Management of severe acute pancreatitis

State of the art reVIeW

                   

O Joe Hines,1 Stephen J Pandol2

  

1Department of Surgery, David Ge en School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095- 6904, USA

2Department of Medicine, Cedar-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA 90048, USA

Correspondence to: O J Hines joehines@mednet.ucla.edu

Cite this as: BMJ 2019;367:l6227 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6227

Series explanation: State of the Art Reviews are commissioned on the basis of their relevance
to academics and specialists

in the US and internationally. For this reason they are written predominantly by US authors.

ABSTRACT

The risks, measurements of severity, and management of severe acute pancreatitis and its complications have evolved rapidly over the past decade. Evidence suggests that initial goal directed therapy, nutritional support, and vigilance for pancreatic complications are best practice. Patients can develop pancreatic fluid collections including acute pancreatic fluid collections, pancreatic pseudocysts, acute necrotic collections, and walled-o necrosis. Several randomized controlled trials and cohort studies have recently highlighted the advantage of managing these conditions with a progressive approach, with initial draining for infection followed by less invasive techniques. Surgery is no longer an early intervention and may not be needed. Instead, interventional radiologic and endoscopic methods seem to be safer with

at least as good survival outcomes. Newly developed evidence based quality indicators are available to assess and improve performance. Development and clinical testing of drugs to target the mechanisms of disease are necessary for further advancements.

the bmj | BMJ 2019;367:l6227 | doi: 10.1136/bmj.l6227

1

Introduction

Although e ective drug treatments are lacking, advances have been made in understanding the role of risk factors and speci c management steps in patients with acute pancreatitis. We now have an increased appreciation of the role of smoking alone andincombinationwithalcoholmisuseinincreasing the risk of pancreatitis in adults, serum triglyceride concentrations during pancreatitis, and genetic risks in children; this information needs to be conveyed to patients to mitigate the risk for recurrence of acute pancreatitis. Updates of the Atlanta classi cation for severity of acute pancreatitis delineate three severities of acute pancreatitis—mild, moderate, and severe. Newermethodsofdynamicmeasurementsofseverity have been developed that can be used for making clinical decisions during the course of the disease. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the use of antibiotics, peritoneal lavage, and drugs to manage complications and limit the severity of acute pancreatitis, providing high quality data to inform clinical care. Recently, cohort studies and RCTs have provided moderate evidence to support an escalating approach to invasive techniques tackling local complications of severe acute pancreatitis, including pancreatic uid collections and pancreatic necrosis. These advances provide a platform for future improvements, including the development of therapeutics aligned with the cause of the pancreatitis episode, its severity, and its dynamic activity.

Sources and selection criteria

We searched PubMed from 1980 to April 2019 for systematic reviews, meta-analyses, RCTs, and

international guidelines in the English language, using the search terms “severe acute pancreatitis” and “necrotizing pancreatitis”. This found 10422 articles and 483 clinical trials. We expanded the search to include observational studies on the topics of severity, management and treatment, interventional techniques, and complications of severe acute pancreatitis. We excluded case reports and case series with fewer than 25 patients. We prioritized studies by design in the order noted above, as well as those with large patient numbers and quality.

Epidemiology

Acute pancreatitis is one of the most common indications for inpatient hospital care in the US, with an annual incidence of 13-45 cases per 100 000 people.1 2 Historically, epidemiology based on population distributions is reported from the US, Europe, and Japan, and more recently reports are coming from other countries.1 Gallstones and alcohol misuse are key causative factors in the mechanisms of pancreatitis, and the incidence varies between regions as a function of the prevalence of gallstone disease and alcohol misuse.1

Equal proportions of men and women develop acute pancreatitis; however, alcohol misuse is more commonly associated with acute pancreatitis in men, whereas gallstones are more commonly associated with acute pancreatitis in women.1 3 Of note, the di erences in alcohol related pancreatitis between men and women disappear when rates are determined as a function of amounts of alcohol consumption.1 In addition to gallstones, women are more likely

BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.l6227 on 2 December 2019. Downloaded from http://www.bmj.com/ on 23 December 2019 at India:BMJ-PG Sponsored. Protected by copyright.

State of the art reVIeW

                  

2

doi: 10.1136/bmj.l6227 | BMJ 2019;367:l6227 | the bmj

to have acute pancreatitis due to complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or an autoimmune cause and are more likely to have idiopathic acute pancreatitis.1 Recent literature suggests that diabetes is associated with a small increase in risk for development of pancreatitis.4-6

The diagnosis of acute pancreatitis is less common in children than in adults, and most pediatric cases are caused by underlying genetic in uences involving mutations in key digestive enzymes (such as hereditary pancreatitis) and genes in the cystic brosis family of mutations.7 8 Recent data show associations of smoking or combinations of smo- king and alcohol misuse with the incidence of pancreatitis.1 9 10 These studies show that smoking itself is a risk factor for acute pancreatitis and adds to the risk of alcohol induced pancreatitis. Importantly, moderate drinking is unlikely to cause pancreatitis and may provide protection if not associated with smoking.3 11 Recent studies using experimental models of pancreatitis show that the protective e ects of moderate alcohol consumption can be explained by di erential e ects of alcohol and smoking on the endoplasmic reticulum’s unfolded protein res- ponse in the acinar cell of the pancreas.12 13 Further recent work shows associations between diet and the incidence of pancreatitis.14 For example, increased intake of saturated fat and cholesterol is positively associated with the incidence of gallstone pancreatitis, whereas increased ber intake is negatively associated with all forms of pancreatitis. Vitamin D intake is negatively associated with gallstone pancreatitis, and co ee consumption is protective against non-gallstone pancreatitis.

Examples of ethnic di erences in pancreatitis also exist. For example, the risk of pancreatitis is twofold to threefold higher among black people than white people, although little is known about the factors (genetic or environmental) that account for this di erence.1

Although some drugs have been implicated in causing acute pancreatitis, as discussed in a sub- sequent section, a population based retrospective cohort study including 3967859 patients from Southern California Kaiser Permanente showed that patients taking statins had a marked reduction in incidence of acute pancreatitis (incidence rate ratio 0.626, 95% con dence interval 0.588 to 0.668).15 The mechanisms of this bene cial e ect are yet to be determined.

Trends in causes of pancreatitis

Gallstones migrating out of the gallbladder and causing transient obstruction of the pancreatic duct and exposure of the pancreas to biliary constituents still represent the most common cause of acute pancreatitis.1 16 The second most common cause of acute pancreatitis is alcohol misuse.1 16 Intake of a signi cant amount of alcohol for a prolonged period of time (at least four to ve drinks a day over more than ve years) is needed to cause pancreatitis.17 Interestingly, recent studies suggest that moderate

drinking of less than 40 g/day is associated with a protective e ect against pancreatitis.9 18

Cigarette smoking is common with alcohol consumption, and recent studies support an impor- tant role for smoking itself and the combination of alcohol consumption with smoking.3 9 19 These studies show that smoking is an independent risk factor for pancreatitis (acute, recurrent, and chronic) in addition to heavy alcohol use. A prospective analysis of 145886 participants found that, among smokers, pancreatitis was highest among those who consumed more than four drinks a day (hazard ratio 2.06, 95% con dence interval 1.28 to 3.30).11 Understanding of the mechanisms of pancreatitis and the roles of alcohol and smoking has increased and is covered in recent reviews.3 20

The important role of hypertriglyceridemia in acute pancreatitis is increasingly recognized. Hyper- triglyceridemic pancreatitis is the third leading cause of acute pancreatitis.21 A systematic review of case-control, retrospective, and case seriesstudies including 1979 patients estimated that 15-20% of those with severe hypertriglyceridemia (triglyceride concentrations greater than 1000 mg/dL) will develop acute pancreatitis.22 A retrospective cohort study including 2519 patients found that the clinical course in patients with elevated triglycerides was more severe, with a greater incidence of persistent multiorgan failure, than in those without elevated triglycerides.23 24 Of interest are recent studies showing increased severity of pancreatitis in patients with mild (triglyceride concentrations of 150-199 mg/dL) and moderate (200-999 mg/dL) increases in serum triglycerides measured during an episode. These studies suggest that the metabolic e ect of pancreatitis associated with increased circulating concentrations of triglyceride promotes the severity of pancreatitis.

