An international multicenter study of early intravenous fluid administration and outcome in acute pancreatitis

Evaluating the efficacy of different volume resuscitation strategies in acute pancreatitis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Acute pancreatitis poses a significant health risk due to the potential for pancreatic necrosis and multi-organ failure. Fluid resuscitation has demonstrated positive effects; however, consensus on the ideal intravenous fluid type and infusion rate for optimal patient outcomes remains elusive.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar for studies published between 2005 and January 2023. Reference lists of potential studies were manually searched to identify additional relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials and retrospective studies comparing high (≥ 20 ml/kg/h), moderate (≥ 10 to < 20 ml/kg/h), and low (5 to < 10 ml/kg/h) fluid therapy in acute pancreatitis were considered.

RESULTS

Twelve studies met our inclusion criteria. Results indicated improved clinical outcomes with low versus moderate fluid therapy (OR = 0.73; 95% CI [0.13, 4.03]; p = 0.71) but higher mortality rates with low compared to moderate (OR = 0.80; 95% CI [0.37, 1.70]; p = 0.55), moderate compared to high (OR = 0.58; 95% CI [0.41, 0.81], p = 0.001), and low compared to high fluids (OR = 0.42; 95% CI [0.16, 1.10]; P = 0.08). Systematic complications improved with moderate versus low fluid therapy (OR = 1.22; 95% CI [0.84, 1.78]; p = 0.29), but no difference was found between moderate and high fluid therapy (OR = 0.59; 95% CI [0.41, 0.86]; p = 0.006).

DISCUSSION

This meta-analysis revealed differences in the clinical outcomes of patients with AP receiving low, moderate, and high fluid resuscitation. Low fluid infusion demonstrated better clinical outcomes but higher mortality, systemic complications, and SIRS persistence than moderate or high fluid therapy. Early fluid administration yielded better results than rapid fluid resuscitation.

A Nationwide Analysis of Fluid Resuscitation Outcomes in Patients With Acute Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, fluid resuscitation has been the foundation of effective acute pancreatitis (AP) treatment. Experts advocate for aggressive intravenous fluid (IVF) resuscitation, especially within the first 24 hours. Research suggests limited efficacy of this approach; in fact, some studies show there may be a risk of increased complications. The aim of this study was to assess outcomes of aggressive IVF resuscitation in patients with AP.

METHODS

We queried the TriNetX Research Network (Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States) for patients admitted between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2020, with a diagnosis of AP and who had received IVF on admission for at least 24 hours. We compared two cohorts; cohort 1 consisted of patients receiving aggressive IVF resuscitation (>3 ml/kg/hr), and cohort 2 was comprised of patients receiving non-aggressive (≤1.5 ml/kg/hr) IVF resuscitation. We compared mortality during index hospitalization, hospital length of stay (HLS), mechanical ventilation rates, acute kidney injury (AKI), and severe sepsis between the cohorts with propensity scoring matched (PSM) pairs of patients. A sub-analysis of patients with severe AP was performed.

RESULTS

After comparing the two well-matched PSM cohorts (3,680/3,680), we found no significant differences in mortality, HLS, mechanical ventilation rates, AKI, or severe sepsis. We found similar results after conducting the sub-analysis of patients with severe pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no significant differences in mortality and HLS when comparing rates of IVF resuscitation.

Fluid resuscitation in the early management of acute pancreatitis - evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Third space fluid loss is one of the hallmarks of the pathophysiology of acute pancreatitis (AP) contributing to complications, including organ failure and death. We conducted a systematic review of literature to determine the ideal fluid resuscitation in the early management of AP, primarily comparing aggressive versus moderate intravenous fluid resuscitation (AIR vs MIR).

METHODS

A systematic review of major reference databases was undertaken. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects model. Bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias and ROBINS-I tools for randomized and non-randomised studies, respectively.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included in the analysis. Though there was no significant difference in mortality between AIR and MIR groups (8.3% versus 6.0%; p = 0.3), AIR cohort had significantly higher rates of organ failure (p = 0.009), including pulmonary (p = 0.02) and renal (p = 0.01) complications. Similarly, there was no difference in mortality between normal saline (NS) and Ringer's lactate (RL) (3.17% versus 3.01%; p = 0.23), though patients treated with NS had a significantly longer length of hospital stay (LOS) (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence appears to support moderate intravenous resuscitation (level of evidence, low) with RL (level of evidence, moderate) in the early management of AP.

