Prospective placebo-controlled randomized trial of lexipafant in predicted severe acute pancreatitis

The effect of thymosin α1 for prevention of infection in patients with severe acute pancreatitis

INTRODUCTION

Severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) is an acute inflammatory disease with prolonged clinical course, which is complicated by the presence of persistent organ failure and severe infection. Infection mainly occurs in the late phase of SAP and it is found to be the main cause of death. Therefore, developing strategies for the prevention of SAP-related infection has been a crucial approach to improve patients' outcomes. Due to remarkable immune-cells-regulating properties, thymosin α1 has been recognized as a promising immune therapy, especially in several infectious diseases. Recently, thymosin α1 has been given high expectations to exert clinical benefits in the prevention of SAP-related infection.

AREAS COVERED

The review of currently available strategies for SAP-related infection prevention and the use of thymosin α1 in SAP patients.

EXPERT OPINION

The current available strategies achieve limited success for preventing SAP-related infection. A possible explanation is that the trigger of infection, immunosuppression has not been concurrently resolved. The application of thymosin α1 in a clinical study showed a prophylactic effect against SAP-related infection. However, the use of thymosin α1 in SAP patients is still at an early stage of clinical investigation and requires high-quality and large sample size evidences.

Pharmacological interventions for acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

In people with acute pancreatitis, it is unclear what the role should be for medical treatment as an addition to supportive care such as fluid and electrolyte balance and organ support in people with organ failure.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different pharmacological interventions in people with acute pancreatitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trial registers to October 2016 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only RCTs performed in people with acute pancreatitis, irrespective of aetiology, severity, presence of infection, language, blinding, or publication status for inclusion in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We did not perform a network meta-analysis as planned because of the lack of information on potential effect modifiers and differences of type of participants included in the different comparisons, when information was available. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the binary outcomes and rate ratios with 95% CIs for count outcomes using a fixed-effect model and random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 84 RCTs with 8234 participants in this review. Six trials (N = 658) did not report any of the outcomes of interest for this review. The remaining 78 trials excluded 210 participants after randomisation. Thus, a total of 7366 participants in 78 trials contributed to one or more outcomes for this review. The treatments assessed in these 78 trials included antibiotics, antioxidants, aprotinin, atropine, calcitonin, cimetidine, EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), gabexate, glucagon, iniprol, lexipafant, NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), octreotide, oxyphenonium, probiotics, activated protein C, somatostatin, somatostatin plus omeprazole, somatostatin plus ulinastatin, thymosin, ulinastatin, and inactive control. Apart from the comparison of antibiotics versus control, which included a large proportion of participants with necrotising pancreatitis, the remaining comparisons had only a small proportion of patients with this condition. Most trials included either only participants with severe acute pancreatitis or included a mixture of participants with mild acute pancreatitis and severe acute pancreatitis (75 trials). Overall, the risk of bias in trials was unclear or high for all but one of the trials.

SOURCE OF FUNDING

seven trials were not funded or funded by agencies without vested interest in results. Pharmaceutical companies partially or fully funded 21 trials. The source of funding was not available from the remaining trials.Since we considered short-term mortality as the most important outcome, we presented only these results in detail in the abstract. Sixty-seven studies including 6638 participants reported short-term mortality. There was no evidence of any differences in short-term mortality in any of the comparisons (very low-quality evidence). With regards to other primary outcomes, serious adverse events (number) were lower than control in participants taking lexipafant (rate ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96; N = 290; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), octreotide (rate ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.89; N = 770; 5 studies; very low-quality evidence), somatostatin plus omeprazole (rate ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.70; N = 140; 1 study; low-quality evidence), and somatostatin plus ulinastatin (rate ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.60; N = 122; 1 study; low-quality evidence). The proportion of people with organ failure was lower in octreotide than control (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; N = 430; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). The proportion of people with sepsis was lower in lexipafant than control (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.83; N = 290; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of differences in any of the remaining comparisons in these outcomes or for any of the remaining primary outcomes (the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event and the occurrence of infected pancreatic necrosis). None of the trials reported heath-related quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low-quality evidence suggests that none of the pharmacological treatments studied decrease short-term mortality in people with acute pancreatitis. However, the confidence intervals were wide and consistent with an increase or decrease in short-term mortality due to the interventions. We did not find consistent clinical benefits with any intervention. Because of the limitations in the prognostic scoring systems and because damage to organs may occur in acute pancreatitis before they are clinically manifest, future trials should consider including pancreatitis of all severity but power the study to measure the differences in the subgroup of people with severe acute pancreatitis. It may be difficult to power the studies based on mortality. Future trials in participants with acute pancreatitis should consider other outcomes such as complications or health-related quality of life as primary outcomes. Such trials should include health-related quality of life, costs, and return to work as outcomes and should follow patients for at least three months (preferably for at least one year).

The Interplay between Inflammation, Coagulation and Endothelial Injury in the Early Phase of Acute Pancreatitis: Clinical Implications

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is an inflammatory disease with varied severity, ranging from mild local inflammation to severe systemic involvement resulting in substantial mortality. Early pathologic events in AP, both local and systemic, are associated with vascular derangements, including endothelial activation and injury, dysregulation of vasomotor tone, increased vascular permeability, increased leukocyte migration to tissues, and activation of coagulation. The purpose of the review was to summarize current evidence regarding the interplay between inflammation, coagulation and endothelial dysfunction in the early phase of AP. Practical aspects were emphasized: (1) we summarized available data on diagnostic usefulness of the markers of endothelial dysfunction and activated coagulation in early prediction of severe AP; (2) we reviewed in detail the results of experimental studies and clinical trials targeting coagulation-inflammation interactions in severe AP. Among laboratory tests, d-dimer and angiopoietin-2 measurements seem the most useful in early prediction of severe AP. Although most clinical trials evaluating anticoagulants in treatment of severe AP did not show benefits, they also did not show significantly increased bleeding risk. Promising results of human trials were published for low molecular weight heparin treatment. Several anticoagulants that proved beneficial in animal experiments are thus worth testing in patients.

