13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Call for Papers: Artificial Intelligence in Gastroenterology

      Submit here before May 31, 2024

      About Digestion: 3.2 Impact Factor I 6.4 CiteScore I 0.914 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      IAP Guidelines for the Surgical Management of Acute Pancreatitis

      guideline

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          During 2002 the International Association of Pancreatology developed evidenced-based guidelines on the surgical management of acute pancreatitis. There were 11 guidelines, 10 of which were recommendations grade B and one (the second) grade A. (1) Mild acute pancreatitis is not an indication for pancreatic surgery. (2) The use of prophylactic broad-spectrum antibiotics reduces infection rates in computed tomography-proven necrotizing pancreatitis but may not improve survival. (3) Fine-needle aspiration for bacteriology should be performed to differentiate between sterile and infected pancreatic necrosis in patients with sepsis syndrome. (4) Infected pancreatic necrosis in patients with clinical signs and symptoms of sepsis is an indication for intervention including surgery and radiological drainage. (5) Patients with sterile pancreatic necrosis (with negative fine-needle aspiration for bacteriology) should be managed conservatively and only undergo intervention in selected cases. (6) Early surgery within 14 days after onset of the disease is not recommended in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis unless there are specific indications. (7) Surgical and other forms of interventional management should favor an organ-preserving approach, which involves debridement or necrosectomy combined with a postoperative management concept that maximizes postoperative evacuation of retroperitoneal debris and exudate. (8) Cholecystectomy should be performed to avoid recurrence of gallstone-associated acute pancreatitis. (9) In mild gallstone-associated acute pancreatitis, cholecystectomy should be performed as soon as the patient has recovered and ideally during the same hospital admission. (10) In severe gallstone-associated acute pancreatitis, cholecystectomy should be delayed until there is sufficient resolution of the inflammatory response and clinical recovery. (11) Endoscopic sphincterotomy is an alternative to cholecystectomy in those who are not fit to undergo surgery in order to lower the risk of recurrence of gallstone-associated acute pancreatitis. There is however a theoretical risk of introducing infection into sterile pancreatic necrosis. These guidelines should now form the basis for audit studies in order to determine the quality of patient care delivery.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Acute necrotizing pancreatitis: treatment strategy according to the status of infection.

          To determine benefits of conservative versus surgical treatment in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Infection of pancreatic necrosis is the most important risk factor contributing to death in severe acute pancreatitis, and it is generally accepted that infected pancreatic necrosis should be managed surgically. In contrast, the management of sterile pancreatic necrosis accompanied by organ failure is controversial. Recent clinical experience has provided evidence that conservative management of sterile pancreatic necrosis including early antibiotic administration seems promising. A prospective single-center trial evaluated the role of nonsurgical management including early antibiotic treatment in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Pancreatic infection, if confirmed by fine-needle aspiration, was considered an indication for surgery, whereas patients without signs of pancreatic infection were treated without surgery. Between January 1994 and June 1999, 204 consecutive patients with acute pancreatitis were recruited. Eighty-six (42%) had necrotizing disease, of whom 57 (66%) had sterile and 29 (34%) infected necrosis. Patients with infected necrosis had more organ failures and a greater extent of necrosis compared with those with sterile necrosis. When early antibiotic treatment was used in all patients with necrotizing pancreatitis (imipenem/cilastatin), the characteristics of pancreatic infection changed to predominantly gram-positive and fungal infections. Fine-needle aspiration showed a sensitivity of 96% for detecting pancreatic infection. The death rate was 1.8% (1/56) in patients with sterile necrosis managed without surgery versus 24% (7/29) in patients with infected necrosis (P <.01). Two patients whose infected necrosis could not be diagnosed in a timely fashion died while receiving nonsurgical treatment. Thus, an intent-to-treat analysis (nonsurgical vs. surgical treatment) revealed a death rate of 5% (3/58) with conservative management versus 21% (6/28) with surgery. These results support nonsurgical management, including early antibiotic treatment, in patients with sterile pancreatic necrosis. Patients with infected necrosis still represent a high-risk group in severe acute pancreatitis, and for them surgical treatment seems preferable.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Late mortality in patients with severe acute pancreatitis.

