Pancreatitis, very early compared with normal start of enteral feeding (PYTHON trial): design and rationale of a randomised controlled multicenter trial

Prognostic performance of the NRS2002, NUTRIC, and modified NUTRIC to identify high nutritional risk in severe acute pancreatitis patients

Background

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is the most common gastrointestinal disease requiring hospital admission. AP patients are categorized as mild, moderately severe, and severe AP (SAP). For SAP patients, malnutrition increases susceptibility to infection and mortality. The Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002), the Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill (NUTRIC) score and modified Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill (mNUTRIC) are nutritional risk screening tools of critically ill patients and have not been validated in patients with SAP. It is essential to evaluate the prognostic performance of these nutritional risk screening tools.

Materials and methods

A retrospective study was designed to validate the NRS 2002, NUTRIC, and mNUTRIC when applied to SAP patients. Receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted to investigate the predictive ability of clinical outcomes by comparing areas under the curve (AUC). Appropriate cut-offs were calculated by using Youden's index. Patients were identified as being at high nutritional risk according to the calculated cut-off values. The effects of different scoring systems on mortalities were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between the energy provision and 28-day mortality.

Results

From January 2013 to December 2019, 234 SAP patients were included and analyzed. Patients categorized as high nutritional risk by the NRS 2002 (12.6% versus 1.9% for 28-day and 20.5% versus 3.7% for 90-day), NUTRIC (16.2% versus 0.0% for 28-day and 27.0% versus 0.0% for 90-day), and mNUTRIC (16.4% versus 0.0% for 28-day and 26.4% versus 0.8% for 90-day) had significant higher mortality than those categorized as low nutritional risk. The NUTRIC (AUC: 0.861 for 28-day mortality and 0.871 for 90-day mortality, both cut-off value ≥3) and mNUTRIC (AUC: 0.838 for 28-day and 0.828 for 90-day mortality, both cut-off value ≥3) showed better predictive ability of the 28- and 90-day mortality than the NRS 2002 (AUC: 0.706 for 28-day mortality and 0.695 for 90-day mortality, both cut-off value ≥5).

Conclusion

The NRS 2002, NUTRIC, and mNUTRIC scores were predictors for the 28- and 90-day mortalities. The NUTRIC and mNUTRIC showed better predictive ability compared with the NRS 2002 when applied to SAP patients.

Luzhou-Feier powder reduces inflammatory response and improves intestinal immune barrier in rats with severe acute pancreatitis

As we know, nutritional support plays a key role in the treatment of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). Since total parenteral nutrition (TPN) was discovered, the mortality of SAP had been greatly reduced. But researchers recently demonstrated that the prognosis of SAP could be improved by early enteral nutrition (EEN), which has been a priority for nutritional support in patients with SAP. However, implementation of total enteral nutrition is often challenging in the early stage of SAP. If the enteral nutrition is overused, the burden on the gastrointestinal tract will be aggravated. Under such circumstances, the combination of enteral and parenteral nutrition for nutritional support of SAP patients would be a better choice. Therefore, in this study, we compared the efficacy of two enteral nutrition agents: traditional nutritional supplement named Luzhou-Feier powder (LZ-FP) and enteral nutritional suspension (TPF) combined with parenteral nutrition to total parenteral nutrition (TPN) in the treatment of SAP rats. Our analysis revealed that the combination of enteral nutrition and parenteral nutrition was more effective than TPN in SAP. And LZ-FP met the requirements for enteral nutrition of SAP supporting its clinical application in SAP. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Luzhou-Feier powder (LZ-FP) is a traditional Chinese nutritional supplement that was originally developed as a nutritional supplement for infants and is currently used for nutritional support in patients with chronic and consumptive diseases. Our research investigated the effect and its possible mechanisms of LZ-FP as early trophic enteral nutrition in SAP rats and compared it with TPF and TPN which have been used clinically. We found that LZ-FP helped to reduce inflammatory response and improve the intestinal immune barrier of SAP. The curative effect of LZ-FP was comparable to that of TPF. And this effect may be achieved by inducing the secretion of gut hormones. Our research indicates that LZ-FP should be considered as an enteral nutrition preparation for SAP.