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.

Chasing WATERFALLs - The Journey from Question to Answer

WATERFALL Trial from Question to AnswerThis clinical trial case study discusses the process that led to the WATERFALL trial - from a question asked by a gastroenterology trainee more than two decades ago about fluid management in acute pancreatitis to the completed clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine that may change clinical practice.

Update on the strategy for intravenous fluid treatment in acute pancreatitis

Fluid therapy/resuscitation is mandatory in acute pancreatitis due to the pathophysiology of fluid loss as a consequence of the inflammatory process. For many years, without clear evidence, early and aggressive fluid resuscitation with crystalloid solutions (normal saline solution or Ringer lactate solution) was recommended. Recently, many randomized control trials and meta-analyses on fluid therapy have revealed that high fluid rate infusion is associated with increased mortality and severe adverse events compared to those resulting from moderate fluid rates, and this has triggered a paradigm shift in fluid management strategies. Meanwhile, there is evidence to show that Ringer lactate solution is superior to normal saline solutions in this context. The purpose of this review is to provide an update on the strategies for intravenous fluid treatment in acute pancreatitis, including the type, optimal amount, rate of infusion, and monitoring guides. Recommendations from recent guidelines are critically evaluated for this review in order to reach the authors' recommendations based on the available evidence.

Effect of Aggressive Intravenous Fluid Resuscitation Versus Nonaggressive Fluid Resuscitation in the Treatment of Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Despite the need for active fluid therapy, fluid management of most acute pancreatitis (AP) cases is still supportive. The aim of this review is to compare the effect of aggressive versus nonaggressive intravenous (IV) fluid resuscitation in the treatment of acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

A systematic search of medical databases, such as Medline, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Cochrane Central, was conducted for publication until April 2022. We included randomized controlled trials or cohort (prospective and retrospective) studies reporting the outcomes of AP in patients that were managed with aggressive and nonaggressive IV fluid resuscitation. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Fourteen trials involving 3423 acute pancreatitis patients were included in the review. We did not observe any differences in the risk of mortality, persistent organ failure, and systemic inflammatory response syndrome in both study groups. However, there was an increased risk of development of pancreatic necrosis, renal failure, and respiratory failure in the aggressive fluid therapy group compared with nonaggressive therapy. The funnel plot showed no publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Aggressive fluid therapy did not improve mortality rates in acute AP patients and was associated with an increased risk of acute renal failure, and respiratory failure.

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.

Intravenous fluid therapy in patients with severe acute pancreatitis admitted to the intensive care unit: a narrative review

Patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) often require ICU admission, especially when signs of multiorgan failure are present, a condition that defines AP as severe. This disease is characterized by a massive pancreatic release of pro-inflammatory cytokines that causes a systemic inflammatory response syndrome and a profound intravascular fluid loss. This leads to a mixed hypovolemic and distributive shock and ultimately to multiorgan failure. Aggressive fluid resuscitation is traditionally considered the mainstay treatment of AP. In fact, all available guidelines underline the importance of fluid therapy, particularly in the first 24–48 h after disease onset. However, there is currently no consensus neither about the type, nor about the optimal fluid rate, total volume, or goal of fluid administration. In general, a starting fluid rate of 5–10 ml/kg/h of Ringer’s lactate solution for the first 24 h has been recommended. Fluid administration should be aggressive in the first hours, and continued only for the appropriate time frame, being usually discontinued, or significantly reduced after the first 24–48 h after admission. Close clinical and hemodynamic monitoring along with the definition of clear resuscitation goals are fundamental. Generally accepted targets are urinary output, reversal of tachycardia and hypotension, and improvement of laboratory markers. However, the usefulness of different endpoints to guide fluid therapy is highly debated. The importance of close monitoring of fluid infusion and balance is acknowledged by most available guidelines to avoid the deleterious effect of fluid overload. Fluid therapy should be carefully tailored in patients with severe AP, as for other conditions frequently managed in the ICU requiring large fluid amounts, such as septic shock and burn injury. A combination of both noninvasive clinical and invasive hemodynamic parameters, and laboratory markers should guide clinicians in the early phase of severe AP to meet organ perfusion requirements with the proper administration of fluids while avoiding fluid overload. In this narrative review the most recent evidence about fluid therapy in severe AP is discussed and an operative algorithm for fluid administration based on an individualized approach is proposed.

