When should we be concerned about pancreatic necrosis? Analysis from a single institution in Mexico City

Prognostic factors associated with development of infected necrosis in patients with acute necrotizing or severe pancreatitis-A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Acute pancreatitis is a potentially life-threatening condition with a wide spectrum of clinical presentation and illness severity. An infection of pancreatic necrosis (IPN) results in a more than twofold increase in mortality risk as compared with patients with sterile necrosis. We sought to identify prognostic factors for the development of IPN among adult patients with severe or necrotizing pancreatitis.

METHODS

We conducted this prognostic review in accordance with systematic review methodology guidelines. We searched six databases from inception through March 21, 2021. We included English language studies describing prognostic factors associated with the development of IPN. We pooled unadjusted odds ratio (uOR) and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for prognostic factors using a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We included 31 observational studies involving 5,210 patients. Factors with moderate or higher certainty of association with increased IPN risk include older age (uOR, 2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39-3.45, moderate certainty), gallstone etiology (aOR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.36-4.04, high certainty), greater than 50% necrosis of the pancreas (aOR, 3.61; 95% CI, 2.15-6.04, high certainty), delayed enteral nutrition (aOR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.26-3.47, moderate certainty), multiple or persistent organ failure (aOR, 11.71; 95% CI, 4.97-27.56, high certainty), and invasive mechanical ventilation (uOR, 12.24; 95% CI, 2.28-65.67, high certainty).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis confirms the association between several clinical early prognostic factors and the risk of IPN development among patients with severe or necrotizing pancreatitis. These findings provide the foundation for the development of an IPN risk stratification tool to guide more targeted clinical trials for prevention or early intervention strategies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review and meta-analysis, Level IV.

Impact of characteristics of organ failure and infected necrosis on mortality in necrotising pancreatitis

OBJECTIVE

In patients with pancreatitis, early persisting organ failure is believed to be the most important cause of mortality. This study investigates the relation between the timing (onset and duration) of organ failure and mortality and its association with infected pancreatic necrosis in patients with necrotising pancreatitis.

DESIGN

We performed a post hoc analysis of a prospective database of 639 patients with necrotising pancreatitis from 21 hospitals. We evaluated the onset, duration and type of organ failure (ie, respiratory, cardiovascular and renal failure) and its association with mortality and infected pancreatic necrosis.

RESULTS

In total, 240 of 639 (38%) patients with necrotising pancreatitis developed organ failure. Persistent organ failure (ie, any type or combination) started in the first week in 51% of patients with 42% mortality, in 13% during the second week with 46% mortality and in 36% after the second week with 29% mortality. Mortality in patients with persistent multiple organ failure lasting <1 week, 1-2 weeks, 2-3 weeks or longer than 3 weeks was 43%, 38%, 46% and 52%, respectively (p=0.68). Mortality was higher in patients with organ failure alone than in patients with organ failure and infected pancreatic necrosis (44% vs 29%, p=0.04). However, when excluding patients with very early mortality (within 10 days of admission), patients with organ failure with or without infected pancreatic necrosis had similar mortality rates (28% vs 34%, p=0.33).

CONCLUSION

In patients with necrotising pancreatitis, early persistent organ failure is not associated with increased mortality when compared with persistent organ failure which develops further on during the disease course. Furthermore, no association was found between the duration of organ failure and mortality.

Infection increases mortality in necrotizing pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the influence of infection on mortality in necrotizing pancreatitis.

METHODS

Eligible prospective and retrospective studies were identified through manual and electronic searches (August 2015). The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analyses were performed with subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses to evaluate sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

We included 71 studies (n = 6970 patients). Thirty-seven (52%) studies used a prospective design and 25 scored ≥5 points on the NOS suggesting a low risk of bias. Forty studies were descriptive and 31 studies evaluated invasive interventions. In total, 801 of 2842 patients (28%) with infected necroses and 537 of 4128 patients (13%) with sterile necroses died with an odds ratio [OR] of 2.57 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.00-3.31) based on all studies and 2.02 (95%CI, 1.61-2.53) in the studies with the lowest bias risk. The OR for prospective studies was 2.96 (95%CI, 2.51-3.50). In sensitivity analyses excluding studies evaluating invasive interventions, the OR was 3.30 (95%CI, 2.81-3.88). Patients with infected necrosis and organ failure had a mortality of 35.2% while concomitant sterile necrosis and organ failure was associated with a mortality of 19.8%. If the patients had infected necrosis without organ failure the mortality was 1.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with necrotizing pancreatitis are more than twice as likely to die if the necrosis becomes infected. Both organ failure and infected necrosis increase mortality in necrotizing pancreatitis.