Prevention of recurrent idiopathic gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding: a double-blind, randomised trial

OBJECTIVE

Patients with a history of Helicobacter pylori-negative idiopathic bleeding ulcers have a considerable risk of recurrent ulcer complications. We hypothesised that a proton pump inhibitor (lansoprazole) is superior to a histamine 2 receptor antagonist (famotidine) for the prevention of recurrent ulcer bleeding in such patients.

DESIGN

In this industry-independent, double-blind, randomised trial, we recruited patients with a history of idiopathic bleeding ulcers. After ulcer healing, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients to receive oral lansoprazole 30 mg or famotidine 40 mg daily for 24 months. The primary endpoint was recurrent upper GI bleeding within 24 months, analysed in the intention-to-treat population as determined by an independent adjudication committee.

RESULTS

Between 2010 and 2018, we enrolled 228 patients (114 patients in each study group). Recurrent upper GI bleeding occurred in one patient receiving lansoprazole (duodenal ulcer) and three receiving famotidine (two gastric ulcers and one duodenal ulcer). The cumulative incidence of recurrent upper GI bleeding in 24 months was 0.88% (95% CI 0.08% to 4.37%) in the lansoprazole arm and 2.63% (95% CI 0.71% to 6.91%) in the famotidine arm (p=0.313; crude HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.16, p=0.336). None of the patients who rebled used aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or other antithrombotic drugs.

CONCLUSION

This 2-year, double-blind randomised trial showed that among patients with a history of H. pylori-negative idiopathic ulcer bleeding, recurrent bleeding rates were comparable between users of lansoprazole and famotidine, although a small difference in efficacy cannot be excluded.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01180179; Results.

Efficacy of early oral refeeding in patients of mild acute pancreatitis

Objective:

To compare Early Oral Refeeding (EORF) with Routine Oral Refeeding (RORF) on outcome of patients of mild Acute Pancreatitis (AP) in terms of Mean Length of Hospital Stay (LOHS).

Methods:

This randomized controlled trialwas conducted atSurgical Department CMH Rawalpindi, from 1st Feb 2015 to 01st Aug 2016. A total of 60 patients with pain epigastrium were enrolled in the study. Severity of pancreatitis was assessed using Glasgow Scale. Patients were randomly divided in two groups. Group-A was started feeding within 12 hours (EORF group) and Group-B after 12 hours (RORF group). Demographic details and data were recorded on a structured proforma. After discharge, LOHS was measured for both groups and outcome was compared.

Results:

The groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, etiology, Glasgow Scale, time from onset of pain and Serum Amylase levels at admission. Treatment was standardized according to international guidelines for both groups. The mean LOHS was 7.8 ± 2.14 days in the Group-A and 10.03 ± 1.75 days in Group-B. The difference in the mean LOHS between the two groups was statistically significant (p<0.05).

Conclusion:

In patients of mild acute pancreatitis, early oral feeding is feasible and safe and has better outcome then those with routine oral refeeding.

High versus low energy administration in the early phase of acute pancreatitis (GOULASH trial): protocol of a multicentre randomised double-blind clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is an inflammatory disease with no specific treatment. Mitochondrial injury followed by ATP depletion in both acinar and ductal cells is a recently discovered early event in its pathogenesis. Importantly, preclinical research has shown that intracellular ATP delivery restores the physiological function of the cells and protects from cell injury, suggesting that restoration of energy levels in the pancreas is therapeutically beneficial. Despite several high quality experimental observations in this area, no randomised trials have been conducted to date to address the requirements for energy intake in the early phase of AP.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a randomised controlled two-arm double-blind multicentre trial. Patients with AP will be randomly assigned to groups A (30 kcal/kg/day energy administration starting within 24 hours of hospital admission) or B (low energy administration during the first 72 hours of hospital admission). Energy will be delivered by nasoenteric tube feeding with additional intravenous glucose supplementation or total parenteral nutrition if necessary. A combination of multiorgan failure for more than 48 hours and mortality is defined as the primary endpoint, whereas several secondary endpoints such as length of hospitalisation or pain will be determined to elucidate more detailed differences between the groups. The general feasibility, safety and quality checks required for high quality evidence will be adhered to.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the relevant organisation, the Scientific and Research Ethics Committee of the Hungarian Medical Research Council (55961-2/2016/EKU). This study will provide evidence as to whether early high energy nutritional support is beneficial in the clinical management of AP. The results of this trial will be published in an open access way and disseminated among medical doctors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial has been registered at the ISRCTN (ISRTCN 63827758).