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.).

Treatment of Microcirculatory Disturbances in Acute Pancreatitis: Where Are We Now?

Acute pancreatitis is a serious inflammatory condition. Research has shown an increase in the number of pancreatitis-associated hospitalizations, with a marked decline in the mortality rates down to 0.79% in patients with acute pancreatitis and 0.26% in patients with exacerbation of chronic pancreatitis. Up to one-third of patients develop pancreatic tissue necrosis, with a mortality rate of 30%. One of the mechanisms is the disturbances in pancreatic microcirculation due to the release of endothelin, a long-acting vasoconstrictor. The development of pancreatitis causes the release of other inflammatory mediators, which reduce blood flow in the microcirculation. The activation of intracellular trypsinogen initiates a cascade of mechanisms in pancreatitis. There is no specific treatment for acute pancreatitis. Protease inhibitors are not effective in treating severe acute pancreatitis. There is an important role of low-molecular-weight heparin in attenuating necrosis and restoring perfusion of the pancreas. Other drugs used are endothelin receptor antagonists, antagonist of interleukin-1 and interleukin-6 receptors, α-tocopherol, tumor necrosis factor-α and platelet-activating factor inhibitors, acetylsalicylic acid, and local intra-arterial injection of lidocaine. The prophylactic use of antibiotics is not recommended. The treatment outcome of acute pancreatitis is still unsatisfactory.

An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Effectiveness of Aggressive Hydration Versus High-dose Rectal Indomethacin in the Prevention of Postendoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatographic Pancreatitis (AHRI-PEP)

BACKGROUND

Although rectal administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is recommended as the standard pharmacologic modality to prevent postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), vigorous periprocedural hydration (vHR) with lactated Ringer's solution (LR) is emerging as an effective prophylaxis modality for PEP. There has been no head-to-head comparison between these 2.

STUDY

This was a single-center, randomized, open-label, noninferiority, parallel-assigned, equal allocation, controlled clinical trial in a tertiary care hospital. Consecutive adults referred for ERCP, satisfying predefined inclusion criteria, underwent simple randomization and blinded allocation into 2 groups. Those allocated to vHR received intravenous LR at 3 mL/kg/h during procedure, 20 ml/kg bolus immediately afterward, and then at 3 mL/kg/h for another 8 hours. Those randomized to rectal Indomethacin received only per-rectal 100 mg suppository immediately post-ERCP. Assuming PEP of 9% in Indomethacin arm and noninferiority margin of 4%, we calculated sample size of 171 patients in each arm for 80% power and α-error 5%. Primary outcome was incidence of PEP, within 1 week, as defined by Cotton's criteria. All analysis were done by intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

Between October, 2017 to February, 2018, 521 patients were assessed. In all, 352 were enrolled, 178 randomized to vHR, and 174 to per-rectal Indomethacin. Baseline details and ERCP outcomes were not different between 2 groups. PEP occurred in 6 (1.7%) overall, with 1 (0.6%) in hydration arm, and 5 (2.9%) in indomethacin arm; an absolute risk reduction of 2.3% (95% confidence interval: 0.9%-3.5%) and odds ratio of 0.19 (95% confidence interval: 0.02-1.65). Three patients developed severe PEP, all receiving indomethacin.

CONCLUSIONS

vHR with LR is noninferior to postprocedure per-rectal Indomethacin for PEP prevention (ClinicalTrials.govID:NCT03629600).

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

BACKGROUND

The advantages of aggressive hydration compared to conservative hydration within 24 h for acute pancreatitis (AP) remain controversial in adult patients. A meta-analysis was undertaken to investigate whether aggressive strategies are more beneficial.

METHODS

We searched (on February 1, 2021) PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for eligible trials that assessed the two therapies and performed a meta-analysis. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were adverse events (e.g., renal failure and pancreatic necrosis) within 24 h of treatment.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials and 8 observational trials involving 3127 patients were identified. Patients with severe pancreatitis showed significant difference of in-hospital mortality (OR 1.75; 95% CI 1.32-2.33) in aggressive hydration group, which were less susceptible to study type and age. Patients with severe pancreatitis were likely to develop respiratory failure (OR 5.08; 95% CI 2.31-11.15), persistent SIRS (OR 2.83; 95% CI 1.58-5.04), renal failure (OR 2.58; 95% CI 1.90-3.50) with significant difference. A longer hospital stay was observed in patients with severe pancreatitis (WMD 7.61; 95% CI 5.51-9.71; P < 0.05) in the aggressive hydration group. Higher incidence of pancreatic necrosis (OR 2.34; 95% CI 1.60-3.42; P < 0.05) was major susceptible to observational studies, old patients and mild pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to conservative hydration, aggressive hydration increases in-hospital mortality and the incidence of renal failure, pancreatic necrosis with relatively strong evidence. Further investigation should be designed with a definitive follow-up period and therapeutic goals to address reverse causation bias.