Pancreatitis associated with drugs is less common and probably accounts for less than 5% of cases, although multiple drugs have been reported to be associated with development of pancreatitis.25 Drugs with strong associations with the development of acute pancreatitisincludeazathioprine,6-mercaptopurine, didanosine, valproic acid, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, and mesalamine.25 Although there has been considerable interest in the role of glucagon- like peptide 1 mimetics (incretin mimetics) used for the treatment of diabetes in causing pancreatitis, more thorough investigations show that the increased incidence in these cases is likely due to the underlying diabetes, which increases the risk of acute pancreatitis by two to three times, and not the treatment with these agents.26-29 One meta-analysis of 113 trials including 33 192 patients found that the incidence of pancreatitis with glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists was not di erent from comparator arms (odds ratio 0.93, 95% con dence interval 0.65 to 1.34).27

As indicated earlier, most cases of acute, recurrent, and chronic pancreatitis in children are associated with mutations in several genes. The general consensus is that only a minority of adult patients

BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.l6227 on 2 December 2019. Downloaded from http://www.bmj.com/ on 23 December 2019 at India:BMJ-PG Sponsored. Protected by copyright.

State of the art reVIeW

                  

the bmj | BMJ 2019;367:l6227 | doi: 10.1136/bmj.l6227

3

have pancreatitis resulting from genetic alterations. However, the recent report that a genetic mutation in claudin-2 can augment the e ect of alcohol drinking on susceptibility to pancreatitis is important.30 31

Sometimes, the cause of pancreatitis is not easily discernible. One should not overlook the possibility of a malignancy, which can occasionally present as acute pancreatitis, especially in patients older than 50.25 Additionally, the mucinous material of pancreatic cysts such as intraductal pancreatic mucinous neoplasms can obstruct the ow of pancreatic uid leading to pancreatitis. In cases with an unknown cause, especially with a recurrent episode, a more detailed examination of the pancreas with imaging procedures including endoscopic ultrasonography and testing for genetic abnormalities is warranted.

Identifying the cause of an episode of pancreatitis is of critical importance for providing counseling to patients for prevention of recurrences of acute pancreatitis and the potential for progression to chronic pancreatitis. A review of the e ectiveness of prevention methods including cholecystectomy for biliary pancreatitis, alcohol use counseling for patients with alcohol induced pancreatitis, and control of hypertriglyceridemia has recently been published.32 Similarly, discontinuation of drugs that could have a causative role in acute pancreatitis is necessary to prevent recurrences. Revealing genetic factors underlying the cause of recurrent episodes of acute pancreatitis when other causes are not evident informs the patient about the cause and, more importantly, sets the stage for an important discussion of avoidance of environmental factors (alcohol misuse, smoking, drugs, hypertriglyceridemia) that can provoke the risk of recurrent episodes.

Severity assessment

The diagnosis of acute pancreatitis requires the presence of two out of three characteristic features of the disease.33-35 These are abdominal pain consistent with acute pancreatitis, serum amylase or lipase concentrations that are at least three times the upper limit of the normal range, and abdominal imaging ndings consistent with the diagnosis. Grading systems have been developed for predicting the severity of an episode of acute pancreatitis, for classifying the severity of the episode, and for dynamic measurement of activity during an episode.

Multiple validated methods have been developed to predict the severity of the course of acute pancreatitis on the basis of early observations during the disease. These methods use measures of physiologic responses (cardiopulmonary function and renal function), laboratory studies re ecting extrapancreatic organ injury (liver enzymes), and imaging of the pancreas with and without contrast.36 Some studies have used single laboratory studies including C-reactive protein, blood urea nitrogen, or procalcitonin. Of these methods, scoring systems are the most reliable. The Ranson score was developed more than three decades ago providing an important

impetus in the eld, with at least additional eight scoring systems developed since then. One or more of these prediction methods can be used to plan the initial level of care and interventions needed for management of patients during their disease course.

An episode of acute pancreatitis can also be described by classi cation of severity. The main classi cation method is the Atlanta classi cation system that was rst developed in 1992 and was revised by international consensus in 2012.33 The Atlanta classi cation delineates three severities of acute pancreatitis—mild, moderate, and severe. An episode of mild acute pancreatitis has no organ failure and no local or systemic complications. An episode of moderately severe acute pancreatitis has organ failure that resolves within 48 hours (transient organ failure), local or systemic complications without persistent organ failure, or both. An episode of severe acute pancreatitis has persistent (>48 h) organ failure that can be either single organ failure or multiple organ failure.

A limitation of the prediction and classi cation methods is that they do not provide the real time measurements of disease activity that are needed for a dynamic disease with uctuations in disease activity. Although the prediction models are helpful for initial management of the average patient, some patients may initially present with signs of relatively mild disease but rapidly transition to severe and life threatening disease. A real time measurement system for prompt changes in management, as well as monitoring responses to interventions in clinical practice and clinical trials, is a necessary tool for the eld.

The need for a continuous monitoring system for acute pancreatitis was recently addressed by a group of international experts who developed the acute Pancreatitis Activity Scoring System (PASS) using a modi ed Delphi process.37 The PASS uses routinely obtained clinical measures to provide dynamic measures of disease activity over the complete spectrum of severity during the entire duration of the illness. This measurement system is an additive function of ve weighted clinically important parameters (organ failure, systemicin ammatoryresponse,pain,painmedication, and intolerance to solid diet) that is calculated continuously during an episode of pancreatitis.

Recently, the PASS was tested for validation in patients treated at the Los Angeles County Hospital.38 This prospective study enrolled 439 patients and found that, in addition to predicting the severity of a pancreatitis episode from initial scores (odds ratio 3.5, 95% con dence interval 2.0 to 6.3), the dynamic score was associated with local complications such as pseudocysts and necrosis (odds ratio 3.1, 1.7 to 5.7) and the length of hospital admission and readmission to hospital after discharge (odds ratio 5.1, 2.4 to 10.7). These promising results should lead to continued interest in development of dynamic real time scoring systems for both clinical management and intervention trials with agents designed to improve outcome in acute pancreatitis.

BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.l6227 on 2 December 2019. Downloaded from http://www.bmj.com/ on 23 December 2019 at India:BMJ-PG Sponsored. Protected by copyright.

State of the art reVIeW

                  

4

doi: 10.1136/bmj.l6227 | BMJ 2019;367:l6227 | the bmj

The course of an episode of acute pancreatitis can be de ned by prediction models, classi cation of severity, and dynamic activity. Each of these measurements has value during the disease course. The prediction and dynamic activity measurements are used to assign a level of care and interventions during the initial phases of the disease, and the dynamic activity measurement is needed for adjustments in level of care and interventions du- ring the course of the episode. The classi cation system for severity provides an overall account of an episode that can be used to provide a consolidated characterization of an episode for both clinical care and research purposes.

Early resuscitation

Patients with severe acute pancreatitis develop hypovolemia and may have hypotension secondary to a systemic in ammatory response. Several liters of uid resuscitation may be needed to preserve organ function. Oliguria, diminished cardiac output, and hypotension are common during severe acute pancreatitis and need intensive monitoring.

Various uid preparations are available for resuscitation. Two trials suggest that lactated Ringer’s solution decreases the systemic in ammatory res- ponse in patients with acute pancreatitis.39 40 Although a randomized trial including 41 patients andinvestigatinghydroxyethylstarchsuggestedthat patients receiving hydroxyethyl starch had lower intra-abdominal pressure and need for mechanical ventilation (15% v 48%),41 in a randomized trial with 804 patients hydroxyethyl starch increased the rate of renal failure (relative risk 1.35, 95% con dence interval 1.01 to 1.80) and mortality (relative risk 1.17, 1.01 to 1.36) compared with lactated Ringer’s in the face of severe sepsis.42 Although the type of uid does not seem to a ect mortality, consensus guidelines from the International Association of Pancreatology and AmericanPancreaticAssociationrecommendlactated Ringer’s for the initial phase of resuscitation.43

Fluid resuscitation should be initially assessed with non-invasive monitoring targeting heart rate, mean arterialpressure,andadequateurineoutput.Alarger trial including 200 patients suggested that patients with severe pancreatitis managed with invasive monitoring targeting a central venous pressure of 8-12 mm Hg and mixed venous oxygen saturation of at least 70% needed fewer days of ventilation and in hospital, had less organ failure, and had a lower mortality rate (24% v 18%; P<0.05).44 The American Gastroenterological Association recommends goal directed therapy for uid management.45 Fluid requirements may be considerable, and the amount ofintravenous uidadministeredshouldbesu cient to normalize clinical and biochemical targets of perfusion including heart rate, mean arterial pressure, central venous pressure, urine output, blood urea nitrogen concentration, and hematocrit. Goal directed intravenous uid therapy with 5-10 mL/kg/h should beusedinitiallyuntilresuscitationgoalsarereached (table 1).

