Revising the Atlanta classification of acute pancreatitis: festina lente

Selective indications of indomethacin and somatostatin, alone or in combination, and their preventive effects in patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a widely used minimally invasive technique for the diagnosis and treatment of biliary and pancreatic disorders. However, some patients may suffer post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Somatostatin and indomethacin are the classical drugs for the prevention of PEP. There is still controversy over the use of somatostatin and indomethacin, alone or in combination, in this context.

AIM

To investigate the selective indications of indomethacin and somatostatin, alone or in combination, and their preventive effects in patients at high risk for PEP.

METHODS

A prospective analysis was performed on 729 patients at high risk for PEP at our hospital from January 2017 to December 2020. They were randomly divided into four groups according to factorial design: Placebo group, indomethacin group, somatostatin group, and indomethacin + somatostatin group. Hyperamylasemia, PEP, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and IL-8 concentrations, and the incidence of side effects were compared among the four groups.

RESULTS

Compared with the placebo group, the incidence of PEP, hospitalization cost, and length of hospital stay showed no significant difference, but the incidence of hyperamylasemia, VAS score within 6 h after operation, and the TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations significantly decreased in the indomethacin group. Compared with the placebo group or indomethacin group, hospitalization cost, hospitalization time, the incidence of hyperamylasemia, the incidence of PEP, VAS score at 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h after operation, and the TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-8 concentrations after operation significantly decreased in the somatostatin group. Compared with the indomethacin + somatostatin group, the cost of hospitalization, length of hospitalization, incidence of hyperamylase blood, incidence of PEP, VAS score at 6 h, 12 h and 24 h after operation, and the TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations after operation significantly decreased in the indomethacin + somatostatin group. Compared with the somatostatin group, the incidence of PEP, hospitalization cost, and length of hospital stay in the indomethacin + somatostatin group showed no significant difference, but the incidence of hyperamylasemia, VAS score, and TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-8 concentrations within 6 h after operation significantly decreased. The VAS and TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-8 concentrations at 12 h to 24 h after operation showed no statistically significant differences.

CONCLUSION

For patients at high risk for PEP, indomethacin can reduce the incidence of postoperative hyperamylasemia and improve the quality of life of patients in a short period of time. It is suitable for patients undergoing simple, short-duration ERCP procedure with expected mild postoperative abdominal pain. Somatostatin can reduce the incidence of postoperative hyperamylasemia, improve the patients' quality of life and the incidence of PEP over a long period of time, and reduce the cost of hospitalization. It is suitable for patients with complicated, long-duration ERCP operation with expected severe postoperative abdominal pain. The combination of indomethacin and somatostatin has a synergistic effect in reducing the incidence of hyperamylasemia and improving patients' quality of life within 6 h after operation, and it is suitable for patients with more complicated, longer-duration ERCP operation with expected severe and longer postoperative abdominal pain.

Determinant-based classification and revision of the Atlanta classification, which one should we choose to categorize acute pancreatitis?

BACKGROUND

Two new systems of acute pancreatitis (AP) severity classification, namely, the determinant-based classification (DBC) and the revision of the Atlanta classification (RAC), were recently published. Information is lacking on the differences between the two systems.

METHODS

We analyzed data from adult patients with AP (973 episodes), admitted to West China Hospital from July 2012 through March 2013. We validated and compared the DBC and RAC systems by investigating the discordances between the RAC and DBC.

RESULTS

Using the RAC system, 66%, 27%, and 7% of the patients were categorized as mild, moderately severe, and severe, respectively. Using the DBC system, 83%, 7%, 7%, and 2% patients were determined to have mild, moderate, severe, and critical AP, respectively. The mortality and ICU admission rates were similar between the subgroups of the severe category under the RAC system. The severe and critical categories had similar mortality rates [35% (7/20) vs. 29% (20/70), P = 0.59] based on DBC. A subgroup of severe category of DBC (IPN and no persistent OF) had significantly lower mortality rate than the other two subgroups of severe category of DBC (SPN and persistent OF; persistent OF and no PN) [0% (0/18) vs. 29% (10/34) vs. 56% (10/18), P < 0.05].

CONCLUSION

Some subgroups of severe categories under the DBC system did not accurately reflected clinical outcomes. RAC seemed to be a better choice to guide the selection of patient populations for clinical research and provide a more accurate description of AP classification in the clinical setting than DBC.