Nutrition support in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of disease-related malnutrition in Western European hospitals is estimated to be about 30%. There is no consensus whether poor nutritional status causes poorer clinical outcome or if it is merely associated with it. The intention with all forms of nutrition support is to increase uptake of essential nutrients and improve clinical outcome. Previous reviews have shown conflicting results with regard to the effects of nutrition support.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of nutrition support versus no intervention, treatment as usual, or placebo in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), LILACS (BIREME), and Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science). We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp); ClinicalTrials.gov; Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP); Google Scholar; and BIOSIS, as well as relevant bibliographies of review articles and personal files. All searches are current to February 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We include randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication type, publication date, and language, comparing nutrition support versus control in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk. We exclude trials assessing non-standard nutrition support.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group. We used trial domains to assess the risks of systematic error (bias). We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control for the risks of random errors. We considered a P value of 0.025 or less as statistically significant. We used GRADE methodology. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 244 randomised clinical trials with 28,619 participants that met our inclusion criteria. We considered all trials to be at high risk of bias. Two trials accounted for one-third of all included participants. The included participants were heterogenous with regard to disease (20 different medical specialties). The experimental interventions were parenteral nutrition (86 trials); enteral nutrition (tube-feeding) (80 trials); oral nutrition support (55 trials); mixed experimental intervention (12 trials); general nutrition support (9 trials); and fortified food (2 trials). The control interventions were treatment as usual (122 trials); no intervention (107 trials); and placebo (15 trials). In 204/244 trials, the intervention lasted three days or more.We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for short-term mortality (end of intervention). The absolute risk was 8.3% across the control groups compared with 7.8% (7.1% to 8.5%) in the intervention groups, based on the risk ratio (RR) of 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.03, P = 0.16, 21,758 participants, 114 trials, low quality of evidence). We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for long-term mortality (maximum follow-up). The absolute risk was 13.2% in the control group compared with 12.2% (11.6% to 13%) following nutritional interventions based on a RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99, P = 0.03, 23,170 participants, 127 trials, low quality of evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis showed we only had enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more. A risk ratio reduction of 10% or more could be rejected.We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for short-term serious adverse events. The absolute risk was 9.9% in the control groups versus 9.2% (8.5% to 10%), with nutrition based on the RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.01, P = 0.07, 22,087 participants, 123 trials, low quality of evidence). At long-term follow-up, the reduction in the risk of serious adverse events was 1.5%, from 15.2% in control groups to 13.8% (12.9% to 14.7%) following nutritional support (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97, P = 0.004, 23,413 participants, 137 trials, low quality of evidence). However, the Trial Sequential Analysis showed we only had enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more. A risk ratio reduction of 10% or more could be rejected.Trial Sequential Analysis of enteral nutrition alone showed that enteral nutrition might reduce serious adverse events at maximum follow-up in people with different diseases. We could find no beneficial effect of oral nutrition support or parenteral nutrition support on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events in any subgroup.Only 16 trials assessed health-related quality of life. We performed a meta-analysis of two trials reporting EuroQoL utility score at long-term follow-up and found very low quality of evidence for effects of nutritional support on quality of life (mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01; 3961 participants, two trials). Trial Sequential Analyses showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject clinically relevant intervention effects on quality of life.Nutrition support may increase weight at short-term follow-up (MD 1.32 kg, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.00, 5445 participants, 68 trials, very low quality of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-quality evidence for the effects of nutrition support on mortality and serious adverse events. Based on the results of our review, it does not appear to lead to a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more in either all-cause mortality or serious adverse events at short-term and long-term follow-up.There is very low-quality evidence for an increase in weight with nutrition support at the end of treatment in hospitalised adults determined to be at nutritional risk. The effects of nutrition support on all remaining outcomes are unclear.Despite the clinically heterogenous population and the high risk of bias of all included trials, our analyses showed limited signs of statistical heterogeneity. Further trials may be warranted, assessing enteral nutrition (tube-feeding) for different patient groups. Future trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic errors and low risks of random errors, and they also ought to assess health-related quality of life.