Hypotension in the first week of acute pancreatitis and APACHE II score predict development of infected pancreatic necrosis

BACKGROUND

Hypotension and intestinal mucosal ischemia lead to bacterial translocation from the gut lumen into systemic circulation.

AIM

The purpose of this study was to determine the strength of association between different types of organ failure (OF): hypotension (cardiovascular system failure), renal failure, respiratory failure, CNS failure and coagulopathy in the first week of acute pancreatitis (AP) and the subsequent development of infected pancreatic necrosis (IN).

METHODS

Consecutive patients with AP were evaluated for OF and its severity in the first week of hospital admission. Modified multiple organ failure score (MOFS) was used to identify and grade severity of OF. MOFS of ≥2, lasting for more than 48 h was defined as OF. Occurrence of IN (isolation of bacteria in necrosectomy specimen or image guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic necrosis) was compared between groups with and without OF.

RESULTS

Of the 81 patients, mean age was 40.1 ± 14.4 years and 55 were males; 60 (74 %) patients had OF and 13 (16 %) patients had IN. Occurrence of IN was not significantly different between patients with OF (18.3 %) and without OF (14.3 %), p = 0.48. However IN occurred in 10 % of patients without and 33.7 % patients with hypotension, p = 0.01. The rest of the organ systems analyzed did not show any significant difference in occurrence of infected necrosis. On multivariate analysis independent predictors of occurrence of IN were hypotension (odds ratio, OR 2.5, p < 0.001) and APACHE II score at 24 h of hospital admission (OR 4.77, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Hypotension in the first week of AP and APACHE II score predict development of IN.

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.

Infected pancreatic necrosis: minimizing the cut

The challenge for the pancreatologist managing patients with infected pancreatic necrosis is to devise a treatment algorithm that enables recovery but at the same time limits the morbidity and mortality. The current gold standard remains open necrosectomy. Recent literature contains scattered reports of endoscopic, radiologic, laparoscopic, percutaneous and lumbotomy approaches to managing patients with this condition. This literature review addresses the role of techniques that aim to minimize the physiological insult to the patient with infected pancreatic necrosis.

Organ failure and infection of pancreatic necrosis as determinants of mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There is no consistency between the individual studies in the literature on whether organ failure (OF) or infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) is the main determinant of severity in acute pancreatitis. We aimed to statistically aggregate the available data and determine the pooled influence of OF and IPN on mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

The search for relevant observational studies was undertaken in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus electronic databases, as well as in the proceedings of major gastroenterology meetings. The summary estimates are presented as relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Fourteen studies comprising 1478 patients with acute pancreatitis were meta-analyzed. A total of 600 patients developed OF and 179 of them died (mortality, 30%); 314 patients developed IPN and 102 of them died (mortality, 32%). In a stratified analysis, patients with OF and IPN had a significantly higher risk of death in comparison with patients with OF and no IPN (RR = 1.94; 95% CI: 1.32-2.85; P = .0007) and in comparison with patients with IPN and no OF (RR = 2.65; 95% CI: 1.30-5.40; P = .0007).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with acute pancreatitis, the absolute influence of OF and IPN on mortality is comparable and thus the presence of either indicates severe disease. The relative risk of mortality doubles when OF and IPN are both present and indicates extremely severe disease or critical acute pancreatitis.

Value of the different prognostic systems and biological markers for predicting severity and progression of acute pancreatitis

OBJECTIVE

Several tools have been developed for severity stratification in acute pancreatitis (AP). They include single biochemical markers and complex scoring systems, all of which aim at an early detection of severe AP to optimize monitoring and treatment of these patients. The aim of this study was to reassess and compare the value of some known and newly-introduced prognostic markers in the clinical context.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We have conducted a prospective observational study. One hundred and eight patients with a diagnosis of AP and onset of the disease within last 72 h were included in this study. Clinical data and expression results of some serum biochemical markers were used for statistical analysis. The diagnostic performance of scores predicting severity and progression of AP, cut-off values, specificity, and sensitivity were established using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

RESULTS

Among single biochemical markers, C-reactive protein remains the most useful. Despite its delayed increase, it is accurate, cheap, and widely available. Interleukin-6 and macrophage migration inhibitory factor seem to be new promising parameters for use in clinical routine. Pancreas specific scores (Imrie-Glasgow, pancreatitis outcome prediction) and scores assessing organ dysfunction (acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II, multiple organ dysfunction score, and Marshall score) remain of value in determining the severity, complications, and possible outcome of AP.