Pharmacologic therapy for acute pancreatitis

While conservative management such as fluid, bowel rest, and antibiotics is the mainstay of current acute pancreatitis management, there is a lot of promise in pharmacologic therapies that target various aspects of the pathogenesis of pancreatitis. Extensive review of preclinical studies, which include assessment of therapies such as anti-secretory agents, protease inhibitors, anti-inflammatory agents, and anti-oxidants are discussed. Many of these studies have shown therapeutic benefit and improved survival in experimental models. Based on available preclinical studies, we discuss potential novel targeted pharmacologic approaches that may offer promise in the treatment of acute pancreatitis. To date a variety of clinical studies have assessed the translational potential of animal model effective experimental therapies and have shown either failure or mixed results in human studies. Despite these discouraging clinical studies, there is a great clinical need and there exist several preclinical effective therapies that await investigation in patients. Better understanding of acute pancreatitis pathophysiology and lessons learned from past clinical studies are likely to offer a great foundation upon which to expand future therapies in acute pancreatitis.

Immune-modulating therapy in acute pancreatitis: Fact or fiction

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is one of the most common diseases of the gastrointestinal tract, bearing significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Current treatment of AP remains unspecific and supportive and is mainly targeted to aggressively prevent systemic complications and organ failure by intensive care. As acute pancreatitis shares an indistinguishable profile of inflammation with sepsis, therapeutic approaches have turned towards modulating the systemic inflammatory response. Targets, among others, have included pro- and anti-inflammatory modulators, cytokines, chemokines, immune cells, adhesive molecules and platelets. Even though, initial results in experimental models have been encouraging, clinical implementation of immune-regulating therapies in acute pancreatitis has had a slow progress. Main reasons include difficulty in clinical translation of experimental data, poor understanding of inflammatory response time-course, flaws in experimental designs, need for multimodal approaches and commercial drawbacks. Whether immune-modulation in acute pancreatitis remains a fact or just fiction remains to be seen in the future.

The clinical course of acute pancreatitis and the inflammatory mediators that drive it

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common emergency condition. In the majority of cases, it presents in a mild and self-limited form. However, about 20% of patients develop severe disease with local pancreatic complications (including necrosis, abscess, or pseudocysts), systemic organ dysfunction, or both. A modern classification of AP severity has recently been proposed based on the factors that are causally associated with severity of AP. These factors are both local (peripancreatic necrosis) and systemic (organ failure). In AP, inflammation is initiated by intracellular activation of pancreatic proenzymes and/or nuclear factor-κB. Activated leukocytes infiltrate into and around the pancreas and play a central role in determining AP severity. Inflammatory reaction is first local, but may amplify leading to systemic overwhelming production of inflammatory mediators and early organ failure. Concomitantly, anti-inflammatory cytokines and specific cytokine inhibitors are produced. This anti-inflammatory reaction may overcompensate and inhibit the immune response, rendering the host at risk for systemic infection. Currently, there is no specific treatment for AP. However, there are several early supportive treatments and interventions which are beneficial. Also, increasing the understanding of the pathogenesis of systemic inflammation and the development of organ dysfunction may provide us with future treatment modalities.

Pharmacotherapy for acute pancreatitis

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

Treatment of acute pancreatitis: focus on medical care

Acute pancreatitis has an incidence of about 300 per 1 million individuals per year, of which 10-15% of patients develop the severe form of the disease. Novel management options, which have the potential to improve outcome, include initial proper fluid resuscitation, which maintains microcirculation and thereby potentially decreases ischaemia and reperfusion injury. The traditional treatment concept in acute pancreatitis, fasting and parenteral nutrition, has been challenged and early initiation of enteral feeding in severe pancreatitis and oral intake in mild acute pancreatitis is both feasible and provides some benefits. There are at present no data supporting immunonutritional supplements and probiotics should be avoided in patients with acute pancreatitis. There is also no evidence of any benefits provided by prophylactic antibacterials in patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis. A variety of specific medical interventions have been investigated (e.g. intense blood glucose monitoring by insulin) but none has become clinically useful. Lessons can probably be learned from critical care in general, but studies are needed to verify these interventions in acute pancreatitis.

Ischemic acute pancreatitis: clinical features of 11 patients and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Besides alcohol and gallstones, pancreatic ischemia can cause acute pancreatitis (AP). This entity should be considered when no other reasons can be defined. The aim of the current study was to define ischemic AP with its pathophysiologic, radiologic, and clinical conditions.

METHODS

Eleven patients with ischemic AP of different origin were analyzed regarding course, severity, and outcome, as well as diagnostic and therapeutic measures.

RESULTS

Ischemic AP was caused by hemorrhage and hypotension (7 patients) or mesenteric macrovessel occlusion (4 patients). Therapy was conservative (4 patients) or operative with hemostasis, necrosectomy, and drainage (7 patients). Seven patients died within 38 days, and 4 patients recovered.

CONCLUSION

Pancreatic hypoperfusion is an important etiology of AP. Severity of the disease ranges from moderate reversible changes to severe courses with fatal outcome. The indication for surgical intervention in ischemic AP is more aggressive; diagnostic and conservative therapeutic procedures are similar to AP of other etiologies.

Pathophysiological role of platelets and platelet system in acute pancreatitis

The most successful approach for restoring normal long-term glucose homeostasis in type I diabetes mellitus is whole-organ pancreas transplantation. Graft pancreatitis is observed in up to 20% of patients and may lead to loss of the transplanted organ. Several pathophysiological events have been implicated in this form of pancreatitis. The most important cause of early graft pancreatitis is ischemia/reperfusion (I/R)-related disturbance of microvascular perfusion with subsequent hypoxic tissue damage. Recently, considerable evidence accumulated that, among a variety of other pathophysiological events, the activation of platelets can contribute to I/R injury in the course of acute pancreatitis experimentally and clinically. This review summarizes the events affecting platelet function and, therefore, pancreatic microcirculation leading to acute pancreatitis. Therapeutic approaches and own results are presented.

