Prophylactic antibiotics in necrotizing pancreatitis: a meta-analysis. South Med J. 2008;101:1126-1131. [PMID: 19088522 DOI: 10.1097/smj.0b013e31817ecbda]

Assessment of Prophylactic Carbapenem Antibiotics Administration for Severe Acute Pancreatitis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics in severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) remains a debatable issue. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy of prophylactic carbapenem antibiotics in SAP.

METHODS

This meta-analysis of prophylactic carbapenem antibiotics for SAP was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library up to February 2021. The related bibliographies were manually searched. The primary outcomes involved infected pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis, mortality, complications, infections, and organ failure.

RESULTS

Seven articles comprised 5 randomized controlled trials and 2 retrospective observational studies, including 3,864 SAP participants. Prophylactic carbapenem antibiotics in SAP were associated with a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of infections (odds ratio [OR]: 0.27; p = 0.03) and complications (OR: 0.48; p = 0.009). Nevertheless, no statistically significant difference was demonstrated in the incidence of infected pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis (OR: 0.74; p = 0.24), mortality (OR: 0.69; p = 0.17), extrapancreatic infection (OR: 0.64, p = 0.54), pulmonary infection (OR: 1.23; p = 0.69), blood infection (OR: 0.60; p = 0.35), urinary tract infection (OR: 0.97; p = 0.97), pancreatic pseudocyst (OR: 0.59; p = 0.28), fluid collection (OR: 0.91; p = 0.76), organ failure (OR: 0.63; p = 0.19), acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR: 0.80; p = 0.61), surgical intervention (OR: 0.97; p = 0.93), dialysis (OR: 2.34; p = 0.57), use of respirator or ventilator (OR: 1.90; p = 0.40), intensive care unit treatment (OR: 2.97; p = 0.18), and additional antibiotics (OR: 0.59; p = 0.28) between the experimental and control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

It is not recommended to administer routine prophylactic carbapenem antibiotics in SAP.

The Surgical Infection Society Revised Guidelines on the Management of Intra-Abdominal Infection

BACKGROUND

Previous evidence-based guidelines on the management of intra-abdominal infection (IAI) were published by the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) in 1992, 2002, and 2010. At the time the most recent guideline was released, the plan was to update the guideline every five years to ensure the timeliness and appropriateness of the recommendations.

METHODS

Based on the previous guidelines, the task force outlined a number of topics related to the treatment of patients with IAI and then developed key questions on these various topics. All questions were approached using general and specific literature searches, focusing on articles and other information published since 2008. These publications and additional materials published before 2008 were reviewed by the task force as a whole or by individual subgroups as to relevance to individual questions. Recommendations were developed by a process of iterative consensus, with all task force members voting to accept or reject each recommendation. Grading was based on the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system; the quality of the evidence was graded as high, moderate, or weak, and the strength of the recommendation was graded as strong or weak. Review of the document was performed by members of the SIS who were not on the task force. After responses were made to all critiques, the document was approved as an official guideline of the SIS by the Executive Council.

RESULTS

This guideline summarizes the current recommendations developed by the task force on the treatment of patients who have IAI. Evidence-based recommendations have been made regarding risk assessment in individual patients; source control; the timing, selection, and duration of antimicrobial therapy; and suggested approaches to patients who fail initial therapy. Additional recommendations related to the treatment of pediatric patients with IAI have been included.

SUMMARY

The current recommendations of the SIS regarding the treatment of patients with IAI are provided in this guideline.

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).

Prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis: endless debate

INTRODUCTION The development of pancreatic infection is associated with the development of a deteriorating disease with subsequent high morbidity and mortality. There is agreement that in mild pancreatitis there is no need to use antibiotics; in severe pancreatitis it would appear to be a logical choice to use antibiotics to prevent secondary pancreatic infection and decrease associated mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS A non-systematic review of current evidence, meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials was conducted to assess the role of prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis and whether it might improve morbidity and mortality in pancreatitis. RESULTS Mixed evidence was found to support and refute the role of prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis. Most studies have failed to demonstrate much benefit from its routine use. Data from our unit suggested little benefit of their routine use, and showed that the mortality of those treated with antibiotics was significantly higher compared with those not treated with antibiotics (9% vs 0%, respectively, P = 0.043). In addition, the antibiotic group had significantly higher morbidity (36% vs 5%, respectively, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS Antibiotics should be used in patients who develop sepsis, infected necrosis-related systemic inflammatory response syndrome, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome or pancreatic and extra-pancreatic infection. Despite the many other factors that should be considered, prompt antibiotic therapy is recommended once inflammatory markers are raised, to prevent secondary pancreatic infection. Unfortunately, there remain many unanswered questions regarding the indications for antibiotic administration and the patients who benefit from antibiotic treatment in acute pancreatitis.

