Effect of aggressive versus conservative hydration for early phase of acute pancreatitis in adult patients: A meta-analysis of 3,127 cases

Comparison of early aggressive versus nonaggressive fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis: a meta-analysis

Background

Early fluid resuscitation is one of the main therapeutic strategies for acute pancreatitis (AP). This study investigated the effects of early aggressive and nonaggressive hydration on AP.

Objectives

The aim of this meta-analysis is to investigate the differences between aggressive and nonaggressive intravenous fluid resuscitation in AP.

Design

This study was based on publicly available data, all of which have been extracted from previous ethically approved studies.

Data sources and methods

Two authors systematically searched PubMed, Embase (via OVID), Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to find all published research before February 2023. In-hospital mortality were set as primary endpoints.

Results

This meta-analysis included seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eight cohort studies with 4072 individuals in nonaggressive (n = 2419) and aggressive (n = 1653) hydration groups. The results showed that patients in the nonaggressive group had a lower mortality rate than those in the aggressive hydration group [relative risks (RR), 0.66; p = 0.02]. Subgroup analysis results showed that patients in the nonaggressive hydration group had lower mortality rates in RCTs (RR, 0.39; p = 0.001), studies conducted in Eastern countries (RR, 0.63; p = 0.002), and studies with severe pancreatitis (RR, 0.65; p = 0.02). In addition, the nonaggressive hydration group had lower rates of infection (RR, 0.62; p < 0.001), organ failure (RR, 0.65; p = 0.02), and shock (RR, 0.21; p = 0.02), as well as a shorter hospital stay (weighted mean difference, -1.63; p = 0.001) than the aggressive hydration group.

Conclusions

Early nonaggressive fluid resuscitation is associated with lower mortality, lower risk of organ failure and infection, and shorter hospital stays than aggressive fluid resuscitation.

Registration prospero registration number

CRD42023396388.

Aggressive versus controlled fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Early fluid resuscitation is one of the fundamental treatments for acute pancreatitis (AP), but there is no consensus on the optimal fluid rate. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of aggressive vs. controlled fluid resuscitation (CFR) in AP.

METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched up to September 30, 2022, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing aggressive with controlled rates of early fluid resuscitation in AP patients without organ failure on admission. The following keywords were used in the search strategy: "pancreatitis," "fluid therapy,""fluid resuscitation,"and "randomized controlled trial." There was no language restriction. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to control the risk of random errors and assess the conclusions.

RESULTS

A total of five RCTs, involving 481 participants, were included in this study. For primary outcomes, there was no significant difference in the development of severe AP (relative risk [RR]: 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-3.68; P = 0.07; n = 437; moderate quality of evidence) or hypovolemia (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.32-2.97; P = 0.97; n = 437; moderate quality of evidence) between the aggressive and CFR groups. A significantly higher risk of fluid overload (RR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.53-6.93; P <0.01; n = 249; low quality of evidence) was observed in the aggressive fluid resuscitation (AFR) group than the controlled group. Additionally, the risk of intensive care unit admission ( P = 0.02) and the length of hospital stay ( P <0.01) as partial secondary outcomes were higher in the AFR group. TSA suggested that more studies were required to draw precise conclusions.

CONCLUSION

For AP patients without organ failure on admission, CFR may be superior to AFR with respect to both efficacy and safety outcomes.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ; CRD 42022363945.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between aggressive and non-aggressive intravenous hydration for acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Current practice guidelines for optimal infusion rates during early intravenous hydration in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) remain inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare treatment outcomes between aggressive and non-aggressive intravenous hydration in severe and non-severe AP.

METHODS

This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on November 23, 2022, and hand-searched the reference lists of included RCTs, relevant review articles and clinical guidelines. We included RCTs that compared clinical outcomes from aggressive and non-aggressive intravenous hydration in AP. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model for participants with severe AP and non-severe AP. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and several secondary outcomes included fluid-related complications, clinical improvement and APACHE II scores within 48 h.

RESULTS

We included a total of 9 RCTs with 953 participants. The meta-analysis indicated that, compared to non-aggressive intravenous hydration, aggressive intravenous hydration significantly increased mortality risk in severe AP (pooled RR: 2.45, 95% CI: 1.37, 4.40), while the result in non-severe AP was inconclusive (pooled RR: 2.26, 95% CI: 0.54, 9.44). However, aggressive intravenous hydration significantly increased fluid-related complication risk in both severe (pooled RR: 2.22, 95% CI 1.36, 3.63) and non-severe AP (pooled RR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.53, 6.93). The meta-analysis indicated worse APACHE II scores (pooled mean difference: 3.31, 95% CI: 1.79, 4.84) in severe AP, and no increased likelihood of clinical improvement (pooled RR:1.20, 95% CI: 0.63, 2.29) in non-severe AP. Sensitivity analyses including only RCTs with goal-directed fluid therapy after initial fluid resuscitation therapy yielded consistent results.