Pharmacological approach to acute pancreatitis

The aim of the present review is to summarize the current knowledge regarding pharmacological prevention and treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP) based on experimental animal models and clinical trials. Somatostatin (SS) and octreotide inhibit the exocrine production of pancreatic enzymes and may be useful as prophylaxis against Post Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis (PEP). The protease inhibitor Gabexate mesilate (GM) is used routinely as treatment to AP in some countries, but randomized clinical trials and a meta-analysis do not support this practice. Nitroglycerin (NGL) is a nitrogen oxide (NO) donor, which relaxes the sphincter of Oddi. Studies show conflicting results when applied prior to ERCP and a large multicenter randomized study is warranted. Steroids administered as prophylaxis against PEP has been validated without effect in several randomized trials. The non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) indomethacin and diclofenac have in randomized studies showed potential as prophylaxis against PEP. Interleukin 10 (IL-10) is a cytokine with anti-inflammatory properties but two trials testing IL-10 as prophylaxis to PEP have returned conflicting results. Antibodies against tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) have a potential as rescue therapy but no clinical trials are currently being conducted. The antibiotics beta-lactams and quinolones reduce mortality when necrosis is present in pancreas and may also reduce incidence of infected necrosis. Evidence based pharmacological treatment of AP is limited and studies on the effect of potent anti-inflammatory drugs are warranted.

The pathogenic mechanism of severe acute pancreatitis complicated with renal injury: a review of current knowledge

The onset of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) is clinically harmful as it may rapidly progress from a local pancreatic inflammation into proemial systemic inflammatory reactions. Patients with SAP have a high mortality, with most cases of death resulting from complications involving the failure of organs other than the pancreas. The distinctive feature of SAP is that once it starts, it may aggrevate the clinical condition of the patient continuously, so that the levels of injury to the other organs surpass the severity of the pancreatic lesion, even causing multiple organ failure and, ultimately, death. In clinical practice, the main complications in terms of organ dysfunctions are shock, acute respiratory failure, acute renal failure, among others. The acute renal injury caused by SAP is not only able to aggravate the state of pancreatitis, but it also develops into renal failure and elevates patients' mortality. Studies have found that the injury due to massive inflammatory mediators, microcirculation changes and apoptosis, among others, may play important roles in the pathogenic mechanism of acute renal injury.

Current pharmacotherapeutic recommendations for acute pancreatitis

Disease severity in patients with acute pancreatitis varies from mild disease with minimal morbidity to severe disease in which a whole spectrum of local and systemic complications may occur. Infectious complications frequently arise, and pancreatic necrosis in particular is an important risk factor for mortality. Several strategies have been investigated to stop the progression of organ dysfunction, targeting different steps in the pathogenesis, but none of these have proved beneficial. In recent years, the widespread use of prophylactic antibiotics has also been in question, as one blinded study could not demonstrate an advantage. Better risk stratification methods should improve the design of future trials, so that only patients with a high probability of complications can be studied.

From acute pancreatitis to end-organ injury: mechanisms of acute lung injury

BACKGROUND

Multi-organ dysfunction, and in particular lung injury, is often responsible for the unfavorable outcome of patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Understanding of the mechanisms by which local inflammation in the pancreas leads to end-organ injury is crucial for the development of new therapeutic strategies.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search was performed with the terms "acute pancreatitis," "lung injury," "inflammatory response," "SIRS," and "multi-organ dysfunction." Pertinent articles were selected for analysis.

RESULTS

Modulation of the inflammatory response using a combination of immunomodulatory agents may decrease the incidence of severe pancreatitis-related acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

CONCLUSION

Clinical trials are of utmost importance to establish the validity of such strategies.

Why does pancreatic overstimulation cause pancreatitis?

Many animal models are available to investigate the pathogenesis of pancreatitis, an inflammatory disorder of the pancreas. However, the secretagogue hyperstimulation model of pancreatitis is the most commonly used. Animals infused with high doses of cholecystokinin (CCK) exhibit hyperamylasemia, pancreatic edema, and acinar cell injury, which closely mimic pancreatitis in humans. Intra-acinar zymogen activation is an essential early event in the pathogenesis of secretagogue-induced pancreatitis. Early in the course of pancreatitis, lysosomal hydrolases colocalize with digestive zymogens and activate them. These activated zymogens then cause acinar cell injury and necrosis, a characteristic of pancreatitis. Besides being the site of initiation of injury in pancreatitis, acinar cells also synthesize and release cytokines and chemokines very early in the course of pancreatitis, which then attract and activate inflammatory cells and initiate the disease's systemic phase.

Early endoscopic intervention versus early conservative management in patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis and biliopancreatic obstruction: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that early endoscopic intervention, performed on patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis and biliopancreatic obstruction, reduces systemic and local inflammation.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The role of early endoscopic intervention, in the treatment of acute gallstone pancreatitis, remains controversial. Previous randomized trials have not focused on the subgroup of patients with clinical evidence of biliopancreatic obstruction.

METHODS

This single-center randomized clinical trial was performed between May 2000 and September 2005. Of 238 patients, admitted within 48 hours after the onset of acute gallstone pancreatitis, 103 with a distal bile duct measuring > or =8 mm combined with a total serum bilirubin > or =1.20 mg/dL, were randomized to receive either endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography followed by endoscopic papillotomy for bile duct stones (EEI, n = 51) or early conservative management (ECM, n = 52). Patients with clinical evidence of coexisting acute cholangitis were excluded. Outcome measures included changes in organ failure score and computed tomography (CT) severity index during the first week after admission, incidence of local complications, and overall morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

The incidence of bile duct stones at EEI was 72% and 40% of patients in the ECM group had persisting bile duct stones at elective biliary surgery. No significant differences were found between the EEI and ECM groups regarding changes in mean organ failure score (P = 0.87), mean CT severity index (P = 0.88), incidence of local complications (6% vs. 6%, P = 0.99), overall morbidity (21% vs. 18%, P = 0.80), and mortality (6% vs. 2%, P = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study failed to provide evidence that early endoscopic intervention reduces systemic and local inflammation in patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis and biliopancreatic obstruction. If acute cholangitis can be safely excluded, early endoscopic intervention is not mandatory and should not be considered a standard indication.