Imaging

Ultrasound examination may show evidence of pancreatic and peripancreatic edema or uid collections, but it is generally less e ective at visualizing the pancreas because of overlying bowel. Ultrasonography can determine whether gallstones are present and provide an initial assessment of the likelihood of common bile duct stones if the bile duct is dilated. A computed tomography (CT) scan is indicated for initial assessment if the diagnosis is uncertain, to con rm severity when severe acute pancreatitis is suspected, or if initial treatment fails or in the case of clinical deterioration (table 1). CT can also be used to evaluate complications of pancreatitis including necrosis, infection, pseudocyst, and hemorrhage. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography are helpful to de ne pancreatic and biliary ductal anatomy and identify causes of pancreatitis including choledocholithiasis, but they are less useful in the initial and early assessment of this condition.

Preventing infection

Prevention of infection with prophylactic antibiotics during severe acute pancreatitis has been studied extensively. A meta-analysis of six RCTs including 329 patients found no evidence to support the use of prophylactic antibiotics.47 The use of antibiotics was not associated with less infected necrosis (relative risk 0.77, 95% con dence interval 0.54 to 1.12), mortality (relative risk 0.8, 0.44 to 1.39), non- pancreatic infections (relative risk 0.71, 0.32 to 1.58), or the need for surgical intervention (relative risk 0.78, 0.55 to 1.11). It was, however, associated with a signi cant reduction in hospital stay (P=0.04). A second meta-analysis of six studies with 397 patients con rmed this, with no signi cant e ect on infection of pancreatic necrosis (relative risk 0.055, 0.084 to 0.194) or mortality (relative risk 0.058, 0.017 to 0.134).48 However, a meta-analysis including seven randomized trials with 404 participants reported a reduction in pancreatic infection in the case of pancreatic necrosis in patients who were treated prophylactically with imipenem (relative risk 0.34, 0.13 to 0.84).49 Studies have documented the e cacy of the carbapenem family, including imipenem and meropenem, over cephalosporins or uoroquinolones when pancreatic infection is documented. Overall, antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended to prevent infection in patients with severe acute pancreatitis.

Some evidence supports the concept of selective oral decontamination to prevent infection. A multicenter randomized trial enrolled 102 patients with severe acute pancreatitis.50 Mortality and incidence of Gram negative infection were signi cantly reduced in the selective decontamination group (35% v 22% mortality, P=0.05; 33% v 8% infection, P=0.003), which consisted of treatment with an oral paste containing colistin, amphotericin, and nor oxacin. Additional studies are needed to con rm these results.

BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.l6227 on 2 December 2019. Downloaded from http://www.bmj.com/ on 23 December 2019 at India:BMJ-PG Sponsored. Protected by copyright.

State of the art reVIeW

                  

Table 1 | Recommendations adapted from the International Association of Pancreatology/American Pancreatic Association (IAP/APA)43; the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA)34; and the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE)46

Recommendation

Strength of recommendation

The de nition of acute pancreatitis is based on the ful llment of two of the following three criteria: clinical (upper abdominal pain), laboratory (serum amylase or lipase >3×upper limit of normal), and/or imaging (CT, MRI, ultrasonography) criteria (IAP/APA)

High

The indication for initial CT assessment in acute pancreatitis can be: diagnostic uncertainty, con rmation of severity based on clinical predictors of severe acute pancreatitis, or failure to respond to conservative treatment or in the setting of clinical deterioration (IAP/APA)

High

Ringer’s lactate is recommended for initial fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis (IAP/APA, AGA)

Moderate

Goal directed intravenous fluid therapy with 5-10 mL/kg/h should be used initially until resuscitation goals are reached (IAP/APA, AGA)

Low

Management in, or referral to, a specialist center is necessary for patients with severe acute pancreatitis and for those who may need interventional radiologic, endoscopic, or surgical intervention (IAP/APA)

High

Intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended for the prevention of infectious complications in acute pancreatitis (IAP/APA)

High

Probiotic prophylaxis is not recommended for the prevention of infectious complications in acute pancreatitis (IAP/APA)

High

In patients with acute biliary pancreatitis and no cholangitis, the recommendation is against the routine use of urgent ERCP (AGA)

Moderate

Urgent ERCP (<24 h) is required in patients with acute cholangitis (IAP/APA)

High

In patients with acute pancreatitis, early (within 24 h) oral feeding is recommended as tolerated, rather than keeping the patient nil by mouth (AGA)

High

In patients with acute pancreatitis and inability to feed orally, enteral rather than parenteral nutrition is recommended (AGA)

High

In patients with predicted severe or necrotizing pancreatitis requiring enteral tube feeding, a nasogastric or nasojejunal route is acceptable (AGA)

Moderate

For patients with proven or suspected infected necrotizing pancreatitis, invasive intervention (ie, percutaneous catheter drainage, endoscopic transluminal drainage/necrosectomy, minimally invasive or open necrosectomy) should be delayed where possible until ≥4 weeks a er initial presentation to allow the collection to become “walled-o ” (IAP/APA, ASGE)

High

All infected pancreatic fluid collections should be drained in patients who fail to improve with conservative management alone (ASGE)

High

Symptomatic sterile necrosis lasting >8 weeks a er the onset of acute pancreatitis should be drained (ASGE)

High

The optimal interventional strategy for patients with suspected or con rmed infected necrotizing pancreatitis is initial image guided percutaneous (retroperitoneal) catheter drainage or endoscopic transluminal drainage, followed, if necessary, by endoscopic or surgical necrosectomy (IAP/APA, ASGE)

Moderate

Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections should be performed only with the availability of surgical and interventional radiology support (ASGE)

High

CT=computed tomography; ERCP=endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; MRI=magnetic resonance imaging.

the bmj | BMJ 2019;367:l6227 | doi: 10.1136/bmj.l6227

5

Another potential approach to prevent infectious complications is the use of probiotics for reduction of gastrointestinal bacterial overgrowth, restoration of the gastrointestinal barrier, and immune modu- lation. PROPATRIA (Probiotics in Pancreatitis Trial) was a multicenter RCT that included 298 patients with severe acute pancreatitis who received a probiotic or placebo within 72 hours of symptoms.51 Infectious complications occurred equally between groups, but the risk of death was 2.53 (95% con dence interval 1.22 to 5.25) times higher in the probiotic group compared with placebo. The authors suspected that probiotic administration led to intestinal ischemia and hence a higher mortality rate. Probiotics are not recommended in the case of severe acute pancreatitis.

Nutritional support

Enteral nutritional support has been found to improve outcomes and limit complications in patients with severe acute pancreatitis, and this has been con rmed by a meta-analysis including ve RCTs with 202 patients showing a reduced risk of infectious complications (relative risk 0.47, 95% con dence interval 0.28 to 0.77),

pancreatic infections (relative risk 0.48, 0.26 to 0.91), and mortality (relative risk 0.32, 0.11 to 0.98).52 A meta-analysis including eight trials with 348 participants found that enteral feeding was superior to parenteral nutrition in terms of complications and mortality (relative risk 0.50, 95% con dence interval 0.28 to 0.91).53 A meta- analysis of 20 RCTs including 1070 patients found that no particular type of enteral nutrition improved outcome.54 The Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group conducted a randomized trial (PYTHON trial) of 208 patients to evaluate early enteral feeding within 24 hours. Enteral feeding did not seem to reduce the rate of infection or death (relative risk 1.07, 0.79 to 1.44).55 An RCT including 31 patients found that enteral feeding could be safely delivered via either nasogastric or nasojejunal routes.56 Enteral nutrition may support the gut-mucosal barrier and reduce bacterial translocation, and through this reduce the risk of infected peripancreatic necrosis and other serious acute pancreatitis outcomes. Daily caloric requirements can be calculated on the basis of the patient’s weight and severity of illness, with the goal of improving serum nutritional parameters including prealbumin and albumin.

BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.l6227 on 2 December 2019. Downloaded from http://www.bmj.com/ on 23 December 2019 at India:BMJ-PG Sponsored. Protected by copyright.