The oral refeeding trilemma of acute pancreatitis: what, when and who?

Tolerance of oral refeeding is an essential goal of nutritional management of acute pancreatitis. However, oral feeding intolerance remains one of the most common complications in patients with this disease. It often results in longer periods of hospitalization, increased treatment costs, increased risk of readmission, and reduced quality of life. The traditional practice involves keeping patients nil by mouth followed by gradual stepwise reintroduction of food. However, it does not have a solid evidence base and, hence, there is increasing interest in determining alternative strategies that may be beneficial in reducing the occurrence of oral feeding intolerance. This review focuses on the randomized controlled trials that investigated the key questions informing the nutritional management of acute pancreatitis: when to feed, what to feed and who is in charge of the decision-making.

Effect of enteral nutrition on immune function in patients with severe acute pancreatitis

Severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) is a common acute critical illness with high mortality. The occurrence, progression and prognosis of SAP are closely related to the imbalance of the immune system which is aggressive in early stage and immunosuppressive in lately stage. Enteral nutrition not only can provide the necessary nutrients for metabolism, but also regulate the immune function including intestinal immunity, systemic immunity, humoral immunity and cellular immunity. Enteral nutrition has become an important part of comprehensive treatments for SAP. This article reviews the latest research data on enteral nutrition and its impact on various immune functions in SAP patients.

Necrotizing pancreatitis: new definitions and a new era in surgical management

BACKGROUND

Necrotizing pancreatitis is a challenging condition that requires surgical treatment commonly and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Over the past decade, new definitions have been developed for standardization of severity of acute and necrotizing pancreatitis, and new management techniques have emerged based on prospective, randomized clinical trials.

METHODS

Review of English-language literature.

RESULTS

A new international classification of acute pancreatitis has been developed by PANCREA (Pancreatitis Across Nations Clinical Research and Education Alliance) to replace the Atlanta Classification. It is based on the actual local (whether pancreatic necrosis is present or not, whether it is sterile or infected) and systemic determinants (whether organ failure is present or not, whether it is transient or persistent) of severity. Early management requires goal-directed fluid resuscitation (with avoidance of over-resuscitation and abdominal compartment syndrome), assessment of severity of pancreatitis, diagnostic computed tomography (CT) imaging to assess for necrotizing pancreatitis, consideration of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for biliary pancreatitis and early enteral nutrition support. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended. Therapeutic antibiotics are required for treatment of documented infected pancreatic necrosis. The initial treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis is percutaneous catheter or endoscopic (transgastric/transduodenal) drainage with a second drain placement as required. Lack of clinical improvement after these initial procedures warrants consideration of minimally invasive techniques for pancreatic necrosectomy including video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement (VARD), minimally invasive retroperitoneal pancreatectomy (MIRP), or transluminal direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN). Open necrosectomy is associated with substantial morbidity, but to date no randomized trial has documented superiority of either minimally invasive or open surgical technique. Additional trials are underway to address this.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe acute and necrotizing pancreatitis requires a multi-disciplinary treatment strategy that must be individualized for each patient. Optimal treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis now requires a staged, multi-disciplinary, minimally invasive "step-up" approach that includes a team of interventional radiologists, therapeutic endoscopists, and surgeons.