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

Treatment options are limited for acute pancreatitis (AP). Early aggressive fluid resuscitation (AFR) has been widely considered beneficial because of theoretical improvement in end-organ perfusion, including the pancreas and gut, with pancreatic necrosis and bacterial translocation as consequences of ischemia. There is scarce direct evidence for its association to improved outcomes. Furthermore, it has been described that AFR may be associated with poor outcomes in severe AP. WATERFALL is an investigator-initiated international multicenter open-label randomized controlled trial comparing AFR vs. moderate fluid resuscitation (MFR) in AP. The main outcome variable will be the incidence of moderate to severe AP (a clinically relevant outcome that has been validated). Aggressive fluid resuscitation will consist in lactated Ringer solution (LR) 20-mL/kg bolus (administered over 2 h) followed by LR 3 mL/kg per hour. Patients randomized to MFR will receive an LR bolus 10 mL/kg in case of hypovolemia or no bolus in patients with normal volemia, followed by LR 1.5 mL/kg per hour. The patients will be assessed at 3 (±1), 12 (±4), 24 (±4), 48 (±4), and 72 (±4) h from recruitment, and fluid resuscitation will be adjusted to the patient's clinical and analytical status according to a protocol. Based on a prospective multicenter study, the incidence of moderate to severe AP is 35%. Sample sizes of 372 patients per group (overall 744) achieve 80% power to detect a difference in the incidence of moderate to severe AP of 10%, at a significance level (α) of 0.05 using a two-sided z-test, assuming a 10% dropout rate. These results assume that three sequential tests are made using the O'Brien-Fleming spending function to determine the test boundaries.

Early Rapid Fluid Therapy Is Associated with Increased Rate of Noninvasive Positive-Pressure Ventilation in Hemoconcentrated Patients with Severe Acute Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Hematocrit is a widely used biomarker to guide early fluid therapy for patients with acute pancreatitis (AP), but there is controversy over whether early rapid fluid therapy (ERFT) should be used in hemoconcentrated patients. This study investigated the association of hematocrit and ERFT with clinical outcomes of patients with AP.

METHODS

Data from prospectively maintained AP database and retrospectively collected fluid management details were stratified according to actual severity defined by revised Atlanta classification. Hemoconcentration and "early" were defined as hematocrit > 44% and the first 6 h of general ward admission, respectively, and "rapid" fluid rate was defined as ≥ 3 ml/kg/h. Patients were allocated into 4 groups for comparisons: group A, hematocrit ≤ 44% and fluid rate < 3 ml/kg/h; group B, hematocrit ≤ 44% and fluid rate ≥ 3 ml/kg/h; group C, hematocrit > 44% and fluid rate < 3 ml/kg/h; and group D, hematocrit > 44% and fluid rate ≥ 3 ml/kg/h. Primary outcome was rate of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV).

RESULTS

A total of 912 consecutive AP patients were analyzed. ERFT has no impact on clinical outcomes of hemoconcentrated, non-severe or all non-hemoconcentrated AP patients. In hemoconcentrated patients with severe AP (SAP), ERFT was accompanied with increased risk of NPPV (odds ratio 5.96, 95% CI 1.57-22.6). Multivariate regression analyses confirmed ERFT and hemoconcentration were significantly and independently associated with persistent organ failure and mortality in patients with SAP.

CONCLUSIONS

ERFT is associated with increased rate of NPPV in hemoconcentrated patients with SAP.