Association between severity and the determinant-based classification, Atlanta 2012 and Atlanta 1992, in acute pancreatitis: a clinical retrospective study

Recently, the determinant-based classification (DBC) and the Atlanta 2012 have been proposed to provide a basis for study and treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP). The present study aimed to evaluate the association between severity and the DBC, the Atlanta 2012 and the Atlanta 1992, in AP. Patients admitted to our center with AP from January 2007 to July 2013 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were assigned to severity categories for all the 3 classification systems. The primary outcomes include long-term clinical prognosis (mortality and length-of-hospital stay), major complications (intraabdominal hemorrhage, multiple-organ dysfunction, single organ failure [OF], and sepsis) and clinical interventions (surgical drainage, continuous renal replace therapy [CRRT] lasting time, and mechanical ventilation [MV] lasting time). The classification systems were validated and compared in terms of these abovementioned primary outcomes. A total of 395 patients were enrolled in this retrospective study with an overall 8.86% in-hospital mortality. Intraabdominal hemorrhage was present in 27 (6.84%) of the patients, multiple-organ dysfunction in 73(18.48%), single OF in 67 (16.96%), and sepsis in 73(18.48%). For each classification system, different categories regarding severity were associated with statistically different clinical mortality, major complications, and clinical interventions (P < 0.05). However, the Atlanta 2012 and the DBC performed better than the Atlanta 1992, and they were comparable in predicting mortality (area under curve [AUC] 0.899 and 0.955 vs 0.585, P < 0.05); intraabdominal hemorrhage (AUC 0.930 and 0.961 vs 0.583, P < 0.05), multiple-organ dysfunction (AUC 0.858 and 0.881 vs 0.595, P < 0.05), sepsis (AUC 0.826 and 0.879 vs 0.590, P < 0.05), and surgical drainage (AUC 0.900 and 0.847 vs 0.606, P < 0.05). For continuous variables, the Atlanta 2012 and the DBC were also better than the Atlanta 1992, and they were similar in predicting CRRT lasting time (Somer D 0.379 and 0.360 vs 0.210, P < 0.05) and MV lasting time (Somer D 0.344 and 0.336 vs 0.186, P < 0.05). All the 3 classification systems accurately classify the severity of AP. However, the Atlanta 2012 and the DBC performed better than the Atlanta 1992, and they were comparable in predicting long-term clinical prognosis, major complications, and clinical interventions.

[International multidisciplinary classification of acute pancreatitis severity: the 2013 Spanish edition]

OBJECTIVE

To develop a new classification of acute pancreatitis severity on the basis of a sound conceptual framework, comprehensive review of the published evidence, and worldwide consultation.

BACKGROUNDS

The Atlanta definitions of acute pancreatitis severity are ingrained in the lexicon of specialist in pancreatic diseases, but are suboptimal because these definitions are based on the empiric description of events not associated with severity.

METHODS

A personal invitation to contribute to the development of a new classification of acute pancreatitis severity was sent to all surgeons, gastroenterologists, internists, intensivists and radiologists currently active in the field of clinical acute pancreatitis. The invitation was not limited to members of certain associations or residents of certain countries. A global web-based survey was conducted, and a dedicated international symposium was organized to bring contributors from different disciplines together and discuss the concept and definitions.

RESULTS

The new classification of severity is based on the actual local and systemic determinants of severity, rather than on the description of events that are non-causally associated with severity. The local determinant relates to whether there is (peri) pancreatic necrosis or not, and if present, whether it is sterile or infected. The systemic determinant relates to whether there is organ failure or not, and if present, whether it is transient or persistent. The presence of one determinant can modify the effect of another, whereby the presence of both infected (peri) pancreatic necrosis and persistent organ failure has a greater impact upon severity than either determinant alone. The derivation of a classification based on the above principles results in four categories of severity: mild, moderate, severe, and critical.

CONCLUSIONS

This classification is the result of a consultative process among specialists in pancreatic diseases from 49 countries spanning North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Oceania and Africa. It provides a set of concise up to date definitions of all the main entities pertinent to classifying the severity of acute pancreatitis in clinical practice and research. This ensures that the determinant-based classification can be used in a uniform manner throughout the world.

Validation of the determinant-based classification and revision of the Atlanta classification systems for acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Two new classification systems for the severity of acute pancreatitis (AP) have been proposed, the determinant-based classification (DBC) and a revision of the Atlanta classification (RAC). Our aim was to validate and compare these classification systems.

METHODS

We analyzed data from adult patients with AP (543 episodes of AP in 459 patients) who were admitted to Hospital General Universitario de Alicante from December 2007 to February 2013. Imaging results were reviewed, and the classification systems were validated and compared in terms of outcomes.

RESULTS

Pancreatic necrosis was present in 66 of the patients (12%), peripancreatic necrosis in 109 (20%), walled-off necrosis in 61 (11%), acute peripancreatic fluid collections in 98 (18%), and pseudocysts in 19 (4%). Transient and persistent organ failures were present in 31 patients (6%) and 21 patients (4%), respectively. Sixteen patients (3%) died. On the basis of the DBC, 386 (71%), 131 (24%), 23 (4%), and 3 (0.6%) patients were determined to have mild, moderate, severe, or critical AP, respectively. On the basis of the RAC, 363 patients (67%), 160 patients (30%), and 20 patients (4%) were determined to have mild, moderately severe, or severe AP, respectively. The different categories of severity for each classification system were associated with statistically significant and clinically relevant differences in length of hospital stay, need for admission to the intensive care unit, nutritional support, invasive treatment, and in-hospital mortality. In comparing similar categories between the classification systems, no significant differences were found.