Enteral nutrition in acute pancreatitis: A review of the current evidence

The use of enteral feeding as part of the management of acute pancreatitis dates back almost two decades. This review describes the indications for and limitations of enteral feeding for the treatment of acute pancreatitis using up-to-date evidence-based data. A systematic review was carried out to analyse current data on the use of enteral nutrition in the management of acute pancreatitis. Relevant literature was analysed from the viewpoints of enteral vs parenteral feeding, early vs delayed enteral nutrition, nasogastric vs nasojejunal feeding, and early oral diet and immunonutrition, particularly glutamine and probiotic supplementation. Finally, current applicable guidelines and the effects of these guidelines on clinical practice are discussed. The latest meta-analyses suggest that enteral nutrition significantly reduces the mortality rate of severe acute pancreatitis compared to parenteral feeding. To maintain gut barrier function and prevent early bacterial translocation, enteral feeding should be commenced within the first 24 h of hospital admission. Also, the safety of nasogastric feeding, which eases the administration of enteral nutrients in the clinical setting, is likely equal to nasojejunal feeding. Furthermore, an early low-fat oral diet is potentially beneficial in patients with mild pancreatitis. Despite the initial encouraging results, the current evidence does not support the use of immunoenhanced nutrients or probiotics in patients with acute pancreatitis.

Early versus on-demand nasoenteric tube feeding in acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Early enteral feeding through a nasoenteric feeding tube is often used in patients with severe acute pancreatitis to prevent gut-derived infections, but evidence to support this strategy is limited. We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing early nasoenteric tube feeding with an oral diet at 72 hours after presentation to the emergency department in patients with acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

We enrolled patients with acute pancreatitis who were at high risk for complications on the basis of an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 8 or higher (on a scale of 0 to 71, with higher scores indicating more severe disease), an Imrie or modified Glasgow score of 3 or higher (on a scale of 0 to 8, with higher scores indicating more severe disease), or a serum C-reactive protein level of more than 150 mg per liter. Patients were randomly assigned to nasoenteric tube feeding within 24 hours after randomization (early group) or to an oral diet initiated 72 hours after presentation (on-demand group), with tube feeding provided if the oral diet was not tolerated. The primary end point was a composite of major infection (infected pancreatic necrosis, bacteremia, or pneumonia) or death during 6 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 208 patients were enrolled at 19 Dutch hospitals. The primary end point occurred in 30 of 101 patients (30%) in the early group and in 28 of 104 (27%) in the on-demand group (risk ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.44; P=0.76). There were no significant differences between the early group and the on-demand group in the rate of major infection (25% and 26%, respectively; P=0.87) or death (11% and 7%, respectively; P=0.33). In the on-demand group, 72 patients (69%) tolerated an oral diet and did not require tube feeding.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial did not show the superiority of early nasoenteric tube feeding, as compared with an oral diet after 72 hours, in reducing the rate of infection or death in patients with acute pancreatitis at high risk for complications. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and others; PYTHON Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN18170985.).

Predictors of critical acute pancreatitis: a prospective cohort study

Critical acute pancreatitis (CAP) has recently emerged as the most ominous severity category of acute pancreatitis (AP). As such there have been no studies specifically designed to evaluate predictors of CAP. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the accuracy of 4 parameters (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE] II score, C-reactive protein [CRP], D-dimer, and intra-abdominal pressure [IAP]) for predicting CAP early after hospital admission. During the study period, data on patients with AP were prospectively collected and D-dimer, CRP, and IAP levels were measured using standard methods at admission whereas the APACHE II score was calculated within 24 hours of hospital admission. The receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was applied and the likelihood ratios were calculated to evaluate the predictive accuracy. A total of 173 consecutive patients were included in the analysis and 47 (27%) of them developed CAP. The overall hospital mortality was 11% (19 of 173). APACHE II score ≥11 and IAP ≥13 mm Hg showed significantly better overall predictive accuracy than D-dimer and CRP (area under the ROC curve-0.94 and 0.92 vs. 0.815 and 0.667, correspondingly). The positive likelihood ratio of APACHE II score is excellent (9.9) but of IAP is moderate (4.2). The latter can be improved by adding CRP (5.8). In conclusion, of the parameters studied, APACHE II score and IAP are the best available predictors of CAP within 24 hours of hospital admission. Given that APACHE II score is rather cumbersome, the combination of IAP and CRP appears to be the most practical way to predict critical course of AP early after hospital admission.