Intravenous fluid resuscitation in the management of acute pancreatitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In the absence of proven effective pharmacologic therapy in acute pancreatitis, and given its simplicity, wide availability, and perceived safety, intravenous fluid resuscitation remains the cornerstone in the early treatment of acute pancreatitis. Herein, we will review the rationale of fluid therapy, critically appraise the published literature, and summarize recent studies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several observational studies and small clinical trials have raised concern about the efficacy and safety of aggressive fluid resuscitation. Early aggressive fluid therapy among acute pancreatitis patients with predicted mild severity appears to have the highest benefit, whereas aggressive resuscitation in patients with predicted severe disease might be futile and deleterious. Lactated Ringer's solution is the preferred fluid type based on animal studies, clinical trials, and meta-analyses. There is a wide variation of fluid resuscitation approaches in current guideline recommendations, quality indicators, and worldwide practice patterns.

SUMMARY

There is lack of high-quality data that supports the use of early aggressive fluid resuscitation. Large, well designed, multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the optimal timing, fluid type, volume, rate, and duration of fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis.

Hemoconcentration is associated with early faster fluid rate and increased risk of persistent organ failure in acute pancreatitis patients

BACKGROUND

Controversies existed surrounding the use of hematocrit to guide early fluid therapy in acute pancreatitis (AP). The association between hematocrit, early fluid therapy, and clinical outcomes in ward AP patients needs to be investigated.

METHODS

Data from prospectively maintained AP database and retrospectively collected details of fluid therapy were analyzed. Patients were stratified into three groups: Group 1, hematocrit < 44% both at admission and at 24 h thereafter; Group 2: regardless of admission level, hematocrit increased and >44% at 24 h; Group 3: hematocrit >44% on admission and decreased thereafter during first 24 h. "Early" means first 24 h after admission. Baseline characteristics, early fluid rates, and clinical outcomes of the three groups were compared.

RESULTS

Among the 628 patients, Group 3 had a higher hematocrit level, greater baseline predicted severity, faster fluid rate, and more fluid volume in the first 24 h compared with Group 1 or 2. Group 3 had an increased risk for persistent organ failure (POF; odds ratio 2, 95% confidence interval [1.1-3.8], P = 0.03) compared with Group 1 after adjusting for difference in baseline clinical severity scores, there was no difference between Group 2 and Group 3 or Group 1. Multivariate regression analyses revealed that hemoconcentration and early faster fluid rate were risk factors for POF and mortality (both P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Hemoconcentration is associated with faster fluid rate and POF in ward AP patients. Randomized trials comparing standardized early fast and slow fluid management is warranted.

Is aggressive intravenous fluid resuscitation beneficial in acute pancreatitis? A meta-analysis of randomized control trials and cohort studies

BACKGROUND

There is conflincting evidence on the intravenous fluid (IVF) strategy for acute pancreatitis (AP). We perform a metaanalysis of the available evidence.

AIM

To investigate if aggressive IVF therapy in AP patients is beneficial to decrease mortality and improve outcomes.

METHODS

Metaanalysis of available randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing aggressive IVF vs non-aggressive IVF resuscitation.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in mortality between the aggressive (n = 1229) and non-aggressive IVF (n = 1397) patients. Patients receiving aggressive IVF therapy had higher risk for acute kidney injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome. There also was no significant difference in the overall incidence of systemic inflammatory response syndrome, persistent organ failure, pancreatic necrosis when comparing both study groups.

CONCLUSION

Early aggressive IVF therapy did not improve mortality. Moreover, aggressive IVF therapy could potentially increase the risk for acute kidney injury and pulmonary edema leading to respiratory failure and mechanical ventilation. Studies are needed to investigate which subset of AP patients could benefit from aggressive IVF therapy.

Pharmacologic management and prevention of acute pancreatitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present article will focus in pharmacologic agents that have been studied to improve acute pancreatitis outcomes, and to prevent the disease at different levels.

RECENT FINDINGS

Too little and too much early fluid resuscitation can be harmful. The optimal volume, rate, and duration of intravenous fluid therapy is still unknown. Nonopioid analgesics should be the first line of analgesia in patients with acute pancreatitis. A few pharmacologic agents evaluated in acute pancreatitis have resulted in positive pilot trials; however, larger randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are needed before final conclusions. Statin use is associated with lower incidence of acute pancreatitis in the general population and ongoing studies are evaluating its preventive role in acute pancreatitis recurrences. The preventive role of rectal indomethacin in post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis is indisputable, with subject selection and timing of administration requiring further investigation.

SUMMARY

There is still no proven effective disease-specific pharmacologic therapy that changes the natural history of acute pancreatitis. New therapeutic targets and pharmacologic agents are in the horizon. Careful refinement in study design is needed when planning future RCTs. There is also a need for drug development aiming at reducing the incidence of the disease and preventing its sequelae.