Immunomodulation in surgical practice

BACKGROUND

Immunomodulation may represent a potential way to improve surgical outcome. These types of interventions should be based on detailed knowledge of the underlying mechanisms involved. The aim of the present review is to summarize some experience on the acute phase response, potential ways of intervention and experiences from critical illness and HPB disease.

DISCUSSION

Mechanisms of the acute phase response are discussed including the individual parameters and local changes that take part. Mechanisms involved in failure of the gut barrier are presented and include changes in gut barrier permeability, effects on gut-associated immunocompetent cells, and systemic implications. As examples of HPB disease, mechanisms of the acute phase response and potential ways of intervention in obstructive jaundice and acute pancreatitis are discussed. Nutritional pharmacology and lessons learned from immunomodulation and immunonutrition in critical illness and major abdominal surgery, including upper GI and HPB surgery, are referred to. Overall, immunomodulation represents a potential tool to improve results but requires a thorough mapping of underlying mechanisms in order to achieve individualized treatment or prevention based on patients' specific needs.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

N/A

N/A

Clinical laboratory assessment of acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Several biochemical markers in blood and urine have been investigated to establish their clinical application in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP). The relevant studies are reviewed and critically appraised.

METHODS

Medline and the World Wide Web were searched and the relevant literature was classified under the following categories: (1) diagnosis of AP and (2) prediction of: a) disease severity, b) pancreatic necrosis and its secondary infection, c) organ failure and death, and d) disease etiology.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Serum lipase is a more reliable diagnostic marker of AP than serum amylase. Urinary strip tests for trypsinogen activation peptide (TAP) and trypsinogen-2 provide a reliable early diagnosis of AP. Useful predictors of severity may include serum procalcitonin and urinary TAP and trypsinogen-2 on admission, serum interleukins-6 and -8 and polymorphonuclear elastase at 24 h, and serum C-reactive protein (CRP) at 48 h. Other markers such as amyloid A and carboxypeptidase B activation peptide (CAPAP) need further investigation. Biochemical prediction of pancreatic necrosis requires 72 h to reach reliability and is impractical. However, the daily monitoring of serum procalcitonin provides a non-invasive detection of infected necrosis; the promising role of phospholipase A(2) in this regard requires further investigation. Early transient hypertransaminasemia reliably predicts biliary etiology, while serum carbohydrate-deficient transferrin and trypsin may predict an alcoholic etiology.

Potential new therapies for the treatment of acute pancreatitis

The treatment of acute pancreatitis has remained virtually unchanged for the past 50 years, in large part due to a poor understanding of the initial intracellular events. Furthermore, there is a lack of knowledge regarding the mediator(s) responsible for the progression of the disease from local pancreatic inflammation to a systemic inflammatory disease, as well as the mediator(s) responsible for distant organ dysfunction and failure. With recent advances in the pathophysiology of pancreatitis, in particular the role of the inflammatory mediators interleukin-1 beta, tumour necrosis factor alpha and platelet-activating factor, the potential for new effective therapies has been realised. At present, a number of inflammatory mediator antagonists are being tested in humans, with the hope that we may soon develop a specific treatment for a disease, which thus far, has none.

Management of the critically ill patient with severe acute pancreatitis

OBJECTIVE

Acute pancreatitis represents a spectrum of disease ranging from a mild, self-limited course requiring only brief hospitalization to a rapidly progressive, fulminant illness resulting in the multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), with or without accompanying sepsis. The goal of this consensus statement is to provide recommendations regarding the management of the critically ill patient with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP).

DATA SOURCES AND METHODS

An international consensus conference was held in April 2004 to develop recommendations for the management of the critically ill patient with SAP. Evidence-based recommendations were developed by a jury of ten persons representing surgery, internal medicine, and critical care after conferring with experts and reviewing the pertinent literature to address specific questions concerning the management of patients with severe acute pancreatitis.

DATA SYNTHESIS

There were a total of 23 recommendations developed to provide guidance to critical care clinicians caring for the patient with SAP. Topics addressed were as follows. 1) When should the patient admitted with acute pancreatitis be monitored in an ICU or stepdown unit? 2) Should patients with severe acute pancreatitis receive prophylactic antibiotics? 3) What is the optimal mode and timing of nutritional support for the patient with SAP? 4) What are the indications for surgery in acute pancreatitis, what is the optimal timing for intervention, and what are the roles for less invasive approaches including percutaneous drainage and laparoscopy? 5) Under what circumstances should patients with gallstone pancreatitis undergo interventions for clearance of the bile duct? 6) Is there a role for therapy targeting the inflammatory response in the patient with SAP? Some of the recommendations included a recommendation against the routine use of prophylactic systemic antibacterial or antifungal agents in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. The jury also recommended against pancreatic debridement or drainage for sterile necrosis, limiting debridement or drainage to those with infected pancreatic necrosis and/or abscess confirmed by radiologic evidence of gas or results or fine needle aspirate. Furthermore, the jury recommended that whenever possible, operative necrosectomy and/or drainage be delayed at least 2-3 wk to allow for demarcation of the necrotic pancreas.

CONCLUSIONS

This consensus statement provides 23 different recommendations concerning the management of patients with SAP. These recommendations differ in several ways from previous recommendations because of the release of recent data concerning the management of these patients and also because of the focus on the critically ill patient. There are a number of important questions that could not be answered using an evidence-based approach, and areas in need of further research were identified.