State of the art reVIeW

                  

6

doi: 10.1136/bmj.l6227 | BMJ 2019;367:l6227 | the bmj

Therapeutic agents

Octreotide is a peptide that inhibits exocrine secretion of the pancreas, and, as trypsinogen and other enzymes are known to initiate and propagate pancreatitis, octreotide has been theorized to improve the course of severe acute pancreatitis. To date, 13 trials have been reported with variable results. Generally, some agreement exists, albeit supported by weak evidence, that octreotide or the analog somatostatin lowers the incidence of organ failure but not infected necrosis or mortality.57

Several recent and ongoing trials have advocated the bene t of antioxidants and vitamin C for patients in the intensive care unit. One double blind trial randomized 43 patients with severe acute pancreatitis to treatment with the intravenous antioxidants N-acetylcysteine, selenium, and vita- min C or placebo.58 The primary endpoint of organ dysfunction was no di erent between the antioxidant and placebo groups (32% v 19%; P=0.33), and a trend was seen toward more organ dysfunction in the antioxidant group. Given these ndings, the authors cautioned against considering antioxidant treatment in patients with severe acute pancreatitis.

In a small clinical trial, 28 patients with severe acute pancreatitis were randomized to receive pentoxifylline (400 mg three times a day) or placebo within 72 hours of diagnosis.59 Pentoxifylline is a phosphodiesterase inhibitor that lowers tumor necrosis factor and leukotrienes, dampening in am- mation. It also improves red blood cell deformability, diminishes blood viscosity, and decreases platelet aggregation and the formation of thrombus. The pentoxifylline group had fewer days in the intensive care unit and in hospital (P<0.05). Although not signi cant, none of the treatment group developed new necrosis or organ failure, whereas two patients in the placebo group had progressive necrosis and three manifested organ failure.

The e ect of lexipafant, a potent platelet activating factor antagonist, was compared with placebo in a multicenter RCT of 286 patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis.60 The investigators found a small decrease in the organ failure score in the treatment group (P=0.023), but lexipafant had no e ect on markers of systemic in ammatory response, new organ failure, or mortality.

On the basis of promising preclinical data, a multicenter study was conducted to investigate the use of a protease inhibitor, gabexate mesilate, in patients with moderate to severe acute pancreatitis. Two hundred and twenty three patients were randomized to receive placebo or the study drug (4 mg daily for seven days). No di erences were seen in mortality or complications between the two groups.61

To date, no drug has been identi ed that consistently modulates the outcome of severe acute pancreatitis. A systematic review of 78 RCTs with 7366 patients, investigating drug interventions including antioxidants, aprotinin, atropine, calcito- nin, cimetidine, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid,

gabexate, glucagon, iniprol, lexipafant, non-steroidal anti-in ammatory drugs, octreotide, oxyphenonium, activated protein C, somatostatin, somatostatin plus omeprazole, somatostatin plus ulinastatin, thymosin, and ulinastatin, found no e ect on short term mortality.62 Fewer adverse events were found for lexipafant (rate ratio 0.67, 95% con dence interval 0.46 to 0.96; n=290, one study), octreotide (rate ratio 0.74, 0.60 to 0.89; n=770, ve studies), somatostatin plus omeprazole (rate ratio 0.36, 0.19 to 0.70; n=140, one study), and somatostatin plus ulinastatin (rate ratio 0.30, 0.15 to 0.60; n=122, one study). Overall, the authors rated the studies as of very low quality and found no consistent clinical bene ts with treatment.

Early intervention

Peritoneal lavage has been used in patients with severe acute pancreatitis and intraperitoneal uid, with the theory that this removes toxins and various metabolites from the peritoneal cavity, minimizing systemic absorption and e ect on the systemic in ammatory response and organ failure. Although controlled trials failed to show that this decreased mortality rates, some evidence from individual studies suggests fewer cardiopulmonary complications.63-66 However, a systematic review of 10 RCTs including 469 patients found that peritoneal lavage did not lead to a signi cant di erence in the risk of mortality (relative risk 0.82, 95% con dence interval 0.32 to 1.79) or complications (relative risk 1.33, 0.99 to 2.12).67

Patients with severe acute biliary pancreatitis may be helped by early endoscopic sphincterotomy and stone extraction. Four randomized studies have evaluated the utility of urgent sphincterotomy and stone extraction.68-71 Overall, these studies seem to show bene t in patients who have severe disease and are not responding to resuscitative therapy. The Dutch Acute Pancreatitis Study Group reported a prospective multicenter study of 153 patients and found that patients with cholestasis who underwent endoscopic retrograde ERCP had fewer complications than those who did not (25% v 54%, P=0.02; odds ratio 0.35, 95% con dence interval 0.13 to 0.99).72 Severe acute pancreatitis patients with biliary obstruction or cholangitis may bene t from sphincterotomy after a period of early resuscitation. The American Gastroenterological Association re- commends against urgent ERCP (<24 h) in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis and no cholangitis.45 The International Association of Pancreatology and American Pancreatic Association recommend urgent ERCP in acute pancreatitis patients with acute cholangitis (table 1).43

In patients with mild biliary pancreatitis that resolves within two or three days, cholecystectomy should be performed during the same hospital admission, as the incidence of recurrent pancreatitis may be as high as 60-80% in the ensuing months. On the other hand, patients with a severe episode of biliary pancreatitis should undergo cholecystectomy

BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.l6227 on 2 December 2019. Downloaded from http://www.bmj.com/ on 23 December 2019 at India:BMJ-PG Sponsored. Protected by copyright.

State of the art reVIeW

                  

after the pancreatitis and the subsequent local complications have resolved. By this time, abdominal in ammation has subsided and the operation can be done without increased risk. Bile duct stones will not usually need operative intervention, as endoscopic approaches are so e ective, but a laparoscopic or open common bile duct exploration can be used.

Local complications of pancreatitis

In2012theAtlantaclassificationforpancreatitis was revised, and the local collections resulting from pancreatitis have a defined nomenclature (table2).33Eachtypeofcollectionhasaparticular natural history and, therefore, treatment approach.

Acute pancreatic fluid collection

An acute pancreatic uid collection is a homogeneous uid collection adjacent to the pancreas associated with pancreatitis without evidence of pancreatic necrosis. This term applies to a collection within the rst four weeks after the inception of pancreatitis. This is distinct from a pseudocyst, as there is no wall encapsulating the uid. Acute pancreatic uid collections rarely become infected, and most resolve without intervention.

Pseudocysts

Pseudocysts are encapsulated uid collections with an in ammatory wall. These usually occur more than four weeks into the course of severe acute pancreatitis. Many pseudocysts resolve spontaneously. The size of the pseudocyst no longer drives the decision for intervention, although some evidence suggests that cysts greater than 5 cm are less likely to resolve. As long as the pseudocyst is asymptomatic, observation and follow-up imaging with contrast enhanced CT or MRI is su cient to con rm ultimate resolution. When a pseudocyst is symptomatic, patients can experience pain,

varying degrees of gastric or duodenal obstruction, weight loss, or biliary obstruction. Rarely, an acute complication can occur, including rupture leading to pancreatic ascites, bleeding or infection of the cyst, or erosion into surrounding vessels such as the splenic or gastroduodenal arteries.

Patients with symptomatic pseudocysts require intervention to establish drainage. Pseudocysts can be drained percutaneously, surgically, or endos- copically. Endoscopic techniques have largely replaced surgical and percutaneous approaches, as these o er both e cacy and low morbidity.46 The evolution favoring endoscopic techniques began with a large study including 27 533 patients from the National Inpatient Sample comparing percutaneous and surgical drainage, which suggested that percutaneous drainage was not su cient.73 The study found signi cant di erences in length of stay (15 v 21 days; P<0.001) and inpatient mortality (5.9% v 2.8%; P<0.001) favoring surgical drainage. Surgical drainage may have a slight advantage over other techniques in terms of successful drainage. However, a randomized trial including 40 patients undergoing either endoscopic or surgical techniques for pancreatic pseudocysts showed reduced hospital stay (2 v 6 days in the surgery group; P<0.001) and expense ($7011 (£5460; €6360) v $15052; P=0.003), along with better quality of life (P=0.025), for patients undergoing endoscopic drainage.74 No di erences were seen in successful treatment, complications, or need for additional procedures. Therefore, endoscopic techniques using transmural (stomach or duodenum) or transpapillary drainage and stenting are now preferred.