New insights into acute pancreatitis

The incidence of acute pancreatitis continues to increase worldwide, and it is one of the most common gastrointestinal causes for hospital admission in the USA. In the past decade, substantial advancements have been made in our understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms of acute pancreatitis. Studies have elucidated mechanisms of calcium-mediated acinar cell injury and death and the importance of store-operated calcium entry channels and mitochondrial permeability transition pores. The cytoprotective role of the unfolded protein response and autophagy in preventing sustained endoplasmic reticulum stress, apoptosis and necrosis has also been characterized, as has the central role of unsaturated fatty acids in causing pancreatic organ failure. Characterization of these pathways has led to the identification of potential molecular targets for future therapeutic trials. At the patient level, two classification systems have been developed to classify the severity of acute pancreatitis into prognostically meaningful groups, and several landmark clinical trials have informed management strategies in areas of nutritional support and interventions for infected pancreatic necrosis that have resulted in important changes to acute pancreatitis management paradigms. In this Review, we provide a summary of recent advances in acute pancreatitis with a special emphasis on pathophysiological mechanisms and clinical management of the disorder.

Acute Pancreatitis Task Force on Quality: Development of Quality Indicators for Acute Pancreatitis Management

INTRODUCTION

Detailed recommendations and guidelines for acute pancreatitis (AP) management currently exist. However, quality indicators (QIs) are required to measure performance in health care. The goal of the Acute Pancreatitis Task Force on Quality was to formally develop QIs for the management of patients with known or suspected AP using a modified version of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary expert panel composed of physicians (gastroenterologists, hospitalists, and surgeons) who are acknowledged leaders in their specialties and who represent geographic and practice setting diversity was convened. A literature review was conducted, and a list of proposed QIs was developed. In 3 rounds, panelists reviewed literature, modified QIs, and rated them on the basis of scientific evidence, bias, interpretability, validity, necessity, and proposed performance targets.

RESULTS

Supporting literature and a list of 71 proposed QIs across 10 AP domains (Diagnosis, Etiology, Initial Assessment and Risk Stratification, etc.) were sent to the expert panel to review and independently rate in round 1 (95% of panelists participated). Based on a round 2 face-to-face discussion of QIs (75% participation), 41 QIs were classified as valid. During round 3 (90% participation), panelists rated the 41 valid QIs for necessity and proposed performance thresholds. The final classification determined that 40 QIs were both valid and necessary.

DISCUSSION

Hospitals and providers managing patients with known or suspected AP should ensure that patients receive high-quality care and desired outcomes according to current evidence-based best practices. This physician-led initiative formally developed 40 QIs and performance threshold targets for AP management. Validated QIs provide a dependable quantitative framework for health systems to monitor the quality of care provided to patients with known or suspected AP.

AKI Associated with Acute Pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis is a common disorder of the pancreas. It is the most frequent gastrointestinal cause for hospitalization and one of the leading causes of in-hospital deaths. Its severity ranges from mild self-limited disease to severe acute necrotizing pancreatitis characterized by systemic complications and multiorgan failure. Severe acute pancreatitis develops in about 20% of patients with acute pancreatitis and may be associated with multiorgan failure (respiratory, cardiovascular, and kidney). AKI is a frequent complication of severe acute pancreatitis and develops late in the course of the disease, usually after the failure of other organs. It carries a very poor prognosis, particularly if kidney replacement therapy is required, with mortality rates exceeding 75%. The exact pathophysiology of AKI in acute pancreatitis remains unclear but appears to result from initial volume depletion followed by complex vascular and humoral factors. Here, we provide an overview of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, causes, and management of AKI in patients with severe acute pancreatitis.

Moderately severe and severe acute pancreatitis : a systematic review of the outcomes in the USA and European Union-5

Background and objectives

The global incidence of hospitalisation due to acute pancreatitis (AP) has been rising in the recent decades. In the USA alone, there was a 13.2% increase between 2009 and 2012 compared with 2002–2005. There remains a lack of approved treatments to prevent disease progression, leaving many liable to developing complications that include multisystem organ failure (OF) and death. This therapeutic deficit raises questions about the scale of the current burden of illness (BOI) associated with severe forms of AP. The aim of the systematic literature review (SLR) was to assess clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes associated with moderately severe AP (MSAP) and severe AP (SAP) in the USA and the European Union-5 (EU-5).

