American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines: Management of Acute Pancreatitis

nature publishing group PRACTICE GUIDELINES 1
American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines:

Management of Acute Pancreatitis
Scott Tenner, MD, MPH, FACG1, John Baillie, MB, ChB, FRCP, FACG2, John DeWitt, MD, FACG3 and Santhi Swaroop Vege, MD, FACG4
This guideline presents recommendations for the management of patients with acute pancreatitis (AP). During
the past decade, there have been new understandings and developments in the diagnosis, etiology, and early
and late management of the disease. As the diagnosis of AP is most often established by clinical symptoms and
laboratory testing, contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of
the pancreas should be reserved for patients in whom the diagnosis is unclear or who fail to improve clinically.
Hemodynamic status should be assessed immediately upon presentation and resuscitative measures begun
as needed. Patients with organ failure and/or the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) should be
admitted to an intensive care unit or intermediary care setting whenever possible. Aggressive hydration should be
provided to all patients, unless cardiovascular and/or renal comorbidites preclude it. Early aggressive intravenous
hydration is most beneficial within the first 12–24 h, and may have little benefit beyond. Patients with AP and
concurrent acute cholangitis should undergo endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) within 24 h
of admission. Pancreatic duct stents and/or postprocedure rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)
suppositories should be utilized to lower the risk of severe post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients. Routine use
of prophylactic antibiotics in patients with severe AP and/or sterile necrosis is not recommended. In patients with
infected necrosis, antibiotics known to penetrate pancreatic necrosis may be useful in delaying intervention, thus
decreasing morbidity and mortality. In mild AP, oral feedings can be started immediately if there is no nausea and
vomiting. In severe AP, enteral nutrition is recommended to prevent infectious complications, whereas parenteral
nutrition should be avoided. Asymptomatic pancreatic and/or extrapancreatic necrosis and/or pseudocysts do not
warrant intervention regardless of size, location, and/or extension. In stable patients with infected necrosis, surgical,
radiologic, and/or endoscopic drainage should be delayed, preferably for 4 weeks, to allow the development of a wall
around the necrosis.
Am J Gastroenterol advance online publication, 30 July 2013; doi:10.1038/ajg.2013.218
Acute pancreatitis (AP) is one of the most common diseases There have been important changes in the definitions and
of the gastrointestinal tract, leading to tremendous emotion- classification of AP since the Atlanta classification from 1992
al, physical, and financial human burden (1,2). In the United (5). During the past decade, several limitations have been rec-
States, in 2009, AP was the most common gastroenterology ognized that led to a working group and web-based consensus
discharge diagnosis with a cost of 2.6 billion dollars (2). revision (6). Two distinct phases of AP have now been identified:
Recent studies show the incidence of AP varies between 4.9 (i) early (within 1 week), characterized by the systemic inflam-
and 73.4 cases per 100,000 worldwide (3,4). An increase in matory response syndrome (SIRS) and/or organ failure; and
the annual incidence for AP has been observed in most recent (ii) late ( > 1 week), characterized by local complications. It is
studies. Epidemiologic review data from the 1988 to 2003 critical to recognize the paramount importance of organ failure
National Hospital Discharge Survey showed that hospital in determining disease severity. Local complications are defined
admissions for AP increased from 40 per 100,000 in 1998 to as peripancreatic fluid collections, pancreatic and peripancreatic
70 per 100,000 in 2002. Although the case fatality rate for AP necrosis (sterile or infected), pseudocysts, and walled-off necro-
has decreased over time, the overall population mortality rate sis (sterile or infected). Isolated extrapancreatic necrosis is
for AP has remained unchanged (1). also included under the term necrotizing pancreatitis; although
1
State University of New York, Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA; 2Carteret Medical Group, Morehead City, North Carolina, USA; 3Indiana
University Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA; 4Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. Correspondence: Santhi Swaroop Vege, MD, FACG, Division of
Gastroenterology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Received 23 December 2012; accepted 18 June 2013
© 2013 by the American College of Gastroenterology

www.medlive.cn
The American Journal of GASTROENTEROLOGY
2 Tenner et al.
Table 1. GRADE system of quality of evidence and strength of (iii) characteristic findings from abdominal imaging (strong
recommendation recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
2. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and/or
High Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in
the estimate of effect. magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the pancreas should
Moderate Further research is likely to have an important impact on
be reserved for patients in whom the diagnosis is unclear or
our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the who fail to improve clinically within the first 48–72 h after
estimate. hospital admission or to evaluate complications (strong
Low Further research is very likely to have an important impact on recommendation, low quality of evidence).
our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change
the estimate.
Very low Any estimate of the effect is very uncertain. DIAGNOSIS: CLINICAL PRESENTATION
Patients with AP typically present with epigastric or left upper
quadrant pain. The pain is usually described as constant with
radiation to the back, chest, or flanks, but this description is non-
outcomes like persistent organ failure, infected necrosis, and mor- specific. The intensity of the pain is usually severe, but can be vari-
tality of this entity are more often seen when compared to inter- able. The intensity and location of the pain do not correlate with
stitial pancreatitis, these complications are more commonly seen severity. Pain described as dull, colicky, or located in the lower
in patients with pancreatic parenchymal necrosis (7). There is now abdominal region is not consistent with AP and suggests an alter-
a third intermediate grade of severity, moderately severe AP, that native etiology. Abdominal imaging may be helpful to determine
is characterized by local complications in the absence of persistent the diagnosis of AP in patients with atypical presentations.
organ failure. Patients with moderately severe AP may have tran-
sient organ failure, lasting < 48 h. Moderately severe AP may also
exacerbate underlying comorbid disease but is associated with a DIAGNOSIS: LABORATORY PARAMETERS
low mortality. Severe AP is now defined entirely on the presence of Because of limitations in sensitivity, specificity, and positive and
persistent organ failure (defined by a modified Marshall Score) (8). negative predictive value, serum amylase alone cannot be used
We first discuss the diagnosis, etiology, and severity of AP. We reliably for the diagnosis of AP and serum lipase is preferred.
then focus on the early medical management of AP followed by a Serum amylase in AP patients generally rises within a few hours
discussion of the management of complicated disease, most nota- after the onset of symptoms and returns to normal values within
bly pancreatic necrosis. Early management focuses on advance- 3–5 days; however, it may remain within the normal range on
ments in our understanding of aggressive intravenous hydration, admission in as many as one-fifth of patients (12,13). Compared
which when applied early appears to decrease morbidity and with lipase, serum amylase returns more quickly to values below
mortality (9,10). The evolving issues of antibiotics, nutrition, and the upper limit of normal. Serum amylase concentrations may
endoscopic, radiologic, surgical, and other minimally invasive be normal in alcohol-induced AP and hypertriglyceridemia.
interventions will be addressed. Serum amylase concentrations might be high in the absence
A search of MEDLINE via the OVID interface using the MeSH of AP in macroamylasaemia (a syndrome characterized by
term “acute pancreatitis” limited to clinical trials, reviews, guide- the formation of large molecular complexes between amylase
lines, and meta-analysis for the years 1966–2012 was undertaken and abnormal immunoglobulins), in patients with decreased
without language restriction, as well as a review of clinical trials glomerular filtration rate, in diseases of the salivary glands,
and reviews known to the authors were performed for the prepara- and in extrapancreatic abdominal diseases associated with
tion of this document. The GRADE system was used to grade the inflammation, including acute appendicitis, cholecystitis, intes-
strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence (11). An tinal obstruction or ischemia, peptic ulcer, and gynecological
explanation of the quality of evidence and strength of the recom- diseases.
mendations is shown in Table 1. Each section of the document Serum lipase appears to be more specific and remains ele-
presents the key recommendations related to the section topic, vated longer than amylase after disease presentation. Despite
followed by a summary of the supporting evidence. A summary of recommendations of previous investigators (14) and guidelines
recommendations is provided in Table 2. for the management of AP (15) that emphasize the advantage
of serum lipase, similar problems with the predictive value
remain in certain patient populations, including the existence
DIAGNOSIS of macrolipasemia. Lipase is also found to be elevated in a vari-
ety of nonpancreatic diseases, such as renal disease, appen-
Recommendations dicitis, cholecystitis, and so on. In addition, an upper limit of
1. The diagnosis of AP is most often established by the normal greater than 3–5 times may be needed in diabetics who
presence of 2 of the 3 following criteria: (i) abdominal pain appear to have higher median lipase compared with nondiabetic
consistent with the disease, (ii) serum amylase and/or lipase patients for unclear reasons (16,17). A Japanese consensus con-
greater than three times the upper limit of normal, and/or ference to determine appropriate “cutoff ” values for amylase and

www.medlive.cn
|
VOLUME 104 XXX 2012 www.amjgastro.com
Management of Acute Pancreatitis 3
Table 2. Summary of recommendations

Diagnosis
1. The diagnosis of AP is most often established by the presence of two of the three following criteria: (i) abdominal pain consistent with the disease,
(ii) serum amylase and/or lipase greater than three times the upper limit of normal, and/or (iii) characteristic findings from abdominal imaging
(strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
2. Contrast-enhanced computed tomographic (CECT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the pancreas should be reserved for patients in
whom the diagnosis is unclear or who fail to improve clinically within the first 48–72 h after hospital admission (strong recommendation, low quality of
evidence).
Etiology
3. Transabdominal ultrasound should be performed in all patients with acute pancreatitis (strong recommendation, low quality of evidence).
4. In the absence of gallstones and/or history of significant history of alcohol use, a serum triglyceride should be obtained and considered the etiology
if > 1,000 mg/dl (conditional recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
5. In a patient older than 40 years, a pancreatic tumor should be considered as a possible cause of acute pancreatitis (conditional recommendation,
low quality of evidence).
6. Endoscopic investigation in patients with acute idiopathic pancreatitis should be limited, as the risks and benefits of investigation in these patients are
unclear (conditional recommendation, low quality of evidence).
7. Patients with idiopathic pancreatitis should be referred to centers of expertise (conditional recommendation, low quality of evidence).
8. Genetic testing may be considered in young patients ( < 30 years old) if no cause is evident and a family history of pancreatic disease is present
(conditional recommendation, low quality of evidence).
Initial assessment and risk stratification
9. Hemodynamic status should be assessed immediately upon presentation and resuscitative measures begun as needed (strong recommendation,
moderate quality of evidence).
10. Risk assessment should be performed to stratify patients into higher- and lower-risk categories to assist triage, such as admission to an intensive care
setting (conditional recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
11. Patients with organ failure should be admitted to an intensive care unit or intermediary care setting whenever possible (strong recommendation,
low quality of evidence).
Initial management
12. Aggressive hydration, defined as 250-500 ml per hour of isotonic crystalloid solution should be provided to all patients, unless cardiovascular
and/or renal comorbidites exist. Early aggressive intravenous hydration is most beneficial the first 12–24 h, and may have little benefit beyond
(strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
13. In a patient with severe volume depletion, manifest as hypotension and tachycardia, more rapid repletion (bolus) may be needed (conditional
recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
14. Lactated Ringer’s solution may be the preferred isotonic crystalloid replacement fluid (conditional recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
15. Fluid requirements should be reassessed at frequent intervals within 6 h of admission and for the next 24–48 h. The goal of aggressive hydration
should be to decrease the blood urea nitrogen (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
ERCP in acute pancreatitis
16. Patients with acute pancreatitis and concurrent acute cholangitis should undergo ERCP within 24 h of admission (strong recommendation, moderate
quality of evidence).
17. ERCP is not needed in most patients with gallstone pancreatitis who lack laboratory or clinical evidence of ongoing biliary obstruction (strong
recommendation, low quality of evidence).
18. In the absence of cholangitis and/or jaundice, MRCP or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) rather than diagnostic ERCP should be used to screen for
choledocholithiasis if highly suspected (conditional recommendation, low quality of evidence).
19. Pancreatic duct stents and/or postprocedure rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) suppositories should be utilized to prevent severe
post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients (conditional recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
The role of antibiotics in acute pancreatitis
20. Antibiotics should be given for an extrapancreatic infection, such as cholangitis, catheter-acquired infections, bacteremia, urinary tract infections,
pneumonia (strong recommendation, high quality of evidence).
21. Routine use of prophylactic antibiotics in patients with severe acute pancreatitis is not recommended (strong recommendation, moderate quality of
evidence).
22. The use of antibiotics in patients with sterile necrosis to prevent the development of infected necrosis is not recommended (strong recommendation,
23. Infected necrosis should be considered in patients with pancreatic or extrapancreatic necrosis who deteriorate or fail to improve after 7–10 days
of hospitalization. In these patients, either (i) initial CT-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) for Gram stain and culture to guide use of appropriate
antibiotics or (ii) empiric use of antibiotics without CT FNA should be given (strong recommendation, low quality of evidence).
Table 2 continued on the following page