CONCLUSION

The DBC and the RAC accurately classify the severity of AP in subgroups of patients.

SEMICYUC 2012. Recommendations for intensive care management of acute pancreatitis

OBJECTIVE

Significant changes in the management of acute pancreatitis have taken place since the 2004 Pamplona Consensus Conference. The objective of this conference has been the revision and updating of the Conference recommendations, in order to unify the integral management of potentially severe acute pancreatitis in an ICU.

PARTICIPANTS

Spanish and international intensive medicine physicians, radiologists, surgeons, gastroenterologists, emergency care physicians and other physicians involved in the treatment of acute pancreatitis. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE AND GRADES OF RECOMMENDATION: The GRADE method has been used for drawing them up. DRAWING UP THE RECOMMENDATIONS: The selection of the committee members was performed by means of a public announcement. The bibliography has been revised from 2004 to the present day and 16 blocks of questions on acute pancreatitis in a ICU have been drawn up. Firstly, all the questions according to groups have been drawn up in order to prepare one document. This document has been debated and agreed upon by computer at the SEMICYUC Congress and lastly at the Consensus Conference which was held with the sole objective of drawing up these recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Eighty two recommendations for acute pancreatitis management in an ICU have been presented. Of these 84 recommendations, we would emphasize the new determinants-based classification of acute pancreatitis severity, new surgical techniques and nutritional recommendations. Note. This summary only lists the 84 recommendations of the 16 questions blocks except blocks greater relevance and impact of its novelty or because they modify the current management.

Determinant-based classification of acute pancreatitis severity: an international multidisciplinary consultation

OBJECTIVE

To develop a new international classification of acute pancreatitis severity on the basis of a sound conceptual framework, comprehensive review of published evidence, and worldwide consultation.

BACKGROUND

The Atlanta definitions of acute pancreatitis severity are ingrained in the lexicon of pancreatologists but suboptimal because these definitions are based on empiric description of occurrences that are merely associated with severity.

METHODS

A personal invitation to contribute to the development of a new international classification of acute pancreatitis severity was sent to all surgeons, gastroenterologists, internists, intensivists, and radiologists who are currently active in clinical research on acute pancreatitis. The invitation was not limited to members of certain associations or residents of certain countries. A global Web-based survey was conducted and a dedicated international symposium was organized to bring contributors from different disciplines together and discuss the concept and definitions.

RESULT

The new international classification is based on the actual local and systemic determinants of severity, rather than description of events that are correlated with severity. The local determinant relates to whether there is (peri)pancreatic necrosis or not, and if present, whether it is sterile or infected. The systemic determinant relates to whether there is organ failure or not, and if present, whether it is transient or persistent. The presence of one determinant can modify the effect of another such that the presence of both infected (peri)pancreatic necrosis and persistent organ failure have a greater effect on severity than either determinant alone. The derivation of a classification based on the above principles results in 4 categories of severity-mild, moderate, severe, and critical.

CONCLUSIONS

This classification is the result of a consultative process amongst pancreatologists from 49 countries spanning North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Oceania, and Africa. It provides a set of concise up-to-date definitions of all the main entities pertinent to classifying the severity of acute pancreatitis in clinical practice and research. This ensures that the determinant-based classification can be used in a uniform manner throughout the world.

The classification of acute pancreatitis: Current status

The Atlanta Classification of acute pancreatitis (AP) is widely accepted and has been used by physicians and radiologists since 1992. However, advances in knowledge of the disease process, improved imaging, and ever-changing treatment options have rendered some of its definitions ambiguous and highlighted the inadequacy of its classification of severity. This review discusses revision of the Atlanta Classification (2008) and it describes a new determinant-based classification (2012). In contrast to the Atlanta Classification, the revised version and new classification are based on evidence but still need to be developed through systematic review of new data and further international consultation.

Global survey of controversies in classifying the severity of acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

The need to accurately classify the severity of patients with acute pancreatitis is widely acknowledged but some questions pertinent to this remain debatable. The aim of this study was to benchmark opinions of pancreatologists worldwide with regard to the issues related to classifying the severity of acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

An online survey was conducted using an independent commercial service. The corresponding authors of all articles pertinent to clinical aspects of acute pancreatitis published over the last 5 years were invited to participate.

RESULTS

A total of 528 invitations were sent and 240 (45%) responses from 49 countries, representing all the inhabited continents, were received. The Atlanta approach to classifying the severity of acute pancreatitis was considered adequate for modern clinical practice and clinical research by 40 (17%) of the respondents. The determinants-based approach to classifying the severity of acute pancreatitis was considered adequate for modern clinical practice and clinical research by 188 (78%) and 191 (80%) of the respondents, respectively. The definitions of local and systemic determinants of severity were also clarified.

CONCLUSION

Classifying the severity of acute pancreatitis on the basis of Atlanta approach was considered inadequate by the overwhelming majority of respondents. An international consensus on the new classification of severity of acute pancreatitis has to take into account the results of this survey.