Methods

Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE and Embase to identify studies published in English (between 2007 and 2017) that reported on the BOI of MSAP and/or SAP. Manual searches of ‘grey’ literature sources were also conducted.

Results

The SLR identified 19 studies which indicated that 15%–20% of patients with AP progress to more severe forms of the disease, up to 10.5% of those with SAP require surgery for complications, and up to 40% die during hospitalisation. By contrast, there appears to be a lack of data on the extent to which SAP affects patients’ quality of life.

Conclusion

The available evidence clearly demonstrates that the current management for MSAP and SAP in the USA and EU-5 does not adequately meet patients’ needs. Early identification and intervention for AP is crucial, given the evidence of high rates of morbidity and an associated economic burden that is considerable. Since many patients with the condition present to hospitals at a point when multisystem OF or death is highly likely, there is a particularly urgent need for effective treatment options to prevent disease progression.

Response and outcome from fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Intravenous (IV) fluid resuscitation remains the cornerstone for early management of acute pancreatitis (AP), but many questions remain unanswered, including how to determine whether patients will benefit from additional fluids. The aim was to investigate the utility of serum biomarkers of responsiveness IV fluid resuscitation in patients with AP and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).

METHODS

Eligible adult patients had abdominal pain for <36 h and ≥2 SIRS criteria. Mean arterial pressure (>65 mmHg) and urine output (>0.5 ml/kg/h) were used to assess responsiveness at 2 and 6-8 h after initiation of IV fluids. Comparison was made between responsive and refractory patients at time points for fluid volume, biomarkers and outcomes.

RESULTS

At 2 h 19 patients responded to fluids (Group 1) while 4 were refractory (Group 2); at 6-8 h 14 responded (Group 3) and 9 were refractory (Group 4). No demographic differences between patient groups, but Group 4 had worse prognostic features than Group 3. Refractory patients received significantly more fluid (Group 4 mean 7082 ml vs. Group 3 5022 mL, P < 0.001) in first 24 h and had worse outcome. No significant differences in biomarkers between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The serum biomarkers did not discriminate between fluid responsive and refractory patients. Refractory patients at 6-8 h had more severe disease on admission, did not benefit from additional fluids and had a worse outcome. New approaches to guide fluid resuscitation in patients with AP are required.

Uncomplicated Acute Pancreatitis: Evidenced-Based Management Decisions

Acute pancreatitis is among the most common gastrointestinal disorders requiring hospitalization worldwide. Establishing the cause of acute pancreatitis ensures appropriate management and proper health care resource utilization. Causes of acute pancreatitis include biliary, alcohol use, hypertriglyceridemia, hypercalcemia, drug-induced, autoimmune, hereditary/genetic, and anatomic abnormalities. Fluid therapy remains the cornerstone of managing acute pancreatitis. This article provides a brief summary of current evidence-based practices in the diagnosis and management of uncomplicated acute pancreatitis.

Acute Pancreatitis: Updates for Emergency Clinicians

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis is a frequent reason for patient presentation to the emergency department (ED) and the most common gastrointestinal disease resulting in admission. Emergency clinicians are often responsible for the diagnosis and initial management of acute pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVE

This review article provides emergency clinicians with a focused overview of the diagnosis and management of pancreatitis.

DISCUSSION

Pancreatitis is an inflammatory process within the pancreas. While the disease is often mild, severe forms can have a mortality rate of up to 30%. The diagnosis of pancreatitis requires two of the following three criteria: epigastric abdominal pain, an elevated lipase, and imaging findings of pancreatic inflammation. The most common etiologies include gallbladder disease and alcohol use. After the diagnosis has been made, it is important to identify underlying etiologies requiring specific intervention, as well as obtain a right upper quadrant ultrasound. The initial management of choice is fluid resuscitation and pain control. Recent data have suggested that more cautious fluid resuscitation in the first 24 h might be more appropriate for some patients. Intravenous opiates are generally safe if used judiciously. Appropriate disposition is a multifactorial decision, which can be facilitated by using Ranson criteria or the Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis score. Complications, though rare, can be severe.

CONCLUSIONS

Pancreatitis is a potentially deadly disease that commonly presents to most emergency departments. It is important for clinicians to be aware of the current evidence regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and disposition of these patients.