www.medlive.cn
4 Tenner et al.
Table 2. Continued
24. In patients with infected necrosis, antibiotics known to penetrate pancreatic necrosis, such as carbapenems, quinolones, and metronidazole, may
be useful in delaying or sometimes totally avoiding intervention, thus decreasing morbidity and mortality (conditional recommendation, low quality of
evidence).
25. Routine administration of antifungal agents along with prophylactic or therapeutic antibiotics is not recommended (conditional recommendation, low
Nutrition in acute pancreatitis
26. In mild AP, oral feedings can be started immediately if there is no nausea and vomiting, and abdominal pain has resolved (conditional recommenda-
tion, moderate quality of evidence).
27. In mild AP, initiation of feeding with a low-fat solid diet appears as safe as a clear liquid diet (conditional recommendations, moderate quality of
evidence).
28. In severe AP, enteral nutrition is recommended to prevent infectious complications. Parenteral nutrition should be avoided unless the enteral route is
not available, not tolerated, or not meeting caloric requirements (strong recommendation, high quality of evidence).
29. Nasogastric delivery and nasojejunal delivery of enteral feeding appear comparable in efficacy and safety (strong recommendation, moderate quality
of evidence).
The role of surgery in acute pancreatitis
30. In patients with mild AP, found to have gallstones in the gallbladder, a cholecystectomy should be performed before discharge to prevent a recurrence
of AP (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
31. In a patient with necrotizing biliary AP, in order to prevent infection, cholecystectomy is to be deferred until active inflammation subsides and fluid
collections resolve or stabilize (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
32. The presence of asymptomatic pseudocysts and pancreatic and/or extrapancreatic necrosis do not warrant intervention, regardless of size, location,
and/or extension (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
33. In stable patients with infected necrosis, surgical, radiologic, and/or endoscopic drainage should be delayed preferably for more than 4 weeks to allow
liquefication of the contents and the development of a fibrous wall around the necrosis (walled-off necrosis) (strong recommendation, low quality of
evidence).
34. In symptomatic patients with infected necrosis, minimally invasive methods of necrosectomy are preferred to open necrosectomy (strong recommen-
dation, low quality of evidence).
AP, acute pancreatitis; CT, computed tomography; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; MRCP, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography.
lipase could not reach consensus on appropriate upper limits of of detecting choledocholithiasis down to 3 mm diameter and pan-
normal (18). Assays of many other pancreatic enzymes have creatic duct disruption while providing high-quality imaging for
been assessed during the past 15 years, but none seems to diagnostic and/or severity purposes. MRI is helpful in patients
offer better diagnostic value than those of serum amylase and with a contrast allergy and renal insufficiency where T2-weighted
lipase (19). Although most studies show a diagnostic efficacy of images without gadolinium contrast can diagnose pancreatic
greater than 3–5 times the upper limit of normal, clinicians must necrosis (24).
consider the clinical condition of the patient when evaluat-
ing amylase and lipase elevations. When a doubt regarding the
diagnosis of AP exists, abdominal imaging, such as CECT, is ETIOLOGY
recommended.
Recommendations
1. Transabdominal ultrasound should be performed in all patients
DIAGNOSIS: ABDOMINAL IMAGING with AP (strong recommendation, low quality of evidence).
Abdominal imaging is useful to confirm the diagnosis of AP. 2. In the absence of gallstones and/or history of significant
CECT provides over 90% sensitivity and specificity for the diag- history of alcohol use, a serum triglyceride should be
nosis of AP (20). Routine use of CECT in patients with AP is obtained and considered the etiology if > 1,000 mg/dl.
unwarranted, as the diagnosis is apparent in many patients and (conditional recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
most have a mild, uncomplicated course. However, in a patient 3. In a patient > 40 years old, a pancreatic tumor should be
failing to improve after 48–72 (e.g., persistent pain, fever, nausea, considered as a possible cause of AP (conditional recommen-
unable to begin oral feeding), CECT or MRI imaging is recom- dation, low quality of evidence).
mended to assess local complications such as pancreatic necrosis 4. Endoscopic investigation of an elusive etiology in patients
(21–23). Computed tomography (CT) and MRI are comparable with AP should be limited, as the risks and benefits of
in the early assessment of AP (24). MRI, by employing magnetic investigation in these patients are unclear (conditional
resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), has the advantage recommendation, low quality of evidence).

www.medlive.cn
|
5. Patients with idiopathic AP (IAP) should be referred to recurrent course (27,44,45). Thus, a contrast-enhanced CT scan
centers of expertise (conditional recommendation, low or MRI is needed in these patients. A more extensive evaluation
quality of evidence). including endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and/or MRCP may be
6. Genetic testing may be considered in young patients needed initially or after a recurrent episode of IAP (46).
( < 30 years old) if no cause is evident and a family history of
pancreatic disease is present (conditional recommendation,
low quality of evidence). IDIOPATHIC AP
IAP is defined as pancreatitis with no etiology established after
initial laboratory (including lipid and calcium level) and imag-
ETIOLOGY: GALLSTONES AND ALCOHOL ing tests (transabdominal ultrasound and CT in the appropri-
The etiology of AP can be readily established in most patients. ate patient) (47). In some patients an etiology may eventually be
The most common cause of AP is gallstones (40–70%) and alco- found, yet in others no definite cause is ever established. Patients
hol (25–35%) (25–27). Because of the high prevalence and impor- with IAP should be evaluated at centers of excellence focusing on
tance of preventing recurrent disease, abdominal ultrasound to pancreatic disease, providing advanced endoscopy services and a
evaluate for cholelithiasis should be performed on all patients combined multidisciplinary approach.
with AP (28–30). Identification of gallstones as the etiology Anatomic and physiologic anomalies of the pancreas occur
should prompt referral for cholecystectomy to prevent recurrent in 10–15% of the population, including pancreas divisum and
attacks and potential biliary sepsis (29,30). Gallstone pancreatitis sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (48). It remains controversial if
is usually an acute event and resolves when the stone is removed these disorders alone cause AP (49). There may be a combination
or passes spontaneously. of factors, including anatomic and genetic, that predispose to the
Alcohol-induced pancreatitis often manifests as a spectrum, development of AP in susceptible individuals (48). Endoscopic
ranging from discrete episodes of AP to chronic irreversible silent therapy, focusing on treating pancreas divisum and/or sphincter of
changes. The diagnosis should not be entertained unless a person Oddi dysfunction, carries a significant risk of precipitating AP and
has a history of over 5 years of heavy alcohol consumption (31). should be performed only in specialized units (50,51). The influ-
“Heavy” alcohol consumption is generally considered to be > 50 g ence of genetic defects, such as cationic trypsinogen mutations,
per day, but is often much higher (32). Clinically evident AP SPINK, or CFTR mutations, in causing AP is being increasingly
occurs in < 5% of heavy drinkers (33); thus, there are likely other recognized. These defects, furthermore, may also increase the
factors that sensitize individuals to the effects of alcohol, such as risk of AP in patients with anatomic anomalies, such as pancreas
genetic factors and tobacco use (27,33,34). divisum (48). However, the role of genetic testing in AP has yet to
be determined, but may be useful in patients with more than one
family member with pancreatic disease (34). Individuals with IAP
OTHER CAUSES OF AP and a family history of pancreatic diseases should be referred for
In the absence of alcohol or gallstones, caution must be exercised formal genetic counseling.
when attributing a possible etiology for AP to another agent or
condition. Medications, infectious agents, and metabolic causes
such as hypercalcemia and hyperparathyroidism are rare causes, INITIAL ASSESSMENT AND RISK STRATIFICATION
often falsely identified as causing AP (35–37). Although some
drugs such as 6-mercaptopurine, azathioprine, and DDI (2′,3′- Recommendations
dideoxyinosine) can clearly cause AP, there are limited data sup- 1. Hemodynamic status should be assessed immediately upon
porting most medications as causative agents (35). Primary and presentation and resuscitative measures begun as needed
secondary hypertriglyceridemia can cause AP; however, these (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
account for only 1–4% of cases (36). Serum triglycerides should 2. Risk assessment should be performed to stratify patients
rise above 1,000 mg/dl to be considered the cause of AP (38,39). A into higher- and lower-risk categories to assist triage, such
lactescent (milky) serum has been observed in as many as 20% of as admission to an intensive care setting (conditional
patients with AP, and therefore a fasting triglyceride level should be recommendation, low to moderate quality of evidence).
re-evaluated 1 month after discharge when hypertriglyceridemia 3. Patients with organ failure should be admitted to an
is suspected (40). Although most do not, any benign or malignant intensive care unit or intermediary care setting whenever
mass that obstructs the main pancreatic can result in AP. It has possible (strong recommendation, low quality of evidence).
been estimated that 5–14% of patients with benign or malignant
pancreatobiliary tumors present with apparent IAP (41–43). His-
torically, adenocarcinoma of the pancreas was considered a dis- SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
ease of old age. However, increasingly patients in their 40s—and Definition of severe AP
occasionally younger—are presenting with pancreatic cancer. Most episodes of AP are mild and self-limiting, needing only brief
This entity should be suspected in any patient > 40 years of age hospitalization. Mild AP is defined by the absence of organ failure
with idiopathic pancreatitis, especially those with a prolonged or and/or pancreatic necrosis (5,6). By 48 h after admission, these

www.medlive.cn
6 Tenner et al.
patients typically would have substantially improved and begun