Combination of APACHE-II score and an obesity score (APACHE-O) for the prediction of severe acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

The advent of specific therapeutic or preventive treatments for severe acute pancreatitis creates a need to determine the risk of complications for each individual. Scoring systems used in acute pancreatitis identify groups of patients at risk of complications, but the pancreatitis-specific scores require 48 h of hospital admission to give full information. The APACHE-II score is useful within 24 h, but ignores simple clinical features, such as obesity, known to predict severity. The aim of this study was to evaluate a combination of the APACHE-II score with an obesity score in patients with acute pancreatitis, to predict severity using information available during the first 24 h of hospital admission.

METHODS

Data were collected prospectively from 186 consecutive patients with acute pancreatitis, to allow calculation of the APACHE-II score and body mass index (BMI). BMI was categorised as normal (score = 0), overweight (BMI 26-30: score = 1), or obese (BMI >30: score = 2). A logistic regression model was used to identify factors significantly associated with complications (Atlanta criteria; 104 complications in 60 patients).

RESULTS

Age, BMI and the acute physiology score independently predicted complications. Addition of the score for obesity to the APACHE-II score gave a composite score (APACHE-O) with greater predictive accuracy. At cut-off of >8, APACHE-O had sensitivity 82%, specificity 86%, positive predictive value 74%, negative predictive value 91% and overall accuracy 85%.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that age, obesity and APACHE-II measured in the first 24 h of hospital admission can predict complications in acute pancreatitis. Combination of the APACHE-II and obesity scores by simple addition improved categorical prediction of severity (mild or severe) in patients with acute pancreatitis.

Severe acute pancreatitis: when to be concerned?

The fate of a patient with acute pancreatitis largely depends on early recognition of the severity of the disease. Acute pancreatitis is severe when organ failure and/or pancreatic necrosis occur. Whereas simple and low cost parameters are available for the detection of organ failure, the detection and extent of pancreatic necrosis requires a costly contrast-enhanced computed tomography. This is not always available in all institutions. This review article which considers when the clinician should be concerned about his patient diagnosed with acute pancreatitis, summarizes possibilities for diagnosing clinical severe (that is organ failure) and radiological severe (that is the necrotizing form of the disease) pancreatitis using simple and inexpensive parameters which are available everywhere. At present, a CT scan should be performed in those patients with alcohol etiology, those admitted to hospital early (time interval between the onset of symptoms and admission to hospital of less than 24 h, those presenting with rebound tenderness and/or guarding, a lipase >1,000 U/l, as well as a raised hematocrit and blood glucose. The evaluation, furthermore, shows that some parameters have a sufficiently high negative predictive value of >90%, which may render a contrast-enhanced CT scan unnecessary in the early stages, unless the patient fails to improve. These parameters include non-alcohol etiology, time interval between onset and admission to hospital longer than 24 h, no guarding or rebound tenderness on admission, low or normal hematocrit and nonelevated blood glucose. It is necessary to look further on simple low cost and more valid parameters on admission in order to reliably distinguish between necrotizing pancreatitis and interstitial pancreatitis.

Natural history of organ failure in acute pancreatitis

The majority of deaths from acute pancreatitis are a consequence of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS). In order to influence the outcome of this condition, we need to have a better understanding of the natural history of acute pancreatitis, particularly when complicated by MODS. This paper reviews the recent literature dealing with the natural history of acute pancreatitis and the relationship between MODS, pancreatic necrosis and mortality.

Multimodal management - of value in fulminant acute pancreatitis?

BACKGROUND

The multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) is the major cause of morbidity and mortality associated with acute pancreatitis. Presently, therapy is merely organ supportive as no effective therapy against underlying causative pathophysiological mechanisms exists.

AIMS

To evaluate the effect of treatment with a platelet-activating factor inhibitor (PAFI), a monoclonal antibody against platelet endothelial cell adhesion molecule 1 (PECAM-1-MAb) and an oxygen free radical scavenger (N-acetylcystein; NAC), alone or in combination, on systemic organ dysfunction in experimental acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

Severe acute pancreatitis was induced in rats by the intraductal administration of taurodeoxycholate. Treatment was given after 1 or 3 h, and evaluations were performed 6 h after induction. Organ dysfunction was evaluated by means of endothelial integrity impairment expressed as endothelial barrier leakage index.

RESULTS

Severe acute pancreatitis caused a significant impairment in endothelial integrity in all organs studied and decreased levels of protease inhibitors compared to controls. The endothelial barrier impairment was significantly ameliorated by all treatment modalities, either given early or later. Combinations of NAC and the PECAM-1-MAb or the PECAM-1-MAb and the PAFI were the only schedules to restore endothelial barrier integrity to normal levels in most of the organs studied.

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy with NAC and PECAM-1-MAb and/or PAFI may offer effective, causative-directed supplements to organ-supportive therapy of MODS in severe acute pancreatitis.

Prevalence and predictors of severity as defined by atlanta criteria among patients presenting with acute pancreatitis

INTRODUCTION

Effective triage of patients with acute pancreatitis is dependent on the ability to accurately predict a severe course. Predictors (e.g., APACHE II score of >8) have been tested against wide-ranging definitions of severity (prevalence, 15%-40%). To ensure uniformity in defining a severe course of acute pancreatitis, the Atlanta symposium of 1992 adopted all-encompassing criteria (local complications, systemic complications, need for surgery, or death).

AIMS

To assess the prevalence of each Atlanta criteria for severe acute pancreatitis and to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the APACHE II score as a predictor of these criteria for severe acute pancreatitis.

METHODOLOGY

We reviewed records of patients admitted to the University of Cincinnati Medical Center (Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A.) between 1994 and 1998 with acute pancreatitis. Exclusion criteria included referral from an outside hospital, immunocompromised state, and chronic pancreatitis.