Antibiosis of Necrotizing Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Necrotizing pancreatitis is a life-threatening presentation of acute pancreatitis. The mortality of 20-80% initially depends on the persistence of organ failure and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and, in the later course of the disease, on secondary infection of the necrosis. The questions whether prophylactic antibiotics aiming to prevent this infection should be administered and which antibiotic is the best to use, as well as the problem of fungal infection under antibiotic treatment are still intriguing and insufficiently solved.

METHODS

A search of the literature using PubMed was carried out, supplemented by a review of the programmes of the Digestive Disease Week (DDW) and the United European Gastroenterology Week (UEGW).

RESULTS

Despite the widely practised prophylactic antibiotic administration in severe pancreatitis, no evidence for the benefit of this strategy exists. One of the drawbacks might be a tendency for disastrous fungal infection under prophylactic antibiotics. Bacterial translocation from the gut in the second week after the onset of symptoms is the major source for infection of pancreatic necrosis and provides a clear indication for antibiotic treatment. However, routine fine-needle aspiration for a calculated antibiotic therapy cannot be recommended, and all other tests offer only indirect signs. Important factors such as enteral versus parenteral feeding and the method of necrosectomy are mostly neglected in the trials but seem to be essential for the outcome of the patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though most meta-analyses including the newer double-blind, placebo-controlled trials on prophylactic antibiotics showed no beneficial effects in the prevention of infection of necrosis and/or outcome of the patients, this strategy is still widely used in clinical routine. Since nearly all trials published so far show systematic problems (i.e. inaccurate definition of the severity of the disease, poor statistical testing, and neglect of differences in the route of nutrition), there is a need for randomized controlled prospective trials with exact definitions of the disease.

Staged multidisciplinary step-up management for necrotizing pancreatitis

Background

Some 15 per cent of all patients with acute pancreatitis develop necrotizing pancreatitis, with potentially significant consequences for both patients and healthcare services.

Methods

This review summarizes the latest insights into the surgical and medical management of necrotizing pancreatitis. General management strategies for the treatment of complications are discussed in relation to the stage of the disease.

Results

Frequent clinical evaluation of the patient's condition remains paramount in the first 24–72 h of the disease. Liberal goal-directed fluid resuscitation and early enteral nutrition should be provided. Urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is indicated when cholangitis is suspected, but it is unclear whether this is appropriate in patients with predicted severe biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis. Antibiotic prophylaxis does not prevent infection of necrosis and antibiotics are not indicated as part of initial management. Bacteriologically confirmed infections should receive targeted antibiotics. With the more conservative approach to necrotizing pancreatitis currently advocated, fine-needle aspiration culture of pancreatic or extrapancreatic necrosis will less often lead to a change in management and is therefore indicated less frequently. Optimal treatment of infected necrotizing pancreatitis consists of a staged multidisciplinary ‘step-up’ approach. The initial step is drainage, either percutaneous or transluminal, followed by surgical or endoscopic transluminal debridement only if needed. Debridement is delayed until the acute necrotic collection has become ‘walled-off’.

Conclusion

Outcome following necrotizing pancreatitis has improved substantially in recent years as a result of a shift from early surgical debridement to a staged, minimally invasive, multidisciplinary, step-up approach.

Five-year cohort study of open pancreatic necrosectomy for necotizing pancreatitis suggests it is a safe and effective operation

INTRODUCTION

Despite advances in the management of necrotizing pancreatitis, open necrosectomy remains an important management option for necrotizing pancreatitis, and patients undergoing necrosectomy suffer significant morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to report the outcomes of open necrosectomy from a recent large cohort of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis.