Table 3. Definitions of severity in acute pancreatitis: comparison
refeeding. In patients with severe disease, two phases of AP are
of Atlanta and recent revision
recognized: early (within the first week) and late. Local compli-
cations include peripancreatic fluid collections and pancreatic Atlanta criteria (1993) Atlanta Revision (2013)
and peripancreatic necrosis (sterile or infected). Most patients Mild acute pancreatitis Mild acute pancreatitis
with severe disease present to the emergency room with no organ Absence of organ failure Absence of organ failure
failure or pancreatic necrosis; unfortunately, this has led to many
Absence of local complications Absence of local complications
errors in clinical management of this disease (52). These errors
include failure to provide adequate hydration, failure to diagnose Severe acute pancreatitis Moderately severe acute pancreatitis
and treat cholangitis, and failure to treat early organ failure. For 1. Local complications AND/OR 1. Local complications AND/OR
this reason, it is critical for the clinician to recognize the impor- 2. Organ failure 2. Transient organ failure ( < 48 h)
tance of not falsely labeling a patient with mild disease within the
GI bleeding (> 500 cc/24 hr) Severe acute pancreatitis
first 48 h of admission for AP.
Shock – SBP 90 mm Hg Persistent organ failure > 48 ha
Severe AP occurs in 15–20% of patients (53). Severe AP is
defined by the presence of persistent (fails to resolve within PaO 2 60 %
48 h) organ failure and/or death (6). Historically, in the absence Creatinine 2 mg/dl
of organ failure, local complications from pancreatitis, such as GI, gastrointestinal; SBP, systolic blood pressure.
pancreatic necrosis, were also considered severe disease (5,6,53). a
Persistent organ failure is now defined by a Modified Marshal Score (6,8)
However, these local complications (including pancreatic necro-
sis with or without transient organ failure) define moderately
severe AP (see Table 3). Moderately severe acute pancreatitis is
characterized by the presence of transient organ failure or local Isolated extrapancreatic necrosis is also included under the term
or systematic complications in the absence of persistent organ necrotizing pancreatitis. This entity, initially thought to be a non-
failure (6). An example of a patient with moderately severe acute specific anatomic finding with no clinical significance, has become
pancreatitis is one who has peripancreatic fluid collections and better characterized and is associated with adverse outcomes, such
prolonged abdominal pain, leukocytosis and, fever, causing the as organ failure and persistent organ failure, but these outcomes are
patient to remain hospitalized for 7-10 days. In the absence of per- less frequent. Extrapancreatic necrosis is more often appreciated
sistent organ failure, mortality in patients with this entity is less during surgery than being identified on imaging studies. Although
than severe acute pancreatitis. If persistent organ failure develops most radiologists can easily identify pancreatic parenchymal
in a patient with necrotizing pancreatitis, it is then considered necrosis, in the absence of surgical intervention, extrapancreatic
severe disease. necrosis is appreciated less often (7).
Organ failure had previously been defined as shock (systolic
blood pressure < 90 mm Hg), pulmonary insufficiency (PaO2 Predicting severe AP
< 60 mm Hg), renal failure (creatinine > 2 mg/dl after rehydration), Clinicians have been largely unable to predict which patients
and/or gastrointestinal bleeding ( > 500 ml of blood loss/24 h) (53). with AP will develop severe disease. Uniformly, severity scoring
The Revised Atlanta Criteria now define organ failure as a score systems are cumbersome, typically require 48 h to become accu-
of 2 or more for one of these organ systems using the modified rate, and when the score demonstrates severe disease, the patient’s
Marshall scoring system (6,8). The authors feel that rather than condition is obvious regardless of the score (52,57,58). The new
calculate a Marshal score (which may be complex for the busy scoring systems, such as the BISAP (59), have not shown to be
clinician), relying on the older Atlanta definitions would be as more accurate than the other scoring systems (60,61). In general,
useful. Further study is needed to validate the need for using the AP-specific scoring systems have a limited value, as they provide
Marshal score. little additional information to the clinician in the evaluation of
Pancreatic necrosis is defined as diffuse or focal areas of non- patients and may delay appropriate management (52).
viable pancreatic parenchyma > 3 cm in size or > 30% of the pan- Although laboratory testing such as the hematocrit and blood
creas (53). Pancreatic necrosis can be sterile or infected (discussed urea nitrogen (BUN) can assist clinicians (52,62,63), no laboratory
below). In the absence of pancreatic necrosis, in mild disease the test is practically available or consistently accurate to predict sever-
edematous pancreas is defined as interstitial pancreatitis. Although ity in patients with AP (64–66). Even the acute-phase reactant
there is some correlation between infection, pancreatic necrosis, C-reactive protein (CRP), the most widely studied inflammatory
hospital length of stay, and organ failure, both patients with sterile marker in AP, is not practical as it takes 72 h to become accurate
necrosis and infected necrosis may develop organ failure (55,56). (54). CT and/or MRI imaging also cannot reliably determine
The presence of infection within the necrosis probably does not severity early in the course of AP, as necrosis usually is not present
increase the likelihood of present or future organ failure. Patients on admission and may develop after 24–48 h (24,67). Thus, in the
with sterile necrosis can suffer from organ failure and appear as ill absence of any available test to determine severity, close examina-
clinically as those patients with infected necrosis. Persistent organ tion to assess early fluid losses, hypovolemic shock, and symptoms
failure is now defined by a Modified Marshal Score (6,8). suggestive of organ dysfunction is crucial.

www.medlive.cn
|
patients with persistent SIRS, particularly those who are tachypnic

Table 4. Clinical findings associated with a severe course for
and/or tachycardic, should be admitted to an intensive care unit
initial risk assessmenta
or similar unit for aggressive intravenous hydration and close
Patient characteristics monitoring.
Age > 55 years (53,57)
Obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m2) (68)
INITIAL MANAGEMENT
Altered mental status (69)
Comorbid disease (53) Recommendations
The systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) (6,53,54,70,71) 1. Aggressive hydration, defined as 250–500 ml per hour of iso-
Presence of > 2 of the following criteria: tonic crystalloid solution should be provided to all patients,
– pulse > 90 beats/min unless cardiovascular, renal, or other related comorbid
– respirations > 20/min or PaCO2 > 32 mm Hg factors exist. Early aggressive intravenous hydration is most
– temperature > 38 °C or < 36 °C
beneficial during the first 12–24 h, and may have little benefit
beyond this time period (strong recommendation, moderate
–WBC count > 12,000 or < 4,000 cells/mm3 or > 10% immature
neutrophils (bands)
2. In a patient with severe volume depletion, manifest as hypo-
Laboratory findings
tension and tachycardia, more rapid repletion (bolus) may be
BUN > 20 mg/dl (63) needed (conditional recommendation, moderate quality of
Rising BUN (63) evidence).
HCT > 44% (62) 3. Lactated Ringer’s solution may be the preferred isotonic
crystalloid replacement fluid (conditional recommendation,
Rising HCT (62)
Elevated creatinine (72)
4. Fluid requirements should be reassessed at frequent intervals
Radiology findings within 6 h of admission and for the next 24–48 h. The goal of
Pleural effusions (73) aggressive hydration should be to decrease the BUN (strong
Pulmonary infiltrates (53)
recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
Multiple or extensive extrapancreatic collections (67)
BMI, body mass index; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; HCT, hematocrit; WBC, EARLY AGGRESSIVE INTRAVENOUS HYDRATION
white blood cell.
a
The presence of organ failure and/or pancreatic necrosis defines severe acute
Despite dozens of randomized trials, no medication has been
pancreatitis. shown to be effective in treating AP (32,53). However, an effective
intervention has been well described: early aggressive intravenous
hydration. Recommendations regarding aggressive hydration
are based on expert opinion (10,52,53), laboratory experiments
Rather than depending on a scoring system to predict severity (79,80), indirect clinical evidence (62,63,81,82), epidemiologic
of AP, clinicians need to be aware of intrinsic patient-related risk studies (59), and both retrospective and prospective clinical
factors, including laboratory and imaging risk factors, for the devel- trials (9,83).
opment of severe disease (Table 4). These include: a patient’s age, The rationale for early aggressive hydration in AP arises from
comorbid health problems, body mass index (74), the presence of observation of the frequent hypovolemia that occurs from multiple
SIRS (70,71), signs of hypovolemia such as an elevated BUN (63) factors affecting patients with AP, including vomiting, reduced oral
and an elevated hematocrit (62), presence of pleural effusions intake, third spacing of fluids, increased respiratory losses, and dia-
and/or infiltrates (73), altered mental status (69), and other factors phoresis. In addition, researchers hypothesize that a combination
(54,72) (Table 3). of microangiopathic effects and edema of the inflamed pancreas
During the early phase of the disease (within the first week), decreases blood flow, leading to increased cellular death, necro-
death occurs as a result of the development, persistence, and pro- sis, and ongoing release of pancreatic enzymes activating numer-
gressive nature of organ dysfunction (75,76). The development of ous cascades. Inflammation also increases vascular permeability,
organ failure appears to be related to the development and per- leading to increased third space fluid losses and worsening of
sistence of SIRS. The reversal of and early organ failure has been pancreatic hypoperfusion that leads to increased pancreatic
shown to be important in preventing morbidity and mortality in parenchymal necrosis and cell death (84). Early aggressive intra-
patients with AP (77,78). Although the presence of SIRS during venous fluid resuscitation provides micro- and macrocirculatory
the initial 24 h has a high sensitivity for predicting organ failure support to prevent serious complications such as pancreatic
and mortality, the presence of SIRS lacks specificity for severe dis- necrosis (10).
ease (41%). The lack of specificity is due to the fact that the pres- Although there are limited prospective data that aggressive
ence of SIRS is not as important as its persistence. For this reason, intravenous hydration can be monitored and/or guided by

www.medlive.cn
8 Tenner et al.
laboratory markers, the use of hematocrit (62), BUN (63,83), ERCP IN AP

