Early Weight-Based Aggressive vs. Non-Aggressive Goal-Directed Fluid Resuscitation in the Early Phase of Acute Pancreatitis: An Open-Label Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (The WATERFALL Trial), Design, and Rationale

A meta-analysis of Lactate Ringer's solution versus Normal Saline in the treatment of acute pancreatitis

Fluid resuscitation is an important way in the treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP). This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of Lactate Ringer's solution (LR) and Normal Saline (NS) in the treatment of patients with acute pancreatitis. Searched in PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate), Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, China Wanfang, and China VIP database. All randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) were identified. Six studies with 431 patients were included. Compared with NS, LR can significantly reduce the incidence of SIRS at 24h, reduce the length of hospitalization, moderate-severe AP, ICU admission and local complications, especially pancreatic necrosis. It is safe and effective to choose LR for fluid resuscitation in AP, but due to the small number of included studies, multi-center and large-sample RCTs are still needed for further verification. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022322788.

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.

Aggressive or Moderate Fluid Resuscitation in Acute Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Early aggressive hydration is widely recommended for the management of acute pancreatitis, but evidence for this practice is limited.

METHODS

At 18 centers, we randomly assigned patients who presented with acute pancreatitis to receive goal-directed aggressive or moderate resuscitation with lactated Ringer's solution. Aggressive fluid resuscitation consisted of a bolus of 20 ml per kilogram of body weight, followed by 3 ml per kilogram per hour. Moderate fluid resuscitation consisted of a bolus of 10 ml per kilogram in patients with hypovolemia or no bolus in patients with normovolemia, followed by 1.5 ml per kilogram per hour in all patients in this group. Patients were assessed at 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours, and fluid resuscitation was adjusted according to the patient's clinical status. The primary outcome was the development of moderately severe or severe pancreatitis during the hospitalization. The main safety outcome was fluid overload. The planned sample size was 744, with a first planned interim analysis after the enrollment of 248 patients.

RESULTS

A total of 249 patients were included in the interim analysis. The trial was halted owing to between-group differences in the safety outcomes without a significant difference in the incidence of moderately severe or severe pancreatitis (22.1% in the aggressive-resuscitation group and 17.3% in the moderate-resuscitation group; adjusted relative risk, 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 2.18; P = 0.32). Fluid overload developed in 20.5% of the patients who received aggressive resuscitation and in 6.3% of those who received moderate resuscitation (adjusted relative risk, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.36 to 5.94, P = 0.004). The median duration of hospitalization was 6 days (interquartile range, 4 to 8) in the aggressive-resuscitation group and 5 days (interquartile range, 3 to 7) in the moderate-resuscitation group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized trial involving patients with acute pancreatitis, early aggressive fluid resuscitation resulted in a higher incidence of fluid overload without improvement in clinical outcomes. (Funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III and others; WATERFALL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381169.).

Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: Prevention, Diagnosis and Management

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) carries a post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) rate of 2–10%, which could be as high as 30–50% in high-risk cases. PEP is severe in up to 5% of cases, with potential for life-threatening complications, including multi-organ failure, peripancreatic fluid collections, and death in up to 1% of cases. The risk of PEP is potentially predictable and may be modified with pharmacological measures and endoscopist technique. This review covers the definition, epidemiology and risk factors for PEP, with a focus on the latest evidence-based medical and endoscopic strategies to prevent and manage PEP.

Ward based goal directed fluid therapy (GDFT) in acute pancreatitis (GAP) trial: A feasibility randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) reduces complications in patients undergoing major general surgery. There are no reports of cardiac output evaluation being used to optimise the fluid administration for patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) in a general surgery ward.

METHOD

50 patients with AP were randomised to either ward-based GDFT (n = 25) with intravenous (IV) fluids administered based on stroke volume optimisation protocol or standard care (SC) (n = 25), but with blinded cardiac output evaluation, for 48-h following hospital admission. Primary outcome was feasibility.

RESULTS

50 of 116 eligible patients (43.1%) were recruited over 20 months demonstrating feasibility. 36 (72%) completed the 48-h of GDFT; 10 (20%) discharged within 48-h and 4 withdrawals (3 GDFT, 1 SC). Baseline characteristics were similar with only 3 participants having severe disease (6%, 1 GDFT, 2 SC). Similar volumes of IV fluids were administered in both groups (GDFT 5465 (1839) ml, SC 5211 (1745) ml). GDFT group had a lower heart rate, blood pressure and respiratory rate and improved oxygen saturations. GDFT was not associated with any harms. There was no evidence of difference in complications of AP (GDFT 24%, SC 32%) or in the duration of stay in intensive care (GDFT 0 (0), SC 0.7 [(Van DIjk et al., 2017) 33 days). Length of hospital stay was 5 (2.9) days in GDFT and 6.3 (7.6) in SC groups.

CONCLUSION

Ward-based GDFT is feasible and shows a signal of possible efficacy in AP in this early-stage study. A larger multi-site RCT is required to confirm clinical and cost effectiveness.

The present and future of gastroenterology and hepatology: an international SWOT analysis (the GASTROSWOT project)

GASTROSWOT is a strategic analysis of the current and projected states of the different subspecialties in gastroenterology that aims to provide guidance for research, clinical, and financial planning in gastroenterology. We executed a consensus-based international strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis. Four general coordinators, six field coordinators, and 12 experts participated in the study. SWOTs were provided for the following fields: neurogastroenterology, functional gastrointestinal disorders, and upper gastrointestinal diseases; inflammatory bowel disease; pancreatology and biliary diseases; endoscopy; gastrointestinal oncology; and hepatology. The GASTROSWOT analysis highlights the following in the current state of the field of gastroenterology: the incidence and complexity of several gastrointestinal diseases, including malignancies, are increasing; the COVID-19 pandemic has affected patient care on several levels; and with the advent of technical innovations in gastroenterology, a well trained workforce and strategic planning are required to optimise health-care utilisation. The analysis calls attention to the following in the future of gastroenterology: artificial intelligence and the use of big data will speed up discovery and smarter health-care provision in the field; the growth and diversification of gastroenterological specialties will improve specialised care for patients, but could promote fragmentation of care and health system inefficiencies; and furthermore, thoughtful planning is needed to reach an effective balance between the need for subspecialists and the value of general gastroenterology services.