluorescence and quantitative PCR.

RESULTS

Histological data show that treatment with morphine after induction of acute pancreatitis exacerbates the disease with increased pancreatic neutrophilic infiltration and necrosis in all three models of acute pancreatitis. Morphine also exacerbated acute pancreatitis-induced gut permeabilisation and bacteraemia. These effects were antagonised in the MORKO mice or in the presence of naltrexone suggesting that morphine's effect on severity of acute pancreatitis are mediated through the µ-opioid receptors. Morphine treatment delayed macrophage infiltration, sonic Hedgehog pathway activation and expression of pdx-1 and ptf-1.

CONCLUSION

Morphine treatment worsens the severity of acute pancreatitis and delays resolution and regeneration. Considering our results, the safety of morphine for analgesia during acute pancreatitis should be re-evaluated in future human studies.

Serum amylase and lipase and urinary trypsinogen and amylase for diagnosis of acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

The treatment of people with acute abdominal pain differs if they have acute pancreatitis. It is important to know the diagnostic accuracy of serum amylase, serum lipase, urinary trypsinogen-2, and urinary amylase for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis, so that an informed decision can be made as to whether the person with abdominal pain has acute pancreatitis. There is currently no Cochrane review of the diagnostic test accuracy of serum amylase, serum lipase, urinary trypsinogen-2, and urinary amylase for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of serum amylase, serum lipase, urinary trypsinogen-2, and urinary amylase, either alone or in combination, in the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis in people with acute onset of a persistent, severe epigastric pain or diffuse abdominal pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR HTA and DARE), and other databases until March 2017. We searched the references of the included studies to identify additional studies. We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively. We also performed a 'related search' and 'citing reference' search in MEDLINE and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all studies that evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy of serum amylase, serum lipase, urinary trypsinogen-2, and urinary amylase for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis. We excluded case-control studies because these studies are prone to bias. We accepted any of the following reference standards: biopsy, consensus conference definition, radiological features of acute pancreatitis, diagnosis of acute pancreatitis during laparotomy or autopsy, and organ failure. At least two review authors independently searched and screened the references located by the search to identify relevant studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. The thresholds used for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis varied in the trials, resulting in sparse data for each index test. Because of sparse data, we used -2 log likelihood values to determine which model to use for meta-analysis. We calculated and reported the sensitivity, specificity, post-test probability of a positive and negative index test along with 95% confidence interval (CI) for each cutoff, but have reported only the results of the recommended cutoff of three times normal for serum amylase and serum lipase, and the manufacturer-recommended cutoff of 50 mg/mL for urinary trypsinogen-2 in the abstract.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies including 5056 participants met the inclusion criteria for this review and assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the index tests in people presenting to the emergency department with acute abdominal pain. The risk of bias was unclear or high for all of the included studies. The study that contributed approximately two-thirds of the participants included in this review was excluded from the results of the analysis presented below due to major concerns about the participants included in the study. We have presented only the results where at least two studies were included in the analysis.Serum amylase, serum lipase, and urinary trypsinogen-2 at the standard threshold levels of more than three times normal for serum amylase and serum lipase, and a threshold of 50 ng/mL for urinary trypsinogen-2 appear to have similar sensitivities (0.72 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.82); 0.79 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.92); and 0.72 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.84), respectively) and specificities (0.93 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.99); 0.89 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.99); and 0.90 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.93), respectively). At the median prevalence of 22.6% of acute pancreatitis in the studies, out of 100 people with positive test, serum amylase (more than three times normal), serum lipase (more than three times normal), and urinary trypsinogen (more than 50 ng/mL), 74 (95% CI 33 to 94); 68 (95% CI 21 to 94); and 67 (95% CI 57 to 76) people have acute pancreatitis, respectively; out of 100 people with negative test, serum amylase (more than three times normal), serum lipase (more than three times normal), and urinary trypsinogen (more than 50 ng/mL), 8 (95% CI 5 to 12); 7 (95% CI 3 to 15); and 8 (95% CI 5 to 13) people have acute pancreatitis, respectively. We were not able to compare these tests formally because of sparse data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As about a quarter of people with acute pancreatitis fail to be diagnosed as having acute pancreatitis with the evaluated tests, one should have a low threshold to admit the patient and treat them for acute pancreatitis if the symptoms are suggestive of acute pancreatitis, even if these tests are normal. About 1 in 10 patients without acute pancreatitis may be wrongly diagnosed as having acute pancreatitis with these tests, therefore it is important to consider other conditions that require urgent surgical intervention, such as perforated viscus, even if these tests are abnormal.The diagnostic performance of these tests decreases even further with the progression of time, and one should have an even lower threshold to perform additional investigations if the symptoms are suggestive of acute pancreatitis.

Open Surgical versus Minimal Invasive Necrosectomy of the Pancreas-A Retrospective Multicenter Analysis of the German Pancreatitis Study Group

Background

Necrotising pancreatitis, and particularly infected necrosis, are still associated with high morbidity and mortality. Since 2011, a step-up approach with lower morbidity rates compared to initial open necrosectomy has been established. However, mortality and complication rates of this complex treatment are hardly studied thereafter.

Methods

The German Pancreatitis Study Group performed a multicenter, retrospective study including 220 patients with necrotising pancreatitis requiring intervention, treated at 10 hospitals in Germany between January 2008 and June 2014. Data were analysed for the primary endpoints "severe complications" and "mortality" as well as secondary endpoints including "length of hospital stay", "follow up", and predisposing or prognostic factors.

Results

Of all patients 13.6% were treated primarily with surgery and 86.4% underwent a step-up approach. More men (71.8%) required intervention for necrotising pancreatitis. The most frequent etiology was biliary (41.4%) followed by alcohol (29.1%). Compared to open necrosectomy, the step-up approach was associated with a lower number of severe complications (primary composite endpoint including sepsis, persistent multiorgan dysfunction syndrome (MODS) and erosion bleeding: 44.7% vs. 73.3%), lower mortality (10.5% vs. 33.3%) and lower rates of diabetes mellitus type 3c (4.7% vs. 33.3%). Low hematocrit and low blood urea nitrogen at admission as well as a history of acute pancreatitis were prognostic for less complications in necrotising pancreatitis. A combination of drainage with endoscopic necrosectomy resulted in the lowest rate of severe complications.

Conclusion

A step-up approach starting with minimal invasive drainage techniques and endoscopic necrosectomy results in a significant reduction of morbidity and mortality in necrotising pancreatitis compared to a primarily surgical intervention.

Early phase of acute pancreatitis: Assessment and management

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a potentially life-threatening disease with a wide spectrum of severity. The overall mortality of AP is approximately 5%. According to the revised Atlanta classification system, AP can be classified as mild, moderate, or severe. Severe AP often takes a clinical course with two phases, an early and a late phase, which should both be considered separately. In this review article, we first discuss general aspects of AP, including incidence, pathophysiology, etiology, and grading of severity, then focus on the assessment of patients with suspected AP, including diagnosis and risk stratification, followed by the management of AP during the early phase, with special emphasis on fluid therapy, pain management, nutrition, and antibiotic prophylaxis.