CONCLUSIONS

Aggressive intravenous hydration increased the mortality risk in severe AP, and fluid-related complication risk in both severe and non-severe AP. More conservative intravenous fluid resuscitation protocols for AP are suggested.

International multidisciplinary survey on the initial management of acute pancreatitis: Perspective of point-of-care specialists focused on daily practice

BACKGROUND

The initial management of patients with acute pancreatitis impacts both morbidity and mortality. Point-of-care decisions have been reported to differ from clinical guideline recommendations.

METHODS

An online anonymous questionnaire was distributed through scientific associations and social media using REDCap. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify the characteristics of participants associated with compliance with the recommendations.

RESULTS

A total of 1054 participants from 94 countries completed the questionnaire; median age (IQR) was 39 (32-47) years; 30.7% were women. Among the participants, 37% opted for nonmoderate flow of i.v. fluid, 31% for fluid type other than Ringer's lactate; 73.4% were in favor of nil per os to patients who could eat, 75.5% for other than enteral feeding to patients with oral intolerance; 15.5% used prophylactic antibiotic in patients with severe acute pancreatitis, 34.1% in necrotizing acute pancreatitis, and 27.4% in patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome; 27.8% delayed cholecystectomy after biliary acute pancreatitis. Participants with publications in PubMed on acute pancreatitis showed better compliance (OR, 1.62; 95% CI: 1.15-2.32; P = .007) with recommendations of the clinical guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Feeding and nutrition require the greatest improvement efforts, but also the use of prophylactic antibiotics and timing of cholecystectomy should be improved.

Revisiting the Ranson score in acute pancreatitis: Is the drop in hematocrit a worrisome sign?

BACKGROUND

The Ranson score has 11 parameters that are complex and laborious to implement. In this study, we aimed to create a revised Ranson score by modifying the parameters in Ranson.

METHODS

A total of 938 patients diagnosed with acute pancreatitis (AP) between 2014 and 2021 were included in the study. The parameters of the Ranson score were included in the univariate and multivariate analyses. According to the results, some of these parameters were modified, and then the revised Ranson score was created.

RESULTS

The revised Ranson system was created with nine parameters by modifying the hematocrit parameter at 48 hours and excluding the aspartate aminotransferase parameter from the scoring system. For in-hospital mortality, the area under the curve value of the revised Ranson was 0.959 (95% CI: 0.931-0.986), and it was significantly higher compared to the three scoring systems evaluated. At a cut-off value of 3.5, the revised Ranson had a sensitivity and specificity of 91.7% and 89.1%, respectively, for mortality.

CONCLUSION

The revised Ranson scoring system had better predictive ability for all clinical outcomes compared to the original Ranson in our large sample of 938 patients. However, the revised version should be further validated by prospective and multicenter studies.

Optimising fluid requirements after initial resuscitation: A pilot study evaluating mini-fluid challenge and passive leg raising test in patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

The goals and approaches to fluid therapy vary through different stages of resuscitation. This pilot study was designed to test the safety and feasibility of a fluid therapy protocol for the second or optimisation stage of resuscitation in patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis (SAP).

METHODS

Spontaneously breathing patients with predicted SAP were admitted after initial resuscitation and studied over a 24-h period in a tertiary hospital ward. Objective clinical assessment (OCA; heart rate, mean arterial pressure, urine output, and haematocrit) was done at 0, 4, 8, 12, 18-20, and 24 h. All patients had mini-fluid challenge (MFC; 250 ml intravenous normal saline within 10 min) at 0 h and repeated at 4 and 8 h if OCA score ≥2. Patients who were fluid responsive (>10% change in stroke volume after MFC) received 5-10 ml/kg/h, otherwise 1-3 ml/kg/h until the next time point. Passive leg raising test (PLRT) was done at each time point and compared with OCA for assessing volume status and predicting fluid responsiveness.

RESULTS

This fluid therapy protocol based on OCA, MFC, and PLRT and designed for the second stage of resuscitation was safe and feasible in spontaneously breathing predicted SAP patients. The PLRT was superior to OCA (at 0 and 8 h) for predicting fluid responsiveness and guiding fluid therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study found that a protocol for intravenous fluid therapy specifically for the second stage of resuscitation in patients with predicted SAP was safe, feasible, and warrants further investigation.