RESULTS

Seventy-four consecutive patients met our inclusion criteria. Ten patients (13.5%) had a severe course. Seven patients developed only local complications. Three patients had systemic complications. Pancreatic surgical intervention was required in four patients. No deaths occurred. An APACHE II score of >8 exhibited 50% sensitivity and 69% specificity (positive predictive value, 20%; negative predictive value, 89%). All patients with systemic complications and two of seven patients with only local complications had an APACHE II score of >8.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of severity among our nonreferred patients with acute pancreatitis was less than previously reported. The APACHE II scoring system exhibited reasonable sensitivity in predicting systemic complications and/or the need for surgery, with a low positive predictive value. This most certainly is a function of the low pretest probability of severe pancreatitis. Future studies attempting to identify predictive systems that triage patients in a more cost-effective manner should restrict their analysis to Atlanta criteria other than local complications.

Diagnosis and early management of acute pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis is a common emergency with the potential for significant complications. Despite advances in the understanding of the pathogenetic mechanisms of acute pancreatitis and the completion of a number of randomized trials studying specific therapies, the early management of patients remains supportive.

Influence of platelet activating factor on expression of adhesion molecules in experimental pancreatitis

AIM: To determine whether Platelet activating factor (PAF) has a regulation role in the expression of adhesion molecules and accumulation of neutrophils in a murine model of acute pancreatitis.

METHODS: One hundred twenty-eight Kunming mice were divided into four groups. Group 1 received 0.1 mL saline s.c. every hour for three hours (sham). Group 2 received cerulein (50 μg/kg dose s.c.) every hour for three hours. Group 3 received AP and additional challenge of PAF (50 mg/kg in absolute ethanol) (AP/PAF). Group 4 received AP, plus therapeutic treatment with GAB (25 mg dose i.p.) immediately after the first challenge of cerulein (AP/GAB). Animals were sacrificed at 12 h after the first challenge of saline or cerulein. Adhesion molecules of pancreas were semi-quantified by SP methods. Standard assays were performed for serum amylase and myeloperoxidase activity (MPO) of pancreas. Histology of pancreas was scored in a blind manner. Water content of pancreas was also measured at the same time.

RESULTS: Control pancreata showed negligible adhesion molecule expression and neutrophil accumulation. There were evident adhesion molecules expression and neutrophil accumulation in AP and AP/PAF compared with sham (P < 0.05). AP/GAB had a lower level of adhesion molecules, neutrophils, and water content versus AP and AP/PAF (P < 0.05). Histology showed a trend toward improvement in AP/GAB, but did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION: PAF can induce the expression of adhesion molecules that mediate neutrophil accumulation. The PAF antagonist reduces the expression of adhesion molecules and the severity of inflammation when given immediately after the induction of mild AP in mice. These results suggest that PAF antagonism may be useful in the treatment of mild pancreatitis after its clinical onset.

Acute pancreatitis--the current status in management

Acute pancreatitis is a life-threatening inflammatory disorder of the pancreas. Currently, there is no effective pharmacological therapy available for this disorder. The management strategies remain supportive. Given the remarkable morbidity and mortality associated with acute pancreatitis, there is clearly a desperate need for effective novel therapies. This paper presents a review on the epidemiology, aetiology, pathogenesis and management of acute pancreatitis and highlights the need for the development of novel and more specific therapies to battle this disorder.

Nontraumatic pancreatitis in spinal cord injury

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective analysis of 10 patients with pancreatitis after traumatic spinal cord injury.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the conditions leading to nontraumatic pancreatitis in spinal cord injury.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Little is known in the literature about pancreatitis after spinal cord injury. A few authors suggest a multifactorial pathogenesis.

METHODS

Over a 4-year period the case reports of 338 patients with traumatically caused SCI were reviewed concerning p-amylase and/or lipase elevations. Acute pancreatitis was defined as an elevation of p-amylase and/or lipase of more than three times the upper normal limit.

RESULTS

Ten of 338 patients had p-amylase and/or lipase elevations three times higher than the upper normal limit. All 10 were male with a mean age of 40.4 years. The average onset time of acute pancreatitis was 16 +/- 5.5 days after trauma. The usual etiologic factors of acute pancreatitis such as obstructive, toxic, or traumatic events were excluded.

CONCLUSION

The clinical recognition of acute pancreatitis in paraplegic and quadriplegic patients is hampered by diminished or lost visceral sensitivity and therefore is based on laboratory investigations. The current authors therefore hypothesize that acute pancreatitis in the setting of high-level spinal cord injury may result from a combination of locally mediated sphincter of Oddi dysfunction and vagal dominant innervation of the pancreatic gland in autonomic failure.

The APACHE II score is unreliable to diagnose necrotizing pancreatitis on admission to hospital

INTRODUCTION

The APACHE II score is highly recommended worldwide for the assessment of severe pancreatitis (interstitial and necrotizing), and a score of at least eight points on admission to the hospital is said to indicate severe pancreatitis.

AIM

To evaluate this assumption and to check whether an APACHE II score of at least eight points really indicates necrotizing pancreatitis as shown by contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT).

METHODOLOGY

This study included 326 patients with a first attack of acute pancreatitis and is part of a prospective study on the natural course of acute pancreatitis. All patients underwent contrast-enhanced CT within 72 hours of admission. The following parameters for the severity of the disease were used: respiratory and renal failure according to the Atlanta classification; indication for dialysis, ventilation, and surgery; time spent in intensive care unit and total hospital stay; Ranson score adjusted for cause; Imrie score; and Balthazar score (CT).

RESULTS

Of the 326 patients, 262 (80%) had interstitial pancreatitis and 64 (20%) had necrotizing pancreatitis. In 74 (28%) of the 262 patients with interstitial pancreatitis, the APACHE II score was at least eight points, indicating severe pancreatitis (overestimation of the disease), whereas the score was less than eight in 41 (64%) of 64 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis (underestimation). Sensitivity was 36%; specificity was 72%; the positive predictive value was 24%; and the negative predictive value was 82%.