Treatment options for acute pancreatitis

This Review covers the latest developments in the treatment of acute pancreatitis. The Atlanta Classification of acute pancreatitis has been revised, proposing several new terms and abandoning some of the old and confusing terminology. The 2012 Revised Atlanta Classification and the determinant-based classification aim to universally define the different local and systemic complications and predict outcome. The most important differences between these classifications are discussed. Several promising treatment options for the early management of acute pancreatitis have been tested, including the use of enteral nutrition and antibiotics as well as novel therapies such as haemofiltration and protease inhibitors. The results are summarized and the quality of evidence is discussed. Finally, new developments in the management of patients with infected pancreatic necrosis are addressed, including the use of the 'step-up approach' and results of minimally invasive necrosectomy.

Early oral refeeding based on hunger in moderate and severe acute pancreatitis: a prospective controlled, randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Early enteral nutrition is beneficial for acute pancreatitis (AP), but the optimal timing and criteria remain unclear. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility and safety of early oral refeeding (EORF) based on hunger in patients with moderate or severe AP.

METHODS

In a prospective, single-center, controlled, randomized clinical trial (ChiCTR-TRC-12002994), eligible patients with moderate or severe AP were randomized to either EORF or conventional oral refeeding (CORF). Patients in the EORF group restarted an oral diet when they felt hungry, regardless of laboratory parameters. Those in the CORF group restarted an oral diet only when clinical and laboratory symptoms had resolved. Clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

In all, 146 eligible patients with moderate or severe AP were included and randomized to the EORF (n = 70) or CORF (n = 76) group. There were eight dropouts after randomization (three in EORF group; five in CORF group). The groups had similar baseline characteristics. The total length of hospitalization (13.7 ± 5.4 d versus 15.7 ± 6.2 d; P = 0.0398) and duration of fasting (8.3 ± 3.9 d versus 10.5 ± 5.1 d; P = 0.0047) were shorter in the EORF group than in the CORF group. There was no difference in the number of adverse events or complications between the two groups. The mean blood glucose level after oral refeeding was higher in the EORF group than in the CORF group (P = 0.0030).

CONCLUSIONS

This controlled, randomized clinical trial confirmed the effectiveness and feasibility of EORF based on hunger in patients with moderate or severe AP. EORF could shorten the length of hospitalization in patients with moderate or severe AP.

Early enteral nutrition prevents intra-abdominal hypertension and reduces the severity of severe acute pancreatitis compared with delayed enteral nutrition: a prospective pilot study

BACKGROUND

To investigate the effects of early enteral nutrition (EEN) on intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) and disease severity in patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP).

METHODS

Enteral nutrition (EN) was started within 48 h after admission in the EEN group and from the 8th day in the delayed enteral nutrition (DEN) group. The IAP and intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) incidence were recorded for 2 weeks. The caloric intake and feeding intolerance (FI) incidence were recorded daily after EN was started. The severity markers and clinical outcome variables were also recorded.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were enrolled to this study. No difference about IAP was found. The IAH incidence of the EEN group was significantly lower than that of the DEN group from the 9th day (8/30 versus 18/30; P = 0.009) after admission. The FI incidence of the EEN group was higher than that of the DEN group during the initial 3 days of feeding (25/30 versus 12/30; P = 0.001; 22/30 versus 9/30; P = 0.001; 15/30 versus 4/30; P = 0.002). Patients with an IAP <15 mmHg had lower FI incidence than those with an IAP ≥15 mmHg on the 1st day (20/22 versus 17/38; P < 0.001), the 3rd day (11/13 versus 8/47; P < 0.001), and the 7th day (3/5 versus 3/55; P = 0.005) of feeding. The severity markers and clinical outcome variables of the EEN group were significantly improved.