CONCLUSIONS

Indication, timing, and consequences of the methods applied need to be carefully considered and incorporated into clinical assessments. Currently, there is no single prognostic marker that would cover the whole range of problems associated with the treatment of AP. The prediction of severity and progression of AP can be achieved using a series of accurate methods. The decision to undertake interventional or surgical treatment is the most complex task requiring both clinical judgment and meticulous monitoring of the patient.

Inflammation and immunosuppression in severe acute pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common disease, which usually exists in its mild form. However, in a fifth of cases, the disease is severe, with local pancreatic complications or systemic organ dysfunction or both. Because the development of organ failure is the major cause of death in AP, early identification of patients likely to develop organ failure is important. AP is initiated by intracellular activation of pancreatic proenzymes and autodigestion of the pancreas. Destruction of the pancreatic parenchyma first induces an inflammatory reaction locally, but may lead to overwhelming systemic 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 of systemic infection. At present, there is no specific treatment for AP. Increased understanding of the pathogenesis of systemic inflammation and development of organ dysfunction may provide us with drugs to ameliorate physiological disturbances.

Management of infected pancreatic necrosis

The past two decades have seen major advances in the understanding and clinical management of acute pancreatitis, yet it still lacks a specific treatment, and management is largely supportive and reactive. Surgery is seeing a diminishing role in the early phase of acute pancreatitis but still predominates in the management of infected pancreatic necrosis--the most lethal complication. This review focuses on recent literature but begins with an account of the evolution of infected necrosis management, which serves to place current treatment into context. Although surgeons initially emphasized less invasive approaches to pancreatic necrosis, they now compete with new techniques developed by pioneering physicians, radiologists, and interventional endoscopists. Clinicians adopting the new techniques will need to emulate the dedication and commitment that the current pioneers demonstrate. Although new techniques are still evolving, they should be evaluated against existing standards of treatment.

Markers for predicting severity and progression of acute pancreatitis

Several tools have been developed for severity stratification in acute pancreatitis. They include single biochemical markers, imaging methods, and complex scoring systems, all of which aim at an early detection of severe acute pancreatitis to optimise monitoring and treatment of patients as early as possible. Among single biochemical markers, C-reactive protein (CRP) remains the most useful. Despite its delayed increase, peaking not earlier than 72 h after the onset of symptoms, it is accurate and widely available. Many other markers have been evaluated for their usefulness, and for some of them very promising data could be shown. Among them interleukin 6 seems to be the most promising parameter for use in clinical routine. For the detection of pancreatic infection, procalcitonin is the most sensitive, and can be used as an indicator for the need for fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic necrosis. Regarding imaging, contrast-enhanced computed tomography is still the reference method for the detection of necrotising acute pancreatitis. Pancreatitis-specific scoring systems have been shown to be of value for the prediction of severity and progression of acute pancreatitis, but cannot be applied any earlier than 48 h after admission to hospital. The APACHE-II score has not been developed specifically for acute pancreatitis and is rather complex to assess, but has been proven to be an early and reliable tool. Indication, timing and consequences of the methods applied need to be carefully considered and incorporated into clinical assessments to avoid costs and harm to the patient.

The Atlanta Classification of acute pancreatitis revisited

BACKGROUND

In a complex disease such as acute pancreatitis, correct terminology and clear definitions are important. The clinically based Atlanta Classification was formulated in 1992, but in recent years it has been increasingly criticized. No formal evaluation of the use of the Atlanta definitions in the literature has ever been performed.

METHODS

A Medline literature search sought studies published after 1993. Guidelines, review articles and their cross-references were reviewed to assess whether the Atlanta or alternative definitions were used.

RESULTS

A total of 447 articles was assessed, including 12 guidelines and 82 reviews. Alternative definitions of predicted severity of acute pancreatitis, actual severity and organ failure were used in more than half of the studies. There was a large variation in the interpretation of the Atlanta definitions of local complications, especially relating to the content of peripancreatic collections.

CONCLUSION

The Atlanta definitions for acute pancreatitis are often used inappropriately, and alternative definitions are frequently applied. Such lack of consensus illustrates the need for a revision of the Atlanta Classification.