Pancreatic necrosis

Pancreatic necrosis is classi ed into two conditions— acute necrotic collection and walled-o necrosis. Acute necrotic collections occur in the setting of

Table 2 | De nitions of inflammatory pancreatic fluid collections

Term

De nition

CT ndings

Acute pancreatic fluid collection

Peripancreatic fluid associated with interstitial edematous pancreatitis with no associated peripancreatic necrosis. This term applies only to areas of peripancreatic fluid seen within the rst 4 weeks a er onset of interstitial edematous pancreatitis and without the features of a pseudocyst

Homogeneous collection with fluid density

Con ned by normal peripancreatic fascial planes

No de nable wall encapsulating the collection

Adjacent to the pancreas (no intrapancreatic extension)

Pancreatic pseudocyst

An encapsulated collection of fluid with a well de ned inflammatory wall usually outside the pancreas with minimal or no necrosis. This entity usually requires >4 weeks a er onset of interstitial edematous pancreatitis to mature

Well circumscribed, usually round or oval, homogeneous fluid density

No non-liquid component

Well de ned wall (completely encapsulated)

Maturation usually requires >4 weeks a er onset of acute pancreatitis

Acute necrotic collection

A collection containing variable amounts of both fluid and necrosis associated with necrotizing pancreatitis; the necrosis can involve the pancreatic parenchyma, the peripancreatic tissues, or both

Occurs in the setting of acute necrotizing pancreatitis

Heterogeneous and non-liquid density of varying degrees in di erent locations

No de nable wall encapsulating the collection

Can be intrapancreatic and/or extrapancreatic

Walled-o necrosis

A mature, encapsulated collection of pancreatic and/or peripancreatic necrosis that has developed a well de ned inflammatory wall. This usually occurs >4 weeks a er the onset of necrotizing pancreatitis

Heterogeneous with liquid and non-liquid density with varying degrees of loculations

Well de ned wall

Intrapancreatic and/or extrapancreatic location

Maturation usually requires 4 weeks a er onset of acute necrotizing pancreatitis

Adapted from Banks et al.33

the bmj | BMJ 2019;367:l6227 | doi: 10.1136/bmj.l6227

7

BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.l6227 on 2 December 2019. Downloaded from http://www.bmj.com/ on 23 December 2019 at India:BMJ-PG Sponsored. Protected by copyright.

State of the art reVIeW

                  

necrotizing pancreatitis and contain both uid and necrosis involving the pancreas, the surrounding peripancreatic tissue, or both. These collections are distinct from wall-o necrosis, which is surrounded by a well de ned in ammatory wall ( g 1). Usually, wall-o collections are so denoted four weeks or more from presentation, as this amount of time is needed for a wall to develop.

Over the past decade, a major evolution in the management of pancreatic necrosis has occurred, with a shift from aggressive surgical debridement by open necrosectomy to a “step-up” approach. This begins with percutaneous drainage followed by minimally invasive approaches if needed. Case series have indicated that sterile necrosis may resolve without intervention.75 Endoscopic techniques have taken the lead for symptomatic or infected pancreatic necrosis, and a systematic review including 14 studies and 455 patients found that endoscopic necrosectomy was successful 81% of the time as a single treatment.76

Minimally invasive approaches to managing necrotic and infected material include percutaneous drainage, video assisted retroperitoneal debridement, laparoscopic surgical debridement, transgastric endoscopic drainage, and any combination of these modalities. These techniques o er e cacy along with reduced complication and mortality rates com- pared with open surgery. Percutaneous drainage should be the rst early intervention in patients with severe systemic compromise and organ failure and will often stabilize the patient until a more de nitive intervention can be safely made. Remarkably, however, a systematic review including 10 retrospective reports and one RCT with 384 patients found that percutaneous drainage was su cient as a de nitive treatment in 56% of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis.77 In these cases, some of the necrosum is evacuated by the drain and the remainder is resorbed.

In 2010 the Dutch Pancreatitis Research Group reported the PANTER (PAncreatitis, Necrosectomy versus sTEp up approach) trial.78 This RCT included

88 patients with infected pancreatic necrosis who were treated with either a step-up approach consisting of percutaneous drainage followed by video assisted retroperitoneal debridement if necessary or open surgical debridement of the necrotic material. The rate of mortality was similar between the groups (19% v 16%; P=0.70), but the step-up group had signi cantly fewer complications such as incisional hernias and new onset diabetes, as well as less new onset multiorgan failure (12% v 40%; P=0.002). Percutaneous drainage was the de nitive treatment for 35% of the patients in the step-up group.

Following this publication, the same group reported the PENGUIN (Pancreatitis Endoscopic Transgastric vs Primary Necrosectomy in Patients with Infected Pancreatic Necrosis) trial.79 Patients who had endoscopic necrosectomy had a less in ammatory state after the procedure (20% v 80% occurrence of composite clinical endpoint; risk di erence 0.60, 95% con dence interval 0.16 to 0.80), resulting in less organ failure (0% v 50%; risk di erence 0.50, 0.12 to 0.76) and fewer pancreatic stulas (10% v 70%; risk di erence 0.60, 0.17 to 0.81). Recently, this group has reported a follow- up study (TENSION trial: transluminal endoscopic step-up approach versus minimally invasive surgical step-up approach in patients with infected pancreatic necrosis).80 This trial included 418 patients rando- mized to either an endoscopic arm consisting of endoscopic ultrasound guided transluminal drainage followed by endoscopic necrosectomy if needed or a surgical arm consisting of percutaneous catheter drainage followed by video assisted retroperitoneal debridement. No di erence was found between the groups in terms of complications or death. However, the rate of pancreatic stula (5% v 38%; risk ratio 0.15, 95% con dence interval 0.04 to 0.62) and length of hospital stays (53 v 69 days; P=0.01) were lower in the endoscopic group.

Hemorrhage

Hemorrhage and vascular emergencies are un- common but life threatening in the face of severe acute

 

Fig 1 | Le : Contrast enhanced computed tomography scan showing a large area of walled-o necrosis with a mature wall, an air-fluid level, and gas in solid necrotic material implying infection. Right: A luminal opposing stent has been placed between the stomach and the walled-o necrosis, and a pigtail drain runs through the center of the stent. The patient has also had a percutaneous drain placed

8 doi: 10.1136/bmj.l6227 | BMJ 2019;367:l6227 | the bmj

BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.l6227 on 2 December 2019. Downloaded from http://www.bmj.com/ on 23 December 2019 at India:BMJ-PG Sponsored. Protected by copyright.

State of the art reVIeW

                  

pancreatitis. Bleeding is often caused by erosion of the splenic or gastroduodenal artery or other vessels near the pancreas and is suspected with clinical signs of hypovolemia and a falling hematocrit. CT angiography will con rm the diagnosis and may identify a contrast blush suggesting the vessel involved. Large database analyses and randomized trials are not available for this condition owing to its low incidence and emergent nature, and most of the publications are case reports or small series. One review collated 200 cases from the literature and found that angiography with embolization or stenting achieved hemostasis in 75% of cases.81 Mortality was higher in patients who underwent surgery as a rst intervention compared with angiography. Patients with severe acute pancreatitis should have an angiographic attempt to control bleeding ( g 2); if this is not successful, emergency surgery with ligation of the vessel is needed.

Guidelines

Table 1 summarizes guidelines from the American Gastroenterology Association,34 the joint Inter- national Association of Pancreatology and American Pancreatic Association,43 and the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.46 Each organization has focused on various aspects of the medical management of acute pancreatitis, and, in particular, the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy highlights the treatment of pancreatic necrosis and pseudocysts. The International Association of Pancreatology and American Pancreatic Association joint guidelines were published in 2013 and are in need of an update incorporating new data. Generally, the American Gastroenterology Association and International Association of Pancreatology/American

Pancreatic Association guidelines are aligned as highlighted in table 1.

The diagnostic criteria and initial imaging assessment are well established and acknowledged across the elds. Initial resuscitation with intravenous uid is a mainstay, butthetypeof uidandendpointsremainuncertain and should be the subject of additional investigation. Recommendations on the use of prophylactic anti- biotics to prevent infection of pancreatic necrosis and acute uid collections are supported by several investigations, but advice on whether to administer antibiotics without evidence of infection either by Gram stain or culture shifts every few years. For now, prophylactic antibiotics are not recommended. Research studies and guidelines recommend early enteral feeding by any means to improve outcomes and decrease infectious complications.

American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines have incorporated the ndings of the “step- up” approach advocated by the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group and others. This includes delaying intervention for pancreatic necrosis or acute uid collectionsforatleastfourweeks.Ifthepatientshows signs of worsening condition or an infected pancreatic collection in the early phase, a percutaneous drainage catheter is recommended until de nitive treatment is started. De nitive treatment can reliably be antici- pated with endoscopic techniques. For now, patients with asymptomatic sterile collections should be managed expectantly, and the question of whether intervention is warranted for these is unanswered and will need additional studies.