CONCLUSIONS

Early enteral nutrition did not increase IAP. In contrast, it might prevent the development of IAH. In addition, EEN might be not appropriate during the initial 3-4 days of SAP onset. Moreover, EN might be of benefit to patients with an IAP <15 mmHg. Early enteral nutrition could improve disease severity and clinical outcome, but did not decrease mortality of SAP.

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.

Enteral nutrition within 48 hours of admission improves clinical outcomes of acute pancreatitis by reducing complications: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Enteral nutrition is increasingly advocated in the treatment of acute pancreatitis, but its timing is still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to find out the feasibility of early enteral nutrition within 48 hours of admission and its possible advantages.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE Databases, Web of Science, the Cochrane library, and scholar.google.com for all the relevant articles about the effect of enteral nutrition initiated within 48 hours of admission on the clinical outcomes of acute pancreatitis from inception to December 2012. Eleven studies containing 775 patients with acute pancreatitis were analyzed. Results from a pooled analysis of all the studies demonstrated that early enteral nutrition was associated with significant reductions in all the infections as a whole (OR 0.38; 95%CI 0.21-0.68, P<0.05), in catheter-related septic complications (OR 0.26; 95%CI 0.11-0.58, P<0.05), in pancreatic infection (OR 0.49; 95%CI 0.31-0.78, P<0.05), in hyperglycemia (OR 0.24; 95%CI 0.11-0.52, P<0.05), in the length of hospitalization (mean difference -2.18; 95%CI -3.48-(-0.87); P<0.05), and in mortality (OR 0.31; 95%CI 0.14-0.71, P<0.05), but no difference was found in pulmonary complications (P>0.05). The stratified analysis based on the severity of disease revealed that, even in predicted severe or severe acute pancreatitis patients, early enteral nutrition still showed a protective power against all the infection complications as a whole, catheter-related septic complications, pancreatic infection complications, and organ failure that was only reported in the severe attack of the disease (all P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Enteral nutrition within 48 hours of admission is feasible and improves the clinical outcomes in acute pancreatitis as well as in predicted severe or severe acute pancreatitis by reducing complications.

[Nutritional therapy in acute pancreatitis]

Acute pancreatitis is a frequent clinical entity in the West. About 80% of patients with acute pancreatitis develop edematous pancreatitis, while 20% develop necrotizing pancreatitis: The latter is a potentially life-threatening disease. In this case, early enteral nutrition has been shown to improve the course of the disease. Usually, gastric enteral nutrition with a polymeric formula via a nasogastric tube is possible; only in a minority of patients is jejunal feeding necessary owing to the high gastric residual volume. An elemental formula is useful for patients with significant intestinal maldigestion. If enteral feeding is not feasible within 5-7 days, (additional) parenteral nutrition has to be considered. Individualized--primary enteral--nutritional support is an essential part of a multimodal therapy in severe acute pancreatitis and it improves clinical outcome.

Early enteral nutrition is superior to delayed enteral nutrition for the prevention of infected necrosis and mortality in acute pancreatitis

OBJECTIVES

The exact time of initiation of total enteral nutrition (TEN) in severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) and its influence on the disease outcome are not well known.

METHODS

An analysis of 197 cases with predicted SAP allocated to: group A (n = 97), early TEN (started within the first 48 hours after admission to hospital); and group B (n = 100), delayed TEN (started after 48 hours).