METHODS

Data are reported from a cohort of 276 consecutive patients with necrotizing pancreatitis who underwent open surgical debridement. Nutritional status, nutritional methods, bleeding, infection, demarcation of necrotic tissues, and time from onset of disease were scored. Scores ≥ 10 were considered as an indication for debridement.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-two (58.7%) and 52 (18.8%) patients underwent minimally invasive peritoneal and retroperitoneal drainage, respectively, before necrosectomy. Median delay from disease onset to debridement was 48 days. Fifty-five patients (19.9%) underwent more than one operation; 352 operations were performed in total. There were 17 deaths (6.2%) postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the results for open debridement in a recent large cohort of patients. Although minimally invasive necrosectomy has been developed in recent years, open necrosectomy remains an important approach for the debridement of necrotizing pancreatitis effectively and safely.

Present and future of prophylactic antibiotics for severe acute pancreatitis

AIM: To investigate the role of prophylactic antibiotics in the reduction of mortality of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) patients, which is highly questioned by more and more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses.

METHODS: An updated meta-analysis was performed. RCTs comparing prophylactic antibiotics for SAP with control or placebo were included for meta-analysis. The mortality outcomes were pooled for estimation, and re-pooled estimation was performed by the sensitivity analysis of an ideal large-scale RCT.

RESULTS: Currently available 11 RCTs were included. Subgroup analysis showed that there was significant reduction of mortality rate in the period before 2000, while no significant reduction in the period from 2000 [Risk Ratio, (RR) = 1.01, P = 0.98]. Funnel plot indicated that there might be apparent publication bias in the period before 2000. Sensitivity analysis showed that the RR of mortality rate ranged from 0.77 to 1.00 with a relatively narrow confidence interval (P < 0.05). However, the number needed to treat having a minor lower limit of the range (7-5096 patients) implied that certain SAP patients could still potentially prevent death by antibiotic prophylaxis.

CONCLUSION: Current evidences do not support prophylactic antibiotics as a routine treatment for SAP, but the potentially benefited sub-population requires further investigations.

Acute pancreatitis: should we use antibiotics?

Acute pancreatitis is a common cause of hospitalization and a major source of morbidity worldwide. When it is severe, and especially when it progresses to include necrosis of the pancreas, the risk of infection rises and mortality increases. Early reports suggested prophylactic antibiotics given in severe pancreatitis prevent infection and death. More recent clinical trials do not support this benefit, and meta-analyses on the topic offer conflicting recommendations. In this article, we evaluate the body of published literature examining the use of antibiotics as a preventive measure in acute pancreatitis. The highest quality, currently available data fail to support prophylactic use of antibiotics, which should be added to treatment regimens only where infection has been proven.

Intra-abdominal fungal infections complicating acute pancreatitis: a review

Intra-abdominal infections of pancreatic or peripancreatic necrotic tissue complicate the clinical course of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) and are associated with significant morbidity. Fungal infection of necrotic pancreatic tissue is increasingly being reported. The incidence of intra-abdominal pancreatic fungal infection (PFI) varies from 5% to 68.5%. Candida albicans is the most frequently isolated fungus in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Prolonged use of prophylactic antibiotics, prolonged placement of chronic indwelling devices, and minimally invasive or surgical interventions for pancreatic fluid collections further increase the risk of PFI. Computed tomography- or ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic necrosis is a safe, reliable method for establishing pancreatic infection. Amphotericin B appears to be the most effective antifungal treatment. Drainage and debridement of infected necrosis are also critical for eradication of fungi from the poorly perfused pancreatic or peripancreatic tissues where the antifungal agents may not reach to achieve therapeutic levels. Fungal infection adversely affects the outcome of patients with SAP and is associated with increased morbidity, although the mortality rate is not increased specifically because of PFI. Although antifungal prophylaxis has been suggested for patients on broad-spectrum antibiotics, no randomized controlled trials have yet studied its efficacy in preventing PFI.

Carboplatin and docetaxel-induced acute pancreatitis: brief report

A 60-year-old Caucasian female presented with stage IIA (T2N0M0) estrogen- and progesterone-negative and HER2-positive breast cancer. She was started on an adjuvant chemotherapy regimen of docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab (TCH). She tolerated the first two cycles of the TCH regimen well. However, 3-4 days after the third and fourth cycles, she developed acute pancreatitis. Elevated pancreatic enzymes and abdominal computed tomography (CT) imaging findings confirmed the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis. Common causes of pancreatitis were ruled out. Given the time course it was assumed that the chemotherapy was the cause of pancreatitis in our patient. The patient did not receive any further docetaxel and carboplatin chemotherapy but continued on adjuvant trastuzumab alone for a planned duration of 1 year without any recurrence of acute pancreatitis.