Quality indicators

Recently, a multidisciplinary expert panel supported by the American College of Gastroenterology

  

Fig 2 | Le : Selective celiac angiography with a gastroduodenal artery pseudoaneurysm (arrow). Right: The artery was successfully embolized with gelfoam and coils

the bmj | BMJ 2019;367:l6227 | doi: 10.1136/bmj.l6227 9

BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.l6227 on 2 December 2019. Downloaded from http://www.bmj.com/ on 23 December 2019 at India:BMJ-PG Sponsored. Protected by copyright.

State of the art reVIeW

                  

formally developed and published a comprehensive set of 40 quality indicators for acute pancreatitis in several domains including diagnosis, causes, initial assessment, risk strati cation, initial management, ERCP use, nutrition, drug treatment, management of early complications, surgery, and structure of care.82 These quality indicators are meant to enable hospitals and providers to identify opportunities for improving medical care and outcome for patients with pancreatitis.

Emerging treatments

Several studies are now recruiting participants for investigation of the management of patients with acute pancreatitis, treatments to limit the severity of this condition, and methods to tackle pancreatic necrosis. Some of these trials are described here.

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03642769—This study will revisit the mainstay of treatment for acute pancreatitis, uid resuscitation. More than 100 patients will be enrolled and randomized to normal saline or lactated Ringer’s solution at a large metropolitan hospital in Los Angeles. The primary outcome will be the change in prevalence of early systemic in ammatory response syndrome, using the PASS score to determine the severity of pancreatitis. This large study aims to nalize recommendations for the uid management for pancreatitis, and enrolment is expected to be completed by 25 February 2020.

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03807856—Patients with acute pancreatitis will be treated with dabigatran 150 mg twice a day for three days. Dabigatran is an anticoagulant used to treat blood clots and to prevent stroke in patients with atrial brillation. This is a novel study based on an additional e ect of dabigatran as a highly e ective inhibitor of trypsin, which is activated during pancreatitis and contributes to the pathophysiology of this condition. Inhibiting a central pancreatic enzyme in the early phases of pancreatitis may ameliorate the severity and duration of the episode. The study is scheduled to complete recruitment in February 2020.

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03684278—The Randomised Treatment of Acute Pancreatitis with In iximab: Double-blind Multi-centre Trial (RAPID-1) is still recruiting patients. This may be the rst biologic studied for treatment of pancreatitis. In iximab is a monoclonal antibody drug that blocks tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) and has been used to treat autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and in ammatory bowel disease. TNF-α has a major role in the pathogenesis and severity of acute pancreatitis.

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03185806—The Trial of Early Percutaneous Catheter Drainage of Sterile Pancreatic Fluid Collections in Severe Acute Pancreatitis (EPCDSAP) will study how this approach a ects mortality, secondary infection of peripancreatic collections, organ failure, length of stay in hospital or intensive care, and in ammatory biomarkers by randomizing 100 patients to early percutaneous drainage of sterile acute uid collections or standard

management. Currently, sterile collections are managed expectantly with the understanding that instrumenting these may lead to an increased chance of infection. This trial is scheduled to be completed by October 2020.

Conclusions

Substantial evidence supports vigilance and best practice in critical care to treat patients with severe acute pancreatitis. This includes early imaging to secure the diagnosis and assess the extent of pancreatitis, goal directed resuscitation, and nutritional support (enteral rather than parenteral). Despite many randomized trials and cohort studies, no drug has been identi ed that consistently alters the course and outcome of this condition. For patients with biliary pancreatitis, early ERCP may be considered if the patient is not responding to resuscitation and has evidence of biliary obstruction or cholangitis. Patients can develop local pancreatic complications including pancreatic uid collections, necrosis, and bleeding. Infection should be suspected in patients who manifest signs 10-14 days after presentation. In this circumstance, re- imaging may con rm the cause including infected necrosis or uid collections. A minimalist step-up approach with percutaneous drainage will allow the patient to recover, especially if organ systems have failed. Endoscopic approaches with transgastric and transduodenal stenting and debridement or minimally invasivesurgicaltechniquesarethebestapproaches to minimize the systemic in ammatory response that can worsen organ dysfunction after intervention. Nearly all patients can be managed without surgical debridement, but on occasion surgery is important to manage other intra-abdominal conditions that can arise with severe illness. Patients with complex severe acute pancreatitis need combined expertise from many disciplines, particularly critical care medicine, surgery, gastroenterology, and interventional radiology.

Contributors: SJP wrote the sections on the epidemiology, causes, severity assessment, and guidelines of pancreatitis. OJH completed the primary literature review for the manuscript; wrote the sections on early resuscitation, imaging, medical management, and procedural

QuESTIonS FoR FuTuRE RESEARCH

• What type of fluid replacement strategies would allow for correction of hypovolemia from pancreatitis without compromising pulmonary and abdominal organ function?

• What drugs can mitigate the conditions of inflammation, necrosis, and organ failure in severe acute pancreatitis?

• What are the long term nutritional and metabolic consequences of acute pancreatitis, and how should these be managed?

• How does the gut microbiome influence the course of severe acute pancreatitis, and what measures can support normal microbiome function during pancreatitis?

10

doi: 10.1136/bmj.l6227 | BMJ 2019;367:l6227 | the bmj

BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.l6227 on 2 December 2019. Downloaded from http://www.bmj.com/ on 23 December 2019 at India:BMJ-PG Sponsored. Protected by copyright.

State of the art reVIeW

                  

the bmj | BMJ 2019;367:l6227 | doi: 10.1136/bmj.l6227

11

intervention; and serves as the guarantor. Both authors reviewed all sections of the manuscript, providing suggestions for included content and references.

Competing interests: We have read and understood the BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: none.

Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Patient involvement: No patients were asked for input in the creation of this article.

. 1  Yadav D, Lowenfels AB. The epidemiology of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterology 2013;144:1252-61. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2013.01.068

. 2  Peery AF, Dellon ES, Lund J, et al. Burden of gastrointestinal disease in the United States: 2012 update. Gastroenterology 2012;143:1179- 1187.e3. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2012.08.002

. 3  Setiawan VW, Monroe K, Lugea A, Yadav D, Pandol S. Uniting Epidemiology and Experimental Disease Models for Alcohol-Related Pancreatic Disease. Alcohol Res 2017;38:173-82.

. 4  Shafqet M, Sharzehi K. Diabetes and the Pancreatobiliary Diseases. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 2017;15:508-19. doi:10.1007/ s11938-017-0163-x

. 5  Lai SW, Muo CH, Liao KF, Sung FC, Chen PC. Risk of acute pancreatitis in type 2 diabetes and risk reduction on anti- diabetic drugs: a population-based cohort study in Taiwan. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:1697-704. doi:10.1038/ajg.2011.155

. 6  Gonzalez-Perez A, Schlienger RG, Rodríguez LA. Acute pancreatitis in association with type 2 diabetes and antidiabetic drugs: a population-based cohort study. Diabetes Care 2010;33:2580-5. doi:10.2337/dc10-0842

. 7  Uc A, Andersen DK, Bellin MD, et al. Chronic Pancreatitis in the 21st Century – Research Challenges and Opportunities: Summary of a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Workshop. Pancreas 2016;45:1365-75. doi:10.1097/ MPA.0000000000000713

. 8  Kumar S, Ooi CY, Werlin S, et al. Risk Factors Associated With Pediatric Acute Recurrent and Chronic Pancreatitis: Lessons From INSPPIRE. JAMA Pediatr 2016;170:562-9. doi:10.1001/ jamapediatrics.2015.4955

. 9  Setiawan VW, Pandol SJ, Porcel J, et al. Prospective Study of Alcohol Drinking, Smoking, and Pancreatitis: The Multiethnic Cohort. Pancreas 2016;45:819-25. doi:10.1097/ MPA.0000000000000657

. 10  Lugea A, Gerlo A, Su HY, et al. The Combination of Alcohol and Cigarette Smoke Induces Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress and Cell Death in Pancreatic Acinar Cells. Gastroenterology 2017;153:1674- 86. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2017.08.036

. 11  Setiawan VW, Pandol SJ, Porcel J, et al. Prospective Study of Alcohol Drinking, Smoking, and Pancreatitis: The Multiethnic Cohort. Pancreas 2016;45:819-25. doi:10.1097/ MPA.0000000000000657