CONCLUSION

The evaluation of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value for all APACHE II score points showed that there was not a "golden" cutoff to detect necrotizing pancreatitis. We conclude that the APACHE II score on admission to the hospital is unreliable to diagnose necrotizing pancreatitis.

Lexipafant inhibits postsurgical adhesion formation

BACKGROUND

PAF and its antagonists have been studied in the pathophysiology of various inflammatory conditions. This study investigates the effects of a platelet activating factor antagonist, lexipafant, on peritoneal adhesion formation and wound healing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-eight Wistar albino rats (300-350 g) were divided into four equal groups; adhesion-induced lexipafant (AL), adhesion-induced saline (AS), sham-operated lexipafant (SL), and sham-operated saline (SS). All rats underwent a midline laparotomy under sterile conditions. The anterior wall of the left uterine horn was scraped to cause hemorrhages in adhesion-induced groups. Following peritoneal injections of either saline or lexipafant, the incisions were closed in layers. On the 14th day, the rats were killed and adhesions were scored from 0 (none) to 4 (dense). Tissue samples from the adhesions and the left horn of uterus were examined biochemically for hydroxyproline content, and serum IL-6 levels were determined.

RESULTS

The adhesion formation score was significantly increased in the AS group compared to the SL and AL groups (P < 0.001). The IL-6 levels of the AS group were higher than those of the other groups (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in hydroxyproline content between groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Lexipafant plays a role in the prevention of adhesion formation without affecting wound healing.

Predicting and preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis

Pancreatitis is rightly the most feared complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Ten percent to 15% of cases of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) are severe by clinical and radiologic criteria. Such cases carry significant morbidity and mortality and are responsible for the vast majority of ERCP-related deaths. The prediction and prevention of PEP have been of great interest to endoscopists since the introduction of ERCP 30 years ago. Prediction and diagnosis of PEP have become more accurate with the widespread availability of serum amylase estimation. A variety of cytokines (eg, interleukin -1, IL-6, and IL-8) and acute phase reactants (eg, C-reactive protein) are also elevated in the serum in acute pancreatitis, and these form the basis of evolving tests for PEP. Urine testing (for amylase) in acute pancreatitis is obsolete, but it may soon undergo a revival in the form of a rapid (3-minute) dipstick test for trypsinogen-2, a sensitive and specific test for this disease. The prevention of PEP takes multiple forms. The following steps are recommended for clinicians: 1) avoid ERCP when other, less invasive or noninvasive imaging tests can do the job (eg, CT or magnetic resonance imaging); 2) avoid high-risk (of PEP) procedures, such as needle-knife papillotomy, balloon dilation of the biliary sphincter, and pancreatic sphincterotomy, and take steps to reduce risk when these procedures are unavoidable; 3) ensure that those who perform ERCP have adequate training and experience; and 4) consider pharmacologic intervention. Despite a depressing catalog of drug interventions that have failed over the years (eg, antihistamines, anticholinergics, and corticosteroids), three agents have recently shown promise: somatostatin; its octapeptide analogue, octreotide; and gabexate mesylate, a protease inhibitor.

Optimising outcomes in acute pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis is a common cause for presentation to emergency departments. Common causes in Western societies include biliary pancreatitis and alcohol (the latter in the setting of chronic pancreatitis). Acute pancreatitis also follows endoscopic retrograde pancreatography in 5 to 10% of patients, a group that could potentially benefit from prophylactic treatment. Although episodes of pancreatitis usually run a relatively benign course, up to 20% of patients have more severe disease, and this group has significant morbidity and mortality. Therefore, attempts have been made to identify, at or soon after presentation, those patients likely to have a poor outcome and to channel resources to this group. The mainstay of treatment is aggressive support and monitoring of those patients likely to have a poor outcome. Pharmacotherapy for acute pancreatitis (both prophylactic and in the acute setting) has been generally disappointing. Efforts initially focused on protease inhibitors, of which gabexate shows some promise as a prophylactic agent. Agents that suppress pancreatic secretion have produced disappointing results in human studies. Infection of pancreatic necrosis is associated with high mortality and requires surgical intervention. In view of the seriousness of infected necrosis, the use of prophylactic antibacterials such as carbapenems and quinolones has been advocated in the setting of pancreatic necrosis. Similarly, data are accumulating to support the use of prophylactic antifungal therapy. Recently, it has become apparent that the intense inflammatory response associated with acute pancreatitis is responsible for much of the local and systemic damage. With this realisation, future efforts in pharmacotherapy are likely to focus on suppression or antagonism of pro-inflammatory cytokines and other inflammatory mediators. Similarly, animal studies have demonstrated the importance of oxidative stress in acute pancreatitis, although to date there is a paucity of information regarding the efficacy of antioxidants. Although the clinical course for most patients with acute pancreatitis is mild, severe acute pancreatitis continues to be a clinical challenge, requiring a multidisciplinary approach of physician, intensivist and surgeon.

Platelet activating factor antagonism reduces the systemic inflammatory response in a murine model of acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

The platelet activating factor (PAF) antagonist, Lexipafant, has been used in experimental models and clinical trials to treat severe acute pancreatitis (AP). The purpose of this study was to determine whether Lexipafant reduces the local and systemic components of AP in a murine model of mild, edematous AP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-eight female Swiss-Webster mice were divided into four groups. Group 1 received 50 microl of saline ip every hour for 6 h (sham). Group 2 received saline treatment, plus Lexipafant (25 mg/kg dose ip, every 3 h starting 1 h after the first saline injection) (sham/Lex). Group 3 received cerulein (50 microg/kg dose ip, every hour for 6 h) (AP). Group 4 received AP, plus therapeutic treatment with Lexipafant (AP/Lex). Animals were sacrificed 3 h after the last injection. Serum cytokine levels were determined by ELISA. Standard assays were performed for serum amylase activity and lung myeloperoxidase activity (MPO). Histology was scored by two blinded investigators.