            Mortality due to severe or necrotizing acute pancreatitis most often results from multiorgan dysfunction syndrome (MODS) occurring either early (within the first 14 days) or 2 weeks or more after the onset of symptoms due to septic complications. The aim of this study was to analyse the course of the disease in patients who died from severe acute pancreatitis. Between January 1994 and August 2000 details of 263 consecutive patients with acute pancreatitis were entered prospectively into a database. All patients were treated in an intermediate or intensive care unit. The overall mortality rate was 4 per cent (ten of 263 patients). The mortality rate was 9 per cent (ten of 106) in patients with necrotizing disease. No patient died within the first 2 weeks of disease onset. The median day of death was 91 (range 15-209). Six patients died from septic MODS. Ranson score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score during the first week of disease, pre-existing co-morbidity, body mass index, infection and extent of necrosis were significantly associated with death (P < 0.01 for all parameters). However, only infection of the necrotic pancreas was an independent risk factor in the multivariate analysis. Early deaths in patients with severe acute pancreatitis are rare, mainly as a result of modern intensive care treatment. Nine of the ten deaths occurred more than 3 weeks after disease onset. Infection of pancreatic necrosis was the main risk factor for death.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Early treatment of acute biliary pancreatitis by endoscopic papillotomy.

              Most patients with acute biliary pancreatitis have stones in the biliary tract or ampulla of Vater. Because these stones may be passed spontaneously soon after a patient is admitted to the hospital, the importance of early operative removal is not known. We tested the hypothesis that endoscopic papillotomy within 24 hours of admission decreased the incidence of complications in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis. We studied 195 patients with acute pancreatitis who were randomly assigned to one of two groups: 97 patients underwent within 24 hours after admission emergency endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by endoscopic papillotomy for ampullary and common-bile-duct stones, and 98 patients received initial conservative treatment and selective ERCP with or without endoscopic papillotomy only if their condition deteriorated. One hundred twenty-seven patients ultimately proved to have biliary stones. Emergency ERCP with or without endoscopic papillotomy resulted in a reduction in biliary sepsis as compared with conservative treatment (0 of 97 patients vs. 12 of 98 patients, P = 0.001). The decrease in biliary sepsis occurred both in patients predicted to have mild pancreatitis (0 of 56 patients in the group that received emergency ERCP vs. 4 of 58 patients in the conservative-treatment group, P = 0.14) and in patients predicted to have severe pancreatitis (0 of 41 patients vs. 8 of 40 patients, P = 0.008). In all patients who had unrelenting biliary sepsis, persistent ampullary or common-bile-duct stones were identified. There were no major differences in the incidence of local complications (10 patients in the group that received emergency ERCP vs. 12 patients in the conservative-treatment group) or systemic complications (10 patients vs. 14 patients) of acute pancreatitis between the two groups, but the hospital mortality rate was slightly lower in the group undergoing emergency ERCP with or without endoscopic papillotomy (5 patients vs. 9 patients, P = 0.4). Emergency ERCP with or without endoscopic papillotomy is indicated in the treatment of patients with acute pancreatitis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                PAN
                Pancreatology
                10.1159/issn.1424-3903
                Pancreatology
                S. Karger AG
                1424-3903
                1424-3911
                2002
                2002
                28 November 2002
                : 2
                : 6
                : 565-573
                Affiliations
                aDepartment of General Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Germany; bDepartment of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass., USA; cLister Department of Surgery, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK; dEndocrinochirurgia, University of Verona, Policlinico B. Roma, Verona, Italy; eMedizinische Klinik, Städtisches Klinikum Lüneburg, Germany; fDepartment of Gastroenterology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., USA; gDepartment of Gastroenterology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Mass., USA; hDepartment of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pa., USA; iDepartment of Surgery, Agia Olga Hospital, Athens, Greece; jDepartment of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA; kFirst Department of Surgery, Osaka City University Medical School, Osaka, Japan; lDepartment of Surgery, University of Liverpool, UK, and mDepartment of Surgery, Mater Misericordiae Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
                Article
                71269 Pancreatology 2002;2:565–573
                10.1159/000071269
                12435871
                b40c47f9-b255-477a-9633-d04d2186696f
                © 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel and IAP

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                History
                Page count
                References: 86, Pages: 9
                Categories
                Guidelines

                Oncology & Radiotherapy,Gastroenterology & Hepatology,Surgery,Nutrition & Dietetics,Internal medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article