and creatinine (72) as surrogate markers for successful hydration The role of ERCP in AP is related to the management of choledo-
has been widely recommended (10,15,52,53). Although no firm cholithiasis. Although ERCP can be used to identify pancreatic
recommendations regarding absolute numbers can be made at ductal disruption in patients with severe AP, possibly leading
this time, the goal to decrease hematocrit (demonstrating hemo- to interventions for the so-called dislocated duct syndrome,
dilution) and BUN (increasing renal perfusion) and maintain a a consensus has never emerged that ERCP should be performed
normal creatinine during the first day of hospitalization cannot routinely for this purpose (52).
be overemphasized.
Although some human trials have shown a clear benefit to Recommendations
aggressive hydration (9,85,86), other studies have suggested 1. Patients with AP and concurrent acute cholangitis should
that aggressive hydration may be associated with an increased undergo ERCP within 24 h of admission (strong recommen-
morbidity and mortality (87,88). These variable study findings dation, moderate quality of evidence).
may be partly explained by critical differences in study design. 2. ERCP is not needed early in most patients with gallstone
Although these studies raise concerns about the continuous pancreatitis who lack laboratory or clinical evidence of
use of aggressive hydration over 48 h, the role of early hydra- ongoing biliary obstruction (strong recommendation,
tion (within the first 6–12 h) was not addressed in these nega- moderate quality of evidence).
tive studies. In addition, these negative studies included sicker 3. In the absence of cholangitis and/or jaundice, MRCP or
patients who would have required large volumes of hydration EUS rather than diagnostic ERCP should be used to screen
by the 48 h time point (87,88). Consistently, the human stud- for choledocholithiasis if highly suspected (conditional
ies in AP that focused on the initial rate of hydration early in recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
the course of treatment (within the first 24 h) demonstrated a 4. Pancreatic duct stents and/or postprocedure rectal non-
decrease in both morbidity and mortality (9,85,86). Although steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) suppositories
the total volume of hydration at 48 h after admission appears should be utilized to lower the risk of severe post-ERCP
to have little or no impact on patient outcome, early aggressive pancreatitis in high-risk patients (conditional recommenda-
intravenous hydration, during the first 12–24 h, with close moni- tion, moderate quality of evidence).
toring is of paramount importance.
In a well-designed prospective randomized trial, hydration
with a lactated Ringer’s solution appears to be more beneficial, THE ROLE OF ERCP IN AP
resulting in fewer patients developing SIRS as compared with Fortunately, most gallstones that cause AP readily pass to the
patients receiving normal (0.9%) saline (83). The benefit of duodenum and are lost in the stool (92). However in a minority
using lactated Ringer’s solution in large-volume resuscitation of patients, persistent choledocholithiasis can lead to ongoing
has been shown in other disease states to lead to better electro- pancreatic duct and/or biliary tree obstruction, leading to severe
lyte balance and improved outcomes (89,90). In AP, there are AP and/or cholangitis. Removal of obstructing gallstones from
additional theoretical benefits to using the more pH-balanced the biliary tree in patients with AP should reduce the risk of
lactated Ringer’s solution for fluid resuscitation compared with developing these complications.
normal saline. Low pH activates the trypsinogen, makes the There have been several clinical trials performed to answer the
acinar cells more susceptible to injury and increases the severity question: does early ERCP (within 24–72 h of onset) in acute bil-
of established AP in experimental studies. Although both are iary pancreatitis reduces the risk of progression of AP to severe
isotonic crystalloid solutions, normal saline given in large vol- disease (organ failure and/or necrosis)? Neoptolemos et al. (93)
umes may lead to the development of a non-anion gap, hyper- studied 121 patients with probable acute biliary pancreatitis, strati-
chloremic metabolic acidosis (83). fied for severity according to the modified Glasgow criteria. The
It is important to recognize that aggressive early hydration will trial was performed in a single center in the United Kingdom.
require caution for certain groups of patients, such as the elderly, Patients with predicted severe AP had fewer complications if they
or those with a history of cardiac and/or renal disease in order to underwent ERCP within 72 h of admission (24% vs. 61%, P < 0.05).
avoid complications such as volume overload, pulmonary edema, When patients with concurrent acute cholangitis (who would
and abdominal compartment syndrome (91). Measurement of obviously benefit from early ERCP) were excluded, the difference
the central venous pressure via a centrally placed catheter is most remained significant (15% vs. 61%, P = 0.003). Mortality was not
commonly used to determine volume status in this setting. How- significantly different in the two groups. Fan et al. (94) reported
ever, data indicate that the intrathoracic blood volume index may a study of 195 patients with suspected biliary pancreatitis strati-
have a better correlation with cardiac index than central venous fied for severity according to Ranson’s criteria. Patients in the study
pressure. Measurement of intrathoracic blood volume index may group underwent ERCP within 24 h of admission and those in the
therefore allow more accurate assessment of volume status for control group were offered conservative management. The control
patients managed in the intensive care unit. Patients not respond- group was offered ERCP if acute cholangitis developed. Those who
ing to intravenous hydration early (within 6–12 h) may not benefit underwent early ERCP had fewer complications (13% vs. 54%,
from continued aggressive hydration. P = 0.002).

www.medlive.cn
|
Based on these studies, it was unclear whether patients with (ii) pancreatic duct stents, and (iii) rectal NSAIDs. Guidewire
severe AP in the absence of acute cholangitis benefit from early cannulation (cannulation of the bile duct and pancreatic duct
ERCP. Therefore, Folsch et al. (95) organized a multicenter study by a guidewire inserted through a catheter) decreases the risk of
of ERCP in acute biliary pancreatitis that excluded patients most pancreatitis (100) by avoiding hydrostatic injury to the pancreas
likely to benefit, namely those with a serum bilirubin > 5 mg/dl. that may occur with the use of radiocontrast agents. In a study
Thus, patients with acute cholangitis and/or obvious biliary of 400 consecutive patients randomized to contrast or guidewire
tree obstruction underwent early ERCP and were not included cannulation, there were no cases of AP in the guidewire group
in the study. This study focused on determining the benefit of as compared with 8 cases in the contrast group (P < 0.001).
early ERCP in preventing severe AP in the absence of biliary A more recent study in 300 patients prospectively randomized
obstruction. Although this study has been widely criticized for to guidewire cannulation compared with conventional contrast
design flaws and the unusually high mortality of patients with injection also found a decrease in post-ERCP pancreatitis in the
mild disease (8% compared with an expected 1%), no benefit in guidewire group (101). However, the reduction in post-ERCP
morbidity and/or mortality was seen in patients who underwent pancreatitis may not be entirely related to guidewire cannula-
early ERCP. From this study, it appears that the benefit of early tion (102) and may have been related to less need for precut
ERCP is seen in patients with AP complicated by acute cholangitis sphincterotomy in patients undergoing guidewire cannulation.
and biliary tree obstruction, but not severe AP in the absence Regardless, guidewire cannulation compared with conventional
of acute cholangitis. contrast cannulation appears to decrease the risk of severe post-
More recent studies have confirmed that early ERCP within 24 h ERCP AP (103,104).
of admission decreases morbidity and mortality in patients with Placement of a pancreatic duct stent decreases the risk of
AP complicated by biliary sepsis (96,97). A dilated biliary tree in severe post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients, such as
the absence of an elevated bilirubin and other signs of sepsis should those undergoing ampullectomy, endoscopic sphincter of Oddi
not be confused with cholangitis, but may indicate the presence manometry, or pancreatic interventions during ERCP. A 2007
of a common bile duct stone. In patients with biliary pancreatitis meta-analysis published by Andriulli et al. (105), which evalu-
who have mild disease, and in patients who improve, ERCP before ated 4 randomized, prospective trials including 268 patients,
cholecystectomy has been shown to be of limited value and may showed that pancreatic duct stent placement affords a two-
be harmful. Noninvasive imaging studies are the preferred diag- fold drop in the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (24.1%
nostic modalities in these patients (EUS and/or MRCP). However, vs. 12%; P = 0.009; odds ratio: 0.44, 95% confidence interval:
it is not clear if any testing needs to be performed in patients who 0.24–0.81). Although further study is needed, smaller 3 French
improve. (Fr) unflanged pancreatic stents appear to lower the risk of
post-ERCP pancreatitis (P = 0.0043), pass more spontaneously
(P = 0.0001), and cause less pancreatic ductal changes (24% vs.
PREVENTING POST-ERCP PANCREATITIS 80%) as compared with larger 4 Fr, 5 Fr, or 6 Fr stents (106).
AP remains the most common complication of ERCP. Histori- However, 3 Fr pancreatic stent placement is more technically
cally, this complication was seen in 5–10% of cases and in 20–40% demanding because of the need to use a very floppy (0.018-inch
of certain high-risk procedures (50,98). Over the past 15 years, diameter) guidewire. Although prophylactic pancreatic duct
the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis has decreased to 2–4% and the stenting is a cost-effective strategy for the prevention of post-
risk of severe AP to < 1/500 (50,98). In general, the decrease in ERCP pancreatitis for high-risk patients (107), a higher inci-
post-ERCP AP and severe AP is related to increased recognition dence of severe pancreatitis has been reported in patients with
of high-risk patients and high-risk procedures in which ERCP failed pancreatic duct stenting (108). Pancreatic duct stenting is
should be avoided and the application of appropriate interven- not always technically feasible, with reported failure rates rang-
tions to prevent AP and severe AP (50). ing from 4 to 10% (108). In addition, long-term complications
Patients with normal or near-normal bile duct and liver tests from pancreatic duct stenting, such as chronic pancreatitis, may
have a lower likelihood of a common bile duct stone and/or occur and further study is needed (49).
other pathology (stricture, tumor). In these patients, diagnostic Although a large number of pharmacologic interventions for
ERCP has largely been replaced by EUS or MRCP as the prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis have been studied
risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis is greater in a patient with (50), the results of the studies have been largely disappointing.
normal caliber bile duct and normal bilirubin (odds ratio 3.4 The most promising group of drugs to attenuate the inflamma-
for post-ERCP pancreatitis) as compared with a patient who tory response of AP are NSAIDs (109,110). Two clinical trials
is jaundiced with a dilated common bile duct (odds ratio 0.2 have shown that a 100 mg rectal suppository of diclofenac reduces
for post-ERCP pancreatitis) (99). Furthermore, MRCP and the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (111,112). In addi-
EUS are as accurate as diagnostic ERCP and pose no risk of tion, a recent multicenter, double-blind, randomized placebo
pancreatitis (98). controlled trial of 602 patients undergoing a high-risk ERCP
For patients undergoing a therapeutic ERCP, three well-stud- demonstrated a significant reduction of post-ERCP pancreati-
ied interventions to decrease the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients given postprocedure rectal indomethacin (113).
tis, especially severe disease, include: (i) guidewire cannulation, It is important to note that this study included only patients at a

www.medlive.cn
10 Tenner et al.
high risk of developing post-ERCP pancreatitis and severe AP, that may occur early in the course of AP may be indistinguishable
which is the population that would benefit the most. When from sepsis syndrome. When an infection is suspected, antibiotics
considering the costs, risks, and potential benefits reviewed should be given while the source of the infection is being inves-
in the published literature, rectal diclofenac and/or indo- tigated (53). However, once blood and other cultures are found
methacin should be considered before ERCP, especially in to be negative and no source of infection is identified, antibiotics
high-risk patients. Although further study is needed to define should be discontinued.
the optimal dose, at present it is reasonable to consider place-
ment of two indomethacin 50 mg suppositories (total 100 mg)
after ERCP in patients at a high risk of developing post-ERCP PREVENTING THE INFECTION OF STERILE
AP. However, until further study is performed, the placement of NECROSIS
rectal NSAIDs does not replace the need for a pancreatic duct The paradigm shift and controversy over using antibiotics in
stent in the appropriate high-risk patient. AP has centered on pancreatic necrosis. When compared with
patients with sterile necrosis, patients with infected pancreatic
necrosis have a higher mortality rate (mean 30%, range 14–69%)
THE ROLE OF ANTIBIOTICS IN AP (53). For this reason, preventing infection of pancreatic necrosis
is important. Although it was previously believed that infectious
Recommendations complications occur late in the course of the disease (115,116),
1. Antibiotics should be given for an extrapancreatic infection, a recent review found that 27% of all cases of infected
such as cholangitis, catheter-acquired infections, bacteremia, necrosis occur within the first 14 days (117); in another study,
urinary tract infections, pneumonia (strong recommenda- nearly half of all infections appear to occur within 7 days of
tion, moderate quality of evidence). admission (118).
2. Routine use of prophylactic antibiotics in patients with severe Although early unblinded trials suggested that administration of
AP is not recommended (strong recommendation, moderate antibiotics may prevent infectious complications in patients with
quality of evidence). sterile necrosis (119,120), subsequent, better-designed trials have
3. The use of antibiotics in patients with sterile necrosis consistently failed to confirm an advantage (121–125). Because of
to prevent the development of infected necrosis is not the consistency of pancreatic necrosis, few antibiotics penetrate
recommended (strong recommendation, moderate quality when given intravenously. The antibiotics shown to penetrate and
of evidence). used in clinical trials include carbapenems, quinolones, metro-
4. Infected necrosis should be considered in patients with nidazole, and high-dose cephalosporins (52,116,123). Since 1993,
pancreatic or extrapancreatic necrosis who deteriorate or there have been 11 prospective, randomized trials with proper
fail to improve after 7–10 days of hospitalization. In these study design, participants, and outcome measures that evaluated
patients, either (i) initial CT-guided fine-needle aspiration the use of prophylactic antibiotics in severe AP (126). From this
(FNA) for Gram stain and culture to guide use of appropriate meta-analysis, the number needed to treat was 1,429 for one patient
antibiotics or (ii) empiric use of antibiotics after obtaining to benefit. It remains uncertain if a subgroup of patients with severe
necessary cultures for infectious agents, without CT FNA, AP (such as extensive necrosis with organ failure) may benefit from
should be given (strong recommendation, moderate antibiotics, but large studies required to determine whether any
evidence). benefit exists will be difficult to perform. Based on the current liter-
5. In patients with infected necrosis, antibiotics known to pene- ature, use of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent infection in patients
trate pancreatic necrosis, such as carbapenems, quinolones, with sterile necrosis (even predicted as having severe disease) is not
and metronidazole, may be useful in delaying or sometimes recommended.
totally avoiding intervention, thus decreasing morbidity and Prevention of fungal infections in these patients is also not
mortality (conditional recommendation, moderate quality of recommended. Although it was suggested that fungal infection
evidence). may be a more common cause of mortality in AP, further study
6. Routine administration of antifungal agents along with has not confirmed this finding (127). There is one successful
prophylactic or therapeutic antibiotics is not recommended randomized controlled, clinical trial that used selective
(conditional recommendation, low quality of evidence). decontamination of the bowel, targeting both bacteria and
fungi, in order to prevent infected necrosis (128). Because of
the decreased morbidity and mortality in this trial in patients
Infectious complications with severe AP who had undergone selective decontamina-
Infectious complications, both pancreatic (infected necrosis) tion, further study in this area is needed. Finally, probiotics
and extrapancreatic (pneumonia, cholangitis, bacteremia, uri- should not be given in severe AP. Although earlier trials
nary tract infections, and so on), are a major cause of morbidity suggested a benefit, a very well-conducted, randomized con-
and mortality in patients with AP. Many infections are hospital- trolled clinical trial demonstrated increased mortality (129).
acquired and may have a major impact on mortality (114). Fever, This lack of benefit has also been shown in a recent meta-
tachycardia, tachypnea, and leukocytosis associated with SIRS analysis (130).