RESULTS

Serum cytokines (TNFalpha, IL-1beta), lung MPO, and serum amylase activity were reduced by PAF antagonism. Histology showed a trend toward improvement with Lexipafant, but did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

The PAF antagonism reduces the severity of systemic inflammation when given after the induction of mild AP in mice. These results suggest that Lexipafant may be useful in the treatment of mild pancreatitis after its clinical onset.

Update on the management of acute severe pancreatitis

Acute severe pancreatitis is an aggressive disease with a mortality rate of up to 30 percent. In recent years therapy has shifted away from early surgery to intensive medical care. This article focuses on several issues of the management of acute severe pancreatitis emphasising evidence from recent clinical trials and recommendations from recent consensus conferences. Since a correct assessment of the severity of the disease is mandatory as early as possible in the treatment, several multiple scoring factor systems and individual risk factors are explained. The indications and the optimal timing of ERCP are discussed. Prophylactic administration of antibiotics, intravenously or by means of a selective digestive decontamination scheme, seems to be beneficial in decreasing morbidity but not mortality. Adequate nutritional support, preferably achieved by enteral feeding, is an important component in the supportive therapy. Protease inhibitors and anti-secretory drugs have not proven to be of benefit in improving outcome. Immunomodulating substances like platelet activating antagonists are promising but further studies are necessary to confirm the results of the early studies. Finally, indications for surgery are discussed.

Interleukin 10 reduces the incidence of pancreatitis after therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Prophylactic administration of interleukin (IL)-10 decreases the severity of experimental pancreatitis. Prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis in humans is a unique model to study the potential role of IL-10 in this setting.

METHODS

In a single-center, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, the effect of a single injection of 4 microg/kg (group 1) or 20 microg/kg (group 2) IL-10 was compared with that of placebo (group 0), all administered 30 minutes before therapeutic ERCP. The primary endpoint was the effect of IL-10 on serum levels of amylases and lipases measured 4, 24, and 48 hours after ERCP. The secondary objective was to evaluate changes in plasma cytokines (IL-6, IL-8, tumor necrosis factor) at the same time points and the incidence of acute pancreatitis in the 3 groups. Subjects undergoing a first therapeutic ERCP were eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS

A total of 144 patients were included. Seven were excluded based on intention to treat (n = 1) or per protocol (n = 6). Forty-five, 48, and 44 patients remained in groups 0, 1, and 2, respectively. The 3 groups were comparable for age, sex, underlying disease, indication for treatment, type of treatment, and plasma levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), cytokines, and hydrolases at baseline. No significant difference was observed in CRP, cytokine, and hydrolase plasma levels after ERCP. Forty-three patients developed hyperhydrolasemia (18 in group 0, 14 in group 1, and 11 in group 2; P = 0.297), and 19 patients developed acute clinical pancreatitis (11 in group 0, 5 in group 1, 3 in group 2; P = 0.038). Two severe cases were observed in the placebo group. No mortality related to ERCP was observed. Logistic regression identified 3 independent risk factors for post-therapeutic ERCP pancreatitis: IL-10 administration (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.22-0.96; P = 0.039), pancreatic sphincterotomy (OR, 5.04; 95% CI, 1.53-16.61; P = 0.008), and acinarization (OR, 8.19; 95% CI, 1.83-36.57; P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

A single intravenous dose of IL-10, given 30 minutes before the start of the procedure, independently reduces the incidence of post-therapeutic ERCP pancreatitis.

Cost-effective management of common bile duct stones: a decision analysis of the use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), intraoperative cholangiography, and laparoscopic bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND

There are a variety of approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS

Decision modeling was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four strategies for managing CBD stones around the time of LC: (a) routine preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (preoperative ERCP), (b) LC with intraoperative cholangiography (IOC), followed by laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCDE), (c) LC with IOC, followed by ERCP (postoperative ERCP), and (d) expectant management (LC without any tests for CBD stones). Local hospital data were used to estimate costs. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of the cost per case of residual CBD stones prevented (in excess of the cost of LC alone). Diagnostic test characteristics, procedure success rates, and adverse event probabilities were derived from a systematic review of the literature. Sensitivity analysis was used to explore the effect of uncertainty on the results of the model.

RESULTS

LC alone was the least costly strategy, but it was also the least effective. Of the more aggressive strategies, LCDE and preoperative ERCP were associated with marginal costs of $5993.60 and $299,259.35, respectively, per case of residual CBD stones prevented. Postoperative ERCP was more costly and less effective than LCDE, but it had a lower cost-effectiveness ratio than preoperative ERCP when the prevalence of CBD stones was <80%.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to other common approaches, laparoscopic CBD exploration is a cost-effective method of managing CBD stones in patients who undergo LC. If expertise in LCDE is unavailable, selective postoperative ERCP is preferred over routine preoperative ERCP, unless the probability of CBD stones is very high (>80%).

ERCP-induced Pancreatitis

The most important consideration in preventing ERCP-induced pancreatitis is patient selection. If you want to avoid pancreatitis, avoid performing ERCP in young patients for sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Sphincter of Oddi manometry, difficult biliary cannulations (repeated pancreatic duct cannulations/injections), and precut and pancreatic sphincterotomy are associated with increased risk of pancreatitis. Pancreatic endotherapy, precut sphincterotomy, and Sphincter of Oddi manometry should be reserved for expert endoscopists. Short-term pancreatic stenting appears to decrease the risk of pancreatitis in patients undergoing these higher-risk procedures. Chemoprevention for ERCP-induced pancreatitis appears promising, but needs further critical study with larger patient populations and agents amenable to outpatient use. Fortunately, most ERCP-induced pancreatitis is mild. More severe pancreatitis requires a team approach to management with surgery, radiology, gastroenterology, and other specialists (eg, nephrologist) as indicated participating in the patient's care.