RESULTS

Infection of necrosis/fluid collections occurred in 4 patients in group A and 18 patients in group B (P < 0.05). Respiratory failure and transfer to intensive care unit occurred more frequently in group B than in group A (15 vs 5 and 15 vs 3 patients; P < 0.05). Multiple-organ failure was observed in 9 patients in group A and 16 patients in group B (P > 0.05). Seven patients in group A and 11 patients in group B underwent surgery (P > 0.05). All 9 reported deaths occurred in group B (P < 0.05). The time to start TEN was a predictor of infected necrosis/fluid collection (odds ratio, 4.09; P = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

Delayed compared to early TEN is associated with higher mortality, increased frequency of infected necrosis/fluid collections, respiratory failure, and a need for intensive care unit hospitalization. Enteral nutrition in SAP should be started within 48 hours after admission to hospital.

SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials

High quality protocols facilitate proper conduct, reporting, and external review of clinical trials. However, the completeness of trial protocols is often inadequate. To help improve the content and quality of protocols, an international group of stakeholders developed the SPIRIT 2013 Statement (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials). The SPIRIT Statement provides guidance in the form of a checklist of recommended items to include in a clinical trial protocol. This SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides important information to promote full understanding of the checklist recommendations. For each checklist item, we provide a rationale and detailed description; a model example from an actual protocol; and relevant references supporting its importance. We strongly recommend that this explanatory paper be used in conjunction with the SPIRIT Statement. A website of resources is also available (www.spirit-statement.org). The SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration paper, together with the Statement, should help with the drafting of trial protocols. Complete documentation of key trial elements can facilitate transparency and protocol review for the benefit of all stakeholders.

Treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis is a common and potentially lethal disease. It is associated with significant morbidity and consumes enormous health care resources. Over the last 2 decades, the treatment of acute pancreatitis has undergone fundamental changes based on new conceptual insights and evidence from clinical studies. The majority of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis have sterile necrosis, which can be successfully treated conservatively. Emphasis of conservative treatment is on supportive measures and prevention of infection of necrosis and other complications. Patients with infected necrosis generally need to undergo an intervention, which has shifted from primary open necrosectomy in an early disease stage to a step-up approach, starting with catheter drainage if needed, followed by minimally invasive surgical or endoscopic necrosectomy once peripancreatic collections have sufficiently demarcated. This review provides an overview of current standards for conservative and invasive treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis.

Alimentary tract fistula associated with severe acute pancreatitis: an analysis of 16 cases

AIM: To investigate the risk factors, diagnosis and treatment of alimentary tract fistulas after severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) to improve the cure rate of SAP and reduce the morbidity and mortality of alimentary tract fistula.

METHODS: A retrospective study was made on 16 SAP cases complicated with alimentary tract fistula, which were treated at our hospital from January 2006 to August 2011, to analyze its risk factors, location, time, influence on the body, and clinical diagnosis and treatment.

RESULTS: Colonic fistulas occurred in 37.5% (6/16) of patients, duodenal fistulas in 31.25% (5/16), gastric fistulas in 18.75% (3/16), duodenal fistula + colonic fistula in 6.25% (1/16), and duodenal fistula + intestinal fistula in 6.25% (1/16). Alimentary tract fistulas were mostly found 3-9 weeks postoperatively. All patients had peripancreatic infection and were diagnosed accurately by X-ray. Early surgery was performed in 2 cases (<2 wk) and late operation in 14 patients (>2 wk). Intraoperative placement of drainage tubes (2-11) and postoperative drainage for >2 wk were performed in all patients. Fifteen cases underwent intraoperative prophylactic gastrostomy/jejunostomy and early enteral nutrition. Fourteen cases were cured, and the cure rate was 87.5% (14/16). One patient developed duodenal fistula and abandoned therapy because of abdominal cavity hemorrhage, and one patient who developed colonic fistula died of serious systematic infection and multiple organ failure.

CONCLUSION: Alimentary tract fistula after SAP is related to pancreatic juice corrosion, infection, operation timing and mode, and quantity, position, and placement time of drainage tubes. X-ray is a reliable and safe method for diagnosis of alimentary tract fistulas.