www.medlive.cn
|
Infected necrosis accurate in distinguishing infected and sterile necrosis

Rather than preventing infection, the role of antibiotics in patients (53,136). As patients with infected necrosis and sterile necrosis
with necrotizing AP is now to treat established infected necro- may appear similar with leukocytosis, fever, and organ failure
sis. The concept that infected pancreatic necrosis requires prompt (137), it is impossible to separate these entities without
surgical debridement has also been challenged by multiple reports needle aspiration. Historically, the use of antibiotics is best
and case series showing that antibiotics alone can lead to resolu- established in clinically proven pancreatic or extrapancre-
tion of infection and, in select patients, avoid surgery altogether atic infection, and therefore CT FNA should be considered
(131–134). Garg et al. (134) reported 47/80 patients with infected when an infection is suspected. An immediate review of the
necrosis over a 10-year period who were successfully treated Gram stain will often establish a diagnosis. However, it may be
conservatively with antibiotics alone (134). The mortality in the prudent to begin antibiotics while awaiting microbiologic
conservative group was 23% as compared with 54% in the surgi- confirmation. If culture reports are negative, the antibiotics
cal group. The same group published a meta-analysis of 8 studies can be discontinued.
involving 409 patients with infected necrosis of whom 324 were There is some controversy as to whether a CT FNA is neces-
successfully treated with antibiotics alone (135). Overall, 64% of sary in all patients (Figure 1). In many patients, the CT FNA
the patients with infected necrosis in this meta-analysis could would not influence the management (138). Increased use of
be managed by conservative antibiotic treatment with 12% mor- conservative management and minimally invasive drainage
tality, and only 26% underwent surgery. Thus, a select group of have decreased the use of FNA for the diagnosis of infected
relatively stable patients with infected pancreatic necrosis could necrosis (54). Many patients with sterile or infected necrosis
be managed by antibiotics alone without requiring percutane- either improve quickly or become unstable, and decisions on
ous drainage. However, it should be cautioned that these patients intervention via a minimally invasive route will not be influenced
require close supervision and percutaneous or endoscopic or by the results of the aspiration. A consensus conference con-
necrosectomy should be considered if the patient fails to improve cluded that FNA should only be used in select situations where
or deteriorates clinically. there is no clinical response to antibiotics, such as when a fungal
infection is suspected (54).
THE ROLE OF CT FNA

The technique of computed tomography guided fine needle NUTRITION IN AP
aspiration (CT FNA) has proven to be safe, effective, and
Recommendations
1. In mild AP, oral feedings can be started immediately if there
Pancreatic necrosis: suspected of infection is no nausea and vomiting, and the abdominal pain has
resolved (conditional recommendation, moderate quality of
evidence).
Obtain CT-guided FNA Empiric use of necrosis 2. In mild AP, initiation of feeding with a low-fat solid diet
penetrating antibiotics
Negative gram stain
appears as safe as a clear liquid diet (conditional recommen-
and culture Positive gram dations, moderate quality of evidence).
stain and/or culture
3. In severe AP, enteral nutrition is recommended to prevent
STERILE NECROSIS: supportive
care, consider repeat FNA every 5–7 infectious complications. Parenteral nutrition should
Infected necrosis
days if clinically indicated be avoided, unless the enteral route is not available,
not tolerated, or not meeting caloric requirements
Clinically stable (strong recommendation, high quality of evidence).
Clinically unstable
Continue antibiotics and observe… 4. Nasogastric delivery and nasojejunal delivery of enteral
delayed minimally invasive surgical, Prompt surgical
debridement
feeding appear comparable in efficacy and safety (strong
endoscopic, or radiologic debridement.
if asymptomatic: consider no debridement recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
Figure 1. Management of pancreatic necrosis when infection is suspected.

Infected necrosis should be considered in patients with pancreatic or
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
extrapancreatic necrosis who deteriorate or fail to improve after 7–10 days
of hospitalization. In these patients, either (i) initial computed tomography-
Nutrition in mild AP
guided fine needle aspiration (CT FNA) for Gram stain and culture to guide Historically, despite the absence of clinical data, patients with AP
use of appropriate antibiotics or (ii) empiric use of antibiotics without CT were kept NPO (nothing by mouth) to rest the pancreas (32).
FNA should be given. In patients with infected necrosis, antibiotics known Most guidelines in the past recommended NPO until resolution
to penetrate pancreatic necrosis may be useful in delaying intervention,
of pain and some suggested awaiting normalization of pancre-
thus decreasing morbidity and mortality. In stable patients with infected
necrosis, surgical, radiologic, and/or endoscopic drainage should be
atic enzymes or even imaging evidence of resolution of inflam-
delayed by preferably 4 weeks to allow the development of a wall around mation before resuming oral feedings (53). The need to place
the necrosis (walled-off pancreatic necrosis). the pancreas at rest until complete resolution of AP no longer

www.medlive.cn
12 Tenner et al.
seems imperative. The long-held assumption that the inflamed patients because of significant experimental and some human
pancreas requires prolonged rest by fasting does not appear to evidence of superiority of distal jejunal feeding in AP.
be supported by laboratory and clinical observation (139). Clini-
cal and experimental studies showed that bowel rest is associated
with intestinal mucosal atrophy and increased infectious compli- THE ROLE OF SURGERY IN AP
cations because of bacterial translocation from the gut. Multiple
studies have shown that patients provided oral feeding early in Recommendations
the course of AP have a shorter hospital stay, decreased infec- 1. In patients with mild AP, found to have gallstones in the
tious complications, decreased morbidity, and decreased mortal- gallbladder, a cholecystectomy should be performed
ity (117,140–143). before discharge to prevent a recurrence of AP (moderate
In mild AP, oral intake is usually restored quickly and no nutri- recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
tional intervention is needed. Although the timing of refeeding 2. In a patient with necrotizing biliary AP, in order to prevent
remains controversial, recent studies have shown that immediate infection, cholecystectomy is to be deferred until active
oral feeding in patients with mild AP appears safe (139). In addi- inflammation subsides and fluid collections resolve or
tion, a low-fat solid diet has been shown to be safe compared with stabilize (strong recommendation, moderate evidence).
clear liquids, providing more calories (144). Similarly, in other 3. Asymptomatic pseudocysts and pancreatic and/or extra-
randomized trials, oral feeding with a soft diet has been found to pancreatic necrosis do not warrant intervention regardless of
be safe compared with clear liquids and it shortens the hospital size, location, and/or extension (moderate recommendation,
stay (145,146). Early refeeding also appears to result in a shorter high quality of evidence).
hospital stay. Based on these studies, oral feedings introduced in 4. In stable patients with infected necrosis, surgical, radiologic,
mild AP do not need to begin with clear liquids and increase in a and/or endoscopic drainage should be delayed preferably
stepwise manner, but may begin as a low-residue, low-fat, soft diet for more than 4 weeks to allow liquefication of the contents
when the patient appears to be improving. and the development of a fibrous wall around the necrosis
Total parenteral nutrition should be avoided in patients with (walled-off necrosis) (strong recommendation, low quality
mild and severe AP. There have been multiple randomized trials of evidence).
showing that total parenteral nutrition is associated with infectious 5. In symptomatic patients with infected necrosis, minimally
and other line-related complications (53). As enteral feeding main- invasive methods of necrosectomy are preferred to open necro-
tains the gut mucosal barrier, prevents disruption, and prevents sectomy (strong recommendation, low quality of evidence).
the translocation of bacteria that seed pancreatic necrosis, enteral
nutrition may prevent infected necrosis (142,143). A recent meta-
analysis describing 8 randomized controlled clinical trials involv- SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
ing 381 patients found a decrease in infectious complications, Cholecystectomy
organ failure, and mortality in patients with severe AP who were In patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis, cholecystectomy
provided enteral nutrition as compared with total parenteral nutri- should be performed during the index hospitalization. The cur-
tion (143). Although further study is needed, continuous infusion rent literature, which includes 8 cohort studies and one rando-
is preferred over cyclic or bolus administration. mized trial describing 998 patients who had and who had not
Although the use of a nasojejunal route has been traditionally undergone cholecystectomy for biliary pancreatitis, 95 (18%)
preferred to avoid the gastric phase of stimulation, nasogastric were readmitted for recurrent biliary events within 90 days of
enteral nutrition appears as safe. A systematic review describ- discharge (0% vs. 18%, P < 0.0001), including recurrent biliary
ing 92 patients from 4 studies on nasogastric tube feeding found pancreatitis (n = 43, 8%) (148). Some of the cases were found
that nasogastric feeding was safe and well tolerated in patients to be severe. Based on this experience, there is a need for early
with predicted severe AP (117). There have been some reports of cholecystectomy during the same hospitalization, if the attack
nasogastric feeding slightly increasing the risk of aspiration. For is mild. Patients who have severe AP, especially with pancre-
this reason, patients with AP undergoing enteral nutrition should atic necrosis, will require complex decision making between the
be placed in a more upright position and be placed on aspiration surgeon and gastroenterologist. In these patients, cholecystec-
precautions. Although further study is needed, evaluating for tomy is typically delayed until (i) a later time in the typically
“residuals,” retained volume in the stomach, is not likely to be help- prolonged hospitalization, (ii) as part of the management of the
ful. Compared with nasojejunal feeding, nasogastric tube place- pancreatic necrosis if present, or (iii) after discharge (148,149).
ment is far easier, which is important in patients with AP, especially Earlier guidelines recommended a cholecystectomy after 2 attacks
in the intensive care setting. Nasojejunal tube placement requires of IAP, with a presumption that many such cases might be because
interventional radiology or endoscopy and thus can be expensive. of microlithiasis. However, a population-based study found that
For these reasons, nasogastric tube feeding should be preferred cholecystectomy performed for recurrent attacks of AP with
(147). A large multicenter trial sponsored by the National Insti- no stones/sludge on ultrasound and no significant elevation of
tutes of Health (NIH) is currently being performed to investigate liver tests during the attack of AP was associated with a > 50%
whether nasogastric or nasojejunal feedings are preferred in these recurrence of AP (150).