. 12  Lugea A, Gerlo A, Su HY, et al. The Combination of Alcohol and Cigarette Smoke Induces Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress and Cell Death in Pancreatic Acinar Cells. Gastroenterology 2017;153:1674- 86. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2017.08.036

. 13  Lugea A, Tischler D, Nguyen J, et al. Adaptive unfolded protein response attenuates alcohol-induced pancreatic damage. Gastroenterology 2011;140:987-97. doi:10.1053/j. gastro.2010.11.038

. 14  Setiawan VW, Pandol SJ, Porcel J, et al. Dietary Factors Reduce Risk of Acute Pancreatitis in a Large Multiethnic Cohort. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;15:257-265.e3. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2016.08.038

. 15  Wu BU, Pandol SJ, Liu IL. Simvastatin is associated with reduced risk of acute pancreatitis: ndings from a regional integrated healthcare system. Gut 2015;64:133-8. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2013-306564

. 16  Forsmark CE, Vege SS, Wilcox CM. Acute Pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1972-81. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1505202

. 17  Coté GA, Yadav D, Slivka A, et al, North American Pancreatitis Study Group. Alcohol and smoking as risk factors in an epidemiology
study of patients with chronic pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;9:266-73, quiz e27. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2010.10.015

. 18  Samokhvalov AV, Rehm J, Roerecke M. Alcohol Consumption as a Risk Factor for Acute and Chronic Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and a Series of Meta-analyses. EBioMedicine 2015;2:1996-2002. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2015.11.023

. 19  Yadav D, Hawes RH, Brand RE, et al, North American Pancreatic Study Group. Alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking, and
the risk of recurrent acute and chronic pancreatitis. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1035-45. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.125

. 20  Gukovskaya AS, Gorelick FS, Groblewski GE, et al. Recent Insights Into the Pathogenic Mechanism of Pancreatitis: Role of Acinar Cell Organelle Disorders. Pancreas 2019;48:459-70. doi:10.1097/ MPA.0000000000001298

21 Valdivielso P, Ramírez-Bueno A, Ewald N. Current knowledge of hypertriglyceridemic pancreatitis. Eur J Intern Med 2014;25:689-94. doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2014.08.008

22 Adiamah A, Psaltis E, Crook M, Lobo DN. A systematic review of the epidemiology, pathophysiology and current management of hyperlipidaemic pancreatitis. Clin Nutr 2018;37(6 Pt A):1810-22. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2017.09.028

23 Sue LY, Batech M, Yadav D, et al. E ect of Serum Triglycerides on Clinical Outcomes in Acute Pancreatitis: Findings From a Regional Integrated Health Care System. Pancreas 2017;46:874-9. doi:10.1097/MPA.0000000000000860

24 Nawaz H, Koutroumpakis E, Easler J, et al. Elevated serum triglycerides are independently associated with persistent organ failure in acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2015;110:1497- 503. doi:10.1038/ajg.2015.261

25 Forsmark ChE, Vege SS, Wilcox CM. Acute Pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 2017;376:598-9.

26 Forsmark CE. Incretins, Diabetes, Pancreatitis and Pancreatic Cancer: What the GI specialist needs to know. Pancreatology 2016;16:10-3. doi:10.1016/j.pan.2015.11.009

27 Monami M, Nreu B, Scatena A, et al. Safety issues with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer and cholelithiasis): Data from randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Obes Metab 2017;19:1233-41. doi:10.1111/dom.12926

28 Storgaard H, Cold F, Gluud LL, Vilsbøll T, Knop FK. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and risk of acute pancreatitis in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 2017;19:906-8. doi:10.1111/dom.12885

29 Azoulay L, Filion KB, Platt RW, et al, and the Canadian Network
for Observational Drug E ect Studies (CNODES) Investigators. Association Between Incretin-Based Drugs and the Risk of Acute Pancreatitis. JAMA Intern Med 2016;176:1464-73. doi:10.1001/ jamainternmed.2016.1522

30 Whitcomb DC. Genetic risk factors for pancreatic disorders. Gastroenterology 2013;144:1292-302. doi:10.1053/j. gastro.2013.01.069

31 Whitcomb DC, LaRusch J, Krasinskas AM, et al, Alzheimer’s Disease Genetics Consortium. Common genetic variants in the CLDN2
and PRSS1-PRSS2 loci alter risk for alcohol-related and sporadic pancreatitis. Nat Genet 2012;44:1349-54. doi:10.1038/ng.2466

32 Petrov MS, Yadav D. Global epidemiology and holistic prevention of pancreatitis. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;16:175-84. doi:10.1038/s41575-018-0087-5

33 Banks PA, Bollen TL, Dervenis C, et al, Acute Pancreatitis Classi cation Working Group. Classi cation of acute pancreatitis–2012: revision of the Atlanta classi cation and de nitions by international consensus. Gut 2013;62:102-11. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302779

34 Vege SS, DiMagno MJ, Forsmark CE, Martel M, Barkun AN. Initial Medical Treatment of Acute Pancreatitis: American Gastroenterological Association Institute Technical Review. Gastroenterology 2018;154:1103-39. doi:10.1053/j. gastro.2018.01.031

35 Crockett S, Falck-Ytter Y, Wani S, Gardner TB. Acute Pancreatitis Guideline. Gastroenterology 2018;154:1102. doi:10.1053/j. gastro.2018.02.029

36 Mounzer R, Langmead CJ, Wu BU, et al. Comparison of existing clinical scoring systems to predict persistent organ failure in patients with acute pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 2012;142:1476-82, quiz e15-6. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2012.03.005

37 Wu BU, Batech M, Quezada M, et al. Dynamic Measurement of Disease Activity in Acute Pancreatitis: The Pancreatitis Activity Scoring System. Am J Gastroenterol 2017;112:1144-52. doi:10.1038/ ajg.2017.114

38 Buxbaum J, Quezada M, Chong B, et al. The Pancreatitis Activity Scoring System predicts clinical outcomes in acute pancreatitis: ndings from a prospective cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol 2018;113:755-64. doi:10.1038/s41395-018-0048-1

39 Wu BU, Hwang JQ, Gardner TH, et al. Lactated Ringer’s solution reduces systemic inflammation compared with saline in patients with acute pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;9:710-717.e1. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2011.04.026

40 Choosakul S, Harinwan K, Chirapongsathorn S, Puttapitakpong C. Comparison of normal saline versuslactated Ringer’s solution for fluid resuscitation in patients with acute pancreatitis, a randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology 2017;152(Suppl 1):S72. doi:10.1016/S0016-5085(17)30594-2

41 Du XJ, Hu WM, Xia Q, et al. Hydroxyethyl starch resuscitation reduces the risk of intra-abdominal hypertension in severe acute pancreatitis. Pancreas 2011;40:1220-5. doi:10.1097/ MPA.0b013e3182217f17

42 Perner A, Haase N, Guttormsen AB, et al, 6S Trial Group, Scandinavian Critical Care Trials Group. Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer’s acetate in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med 2012;367:124-34. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1204242

BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.l6227 on 2 December 2019. Downloaded from http://www.bmj.com/ on 23 December 2019 at India:BMJ-PG Sponsored. Protected by copyright.

State of the art reVIeW

                  

. 43  Working Group IAP/APA Acute Pancreatitis Guidelines. IAP/
APA evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis. Pancreatology 2013;13(Suppl 2):e1-15. doi:10.1016/j. pan.2013.07.063

. 44  Wang MD, Ji Y, Xu J, Jiang DH, Luo L, Huang SW. Early goal- directed fluid therapy with fresh frozen plasma reduces severe acute pancreatitis mortality in the intensive care unit. Chin Med J (Engl) 2013;126:1987-8.