Open pancreatic necrosectomy in the multidisciplinary management of postinflammatory necrosis

OBJECTIVE

To examine clinical outcome in a consecutive cohort of patients undergoing open necrosectomy for postinflammatory necrosis.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The last decade has witnessed major developments in the surgical management of pancreatic necrosis. Minimally invasive approaches have become established. However, there are limited data from contemporary open necrosectomy, in particular where multidisciplinary care and aggressive interventional radiology are used. This report provides data on outcome from open necrosectomy in a tertiary referral Hepatobiliary unit over the last decade.

METHODS

During the period January 1, 2000 to July 31, 2008, 1535 patients were admitted with a final discharge code of acute pancreatitis. Twenty-eight (1.8%) of all admissions underwent open surgical necrosectomy. Twenty-four (86%) were tertiary referral patients.

RESULTS

The median APACHE II score on admission was 10.5 (5-26). Median logistic organ dysfunction score on admission was 3 (0-10). Median LODS score after surgery was 2 (0-8). Twenty patients (71%) underwent radiologically guided drainage of collections before surgery. Thirty-day mortality occurred in 2 (7%), 4 further deaths occurred in patients after discharge from intensive care resulting in a total of 6 (22%) episode-related deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

Modern open necrosectomy can be performed without the procedure-related deterioration in organ dysfunction associated with major debridement. Multidisciplinary care with an emphasis on aggressive radiologic intervention before and after surgery results in acceptable outcomes in this cohort of critically ill patients. Newer laparoscopic techniques must demonstrate similar outcomes in the setting of stage-matched severity before wider acceptance.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in acute necrotizing pancreatitis revisited

OBJECTIVE

To review studies of antibiotic prophylaxis in acute necrotizing pancreatitis published in the last decade and update recommendations.

DATA SOURCES

A search of PubMed (1998-July 2009) was conducted using the terms necrotizing pancreatitis, antibiotics, prophylaxis, and treatment. Clinical studies, meta-analyses, and review articles published in English were included. Additional references were obtained from article bibliographies. Randomized trials published before 1998 were included if indicated.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant studies or meta-analyses on antibiotic prophylaxis since our previous review in 1998 were evaluated; older data were included if still relevant.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Since our previous review, 4 more randomized trials, including 2 double-blind trials, have been conducted. The blinded studies found no significant difference in mortality with antibiotic prophylaxis compared with placebo, while the unblinded studies found a significant decrease in infections. Given these disparate results, available guidelines and meta-analyses provide different conclusions, usually based on exclusion or inclusion of a single trial. Based on all available data, antibiotic prophylaxis should not be used in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Instead, a more measured, on-demand use of antibiotics is preferred. Antibiotics should be added if signs and symptoms of infection are present (eg, fever, leukocytosis, positive results of cultures). Given improvements in intensive care and nutritional support, recent trials have found a lower incidence of infected necrotizing pancreatitis than before. Therefore, future trials are likely to need higher numbers of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with necrotizing pancreatitis is not indicated, based on 2 blinded trials. Instead, on-demand use of antibiotics appears to be appropriate. Given progress in intensive care and the high crossover rate in studies, the need for antibiotic prophylaxis may continue to be debated for decades.

Advances in managing acute pancreatitis

This review highlights advances in acute pancreatitis (AP) made in the past year. We focus on clinical aspects of AP - severe disease especially - and risk stratification tools to guide the clinical care of patients. Most patients with AP have mild disease that requires a diagnostic evaluation, self-limited supportive care, and a short hospital stay. In patients with potentially severe AP, it is important for clinicians to use available risk-stratifying tools to identify high-risk patients and initiate timely interventions such as aggressive fluid resuscitation, close monitoring, early initiation of enteral nutrition, and appropriate use of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography. This approach decreases morbidity and possibly mortality and is supported by evidence drawn from recent clinical guidelines, historical literature, and the highest quality studies published in the last year.