www.medlive.cn
|
In the majority of patients with gallstone pancreatitis, the If the patient remains ill and the infected necrosis has not resolved,
common bile duct stone passes to the duodenum. Routine ERCP minimally invasive necrosectomy by endoscopic, radiologic,
is not appropriate unless there is a high suspicion of a persis- video-assisted retroperitoneal, laparoscopic approach, or com-
tent common bile duct stone, manifested by an elevation in the bination thereof, or open surgery is recommended once the
bilirubin (151). Patients with mild AP, with normal bilirubin, necrosis is walled-off (54,153–156).
can undergo laproscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative
cholangiography, and any remaining bile duct stones can be dealt
with by postoperative or intraoperative ERCP. In patients with MINIMALLY INVASIVE MANAGEMENT OF
low to moderate risk, MRCP or EUS can be used preoperatively, PANCREATIC NECROSIS
but routine use of MRCP is unnecessary. In patients with mild Minimally invasive approaches to pancreatic necrosectomy
AP who cannot undergo surgery, such as the frail elderly and/or including laproscopic surgery either from an anterior or retro-
those with severe comorbid disease, biliary sphincterotomy alone peritoneal approach, percutaneous, radiologic catheter drain-
may be an effective way to reduce further attacks of AP, although age or debridement, video-assisted or small incision-based left
attacks of cholecystitis may still occur (53). retroperitoneal debridement, and endoscopy are increasingly
becoming the standard of care. Percutaneous drainage without
necrosectomy may be the most frequently used minimally inva-
DEBRIDEMENT OF NECROSIS sive method for managing fluid collections complicating necro-
Historically, open necrosectomy/debridement was the treatment tizing AP (54,68,148,152–157). The overall success appears to be
of choice for infected necrosis and symptomatic sterile necrosis. ~50% in avoiding open surgery. In addition, endoscopic drainage
Decades ago, patients with sterile necrosis underwent early debri- of necrotic collections and/or direct endoscopic necrosectomy
dement that resulted in increased mortality. For this reason, early has been reported in several large series to be equally successful
open debridement for sterile necrosis was abandoned (32). How- (53,54,155). Sometimes these modalities can be combined at the
ever, debridement for sterile necrosis is recommended if associ- same time or sequentially, for example, combined percutaneous
ated with gastric outlet obstruction and/or bile duct obstruction. and endoscopic methods. Recently, a well-designed study from
In patients with infected necrosis, it was falsely believed that the Netherlands using a step-up approach (percutaneous catheter
mortality of infected necrosis was nearly 100% if debridement drainage followed by video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement)
was not performed urgently (53,152). In a retrospective review (68,156) demonstrated the superiority of the step-up approach
of 53 patients with infected necrosis treated operatively (median as reflected by lower morbidity (less multiple organ failure and
time to surgery of 28 days) mortality fell to 22% when necrosec- surgical complications) and lower costs compared with open
tomy necrosis was delayed (118). After reviewing 11 studies that surgical necrosectomy.
included 1,136 patients, the authors found that postponing necro- Although these guidelines cannot discuss in detail the various
sectomy in stable patients treated with antibiotics alone until 30 methods of debridement, or the comparative effectiveness of each,
days after initial hospital admission is associated with a decreased because of limitations in available data and the focus of this review,
mortality (131). several generalizations are important. Regardless of the method
The concept that infected pancreatic necrosis requires prompt employed, minimally invasive approaches require the pancreatic
surgical debridement has also been challenged by multiple reports necrosis to become organized (54,68,154–157). Whereas early in
and case series showing that antibiotics alone can lead to resolu- the course of the disease (within the first 7–10 days) pancreatic
tion of infection and, in select patients, avoid surgery altogether necrosis is a diffuse solid and/or semisolid inflammatory mass,
(6,54). In one report (133) of 28 patients given antibiotics for the after ~4 weeks a fibrous wall develops around the necrosis that
management of infected pancreatic necrosis, 16 avoided surgery. makes removal more amenable to open and laproscopic surgery,
There were two deaths in the patients who underwent surgery and percutaneous radiologic catheter drainage, and/or endoscopic
two deaths in the patients who were treated with antibiotics alone. drainage.
Thus, in this report, more than half the patients were successfully Currently, a multidisciplinary consensus favors minimally inva-
treated with antibiotics and the mortality rate in both the surgi- sive methods over open surgery for the management of pancreatic
cal and nonsurgical groups was similar. The concept that urgent necrosis (54). A recent randomized controlled trial clearly dem-
surgery is required in patients found to have infected necrosis is onstrated the superiority of endoscopic debridement over surgery
no longer valid. Asymptomatic pancreatic and/or extrapancreatic (154). Although advances in surgical, radiologic, and endoscopic
necrosis does not mandate intervention regardless of size, location, techniques exist and are in development, it must be stressed that
and extension. It will likely resolve over time, even in some cases of many patients with sterile pancreatic necrosis, and select patients
infected necrosis (54). with infected necrosis, clinically improve to a point where no
Although unstable patients with infected necrosis should intervention is necessary (54,134). The management of patients
undergo urgent debridement, current consensus is that the initial with pancreatic necrosis should be individualized, requiring con-
management of infected necrosis for patients who are clinically sideration of all the available data (clinical, radiologic, laboratory)
stable should be a course of antibiotics before intervention to and using available expertise. Early referral to a center of excel-
allow the inflammatory reaction to become better organized (54). lence is of paramount importance, as delaying intervention with

www.medlive.cn
14 Tenner et al.
maximal supportive care and using a minimally invasive approach 25. Lankisch PG, Assmus C, Lehnick D et al. Acute pancreatitis: does gender
matter? Dig Dis Sci 2001;46:2470–4.
have both been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality. 26. Gullo I, Migliori M, Olah A et al. Acute pancreatitis in five European
countries: etiology and mortality. Pancreas 2002;24:223–7.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST 27. Lowenfels AB, Maisonneuve P, Sullivan T. The changing character of acute
pancreatitis: epidemiology, etiology, and prognosis. Curr Gastroenterol Rep
Guarantor of the article: Scott Tenner, MD, MPH, FACG.
2009;11:97–103.
Specific author contributions: All four authors shared equally in 28. Johnson C, Lévy P. Detection of gallstones in acute pancreatitis: when and
conceiving, initiating, and writing the manuscript. how? Pancreatology 2010;10:27–32.
29. Moreau JA, Zinsmeister AR, Melton LJ et al. Gallstone pancreatitis and the
Financial support: None.
effect of cholecystectomy. Mayo Clin Proc 63;466:1988.
Potential competing interests: None. 30. Yadav D, O’Connell M, Papachristou GI. Natural history following the first
attack of acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:1096–103.
31. Ammann RW. The natural history of alcoholic chronic pancreatitis. Intern
REFERENCES Med 2001;40:368–75.
1. Peery AE, Dellon ES, Lund J et al. Burden of gastrointestinal diseases in 32. Steinberg W, Tenner S. Medical progress: acute pancreatitis. New Engl J
the United States: 2012 Update. Gastroenterology 2012;143:1179–87. Med 1994;330:1198–210.
2. Fagenholz PJ, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Harris NS et al. Direct medical 33. Rebours V, Vullierme MP, Hentic O et al. Smoking and the course of
costs of acute pancreatitis hospitalizations in the United States. Pancreas recurrent acute and chronic alcoholic pancreatitis: a dose-dependent
2007;35:302–7. relationship. Pancreas 2012;41:1219–24.
3. Fagenholz PJ, Castillo CF, Harris NS et al. Increasing United States hospital 34. Whitcomb DC. Genetic polymorphisms in alcoholic pancreatitis. Dig Dis
admissions for acute pancreatitis, 1988-2003. Ann Epidemiol 2007;17:491–7. Sci 2005;23:247–54.
4. Yadav D, Lowenfels AB. Trends in the epidemiology of the first attack of 35. Badalov N, Baradarian R, Iswara K et al. Drug induced acute pancreatitis:
acute pancreatitis: a systemic review. Pancreas 2006;33:323–30. an evidence based approach. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;101:454–76.
5. Bradley EL. A clinically based classification system of acute pancreatitis. 36. Fortson MR, Freeman SN, Webster PD. Clinical assessment of hyperlipid-
Arch Surg 1993;128:586–90. meic pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 1995;90:2134–9.
6. Banks PA, Bollen TL, Dervenis C et al. Classification of acute pancreati- 37. Parenti DM, Steinberg W, Kang P. Infectious causes of acute pancreatitis.
tis—2012: revision of Atlanta classification and definitions by international Pancreas 1996;13:356–71.
consensus. Gut 2013;62:102–11. 38. Farmer RG, Winkelman EI, Brown HB et al. Hyperlipoproteinemia and
7. Busquets J, Fabregat J, Pelaez N et al. Factors influencing mortality in pancreatitis. Am J Med 1973;54:161–5.
patients undergoing surgery for acute pancreatitis: importance of peri- 39. Toskes PP. Hyperlipidmic pancreatitis. Gastroenterol Clin North Am
pancreatic tissue and fluid infection. Pancreas 2013;42:285–92. 1990;19:783–91.
8. Marshall JC, Cook DJ, Christou NV et al. Multiple organ dysfunction 40. Yadav D, Pitchumoni CS. Issues in hyperlipidemic pancreatitis. J Clin
score: a reliable descriptor of complex clinical outcome. Crit Care Med Gastroenterol 2003;36:54–62.
1995;23:1638–52. 41. Simpson WF, Adams DB, Metcalf JS et al. Nonfunctioning pancreatic
9. Wall I, Badalov N, Baradarian R et al. Decreased morbidity and mortality in neuroendocrine tumors presenting as pancreatitis: report of four cases.
patients with acute pancreatitis related to aggressive intravenous hydration. Pancreas 1988;3:223–31.
Pancreas 2011;40:547–50. 42. Kohler H, Lankisch PG. Acute pancreatitis and hyperamylasaemia in
10. Gardner TB, Vege SS, Pearson RK et al. Fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatic carcinoma. Pancreas 1987;2:117–9.
pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;6:1070–6. 43. Robertson JF, Imrie CW. Acute pancreatitis associated with carcinoma of
11. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rat- the ampulla of Vater. Br J Surg 1987;74:395–7.
ing quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924–6. 44. Bank S, Indaram A. Causes of acute and recurrent pancreatitis. Clinical
12. Clavien PA, Robert J, Meyer P et al. Acute pancreatitis and normoamylasemia. considerations and clues to diagnosis. Gastroenterol Clin North Am
Not an uncommon combination. Ann Surg 1989;210:614–20. 1999;28:571–89, viii.
13. Winslet M, Hall C, London NJM. Relation of diagnostic serum amylase 45. Banks PA. Epidemiology, natural history, and predictors of disease outcome
levels to aetiology and severity of acute pancreatitis. Gut 1992;33:982–6. in acute and chronic pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:S226–30.
14. Malka D, Rosa-Hezode I. Positive and etiological diagnosis of acute 46. Tandon M, Topazian M. Endoscopic ultrasound in idiopathic acute
pancreatitis. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 2001;25:1S153–1S68. pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:705–9.
15. UK guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis. Gut 2005;54: 47. Al-Haddad M, Wallace MB. Diagnostic approach to patients with acute
1–9. idiopathic pancreatitis, what should be done? World J Gastroenterol
16. Steinberg WM, DeVries JH, Wadden T et al. Longitudinal monitoring of 2008;14:1007–10.
lipase and amylase in adults with type 2 diabetes and obesity: Evidence 48. DiMagno MJ, Dimagno EP. Pancreas divisum does not cause pancreatitis,
from two phase 3 randomized clinical trials with the once-daily GLP-1 but associates with CFTR mutations. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:318–20.
analog liraglutide. Gastroenterology 2012;121: A246. 49. Steinberg WM, Chari ST, Forsmark CE et al. Controversies in clinical
17. Shah AM, Eddi R, Kothari ST et al. Acute pancreatitis with normal serum pancreatology: management of acute idiopathic recurrent pancreatitis.
lipase: a case series. JOP 2010;11:369–72. Pancreas 2003;27:103–17.
18. Kiriyama, Gabata T, Takada T et al. New diagnostic criteria of acute 50. Badalov N, Tenner S, Baillie J. Prevention and treatment of post-ERCP
pancreatitis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2010;17:24–36. pancreatitis. JOP 2009;10:88–97.
19. Lippil G, Valentino M, Cervellin G. Laboratory diagnosis of acute pancrea- 51. Cote GA, Imperiale TF, Schmidt SE et al. Similar efficacies of biliary, with
titis: in search of the Holy Grail. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 2012;49:18–31. or without pancreatic, sphincterotomy in treatment of idiopathic recurrent
20. Balthazar EJ. Acute pancreatitis: assessment of severity with clinical and CT acute pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 2012;6):1502–9.
evaluation. Radiology 2002;223:603–13. 52. Tenner S. Initial management of acute pancreatitis: critical decisions during
21. Arvanitakis M, Delhaye M, Maertelaere VD et al. Computed tomography the first 72 hours. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:2489–94.
and MRI in the assessment of acute pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 2004; 53. Banks PA, Freeman ML. Practice guidelines in acute pancreatitis. Am J
126:715–23. Gastroenterol 2006;101:2379–400.
22. Zaheer A, Singh VK, Qureshi RO et al. The revised Atlanta classification 54. Freeman MF, Werner J, van Santvoort HC et al. Interventions for necrotiz-
for acute pancreatitis: updates in imaging terminology and guidelines. ing pancreatitis. Summary of a multi-disciplinary consensus conference.
Abdom Imaging 2013;38:125–36. Pancreas 2012;8:1176–94.
23. Bollen TL, Singh VK, Maurer R et al. Comparative evaluation of the 55. Perez A, Whang EE, Brooks DC et al. Is severity of necrotizing pancreatitis
modified CT severity index and CT severity index in assessing severity of increased in extending necrosis and infected necrosis? Pancreas
acute pancreatitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197:386–92. 2002;25:229–33.
24. Stimac D, Miletic D, Radic M et al. The role of non enhanced mangetic 56. Bakker OJ, van Santvoort H, Besselink MG et al. Extrapancreatic necrosis
resonance imaging in the early assessment of acute pancreatitis. Am J without pancreatic parenchymal necrosis: a separate entity in necrotising
Gastroenterol 2007;102:997–1004. pancreatitis? Gut 2012;18:143–9.

www.medlive.cn
|
57. Ranson JH, Pasternack BS. Statistical methods for quantifying the severity 86. Warndorf MG, Kurtzman JT, Bartel MJ et al. Early fluid resuscitation
of clinical acute pancreatitis. J Surg Res 1977;22:79–91. reduces morbidity among patients with acute pancreatitis. Clin Gastro-
58. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP et al. APACHE II: a severity of disease enterol Hepatol 2011;9:705–9.
classification system. Crit Care Med 1985;13:818–29. 87. Mao EQ, Fei J, Peng YB et al. Rapid hemodilution is associated with
59. Wu BU, Johannes RS, Sun X et al. The early prediction of mortality in acute increased sepsis and mortality among patients with severe acute
pancreatitis: a large population-based study. Gut 2008;57:1698Y1703. pancreatitis. Chin Med J (Engl) 2010;123:1639–44.
60. Papachristou GI, Muddana V, Yadav D et al. Comparison of BISAP, 88. de-Madaria E, Soler-Sala G, Sánchez-Paya J et al. Influence of fluid
Ranson’s, APACHE-II, and CTSI scores in predicting organ failure, therapy on the prognosis of acute pancreatitis: a prospective cohort study.
complications, and mortality in acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:1843–50.
2010;105:435–41. 89. Khajavi MR, Etezadi F, Moharari RS et al. Effects of normal saline vs.
61. Wu BU, Johannes RS, Sun X et al. Early changes in blood urea nitrogen lactated Ringer’s during renal transplantation. Renal Fail 2008;30:535–9.
predict mortality in acute pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 2009;137:129–35. 90. Cho YS, Lim H, Kim SH. Comparison of lactated Ringer’s solution and
62. Mounzer R et al. Comparison of existing clinical scoring systems to predict 0.9% saline in the treatment of rhabdomyolysis induced by doxylamine
persistent organ failure in patients with acute pancreatitis. Gastroentero- intoxication. Emerg Med J 2007;24:276–80.
logy 2012;142:1476–82. 91. Eckerwall G, Olin H, Andersson B et al. Fluid resuscitation and nutritional
63. Brown A, Orav J, Banks PA. Hemoconcentration is an early marker for support during severe acute pancreatitis in the past: what have we learned
organ failure and necrotizing pancreatitis. Pancreas 2000;20:367–72. and how can we do better? Clin Nutr 2006;25:497–504.
64. Lankisch PG, Mahlke R, Blum T et al. Hemoconcentration: an early 92. Acosta JM, Ledesma CL. Gallstone migration as a cause of acute
marker of severe and/or necrotizing pancreatitis? A critical appraisal. pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 1974;290:484–7.
Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:2081–5. 93. Neoptolemos JP, London NJ, James D et al. Controlled trail of urgent
65. Frossard JL, Hadengue A, Pastor CM. New serum markers for the detection endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic sphinc-
of severe acute pancreatitis in humans. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; terotomy versus conservative management for acute pancreatitis due to
164:162–70. gallstones. Lancet 1988;3:979–83.
66. Papachristou GI, Whitcomb DC. Inflammatory markers of disease sever- 94. Fan ST, Lai EC, Mok FP et al. Early treatment of acute biliary pancreatitis
ity in acute pancreatitis. Clin Lab Med 2005;25:17–37. by endoscopic papillotomy. New Engl J Med 1993;328:228–32.
67. Balthazar EJ, Robinson DL, Megibow AJ et al. Acute pancreatitis: value of 95. Folsch UR, Nitsche R, Ludtke R et al. Early ERCP and papillotomy
CT in establishing prognosis. Radiology 1990;174:331–6. compared with conservative treatment for acute biliary pancreatitis.
68. van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, Bakker OJ et al. A step-up approach N Engl J Med 1997;336:237–42.
or open necrosectomy for necrotizing pancreatitis. New Engl J Med 96. Arguedas MR, Dupont AW, Wilcox CM. Where do ERCP, endoscopic
2013;362:1491–502. ultrasound, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, and intra-
69. Tran DD, Cuesta MA. Evaluation of severity in patients with acute pan- operative cholangiography fit in the management of acute biliary pancrea-
creatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 1992;87:604–8. titis? A decision analysis model. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:2892–9.
70. Mofidi R, Duff MD, Wigmore SJ et al. Association between early systemic 97. Moretti A, Papi C, Aratari A et al. Is early endoscopic retrograde
inflammatory response, severity of multiorgan dysfunction and death in cholangiopancreatography useful in the management of acute biliary
acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg 2006;93:738–44. pancreatitis? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Div Liver
71. Buter A, Imrie CW, Carter CR et al. Dynamic nature of early organ Dis 2008;40:379–85.
dysfunction determines outcome in acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg 2002;89: 98. Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP
298–302. pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc
72. Papachristou GI, Muddana V, Yadav D et al. Increased serum creatinine is 2001;54:425–34.
associated with pancreatic necrosis in acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastro- 99. Mehta SN, Pavone E, Barkun JS et al. Predictors of post-ERCP complications
enterol 2010;105:1451–2. in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. Endoscopy 1998;30:457–63.
73. Heller SJ, Noordhoek E, Tenner SM et al. Pleural effusion as a predictor of 100. Lella F, Bagnolo F, Colombo E et al. A simple way of avoiding post-ERCP
severity in acute pancreatitis. Pancreas 1997;15:222–5. pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;59:830–4.
74. Funnell IC, Bornman PC, Weakley SP et al. Obesity: an important prog- 101. Artifon EL, Sakai P, Cunha JE et al. Guidewire cannulation reduces risk
nostic factor in acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg 1993;80:484–6. of post-ERCP pancreatitis and facilitates bile duct cannulation. Am J
75. Mann DV, Hershman MJ, Hittinger R et al. Multicentre audit of death Gastroenterol 2007;102:2147–53.
from acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg 1994;81:890–3. 102. Mariani A, Giussani A, Di Leo M et al. Guidewire biliary cannulation does
76. Mutinga M, Rosenbluth A, Tenner SM et al. Does mortality occur early or not reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis compared with the contrast injec-
late in acute pancreatitis? Int J Pancreatol 2000;28:91–5. tion technique in low-risk and high-risk patients. Gastrointest Endosc
77. Johnson CD, Abu-Hilal M. Persistent organ failure during the first 2012;75:339–46.
week as a marker of fatal outcome in acute pancreatitis. Gut 2004;53: 103. Cheung J, Tsoi KK, Quan WL et al. Guidewire versus conventional
1340–4. contrast cannulation of the common bile duct for the prevention of post-
78. Lytras D, Manes K, Triantopoulou C et al. Persistent early organ failure: ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest
defining the high risk group of patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Endosc 2009;70:1211–9.
Pancreas 2008;36:249–54. 104. Adler DG, Verma D, Hilden K et al. Dye-free wire-guided cannulation
79. Kerner T, Vollmar B, Menger MD et al. Determinants of pancreatic micro- of the biliary tree during ERCP is associated with high success and low
circulation in acute pancreatitis in rats. J Surg Res 1996;62:165–71. complication rates: outcomes in a single operator experience of 822 cases.
80. Bassi D, Kollias N, Fernandez-del Castillo C et al. Impairment of pancre- J Clin Gastroenterol 2010;44:e57–62.
atic microcirculation correlates with the severity of acute experimental 105. Andriulli A, Forlano R, Napolitano G et al. Pancreatic duct stents in the
pancreatitis. J Am Coll Surg 1994;179:257–63. prophylaxis of pancreatic damage after endoscopic retrograde cholangio-
81. Inoue K, Hirota M, Beppu T et al. Angiographicfeatures in acute pancrea- pancreatography: a systematic analysis of benefits and associated risks.
titis: the severity of abdominal vessel ischemic change reflects the severity Digestion 2007;75:156–63.
of acute pancreatitis. JOP 2003;4:207–13. 106. Rashdan A, Fogel EL, McHenry Jr L et al. Improved stent characteristics
82. Bize P, Platon A, Becker C. Perfusion measurement in acute pancreatitis for prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
using dynamic perfusion MD CT. Am J Radiol 2006;186:114–8. 2004;2:322–9.
83. Wu BU, Hwang JQ, Gardner TH et al. Lactated Ringer’s solution reduces 107. Das A, Singh P, Sivak Jr MV et al. Pancreatic-stent placement for
systemic inflammation compared with saline in patients with acute prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a cost effectiveness analysis.
pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;9:710–7. Gastrointest Endosc 2007;65:960–8.
84. Takeda K, Mikami Y, Fukuyama S et al. Pancreatic ischemia associated 108. Freeman ML. Pancreatic stents for prevention of postendoscopic retro-
with vasospasm in the early phase of human acute necrotizing pancreati- grade cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
tis. Pancreas 2005;30:40–9. 2007;5:1354–65.
85. Gardner TB, Vege SS, Chari ST et al. Faster rate of initial fluid resuscita- 109. Sotoudehmanesh R, Khatibian M, Kolahdoozan S et al. Indomethacin may
tion in severe acute pancreatitis diminishes in-hospital mortality. Pancrea- reduce the incidence and severity of acute pancreatitis after ERCP.
tology 2009;9:770–6. Am J Gastroenterog 2007;102:978–83.

www.medlive.cn
16 Tenner et al.
110. Elmunzer BJ, Waljee AK, Elta GH et al. A meta-analysis of rectal NSAIDs 135. Mouli VP, Vishnubhatla S, Garg PK. Efficacy of conservative treatment,
in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gut 2008;57:1262–7. without necrosectomy, for infected pancreatic necrosis: a systematic
111. Murray B, Carter R, Imrie C et al. Diclofenac reduces the incidence of review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2013;144:333–40.
acute pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. 136. Buchler MW, Gloor B, Musller CA et al. Acute necrotizing pancreati-
Gastroenterology 2003;124:1786–91. tis: treatment strategy according to the status of infection. Ann Surg
112. Khoshbaten M, Khorram H, Madad L et al. Role of diclofenac in reducing 2000;232:619–26.
post-endoscopicretrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. 137. Tenner SM, Feng S, Noerdook S et al. The relationship of organ failure to
J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;23:11–6. pancreatic necrosis. Gastroenterology 1997;113:899–903.
113. Elmunzer BJ, Scheiman JM, Lehman GA et al. A randomized trial of 138. Pappas T. Is CT guided fine needle aspiration helpful in patients with
rectal indomethacin to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. N Engl J Med infected necrosis. Am J Gastroenterol 2005;100:2371–4.
2012;366:1414–22. 139. Eckerwall GE, Tingstedt BB, Bergenzaun PE et al. Immediate oral feeding
114. Baril NB, Ralls PW, Wren SM et al. Does an infected peripancreatic fluid in patients with acute pancreatitis is safe and may accelerate recovery--a
collection or abscess mandate operation? Ann Surg 2000;231:361–7. randomized clinical study. Clin Nutr 2007;26:758–63.
115. Beger HG, Rau B, Isenmann R. Natural history of necrotizing pancreatitis. 140. Louie BE, Noseworthy T, Hailey D et al. 2004 MacLean-Mueller Prize
Pancreatology 2003;3:93–101. enteral or parenteral nutrition for severe pancreatitis: a randomized controlled
116. Beger HG, Bittner R, Block S et al. Bacterial contamination of pancreatic trial and health technology assessment. Can J Surg 2005;48:298–306.
necrosis: a perspective clinical study. Gastroenterology 1986;91:433–8. 141. Casas M, Mora J, Fort E et al. Total enteral nutrition vs. total parenteral
117. Petrov MS, Kukosh MV, Emelyanov NV. A randomized controlled trial nutrition in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Rev Esp Enferm Dig
of enteral versus parenteral feeding in patients with predicted severe 2007;99:264–9.
acute pancreatitis shows a significant reduction in mortality and in 142. Gupta R, Patel K, Calder PC et al. A randomised clinical trial to assess
infected pancreatic complications with total enteral nutrition. Dig Surg the effect of total enteral and total parenteral nutritional support on
2006;23:336–45. metabolic, inflammatory and oxidative markers in patients with predicted
118. Besselink MG, Berwer TJ, Shoenmaeckers EJ et al. Timing of surgical severe acute pancreatitis II (APACHE ≥6). Pancreatology 2003;3:
intervention in necrotizing pancreatitis. Arch Surg 2007;142:1194–201. 406–13.
119. Pederzoli P, Bassi C, Vesontini S et al. A randomized multicenter clinical 143. Yi F, Ge L, Zhao J et al. Meta-analysis: total parenteral nutrition versus
trial of antibiotic prophylaxis of septic complications in acute necrotizing total enteral nutrition in predicted severe acute pancreatitis. Intern Med
pancreatitis with imipenem. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1993;176:480–3. 2012;51:523–30.
120. Saino V, Kemppainem E, Puolakkainen P et al. Early antibiotic treatment 144. Jacobson BC, Vandr Vliet MB, Hughes MD et al. A prospective, rando-
in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Lancet 1995;346:663–7. mized trial of clear liquids versus low-fat solid diet as the initial meal in
121. Dellinger EP, Tellado JM, Soto NE et al. Early antibiotic treatment for mild acute pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;5:946–51.
severe acute necrotizing pancreatitis: a randomized, double blind, placebo 145. Sathiaraj E, Murthy S, Mansard MJ et al. Clinical trial; oral feeding with
controlled study. Ann Surg 2007;245:674–83. a soft diet compared with clear liquid diet as initial meal in mild acute
122. Isenmann R, Runzi M, Kron M et al. Prophylactic antibiotic treatment pancreatitis. Aliment Pharmacol 2008;28:777–81.
in patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis: a placebo-controlled, 146. Moraes JM, Felga GE, Chebli LA et al. A full solid diet as the initial meal
double-blind trial. Gastroenterology 2004;126:997–1004. in mild acute pancreatitis is safe and result in a shorter length of hospitali-
123. Villatoro E, Bassi C, Larvin M. Antibiotic therapy for prophylaxis against zation; results from a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind
infection of pancreatic necrosis in acute pancreatitis. Cochrane Database clinical trial. J Clin Gastroenterol 2010;44:517–22.
Syst Rev :CD002941. 147. Singh N, Sharma B, Sharma M et al. Evaluation of early enteral feeding
124. De Vries A, Besselink MG, Buskens E et al. Randomized controlled trials through nasogastric and nasojejunal tube in severe acute pancreatitis.
of antibiotic prophylaxis in severe acute pancreatitis: relationship between A non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. Pancreas 2012;41:
methodologic quality and outcome. Pancreatology 2007;7:531–8. 153–9.
125. Jafri NS, Mahid SS, Idstein SR et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not protec- 148. Larson SD, Nealson WH, Evers BM. Management of gallstone pancreatitis.
tive in severe acute pancreatitis: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Adv Surg 2006;40:265–84.
Am J Surg 2009;197:806–13. 149. Uhl W, Muller CA, Krahenbuhl L et al. Acute gallstone pancreatitis:
126. Jiang K, Huang W, Yang XN et al. Present and future of prophylactic timing of cholecystectomy in mild and severe disease. Surg Endosc
antibiotics for severe acute pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol 2012;18: 1999;11:1070–6.
279–84. 150. Trna J, Vege SS, Pribramska V et al. Lack of significant liver enzyme
127. Trikudanathan G, NAvaneethan U, Vege SS. Intra-abdominal fungal elevation and gallstones and/or sludge on ultrasound on day 1 of acute
infections complicating acute pancreatitis: a review. Am J Gastroenterol pancreatitis is associated with recurrence after cholecystectomy: a popula-
2011;106:1188–92. tion-based study. Surgery 2102;151:199–205.
128. Luiten EJ, Hop WC, Lange JF et al. Controlled clinical trial of selective 151. Ayub K, Imada R, Slavin J. ERCP in gallstone associated acute pancreatitis.
decontamination for the treatment of severe acute pancreatitis. Ann Surg Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004:CD003630.
1995;222:57–65. 152. Adler DG, Chari ST, Dahl TJ et al. Conservative management of infected
129. Besselink MG, van Santvoort HC, Buskens E et al. Probiotic prophylaxis necrosis complicating severe acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol
in predicted severe acute pancreatitis: a randomised, double-blind, 2003;98:98–103.
placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2008;371:651–9. 153. van Baal MC, van Santvoort HC, Bollen TL et al. Systematic review of
130. Sun S, Yang K, He X et al. Langenbecks Probiotics in patients with severe percutaneous catheter drainage as primary treatment for necrotizing
acute pancreatitis: a meta-analysis. Arch Surg 2009;394:171–7. pancreatitis. Br J Surg 2011;98:18–27.
131. Hartwig W, Maksan SM, Foitzik T et al. Reduction in mortality with 154. Bakker OJ, van Santvoort HC, van Brunschott S et al. Endoscopic trans-
delayed surgical therapy of severe pancreatitis. J Gastrointest Surg gastric vs surgical necrosectomy for infected necrotizing pancreatitis;
2002;6:481–7. a randomized trial. JAMA 2012;307:1053–61.
132. Dubner H, Steinberg W, Hill M et al. Infected pancreatic necrosis and 155. Vege SS, Baron TH. Management of pancreatic necrosis in severe acute
peripancreatic fluid collections: serendipitous response to antibiotics and pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004;99:2489–94.
medical therapy in three patients. Pancreas 12;298:1996. 156. van Santvoort HC, Bakker OJ, Bollen T et al. A conservative and mini-
133. Runzi M, Niebel W, Goebell H et al. Severe acute pancreatitis: non surgical mally invasive approach to necrotizing pancreatitis improves the outcome.
treatment of infected necrosis. Pancreas 2005;30:195–9. Gastroenterology 2011;141:1254–63.
134. Garg PK, Sharma M, Madan K et al. Primary conservative treatment 157. Hong S, Qiwen B, Ying J et al. Body mass index and the risk and prog-
results in mortality comparable to surgery in patients with infected nosis of acute pancreatitis: a meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol
pancreatic necrosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;8:1089–94. 2011;12:136–43.

www.medlive.cn
|

American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines: Management of Acute Pancreatitis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines: Management of Acute Pancreatitis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines: Management of Acute Pancreatitis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

nature publishing group PRACTICE GUIDELINES 1

American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines:

Am J Gastroenterol advance online publication, 30 July 2013; doi:10.1038/ajg.2013.218

© 2013 by the American College of Gastroenterology

The American Journal of GASTROENTEROLOGY

Table 2. Summary of recommendations

© 2013 by the American College of Gastroenterology

The American Journal of GASTROENTEROLOGY

© 2013 by the American College of Gastroenterology

patients typically would have substantially improved and begun

The American Journal of GASTROENTEROLOGY

patients with persistent SIRS, particularly those who are tachypnic

© 2013 by the American College of Gastroenterology

laboratory markers, the use of hematocrit (62), BUN (63,83), ERCP IN AP

The American Journal of GASTROENTEROLOGY

© 2013 by the American College of Gastroenterology

The American Journal of GASTROENTEROLOGY

Infected necrosis accurate in distinguishing infected and sterile necrosis

THE ROLE OF CT FNA

Figure 1. Management of pancreatic necrosis when infection is suspected.

© 2013 by the American College of Gastroenterology

The American Journal of GASTROENTEROLOGY

© 2013 by the American College of Gastroenterology

The American Journal of GASTROENTEROLOGY

© 2013 by the American College of Gastroenterology

The American Journal of GASTROENTEROLOGY

You might also like