. 45  Crockett SD, Wani S, Gardner TB, Falck-Ytter Y, Barkun AN, American Gastroenterological Association Institute Clinical Guidelines Committee. American Gastroenterological Association Institute Guideline on Initial Management of Acute Pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 2018;154:1096-101. doi:10.1053/j. gastro.2018.01.032

. 46  Muthusamy VR, Chandrasekhara V, Acosta RD, et al, ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. The role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of inflammatory pancreatic fluid collections. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;83:481-8. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2015.11.027

. 47  Mazaki T, Ishii Y, Takayama T. Meta-analysis of prophylactic antibiotic use in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Br J Surg 2006;93:674-84. doi:10.1002/bjs.5389

. 48  de Vries AC, Besselink MG, Buskens E, et al. Randomized controlled trials of antibiotic prophylaxis in severe acute pancreatitis: relationship between methodological quality and outcome. Pancreatology 2007;7:531-8. doi:10.1159/000108971

. 49  Villatoro E, Mulla M, Larvin M. Antibiotic therapy for
prophylaxis against infection of pancreatic necrosis in acute pancreatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;(5):CD002941. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002941.pub3

. 50  Luiten EJ, Hop WC, Lange JF, Bruining HA. Controlled clinical trial
of selective decontamination for the treatment of severe acute pancreatitis. Ann Surg 1995;222:57-65. doi:10.1097/00000658- 199507000-00010

. 51  Besselink MG, van Santvoort HC, Buskens E, et al, Dutch Acute Pancreatitis Study Group. Probiotic prophylaxis in predicted severe acute pancreatitis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo- controlled trial. Lancet 2008;371:651-9. doi:10.1016/S0140- 6736(08)60207-X

. 52  Petrov MS, van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, van der Heijden
GJ, Windsor JA, Gooszen HG, Dutch Acute Pancreatitis Study Group. Enteral nutrition and the risk of mortality and infectious complications in patients with severe acute pancreatitis: a meta- analysis of randomized trials. Arch Surg 2008;143:1111-7. doi:10.1001/archsurg.143.11.1111

. 53  Al-Omran M, Albalawi ZH, Tashkandi MF, Al-Ansary LA. Enteral versus parenteral nutrition for acute pancreatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;(1):CD002837. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002837.pub2

. 54  Petrov MS, Loveday BP, Pylypchuk RD, McIlroy K, Phillips AR, Windsor JA. Systematic review and meta-analysis of enteral nutrition formulations in acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg 2009;96:1243-52. doi:10.1002/bjs.6862

. 55  Bakker OJ, van Brunschot S, van Santvoort HC, et al, Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. Early versus on-demand nasoenteric tube feeding in acute pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 2014;371:1983-93. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1404393

. 56  Kumar A, Singh N, Prakash S, Saraya A, Joshi YK. Early enteral nutrition in severe acute pancreatitis: a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing nasojejunal and nasogastric routes. J Clin Gastroenterol 2006;40:431-4. doi:10.1097/00004836- 200605000-00013

. 57  Ronellen tsch U. How does somatostatin (or its analogue octreotide) compare with placebo/no intervention for adults with acute pancreatitis? 2017. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cca/ doi/10.1002/cca.1870/full.

. 58  Siriwardena AK, Mason JM, Balachandra S, et al. Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial of intravenous antioxidant (n-acetylcysteine, selenium, vitamin C) therapy in severe
acute pancreatitis. Gut 2007;56:1439-44. doi:10.1136/ gut.2006.115873

. 59  Vege SS, Atwal T, Bi Y, Chari ST, Clemens MA, Enders FT. Pentoxifylline Treatment in Severe Acute Pancreatitis: A Pilot, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Trial. Gastroenterology 2015;149:318-20.e3. doi:10.1053/j. gastro.2015.04.019

. 60  Johnson CD, Kingsnorth AN, Imrie CW, et al. Double blind, randomised, placebo controlled study of a platelet activating factor antagonist, lexipafant, in the treatment and prevention of organ failure in predicted severe acute pancreatitis. Gut 2001;48:62-9. doi:10.1136/gut.48.1.62

. 61  Büchler M, Malfertheiner P, Uhl W, et al, German Pancreatitis Study Group. Gabexate mesilate in human acute pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 1993;104:1165-70. doi:10.1016/0016- 5085(93)90288-N

62 Moggia E, Koti R, Belgaumkar AP, et al. Pharmacological interventions for acute pancreatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;4:CD011384.

63 Teerenhovi O, Nordback I, Eskola J. High volume lesser sac lavage in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Br J Surg 1989;76:370-3. doi:10.1002/bjs.1800760418

64 Ihse I, Evander A, Gustafson I, Holmberg JT. Influence of peritoneal lavage on objective prognostic signs in acute pancreatitis. Ann Surg 1986;204:122-7. doi:10.1097/00000658-198608000- 00004

65 Mayer AD, McMahon MJ, Cor eld AP, et al. Controlled clinical trial of peritoneal lavage for the treatment of severe acute pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 1985;312:399-404. doi:10.1056/ NEJM198502143120703

66 Ranson JH, Berman RS. Long peritoneal lavage decreases pancreatic sepsis in acute pancreatitis. Ann Surg 1990;211:708-16, discussion 716-8. doi:10.1097/00000658-199006000-00009

67 Dong Z, Petrov MS, Xu J, Shanbhag S, Windsor JA, Pang S. Peritoneal lavage for severe acute pancreatitis: a systematic review of randomised trials. World J Surg 2010;34:2103-8. doi:10.1007/ s00268-010-0665-3

68 Neoptolemos JP, Carr-Locke DL, London NJ, Bailey IA, James D, Fossard DP. Controlled trial of urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment for acute pancreatitis due to gallstones. Lancet 1988;2:979-83. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(88)90740-4

69 Nowak A, Nowakowska-Dulawa E, Marek TA, Rybicka J. Final results
of the prospective, randomized, controlled study on endoscopic sphincterotomy versus conventional management in acute biliary pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 1995;108:A380. doi:10.1016/0016- 5085(95)24179-5

70 Fan ST, Lai EC, Mok FP, Lo CM, Zheng SS, Wong J. Early treatment of acute biliary pancreatitis by endoscopic papillotomy. N Engl J Med 1993;328:228-32. doi:10.1056/NEJM199301283280402

71 Fölsch UR, Nitsche R, Lüdtke R, Hilgers RA, Creutzfeldt W, The German Study Group on Acute Biliary Pancreatitis. Early ERCP
and papillotomy compared with conservative treatment for acute biliary pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 1997;336:237-42. doi:10.1056/ NEJM199701233360401

72 van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, de Vries AC, et al, Dutch
Acute Pancreatitis Study Group. Early endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in predicted severe acute
biliary pancreatitis: a prospective multicenter study. Ann
Surg
2009;250:68-75. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181a77bb4

73 Morton JM, Brown A, Galanko JA, Norton JA, Grimm IS, Behrns KE. A national comparison of surgical versus percutaneous drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts: 1997-2001. J Gastrointest Surg 2005;9:15- 20, discussion 20-1. doi:10.1016/j.gassur.2004.10.005

74 Varadarajulu S, Bang JY, Sutton BS, Trevino JM, Christein JD, Wilcox CM. Equal e cacy of endoscopic and surgical cystogastrostomy for pancreatic pseudocyst drainage in a randomized trial. Gastroenterology 2013;145:583-90.e1. doi:10.1053/j. gastro.2013.05.046

75 Rau B, Pralle U, Uhl W, Schoenberg MH, Beger HG. Management of sterile necrosis in instances of severe acute pancreatitis. J Am Coll Surg 1995;181:279-88.

76 van Brunschot S, Fockens P, Bakker OJ, et al. Endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy in necrotising pancreatitis: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 2014;28:1425-38. doi:10.1007/s00464-013-3382-9

77 van Baal MC, van Santvoort HC, Bollen TL, Bakker OJ, Besselink MG, Gooszen HG, Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. Systematic review of percutaneous catheter drainage as primary treatment for necrotizing pancreatitis. Br J Surg 2011;98:18-27. doi:10.1002/ bjs.7304

78 van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, Bakker OJ, et al, Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. A step-up approach or open necrosectomy for necrotizing pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1491-502. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0908821

79 Bakker OJ, van Santvoort HC, van Brunschot S, et al, Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. Endoscopic transgastric vs surgical necrosectomy for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: a randomized trial. JAMA 2012;307:1053-61. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.276

80 van Brunschot S, van Grinsven J, van Santvoort HC, et al, Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. Endoscopic or surgical step-up approach for infected necrotising pancreatitis: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2018;391:51-8. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32404-2

81 Balachandra S, Siriwardena AK. Systematic appraisal of the management of the major vascular complications of pancreatitis. Am J Surg 2005;190:489-95. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.03.009

82 Vivian E, Cler L, Conwell D, et al. Acute Pancreatitis Task Force on Quality: Development of Quality Indicators for Acute Pancreatitis Management. Am J Gastroenterol 2019;114:1322-42. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000000264

No commercial reuse: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe

BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.l6227 on 2 December 2019. Downloaded from http://www.bmj.com/ on 23 December 2019 at India:BMJ-PG Sponsored. Protected by copyright.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: