Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Sections
    • Collections
  • Podcasts
  • Author Info
    • Overview for authors
    • Publication fees
    • Forms
    • Editorial policies
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
  • Careers
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CMAJ Open
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CJS
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CMAJ Open
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CJS

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Sections
    • Collections
  • Podcasts
  • Author Info
    • Overview for authors
    • Publication fees
    • Forms
    • Editorial policies
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
  • Careers
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact
  • Subscribe to our alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow CJS on Twitter
Review

Clinical practice guideline: management of acute pancreatitis

Joshua A. Greenberg, Jonathan Hsu, Mohammad Bawazeer, John Marshall, Jan O. Friedrich, Avery Nathens, Natalie Coburn, Gary R. May, Emily Pearsall and Robin S. McLeod
CAN J SURG April 01, 2016 59 (2) 128-140; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.015015
Joshua A. Greenberg
From the Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Greenberg, Bawazeer, Nathens, Coburn, Pearsall, McLeod); the Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Hsu, Friedrich, May); the Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Bawazeer, Friedrich); the Division of General Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Zane Cohen Centre for Digestive Diseases, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (Hsu, Pearsall, McLeod); the Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Division of General Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ont. (Nathens, Coburn); and the Divisions of Gastroenterology and General Surgery (Marshall) and Critical Care (Friedrich), St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jonathan Hsu
From the Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Greenberg, Bawazeer, Nathens, Coburn, Pearsall, McLeod); the Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Hsu, Friedrich, May); the Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Bawazeer, Friedrich); the Division of General Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Zane Cohen Centre for Digestive Diseases, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (Hsu, Pearsall, McLeod); the Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Division of General Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ont. (Nathens, Coburn); and the Divisions of Gastroenterology and General Surgery (Marshall) and Critical Care (Friedrich), St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mohammad Bawazeer
From the Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Greenberg, Bawazeer, Nathens, Coburn, Pearsall, McLeod); the Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Hsu, Friedrich, May); the Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Bawazeer, Friedrich); the Division of General Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Zane Cohen Centre for Digestive Diseases, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (Hsu, Pearsall, McLeod); the Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Division of General Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ont. (Nathens, Coburn); and the Divisions of Gastroenterology and General Surgery (Marshall) and Critical Care (Friedrich), St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John Marshall
From the Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Greenberg, Bawazeer, Nathens, Coburn, Pearsall, McLeod); the Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Hsu, Friedrich, May); the Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Bawazeer, Friedrich); the Division of General Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Zane Cohen Centre for Digestive Diseases, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (Hsu, Pearsall, McLeod); the Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Division of General Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ont. (Nathens, Coburn); and the Divisions of Gastroenterology and General Surgery (Marshall) and Critical Care (Friedrich), St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jan O. Friedrich
From the Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Greenberg, Bawazeer, Nathens, Coburn, Pearsall, McLeod); the Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Hsu, Friedrich, May); the Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Bawazeer, Friedrich); the Division of General Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Zane Cohen Centre for Digestive Diseases, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (Hsu, Pearsall, McLeod); the Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Division of General Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ont. (Nathens, Coburn); and the Divisions of Gastroenterology and General Surgery (Marshall) and Critical Care (Friedrich), St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Avery Nathens
From the Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Greenberg, Bawazeer, Nathens, Coburn, Pearsall, McLeod); the Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Hsu, Friedrich, May); the Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Bawazeer, Friedrich); the Division of General Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Zane Cohen Centre for Digestive Diseases, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (Hsu, Pearsall, McLeod); the Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Division of General Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ont. (Nathens, Coburn); and the Divisions of Gastroenterology and General Surgery (Marshall) and Critical Care (Friedrich), St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Natalie Coburn
From the Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Greenberg, Bawazeer, Nathens, Coburn, Pearsall, McLeod); the Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Hsu, Friedrich, May); the Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Bawazeer, Friedrich); the Division of General Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Zane Cohen Centre for Digestive Diseases, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (Hsu, Pearsall, McLeod); the Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Division of General Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ont. (Nathens, Coburn); and the Divisions of Gastroenterology and General Surgery (Marshall) and Critical Care (Friedrich), St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gary R. May
From the Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Greenberg, Bawazeer, Nathens, Coburn, Pearsall, McLeod); the Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Hsu, Friedrich, May); the Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Bawazeer, Friedrich); the Division of General Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Zane Cohen Centre for Digestive Diseases, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (Hsu, Pearsall, McLeod); the Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Division of General Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ont. (Nathens, Coburn); and the Divisions of Gastroenterology and General Surgery (Marshall) and Critical Care (Friedrich), St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Emily Pearsall
From the Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Greenberg, Bawazeer, Nathens, Coburn, Pearsall, McLeod); the Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Hsu, Friedrich, May); the Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Bawazeer, Friedrich); the Division of General Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Zane Cohen Centre for Digestive Diseases, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (Hsu, Pearsall, McLeod); the Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Division of General Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ont. (Nathens, Coburn); and the Divisions of Gastroenterology and General Surgery (Marshall) and Critical Care (Friedrich), St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robin S. McLeod
From the Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Greenberg, Bawazeer, Nathens, Coburn, Pearsall, McLeod); the Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Hsu, Friedrich, May); the Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. (Bawazeer, Friedrich); the Division of General Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Zane Cohen Centre for Digestive Diseases, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (Hsu, Pearsall, McLeod); the Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont. (McLeod); the Division of General Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ont. (Nathens, Coburn); and the Divisions of Gastroenterology and General Surgery (Marshall) and Critical Care (Friedrich), St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

There has been an increase in the incidence of acute pancreatitis reported worldwide. Despite improvements in access to care, imaging and interventional techniques, acute pancreatitis continues to be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite the availability of clinical practice guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis, recent studies auditing the clinical management of the condition have shown important areas of noncompliance with evidence-based recommendations. This underscores the importance of creating understandable and implementable recommendations for the diagnosis and management of acute pancreatitis. The purpose of the present guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of both mild and severe acute pancreatitis as well as the management of complications of acute pancreatitis and of gall stone–induced pancreatitis.

Une hausse de l’incidence de pancréatite aiguë a été constatée à l’échelle mondiale. Malgré l’amélioration de l’accès aux soins et aux techniques d’imagerie et d’intervention, la pancréatite aiguë est toujours associée à une morbidité et une mortalité importantes. Bien qu’il existe des guides de pratique clinique pour la prise en charge de la pancréatite aiguë, des études récentes sur la vérification de la prise en charge clinique de cette affection révèlent des lacunes importantes dans la conformité aux recommandations fondées sur des données probantes. Ces résultats mettent en relief l’importance de formuler des recommandations compréhensibles et applicables pour le diagnostic et la prise en charge de la pancréatite aiguë. La présente ligne directrice vise à fournir des recommandations fondées sur des données probantes pour la prise en charge de la pancréatite aiguë, qu’elle soit bénigne ou grave, ainsi que de ses complications et de celles de la pancréatite causée par un calcul biliaire.

Acute pancreatitis can range from a mild, self-limiting disease that requires no more than supportive measures to severe disease with life-threatening complications. The most common causes of acute pancreatitis are gallstones and binge alcohol consumption.1 There has been an increase in the incidence of acute pancreatitis reported worldwide. Despite improvements in access to care, imaging and interventional techniques, acute pancreatitis continues to be associated with significant morbidity and mortality.

A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis revealed 14 guidelines published between 2004 and 2008 alone.2 Although these guidelines have significant overlap in their recommendations for diagnosing and managing acute pancreatitis, there is disagreement in some aspects of both the timing and types of interventions that should be used for both mild and severe acute pancreatitis. The availability of new imaging modalities and noninvasive therapies has also changed clinical practice. Finally, despite the availability of guidelines, recent studies auditing clinical management of acute pancreatitis have shown important areas of noncompliance with evidence-based recommendations.3–9 This underscores the importance of creating understandable and implementable recommendations for the diagnosis and management of acute pancreatitis and emphasizes the need for regular audits of clinical practice within a given hospital to ensure compliance.

The purpose of the present guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of both mild and severe acute pancreatitis as well as the management of complications of acute pancreatitis and of gall stone–induced pancreatitis.

Methodology

The guideline was developed under the auspices of the Best Practice in General Surgery group at the University of Toronto. Best Practice in General Surgery is a quality initiative aimed to provide standardized evidence-based care to all general surgery patients treated at the University of Toronto adult teaching hospitals. A working group consisting of general surgeons, critical care intensivists and a gastroenterologist led the development of these recommendations. The working group established the research questions, the analytical framework and clinically relevant outcomes for the guideline. The recommendations pertain to patients with a new presentation of suspected acute pancreatitis. Primary outcomes are complications, both infectious and noninfectious; mortality; length of hospital stay; and readmissions associated with acute pancreatitis. Definitions of key terms were based on the 2012 Atlanta Classification of Acute Pancreatitis10 (Box 1).

Box 1

Definitions of key terms (based on the 2012 Atlanta Classification of Acute Pancreatitis10)

Diagnosis of acute pancreatitis (2 of the following)

  • Abdominal pain (acute onset of a persistent, severe, epigastric pain often radiating to the back)

  • Serum lipase activity (or amylase) at least 3 times greater than the upper limit of normal

  • Characteristic findings of acute pancreatitis on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging

Mild acute pancreatitis

  • No organ failure, local or systemic complications

Moderately severe acute pancreatitis

  • Organ failure that resolves within 48 h and/or

  • Local or systemic complications without persistent organ failure

Severe acute pancreatitis

  • Persistent organ failure > 48 h

Interstitial edematous acute pancreatitis

  • Acute inflammation of the pancreatic parenchyma and peri-pancreatic tissues, but without recognizable tissue necrosis

Necrotizing acute pancreatitis

  • Inflammation associated with pancreatic parenchymal necrosis and/or peri-pancreatic necrosis

Organ failure and systemic complications of acute pancreatitis

  • Respiratory: Pao2/FiO2 ≤ 300

  • Cardiovascular: systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg (off inotropic support), not fluid responsive, or pH < 7.3

  • Renal: serum creatinine ≥ 170 μmol/L

Local complications of acute pancreatitis

  • Acute peripancreatic fluid collections

  • Pancreatic pseudocysts

  • Acute necrotic collections

  • Walled-off pancreatic necrosis

Initially, we performed a scoping review to identify clinical practice guidelines related to the management of acute pancreatitis. We then searched Medline for guidelines published between 2002 and 2014 using the Medical Subject Headings “pancreatitis” and “clinical practice guideline.” This search identified 14 guidelines published between 2008 and 2014. A 2010 systematic review of acute pancreatitis clinical practice guidelines that included all of the most recent guidelines was identified.2

Another electronic search of Medline was performed using the Medical Subject Headings “pancreatitis,” “acute necrotizing pancreatitis,” “alcoholic pancreatitis,” and “practice guidelines” to update the systematic review. The results were limited to articles published in English between January 2007 and January 2014. The references of relevant guidelines were reviewed. Up-to-date articles on acute pancreatitis diagnosis and management were also reviewed for their references11 (as of January 2014).

The working group developed the guideline recommendations based on evidence as well as consensus. Then the guideline recommendations were circulated to all general surgeons, gastroenterologists and critical care intensivists at the University of Toronto for feedback.

Guideline recommendations

Table 1 summarizes the guideline recommendations and grading.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Summary and grading of recommendations

1. Diagnosis of acute pancreatitis

  • 1.1 A serum lipase test should be performed in all patients with a suspected diagnosis of acute pancreatitis. A 3-fold elevation of serum lipase from the upper limit of normal is required to make the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis.

  • 1.2 Ultrasonography should be performed in all patients at baseline to evaluate the biliary tract and in particular to determine if the patient has gallstones and/or a stone in the common bile duct (CBD).

  • 1.3 Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is recommended only in patients in whom there is elevation of liver enzymes and in whom the CBD is either not visualized adequately or is found to be normal on ultrasound.

  • 1.4 Computed tomography (CT) should be performed selectively when 1) a patient presents with substantial abdominal pain and a broad differential diagnosis that includes acute pancreatitis, or 2) in patients with suspected local complications of acute pancreatitis (e.g., peritonitis, signs of shock, suggestive ultrasound findings). Computed tomography for the assessment of local complications is most useful 48–72 hours after the onset of symptoms rather than at the time of admission. Unless contraindicated (e.g., renal dysfunction), intravenous contrast should be given in order to assess for pancreatic necrosis once patients are adequately fluid resuscitated and normovolemia is restored.

2. Assessment of severity

  • 2.1 A serum C-reactive protein (CRP) level of 14 286 nmol/L (150 mg/dL) or greater at baseline or in the first 72 hours is suggestive of severe acute pancreatitis and is predictive of a worse clinical course. Thus, CRP should be assessed at admission and daily for the first 72 hours after admission.

  • 2.2 Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II Scores should be calculated on admission and daily for the first 72 hours after admission. An APACHE II Score of 8 or higher at baseline or in the first 72 hours is suggestive of severe acute pancreatitis and is predictive of a worse clinical course.

  • 2.3 Severe acute pancreatitis should be diagnosed if a patient exhibits signs of persistent organ failure for more than 48 hours despite adequate intravenous fluid resuscitation.

3. Supportive care

  • 3.1 Supportive care, including resuscitation with isotonic intravenous fluids (e.g., Ringer’s Lactate solution), pain control and mobilization should be the mainstay of treatment of patients with mild acute pancreatitis.

  • 3.2 Careful consideration of transfer to a monitored unit should be made in patients with 1) severe acute pancreatitis based on an APACHE II Score greater than 8, CRP greater than 14 286 nmol/L (150 mg/L), or organ dysfunction for more than 48 hours despite adequate resuscitation; 2) evidence of present or evolving organ dysfunction defined as follows

  • Respiratory (PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 300 or respiratory rate > 20 breaths per min)

  • Cardiovascular (hypotension despite aggressive fluid resuscitation [systolic blood pressure (sBP) < 90 mm Hg off of inotropic support or drop of sBP > 40], need for vasopressors [not fluid responsive], or pH < 7.3)

  • Renal (≥ 1.5-fold increase in serum creatinine over 7 d, increase of ≥ 26.5 μmol in serum creatinine over 48 h, urine output < 0.5mL/kg/h for ≥ 6 h);

  • and/or 3) the need for aggressive, ongoing fluid resuscitation defined as evidence of severe hemoconcentration (hemoglobin [Hb] > 160, hematocrit [HCT] > 0.500). Patients with 1 or more of the above criteria and a body mass index (BMI) above 30 (or BMI > 25 in Asian populations) should be monitored carefully, with a lower threshold for transfer to a monitored unit given the worse course of disease in the obese patient population.

4. Nutrition

  • 4.1 Patients who present with mild acute pancreatitis should receive a regular diet on admission. If patients are unable to tolerate an oral diet owing to abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, or ileus, they may be allowed to self-advance their diet from withholding oral food and fluids (NPO) to a regular diet as tolerated.

  • 4.2 In patients with severe acute pancreatitis, enteral nutrition should be commenced as soon as possible following admission (within 48 h). A nasojejunal tube is not superior to a nasogastric feeding tube; thus commencement of feeds should not be delayed for the purpose of placing a nasojejunal feeding tube. Enteral feeding is recommended over parenteral nutrition.

5. Prophylactic antibiotics

  • 5.1 Prophylactic antibiotics are not recommended in patients with mild or severe acute pancreatitis.

6. Diagnosis and management of local complications of acute pancreatitis

  • 6.1 Repeat CT should be considered with new (or unresolving) evidence of infection (e.g., leukocytosis, fever) without a known source, new inability to tolerate oral/enteral feeds, change in hemodynamic status, or evidence of bleeding.

  • 6.2 Patients who have extensive necrotizing acute pancreatitis, who show no clinical signs of improvement following appropriate initial management, or in whom other complications develop should be managed in consultation with, or at institutions with therapeutic endoscopy, interventional radiology, surgical and intensive care expertise in dealing with severe acute pancreatitis.

  • 6.3 Patients with acute peripancreatic fluid collections with no radiological or clinical suspicion of sepsis should be observed, and image-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) should be avoided owing to the risk of introducing infection into a sterile collection.

  • 6.4 When there is radiological or clinical suspicion of infected necrosis in patients with acute necrotic collections (ANCs) or walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN), image-guided FNA with culture should be performed to distinguish infected from sterile necrosis.

  • 6.5 Sterile necrosis based on negative FNA and/or stable clinical picture should be managed nonoperatively, and antibiotics are not indicated. The exception is unstable patients in whom sepsis is suspected but no source has been identified; in these patients, treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics on speculation may be indicated while an appropriate workup (bacterial and fungal cultures, CT) is carried out.

  • 6.6 Antibiotics should be prescribed only in patients with infected necrosis confirmed by FNA or if there is gas within a collection visualized on CT scan. Antimicrobial therapy should be tailored to FNA culture speciation and sensitivities; however, empiric treatment with antibiotics active against the most common pathogens in infected pancreatic necrosis (Escherichia coli, Bacteroides species, Enterobacter species, Klebsiella species and Streptococcus faecalis as well as other gram positive organisms, such as Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus) may be considered until final culture results are available.

  • 6.7 In patients with FNA-confirmed infections of ANCs or WOPN, a step-up approach of antibiotics and image-guided drainage, followed by surgical intervention if necessary, is indicated. Surgical consultation should occur early; however, surgical intervention should be delayed until later in the course of disease whenever possible. Minimally invasive image-guided or endoscopic drainage is recommended as first line therapy, and multiple drains may be necessary. Surgery should be considered for patients in whom less invasive approaches fail, but should be delayed long enough to allow demarcation of necrotic pancreatic tissue.

  • 6.8 Pancreatic pseudocysts that are asymptomatic should be managed nonoperatively. Intervention is indicated in pseudocysts that are symptomatic, infected, or increasing in size on serial imaging, and should be performed in a high-volume centre.

7. Management of patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis

  • 7.1 Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) should be performed early (within 24–48 h) in patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis associated with bile duct obstruction or cholangitis. In unstable patients with severe acute gallstone pancreatitis and associated bile duct obstruction or cholangitis, placement of a percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage tube should be considered if ERCP is not safely feasible.

  • 7.2 Cholecystectomy should be performed during the index admission in patients who have mild acute pancreatitis and should be delayed until clinical resolution in patients who have severe acute pancreatitis.

  • 7.3 If cholecystectomy is contraindicated in patients because of medical comorbidities, ERCP and sphincterotomy should be considered prior to discharge in patients with acute gall stone pancreatitis.

Summary of the evidence

Diagnosis of acute pancreatitis

Serum lipase has a slightly higher sensitivity for detection of acute pancreatitis, and elevations occur earlier and last longer than with elevations in serum amylase.12,13 One study demonstrated that at day 0–1 from onset of symptoms, serum lipase had a sensitivity approaching 100% compared with 95% for serum amylase.13 For days 2–3 at a sensitivity set to 85%, the specificity of lipase was 82% compared with 68% for amylase. Serum lipase is therefore especially useful in patients who present late to hospital. Serum lipase is also more sensitive than serum amylase in patients with acute pancreatitis secondary to alcohol overuse.12 Furthermore, simultaneous determination of serum lipase and amylase only marginally improve the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis in patients with acute abdominal pain.13

Biliary stones and alcohol overuse are the causes of acute pancreatitis in 70%–80% of cases.14 It is important to distinguish between these etiologies owing to differences in management. Right upper quadrant ultrasonography is the primary imaging modality for suspected acute biliary pancreatitis owing to its low cost, availability and lack of associated radiation exposure.15 Ultrasonography has a sensitivity and specificity greater than 95% in the detection of gallstones, although the sensitivity may be slightly lower in the context of ileus with bowel distension, commonly associated with acute pancreatitis.16–19 Ultrasonography can also identify gallbladder wall thickening and edema, gallbladder sludge, pericholecystic fluid and a sonographic Murphy sign, consistent with acute cholecystitis. When these signs are present, the positive predictive value of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis is greater than 90%, and additional studies are rarely needed.20

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography is useful in identifying CBD stones and delineating pancreatic and biliary tract anatomy. A systematic review that included a total of 67 studies found that the overall sensitivity and specificity of MRCP to diagnose biliary obstruction were 95% and 97%, respectively. Sensitivity was slightly lower, at 92%, for detection of biliary stones.21 However, the cost of MRCP should limit its use in the diagnosis of gallstones or acute cholecystitis especially with the availability and utility of ultrasonography for the same purpose.22

In severe disease, CT is useful to distinguish between interstitial acute pancreatitis and necrotizing acute pancreatitis and to rule out local complications.23 However, in acute pancreatitis these distinctions typically occur more than 3–4 days from onset of symptoms, which makes CT of limited use on admission unless there is a broad differential diagnosis that must be narrowed.23,24

Assessment of severity

Levels of serum CRP above 14 286 nmol/L (150 mg/dL) at 48 hours from admission help discriminate severe from mild disease. At 48 hours, serum CRP levels above 14 286 nmol/L (150 mg/dL) have a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 80%, 76%, 67%, and 86%, respectively, for severe acute pancreatitis.25 Levels greater than 17 143 nmol/L (180 mg/dL) within the first 72 hours of disease onset have been correlated with the presence of necrosis with the sensitivity and specificity both greater than 80%. Serum CRP generally peaks 36–72 hours after disease onset, so the test is not helpful in assessing severity on admission.26,27 C-reactive protein rises steadily in relation to the severity of acute pancreatitis and is inexpensive to measure, and testing is readily available.28–30

A variety of reports have correlated a higher APACHE II Score at admission and during the first 72 hours with a higher mortality (< 4% with an APACHE II Score < 8 and 11%–18% with an APACHE II Score ≥ 8).31–37 The advantage of using the APACHE II Score is the availability of this information within the first 24 hours and daily thereafter. In general, an APACHE II Score that increases during the first 48 hours is strongly predictive of the development of severe acute pancreatitis, whereas an APACHE II Score that decreases within the first 48 hours strongly predicts mild acute pancreatitis. There are some limitations in the ability of the APACHE II Score to stratify patients for disease severity. For example, studies have shown that it has limited ability to distinguish between interstitial and necrotizing acute pancreatitis, which confer different prognoses.36,38,39 At 24 hours, the Score also has limited utility. In a recent report, APACHE II Scores generated within the first 24 hours had a positive predictive value of only 43% and negative predictive value of 86% for severe acute pancreatitis.40 Even with its limitations, a study of 49 patients found that generic measures of disease severity like the APACHE II Score were superior to disease-specific scoring systems in predicting mortality.41 For instance, the Ranson score was found to be a poor predictor of severity in a meta-analysis of 110 studies.42

The organ failure–based criteria for the prediction of severity in acute pancreatitis are taken, in part, from the modified Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score43 presented by Banks and colleagues44 in their revision of the Atlanta Classification. A diagnosis of severe acute pancreatitis should also be made if a patient exhibits signs of persistent organ failure for more than 48 hours despite adequate intravenous fluid resuscitation. In a study of 174 patients who experienced early (within the first week) organ failure due to acute pancreatitis, Johnson and Abu-Hilal45 examined the mortality and morbidity associated with transient organ failure (resolving in < 48 h) and persistent organ failure (lasting > 48 h). In the transient organ failure group (n = 71) mortality was 1%, and 29% of these patients went on to experience local complications of acute pancreatitis; in the persistent organ failure group (n = 103) mortality was 35%, and 77% of patients experienced a local complication.45 In a study of 759 patients with acute pancreatitis, patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) lasting for more than 48 hours were demonstrated to have a significantly higher rate of multiorgan dysfunction (as determined by the mean Marshall Score) and death than those with transient SIRS lasting less than 48 hours (4 [25.4%] v. 3 [8%], p < 0.001).46

In a recent meta-analysis of 12 clinical studies examining the impact of obesity on severity of acute pancreatitis, Chen and colleagues47 demonstrated a significantly increased risk of severe acute pancreatitis (relative risk [RR] 2.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82–2.66), local complications (RR 2.68, 95% CI 2.09–3.43), systemic complications (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.42–3.21) and in-hospital mortality (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.66–4.03) in obese compared with nonobese patients. Owing to these increased risks, special consideration should be given to patients with suspected severe acute pancreatitis who have a BMI greater than 30 (or a BMI > 25 in Asian populations).

Supportive care

Animal studies have shown that aggressive fluid replacement supports pancreatic microcirculation and prevents necrosis.48 There have been no high-quality trials to test the effectiveness of aggressive fluid resuscitation in patients with acute pancreatitis, and the approach to fluid resuscitation in these patients remains an under-investigated topic.49 However, poor outcomes, including more deaths and necrosis, have been reported in patients in whom there was hemoconcentration. In an observational study, necrotizing acute pancreatitis developed in all patients who received inadequate fluid replacement as measured by a rise in hematocrit at 24 hours.50 Further, a recent randomized controlled trial (RCT)51 compared the use of normal saline versus Ringer’s Lactate in goal-directed and standard fluid resuscitation in patients with acute pancreatitis. In this RCT (n = 40), Wu and colleagues51 found that after 24 hours of resuscitation there was an 84% reduction in the incidence of SIRS in patients resuscitated with Ringer’s Lactate (p = 0.035) as well as a significant reduction in CRP from 9905 nmol/L (104 mg/dL) to 5143 nmol/L (54 mg/dL) when Ringer’s Lactate was selected over normal saline (p = 0.02).

Pain control is an important part of the supportive management of patients with acute pancreatitis. Therefore, in the absence of any patient-specific contraindications, a multimodal analgesic regimen is recommended, including narcotics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories and acetaminophen.52,53

There are no studies assessing the impact of different models of critical care delivery and outcomes in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. However, a systematic review of 26 observational studies showed that critically ill patients cared for by an intensivist or using an intensivist consultant model in a closed intensive care unit (ICU) had a shorter stay in the ICU and lower mortality than similar patients cared for in units without such staffing patterns.54

Nutrition

The underlying pathogenesis of acute pancreatitis is the premature activation of proteolytic enzymes resulting in the autodigestion of the pancreas. In the past, it was accepted practice that bowel rest would limit the inflammation associated with this process.55 Recently, however, a series of RCTs have convincingly shown that early oral/enteral feeding in patients with acute pancreatitis is not associated with adverse effects and may be associated with substantial decreases in pain, opioid usage and food intolerance.56–58 Furthermore, Eckerwall and colleagues59 demonstrated that oral feeding on admission for mild acute pancreatitis was associated with a significant decrease in length of stay from 6 to 4 days (p = 0.047) compared with withholding oral food and fluids.59 The major benefits from early feeding appear to be effective only if feeding is commenced within the first 48 hours following admission,60 and the current recommendation based on a 2010 meta-analysis of 32 RCTs is to commence oral feeding at the time of admission if tolerated or within the first 24 hours.60,61 Finally, a low-fat diet was shown to be preferable to clear fluids on admission for mild acute pancreatitis owing to a higher caloric intake with no associated adverse effects.57,58 There is no evidence to suggest that a low-fat diet is preferable to a regular diet.

A 2010 Cochrane meta-analysis of 8 RCTs involving 348 patients comparing enteral nutrition to total parenteral nutrition for acute pancreatitis showed reduced mortality (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28–0.91), multiorgan failure (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37–0.81), systemic infection (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.23–0.65), operative interventions (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.29–0.67), local septic complications (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.40–1.35), and other local complications (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.43–1.13).62 Mean length of hospital stay was reduced by 2.37 days in the enteral nutrition compared with the total parenteral nutrition group (95% CI −7.18 to 2.44). Furthermore, a subgroup analysis of enteral versus total parenteral nutrition in patients with severe acute pancreatitis showed an RR for death of 0.18 (95% CI 0.06–0.58) and an RR for multiorgan failure of 0.46 (95% CI 0.16–1.29). Several meta-analyses have shown similar results, with significant reductions in infectious complications, mortality and multiorgan dysfunction when enteral nutrition is commenced within the first 48 hours following admission.61,63,64

A meta-analysis65 of 4 prospective studies of patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis (n = 92) demonstrated no change in intolerance of feeding (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.46–2.59, p = 0.84) or in mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.37–1.62, p = 0.5) when given enteral feeds by nasogastric feeding tube versus nasojejunal feeding tube. In a more recent meta-analysis of 3 RCTs (n = 157), Chang and colleagues66 found no significant differences in mortality (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.37–1.29, p = 0.25), tracheal aspiration (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.14–1.53, p = 0.20), diarrhea (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.59–3.45, p = 0.43), exacerbation of pain (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.32–2.70, p = 0.90) and meeting energy balance (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92–1.09, p = 0.97) between patients fed through nasogastric and nasojejunal feeding tubes. While no high-quality RCTs exist on this topic, to date there has been no evidence to suggest that enteral feeds should be delayed for the purposes of acquiring a nasojejunal feeding tube, especially in light of morbidity and mortality benefits of commencing enteral feeds within the first 48 hours.

Although semi-elemental, immune-enhanced and probiotic enteral feeds showed initial promise in the management of severe acute pancreatitis, meta-analyses still indicate that there is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of any of these nutritional formulations at this time.61,67,68 Given its promise in the context of other critically ill and septic patients,69–71 the use of probiotics in the management of acute pancreatitis may yet prove effective as research continues.

Prophylactic antibiotics

A 2010 meta-analysis of 7 RCTs involving 404 patients comparing prophylactic antibiotics versus placebo in CT-proven necrotizing acute pancreatitis concluded that there was no statistically significant reduction of mortality with therapy (8.4% in the antibiotic group v. 14.4% in controls, p = 0.07), nor a significant reduction in infection rates of pancreatic necrosis (19.7% in the antibiotic group v. 24.4% in controls, p = 0.47). Nonpancreatic infection rates (23.7% in the antibiotic group v. 36% in controls, p = 0.08) and overall infections (37.5% in the antibiotic group v. 51.9% in controls, p = 0.12) were not significantly reduced with prophylactic antibiotics. The need for operative treatment and fungal infections were not significantly different.72

Similar results were found in a 2008 meta-analysis of 7 RCTs involving 467 patients with CT-proven necrotizing acute pancreatitis comparing prophylactic antibiotics with placebo or no treatment. The rate of infected pancreatic necrosis was not significantly different (17.8% in the antibiotic group v. 22.9% in controls, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54–1.22). There was a nonsignificant decrease in mortality in the antibiotic group compared with the control group (9.3% v. 15.2%, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.42–1.17). Subsequent subgroup analysis confirmed that antibiotics were not significantly superior to placebo or no treatment in reducing the rate of infected necrosis or mortality.73

A 2012 meta-analysis of 11 RCTs looking at the efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis calculated the number needed to treat to be 1429,74 and yet another meta-analysis of 14 RCTs (n = 841) showed no statistically significant reduction in mortality (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.50–1.07), incidence of infected pancreatic necrosis (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.60–1.02), incidence of nonpancreatic infections (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46–1.06), or in surgical interventions (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.72–1.20).75

In light of the lack of demonstrated benefit of prophylactic antibiotics in the treatment of acute pancreatitis, the adverse effects of this practice must be carefully considered. In a prospective, randomized controlled trial (n = 92), Maraví-Poma and colleages76 demonstrated a 3-fold increase in the incidence of local and systemic fungal infection with Candida albicans (from 7% to 22%) in patients with prolonged treatment with prophylactic antibiotics, a finding consistent with those of other similar studies.77–79 In addition, overuse of antibiotics is associated with the increased risk of antibiotic-associated diarrhea and Clostridium difficile colitis80 and with the selection of resistant organisms,81 all of which suggest that the adverse effects of prophylactic antibiotic coverage outweighs any benefit offered by the practice.

Diagnosis and management of local complications of acute pancreatitis

Two recent review articles on acute pancreatitis have summarized the importance of managing patients with complications of acute pancreatitis at high-volume centres in which all services are well versed in the multidisciplinary step up approach to severe and/or complicated disease.82,83

Computed tomography evidence of necrosis has been shown to correlate with the risk of other local and systemic complications.38,84,85 Local complications that can be recognized on abdominal CT scans include peripancreatic fluid collections, gastrointestinal and biliary complications (e.g., obstructions), solid organ involvement (e.g., splenic infarct), vascular complications (e.g., pseudoaneurysms, splenic vein thrombosis) and pancreatic ascites.86–88

Fine needle aspiration has been established as an accurate, safe and reliable technique for identification of infected acute peripancreatic fluid collections (APFCs), pancreatic pseudocysts, ANCs and WOPN.84,89–91 However, FNA of pancreatic pseudocysts, APFCs, ANCs and WOPN should not be performed in the absence of a clinically or radiologically suspected infection owing to the small but documented risk of introducing an FNA-associated infection into a previously sterile collection.92,93

Elevations in white blood cell count and temperature may occur in the context of sterile necrosis and be similar to those seen in patients with infected necrosis;36 therefore, it is difficult to distinguish between these conditions clinically. Fine needle aspiration has been established as an accurate, safe and reliable technique for identification of infected necrosis.84,89–91 A 1995 retrospective observational study90 assessed the value of CT-guided FNA in 104 patients with acute pancreatitis suspected of having pancreatic infection on the basis of systemic toxicity and CT evidence of severe acute pancreatitis. Cultures were positive in 58 out of 58 aspirates from the 51 patients with CT scans suspicious for infection, all but 2 of which were confirmed surgically (2 patients died without confirmation). Of the 53 patients with CT imaging suggestive of sterile acute pancreatitis, all but 2 aspirates judged to be sterile by FNA were validated on the basis of negative cultures obtained surgically or by clinical resolution of acute pancreatitis without the need for surgery (2 patients died without confirmation). There were no complications. These findings are consistent with those of other studies.84,89,91

Elevations in white blood cell count and temperature may occur in sterile necrosis and be similar to those seen in patients with infected necrosis.36 Therefore, it is difficult to distinguish between these conditions clinically, and if infected necrosis is suspected, an FNA is indicated to rule out infection. Most patients with sterile necrosis respond to conservative medical management.84,94 For these patients, there have been several retrospective reports suggesting that a delay in surgical necrosectomy and at times a total avoidance of surgery results in less morbidity and mortality than early surgical débridement.95–101 Second, when sterile necrosis is debrided surgically, a common sequela is the development of infected necrosis and the need for additional surgery.96,101–103 In at least 1 report, patients so treated had a very high mortality.101 Finally, in a randomized controlled trial95 that compared early to late surgery in a small number of patients with sterile necrosis, there was a trend toward greater mortality among those operated within the first 3 days after admission.

Antibiotics should be prescribed only in patients with infected necrosis confirmed by FNA or if there is gas within a collection visualized on CT scan. Antimicrobial therapy should be tailored to FNA culture speciation and sensitivities; however, empiric treatment with antibiotics active against the most common pathogens in infected pancreatic necrosis (E. coli, Bacteroides species, Enterobacter species, Klebsiella species and S. faecalis as well as other gram-positive organisms such as S. epidermidis and S. aureus103,104) may be considered until final culture results are available.

Although insufficient evidence exists to make definitive recommendations regarding empiric antimicrobial therapy choices in infected pancreatic necrosis, a number of studies have looked at the pancreatic penetration of various antibiotics. Imipenem and ertapenem have both been shown to penetrate pancreatic tissue and pancreatic fluid at levels exceeding the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC90)for the most commonly seen bacteria after as little as a single intravenous dose.105,106 Similar findings were documented for moxifloxacin, with concentrations greater than the MIC90 after a dose of 400 mg, either oral or intravenous.107 An in vitro study of the most commonly isolated bacteria from pancreatic necrosis — E. coli, Enterobacter cloacae, Enterococcus faecalis, Bacteroides fragilis — compared the effectiveness of imipenem, ertapenem and moxifloxacin against these pathogens. While all 3 antibiotics demonstrated good coverage in this in vitro acute pancreatitis model, moxifloxacin demonstrated superior activity against Enterococci and slightly better anaerobic coverage.108

The mortality of patients with infected pancreatic necrosis is higher than 30%, and up to 80% of fatal outcomes in patients with acute pancreatitis are due to septic complications resulting from pancreatic infection.24,109,110 The nonoperative management of infected pancreatic necrosis associated with multiple organ failure has a mortality of up to 100%.111 Surgical treatment of patients with infected pancreatic necrosis is associated with mortality as low as 10%–30% in some specialized centres.84,94,112 However, the benefit of a step-up approach to surgery was shown in a 2010 RCT that included 88 patients. Patients with confirmed or suspected infected necrosis were randomized to open necrosectomy or a step-up approach of percutaneous drainage followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive retroperitoneal necrosectomy. New-onset multiorgan failure occurred less often in patients assigned to the step-up approach than in those assigned to open necrosectomy (12% v. 40%, p = 0.002). Mortality did not differ significantly between groups (19% v. 16%, p = 0.70). Patients assigned to the step-up approach had a significantly lower rate of incisional hernias (7% v. 24%, p = 0.03) and new-onset diabetes (16% v. 38%, p = 0.02).113

A small RCT by Mier and colleagues95 compared mortality among 41 patients with fulminant acute pancreatitis undergoing either early (48–72 h after admission) or late necrosectomy (≥ 12 d after admission).95 The mortality odds ratio for the early surgery cohort compared with the late necrosectomy cohort was 3.94, and the study was stopped owing to this finding despite the fact that the small sample size resulted in a lack of statistical significance. Wittau and colleagues114 reported a similar and statistically significant reduction in mortality from 41% to 18% (p = 0.026) when necrosectomy was performed early in the course of illness (< 2–3 wk) compared with a delayed approach to surgical intervention (≥ 29 d).114 Accepted indications for necrosectomy still include persistent evidence of organ dysfunction and sepsis, or patients requiring ongoing treatment in the ICU for more than 1 month after admission for severe acute pancreatitis.

Walled-off pancreatic necrosis is the result of the organization of ANCs or APFCs over time by a wall of granulation or fibrotic tissue without epithelial lining.44,115 In the context of an FNA-proven infected WOPN, surgical intervention, if indicated, should be delayed until after the third or fourth week to allow demarcation of the viable pancreatic tissue and peripancreatic necrosis.116 If intervention is required before the fourth week, percutaneous drainage serves as a bridge to a more definitive procedure.115 Multiple treatment modalities have been described, including percutaneous retroperitoneal or endoscopic drainage as well as open or laparoscopic surgical approaches. Minimally invasive approaches (laparoscopic, percutaneous retroperitoneal, endoscopic) are equally effective as open surgical approach.117–119

A pancreatic pseudocyst is a collection of pancreatic fluid (either direct leakage from the inflamed gland or disruption of the pancreatic duct) enclosed by a nonepithelialized wall of granulation or fibrous tissue. They usually evolve more than 4 weeks after the onset of acute pancreatitis and contain pancreatic enzyme-rich fluid. They are most often sterile but can become infected.44,120 Half of all pseudocysts resolve spontaneously.121,122 Neither size nor duration of the pseudocyst are predictive of the natural course.123,124 Clinical signs of sepsis or the presence of air bubbles in a pseudocyst indicate potential infection. At this point, aspiration of the fluid with gram stain, culture and sensitivities is indicated. The most common bacteria cultured in an infected pseudocyst are enteric micro-organisms, such as E. coli, Bacteroides species, Enterobacter species, Klebsiella species and S. faecalis as well as other gram-positive organisms, such as S. epidermidis and S. aureus.103,104 General indications for intervention are symptomatic pseudocysts, complications or infection of a pseudocyst, or increasing size on serial imaging.125–128 Many options are available for the management of pancreatic pseudocysts, including percutaneous, endoscopic or surgical drainage (open and laparoscopic) and creation of a cystogastrostomy (endoscopically or surgicallly). These procedures should be performed at high-volume centres with integrated multidisciplinary teams.

Management of acute gallstone pancreatitis

A 2012 Cochrane meta-analysis129 included RCTs comparing early routine ERCP versus early conservative management with or without selective use of ERCP in patients with suspected acute gallstone pancreatitis. There were 5 RCTs with a total of 644 patients. Overall, there were no statistically significant differences between the 2 treatment strategies in mortality (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.18–3.03), local (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.52–1.43) or systemic complications (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.31–1.11) as defined by the Atlanta Classification. Among trials that included patients with cholangitis, the early routine ERCP strategy significantly reduced mortality (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06–0.68), local (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.20–0.99) and systemic complications (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18–0.78) as defined by the Atlanta Classification. Among trials that included patients with biliary obstruction, the early routine ERCP strategy was associated with a significant reduction in local complications as defined by authors of the primary study (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32–0.91), and a nonsignificant trend toward reduction of local (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.26–1.07) and systemic complications (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.30–1.02) as defined by the Atlanta Classification. Complications of ERCP were infrequent.

In an RCT from China (n = 101),130 patients with severe acute gallstone pancreatitis were randomized to early treatment (within 72 h of onset) with ERCP or image-guided percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGD). Success rates were comparable between the ERCP and PTGD (92% v. 96%, respectively), and 4-month mortality (p = 0.80), local complications (p = 0.59) and systemic complications (p = 0.51) did not differ significantly. The author concluded that PTGD is a safe, effective and minimally invasive option that should be considered for all patients with severe acute gallstone pancreatitis who are poor candidates for or who are unable to tolerate ERCP.130

A systematic review131 of 8 cohort studies (n = 948) and 1 RCT (n = 50) revealed that while the readmission rate for gallstone disease in patients admitted for acute gallstone pancreatitis and discharged without cholecystectomy was 18% within the first 58 days after discharge, it was 0% in the cohort that underwent index admission cholecystectomy (p < 0.001). These results are supported by several retrospective studies that also cited significantly higher recurrence rates of gallstone disease (15%–32%) in patients who did not undergo index admission cholecystectomy.132–134 The majority of these recurrent attacks occurred before the time of interval cholecystectomy.133,134

In an RCT that included 50 patients with mild acute gallstone pancreatitis, laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed within 48 hours of admission resulted in a shorter hospital stay (mean 3.5 [95% CI 2.7–4.3] d, median 3 [IQR 2–4] d) than one performed after resolution of pain and laboratory abnormalities (mean 5.8 [95% CI 3.8–7.9] d, median 4 [IQR 4–6] d, p = 0.002).135 A second study demonstrated similar findings, with a significant reduction in the mean total length of stay from 7 to 5 days (p < 0.001).134

While studies have demonstrated no increase in complication rates or mortality in patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis who underwent early versus late cholecystectomy,131,136 special consideration should be given to patients admitted for severe necrotizing acute pancreatitis and/or requiring ICU admission. In this patient population, delaying cholecystectomy for at least 3 weeks may be reasonable because of an increased risk of infection.137

High recurrence rates of gallstone disease in patients admitted for acute gallstone pancreatitis and discharged without cholecystectomy has prompted several studies addressing the effectiveness of ERCP and sphincterotomy to reduce this risk. In a prospective study of 233 patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis, a subgroup analysis of patients discharged without undergoing cholecystectomy revealed that 37% of patients discharged with no intervention had recurrent gallstone disease within 30 days compared with 0% of patients who underwent ERCP and sphincterotomy alone (p = 0.019).132 In a retrospective analysis of 1119 patients admitted for acute gallstone pancreatitis, Hwang and colleagues133 reported a reduction of recurrent gallstone disease from 17% to 8% (p < 0.001) with ERCP and sphincterotomy alone, as opposed to no intervention in individuals discharged home without cholecystectomy.133 A systematic review of 8 cohort studies and 1 RCT demonstrated a similar reduction in biliary events from 24% to 10% (p < 0.001) when patients not undergoing index admission cholecystectomy underwent ERCP and sphincterotomy before discharge.131 These data strongly support the consideration of ERCP with sphincterotomy for patients unable to tolerate surgery on the index admission owing to comorbidities or deconditioning.

All data regarding the use of ERCP with sphincterotomy to prevent recurrent complications of gallstone disease have been generated in patients with mild to moderate acute gallstone pancreatitis, and currently, there is a lack of evidence on which to base definitive recommendations for the management of patients with severe and complicated acute gallstone pancreatitis.

Acknowledgements

R. McLeod holds the Angelo and Alfredo De Gasperis Chair in Colorectal Cancer and IBD Research. N. Coburn holds the Hanna Family Research Chair in Surgical Oncology. A. Nathens holds the Canada Research Chair in Systems of Trauma Care.

Footnotes

  • Presented in part at the Canadian Surgery Forum, Sept. 21, 2014, Vancouver, BC.

  • Competing interests: None declared.

  • Contributors: M. Bawazeer, J. Friedrich, A. Nathens, G. May and R. McLeod designed the study. J. Greenberg, J. Hsu, N. Coburn, E. Pearsall and R. McLeod acquired the data, which J. Greenberg, J. Hsu, M. Bawazeer, J. Marshall, J. Friedrich, N. Coburn, G. May and R. McLeod analyzed. J. Greenberg, M. Bawazeer, A. Nathens, G. May and E. Pearsall wrote the article, which all authors reviewed and approved for publication.

  • Accepted December 7, 2015.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Banks PA
    .Epidemiology, natural history, and predictors of disease outcome in acute and chronic pancreatitis.Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56SupplS226–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Loveday BP,
    2. Srinivasa S,
    3. Vather R,
    4. et al
    .High quantity and variable quality of guidelines for acute pancreatitis: a systematic review.Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:1466–76.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Aly EA,
    2. Milne R,
    3. Johnson CD
    .Non-compliance with national guidelines in the management of acute pancreatitis in the United kingdom.Dig Surg 2002;19:192–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Barnard J,
    2. Siriwardena AK
    .Variations in implementation of current national guidelines for the treatment of acute pancreatitis: implications for acute surgical service provision.Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2002;84:79–81.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Connor SJ,
    2. Lienert AR,
    3. Brown LA,
    4. et al
    .Closing the audit loop is necessary to achieve compliance with evidence-based guidelines in the management of acute pancreatitis.N Z Med J 2008;121:19–25.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Foitzik T,
    2. Klar E
    .(Non-)compliance with guidelines for the management of severe acute pancreatitis among German surgeons.Pancreatology 2007;7:80–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lankisch PG,
    2. Weber-Dany B,
    3. Lerch MM
    .Clinical perspectives in pancreatology: compliance with acute pancreatitis guidelines in Germany.Pancreatology 2005;5:591–3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Mofidi R,
    2. Madhavan KK,
    3. Garden OJ,
    4. et al
    .An audit of the management of patients with acute pancreatitis against national standards of practice.Br J Surg 2007;94:844–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Pezzilli R,
    2. Uomo G,
    3. Gabbrielli A,
    4. et al
    .A prospective multicentre survey on the treatment of acute pancreatitis in Italy.Dig Liver Dis 2007;39:838–46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Banks PA,
    2. Bollen TL,
    3. Dervenis C,
    4. et al
    .Classification of acute pancreatitis — 2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus.Gut 2013;62:102–11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Vege S
    .Management of acute pancreatitisBasow DUp To Date 2014Waltham, MA
  7. ↵
    1. Gwozdz GP,
    2. Steinberg WM,
    3. Werner M,
    4. et al
    .Comparative evaluation of the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis based on serum and urine enzyme assays.Clin Chim Acta 1990;187:243–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Keim V,
    2. Teich N,
    3. Fiedler F,
    4. et al
    .A comparison of lipase and amylase in the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis in patients with abdominal pain.Pancreas 1998;16:45–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Bernicker E
    .Cecil Textbook of medicine.JAMA 1998;280:1368–1368.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    1. Bree RL,
    2. Ralls PW,
    3. Balfe DM,
    4. et al
    .Evaluation of patients with acute right upper quadrant pain. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria.Radiology 2000;215Suppl153–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Bar-Meir S
    .Gallstones: prevalence, diagnosis and treatment.Isr Med Assoc J 2001;3:111–3.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Portincasa P,
    2. Moschetta A,
    3. Petruzzelli M,
    4. et al
    .Symptoms and diagnosis of gallbladder stones.Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2006;20:1017–29.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Benarroch-Gampel J,
    2. Boyd CA,
    3. Sheffield KM,
    4. et al
    .Overuse of CT in patients with complicated gallstone disease.J Am Coll Surg 2011;213:524–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Ou Z-B,
    2. Li S-W,
    3. Liu C-A,
    4. et al
    .Prevention of common bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2009;8:414–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Tulchinsky M,
    2. Colletti PM,
    3. Allen TW
    .Hepatobiliary scintigraphy in acute cholecystitis.Seminars in Nuclear MedicineElsevier201284–100.
  14. ↵
    1. Romagnuolo J,
    2. Bardou M,
    3. Rahme E,
    4. et al
    .Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: a meta-analysis of test performance in suspected biliary disease.Ann Intern Med 2003;139:547–57.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Duncan CB,
    2. Riall TS
    .Evidence-based current surgical practice: calculous gallbladder disease.J Gastrointest Surg 2012;16:2011–25.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Balthazar EJ
    .Acute pancreatitis: assessment of severity with clinical and CT evaluation.Radiology 2002;223:603
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Beger HG,
    2. Bittner R,
    3. Block S,
    4. et al
    .Bacterial contamination of pancreatic necrosis. A prospective clinical study.Gastroenterology 1986;91:433
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Larvin M
    .Assessment of clinical severity and prognosis.The pancreasBlackwell ScienceOxford, UK1998489–502.
  19. ↵
    1. Weber CK,
    2. Adler G
    .From acinar cell damage to systemic inflammatory response: current concepts in pancreatitis.Pancreatology 2001;1:356–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Mayer JM,
    2. Raraty M,
    3. Slavin J,
    4. et al
    .Serum amyloid A is a better early predictor of severity than C-reactive protein in acute pancreatitis.Br J Surg 2002;89:163–71.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Buchler M,
    2. Malfertheiner P,
    3. Schoetensack C,
    4. et al
    .Sensitivity of antiproteases, complement factors and C-reactive protein in detecting pancreatic necrosis: results of a prospective clinical study.Int J Pancreatol 1986;1:227–35.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Wilson C,
    2. Heads A,
    3. Shenkin A,
    4. et al
    .C-reactive protein, antiproteases and complement factors as objective markers of severity in acute pancreatitis.Br J Surg 1989;76:177–81.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Leese T,
    2. Shaw D,
    3. Holliday M
    .Prognostic markers in acute pancreatitis: Can pancreatic necrosis be predicted?.Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1988;70:227–32.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Malangoni MA,
    2. Martin AS
    .Outcome of severe acute pancreatitis.Am J Surg 2005;189:273–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Rahman SH,
    2. Ibrahim K,
    3. Larvin M,
    4. et al
    .Association of antioxidant enzyme gene polymorphisms and glutathione status with severe acute pancreatitis.Gastroenterology 2004;126:1312–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Blum T,
    2. Maisonneuve P,
    3. Lowenfels AB,
    4. et al
    .Fatal outcome in acute pancreatitis: its occurrence and early prediction.Pancreatology 2001;1:237–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lankisch PG,
    2. Warnecke B,
    3. Bruns D,
    4. et al
    .The APACHE II score is unreliable to diagnose necrotizing pancreatitis on admission to hospital.Pancreas 2002;24:217–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Johnson CD,
    2. Abu-Hilal M
    .Persistent organ failure during the first week as a marker of fatal outcome in acute pancreatitis.Gut 2004;53:1340–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Perez A,
    2. Whang EE,
    3. Brooks DC,
    4. et al
    .Is severity of necrotizing pancreatitis increased in extended necrosis and infected necrosis?.Pancreas 2002;25:229–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Mettu SR,
    2. Wig JD,
    3. Khullar M,
    4. et al
    .Efficacy of serum nitric oxide level estimation in assessing the severity of necrotizing pancreatitis.Pancreatology 2003;3:506–14.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Isenmann R,
    2. Rau B,
    3. Beger H
    .Bacterial infection and extent of necrosis are determinants of organ failure in patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis.Br J Surg 1999;86:1020–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Le Mée J,
    2. Paye F,
    3. Sauvanet A,
    4. et al
    .Incidence and reversibility of organ failure in the course of sterile or infected necrotizing pancreatitis.Arch Surg 2001;136:1386
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Chatzicostas C,
    2. Roussomoustakaki M,
    3. Vlachonikolis IG,
    4. et al
    .Comparison of Ranson, APACHE II and APACHE III scoring systems in acute pancreatitis.Pancreas 2002;25:331–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Matos R,
    2. Moreno R,
    3. Fevereiro T
    .Severity evaluation in acute pancreatitis: the role of SOFA score and general severity scores.Crit Care 2000;4Suppl 1242
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. De Bernardinis M,
    2. Violi V,
    3. Roncoroni L,
    4. et al
    .Discriminant power and information content of Ranson’s prognostic signs in acute pancreatitis: a meta-analytic study.Crit Care Med 1999;27:2272–83.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Marshall JC,
    2. Cook DJ,
    3. Christou NV,
    4. et al
    .Multiple organ dysfunction score: a reliable descriptor of a complex clinical outcome.Crit Care Med 1995;23:1638–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Banks PA,
    2. Bollen TL,
    3. Dervenis C,
    4. et al
    .Classification of acute pancreatitis — 2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus.Gut 2013;62:102–11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Johnson CD,
    2. Abu-Hilal M
    .Persistent organ failure during the first week as a marker of fatal outcome in acute pancreatitis.Gut 2004;53:1340–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Mofidi R,
    2. Duff MD,
    3. Wigmore SJ,
    4. et al
    .Association between early systemic inflammatory response, severity of multiorgan dysfunction and death in acute pancreatitis.Br J Surg 2006;93:738–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Chen SM,
    2. Xiong GS,
    3. Wu SM
    .Is obesity an indicator of complications and mortality in acute pancreatitis? An updated meta-analysis.J Dig Dis 2012;13:244–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Forgács B,
    2. Eibl G,
    3. Faulhaber J,
    4. et al
    .Effect of fluid resuscitation with and without endothelin A receptor blockade on hemoconcentration and organ function in experimental pancreatitis.Eur Surg Res 2000;32:162–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Haydock MD,
    2. Mittal A,
    3. Wilms HR,
    4. et al
    .Fluid therapy in acute pancreatitis: anybody’s guess.Ann Surg 2013;257:182–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Brown A,
    2. Baillargeon J-D,
    3. Hughes MD,
    4. et al
    .Can fluid resuscitation prevent pancreatic necrosis in severe acute pancreatitis?.Pancreatology 2002;2:104–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Wu BU,
    2. Hwang JQ,
    3. Gardner TH,
    4. et al
    .Lactated Ringer’s solution reduces systemic inflammation compared with saline in patients with acute pancreatitis.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;9:710–717.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Basurto Ona X,
    2. Rigau Comas D,
    3. Urrutia G
    .Opioids for acute pancreatitis pain.Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;7:CD009179
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    1. Meng W,
    2. Yuan J,
    3. Zhang C,
    4. et al
    .Parenteral analgesics for pain relief in acute pancreatitis: a systematic review.Pancreatology 2013;13:201–6.
    OpenUrl
  42. ↵
    1. Nathens AB,
    2. Curtis JR,
    3. Beale RJ,
    4. et al
    .Management of the critically ill patient with severe acute pancreatitis.Crit Care Med 2004;32:2524–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Abou-Assi S,
    2. O’Keefe SJD
    .Nutrition in acute pancreatitis.J Clin Gastroenterol 2001;32:203–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Petrov MS,
    2. McIlroy K,
    3. Grayson L,
    4. et al
    .Early nasogastric tube feeding versus nil per os in mild to moderate acute pancreatitis: a randomized controlled trial.Clin Nutr 2013;32:697–703.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Jacobson BC,
    2. Vander Vliet MB,
    3. Hughes MD,
    4. et al
    .A prospective, randomized trial of clear liquids versus low-fat solid diet as the initial meal in mild acute pancreatitis.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;5:946–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Sathiaraj E,
    2. Murthy S,
    3. Mansard MJ,
    4. et al
    .Clinical trial: oral feeding with a soft diet compared with clear liquid diet as initial meal in mild acute pancreatitis.Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008;28:777–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Eckerwall GE,
    2. Tingstedt BB,
    3. Bergenzaun PE,
    4. et al
    .Immediate oral feeding in patients with mild acute pancreatitis is safe and may accelerate recovery — a randomized clinical study.Clin Nutr 2007;26:758–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Petrov MS,
    2. Pylypchuk RD,
    3. Uchugina AF
    .A systematic review on the timing of artificial nutrition in acute pancreatitis.Br J Nutr 2009;101:787–93.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Oláh A,
    2. Romics L Jr.
    .Evidence-based use of enteral nutrition in acute pancreatitis.Langenbecks Arch Surg 2010;395:309–16.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Al-Omran M,
    2. Albalawi ZH,
    3. Tashkandi MF,
    4. et al
    .Enteral versus parenteral nutrition for acute pancreatitis.Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;1:CD002837
    OpenUrlPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Petrov MS,
    2. van Santvoort HC,
    3. Besselink MG,
    4. et al
    .Enteral nutrition and the risk of mortality and infectious complications in patients with severe acute pancreatitis: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.Arch Surg 2008;143:1111–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Wang G,
    2. Wen J,
    3. Xu L,
    4. et al
    .Effect of enteral nutrition and ecoimmunonutrition on bacterial translocation and cytokine production in patients with severe acute pancreatitis.J Surg Res 2013;183:592–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Petrov MS,
    2. Correia MI,
    3. Windsor JA
    .Nasogastric tube feeding in predicted severe acute pancreatitis. A systematic review of the literature to determine safety and tolerance.JOP 2008;9:440–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Chang YS,
    2. Fu HQ,
    3. Xiao YM,
    4. et al
    .Nasogastric or nasojejunal feeding in predicted severe acute pancreatitis: a meta-analysis.Crit Care 2013;17:R118
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Petrov MS,
    2. Loveday BP,
    3. Pylypchuk RD,
    4. et al
    .Systematic review and meta-analysis of enteral nutrition formulations in acute pancreatitis.Br J Surg 2009;96:1243–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Sun S,
    2. Yang K,
    3. He X,
    4. et al
    .Probiotics in patients with severe acute pancreatitis: a meta-analysis.Langenbecks Arch Surg 2009;394:171–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Hojsak I,
    2. Abdovic S,
    3. Szajewska H,
    4. et al
    .Lactobacillus GG in the prevention of nosocomial gastrointestinal and respiratory tract infections.Pediatrics 2010;125:e1171–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Morrow LE,
    2. Kollef MH,
    3. Casale TB
    .Probiotic prophylaxis of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a blinded, randomized, controlled trial.Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2010;182:1058–64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Siempos II,
    2. Ntaidou TK,
    3. Falagas ME
    .Impact of the administration of probiotics on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Crit Care Med 2010;38:954–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Villatoro E,
    2. Mulla M,
    3. Larvin M
    .Antibiotic therapy for prophylaxis against infection of pancreatic necrosis in acute pancreatitis.Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;5:CD002941
    OpenUrlPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Bai Y,
    2. Gao J,
    3. Zou DW,
    4. et al
    .Prophylactic antibiotics cannot reduce infected pancreatic necrosis and mortality in acute necrotizing pancreatitis: evidence from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:104–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Jiang K,
    2. Huang W,
    3. Yang XN,
    4. et al
    .Present and future of prophylactic antibiotics for severe acute pancreatitis.World J Gastroenterol 2012;18:279–84.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Wittau M,
    2. Mayer B,
    3. Scheele J,
    4. et al
    .Systematic review and meta-analysis of antibiotic prophylaxis in severe acute pancreatitis.Scand J Gastroenterol 2011;46:261–70.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Maraví-Poma E,
    2. Gener J,
    3. Alvarez-Lerma F,
    4. et al
    .Early antibiotic treatment (prophylaxis) of septic complications in severe acute necrotizing pancreatitis: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study comparing two regimens with imipenem-cilastatin.Intensive Care Med 2003;29:1974–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Grewe M,
    2. Tsiotos GG,
    3. Luque de-Leon E,
    4. et al
    .Fungal infection in acute necrotizing pancreatitis.J Am Coll Surg 1999;188:408–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Isenmann R,
    2. Schwarz M,
    3. Rau B,
    4. et al
    .Characteristics of infection with Candida species in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis.World J Surg 2002;26:372–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Gloor B,
    2. Muller CA,
    3. Worni M,
    4. et al
    .Pancreatic infection in severe pancreatitis: the role of fungus and multiresistant organisms.Arch Surg 2001;136:592–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Haran JP,
    2. Hayward G,
    3. Skinner S,
    4. et al
    .Factors influencing the development of antibiotic associated diarrhea in ED patients discharged home: risk of administering intravenous antibiotics.Am J Emerg Med 2014;32:1195–9.
    OpenUrl
  67. ↵
    1. Uchil RR,
    2. Kohli GS,
    3. Katekhaye VM,
    4. et al
    .Strategies to combat antimicrobial resistance.J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8:ME01–04.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  68. ↵
    1. Bakker OJ,
    2. Issa Y,
    3. van Santvoort HC,
    4. et al
    .Treatment options for acute pancreatitis.Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;11:462–9.
    OpenUrl
  69. ↵
    1. da Costa DW,
    2. Boerma D,
    3. van Santvoort HC,
    4. et al
    .Staged multidisciplinary step-up management for necrotizing pancreatitis.Br J Surg 2014;101:e65–79.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Büchler MW,
    2. Gloor B,
    3. Müller CA,
    4. et al
    .Acute necrotizing pancreatitis: treatment strategy according to the status of infection.Ann Surg 2000;232:619
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Uhl W,
    2. Roggo A,
    3. Kirschstein T,
    4. et al
    .Influence of contrast-enhanced computed tomography on course and outcome in patients with acute pancreatitis.Pancreas 2002;24:191–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. ↵
    1. Balthazar EJ,
    2. Freeny PC
    .Imaging and intervention in acute pancreatitis.Radiology 1994;193:297–306.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Balthazar EJ,
    2. Fisher LA
    .Hemorrhagic complications of pancreatitis: radiologic evaluation with emphasis on CT imaging.Pancreatology 2001;1:306–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Mortele KJ,
    2. Zou K,
    3. Banks P,
    4. et al
    .A modified CT severity index for evaluating acute pancreatitis: improved correlation with patient outcome.AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:1261–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. ↵
    1. Gerzof SG,
    2. Banks PA,
    3. Robbins AH,
    4. et al
    .Early diagnosis of pancreatic infection by computed tomography-guided aspiration.Gastroenterology 1987;93:1315–20.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  75. ↵
    1. Banks PA,
    2. Gerzof SG,
    3. Langevin RE,
    4. et al
    .CT-guided aspiration of suspected pancreatic infection.Int J Pancreatol 1995;18:265–70.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  76. ↵
    1. Hiatt JR,
    2. Fink AS,
    3. King W III.,
    4. et al
    .Percutaneous aspiration of peripancreatic fluid collections: a safe method to detect infection.Surgery 1987;101:523–30.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  77. ↵
    1. Eloubeidi MA,
    2. Tamhane A,
    3. Varadarajulu S,
    4. et al
    .Frequency of major complications after EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a prospective evaluation.Gastrointest Endosc 2006;63:622–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. ↵
    1. Guarner-Argente C,
    2. Buchner A,
    3. Ahmad NA,
    4. et al
    .Use of antimicrobials for EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic cysts: a retrospective, comparative analysis.Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74:81–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    1. Bradley EL,
    2. Allen K
    .A prospective longitudinal study of observation versus surgical intervention in the management of necrotizing pancreatitis.Am J Surg 1991;161:19–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. ↵
    1. Mier J,
    2. Leon EL,
    3. Castillo A,
    4. et al
    .Early versus late necrosectomy in severe necrotizing pancreatitis.Am J Surg 1997;173:71–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. ↵
    1. Connor S,
    2. Ghaneh P,
    3. Raraty M,
    4. et al
    .Increasing age and APACHE II scores are the main determinants of outcome from pancreatic necrosectomy.Br J Surg 2003;90:1542–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Halonen KI,
    2. Leppäniemi AK,
    3. Puolakkainen PA,
    4. et al
    .Severe acute pancreatitis: prognostic factors in 270 consecutive patients.Pancreas 2000;21:266–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. De Beaux A,
    2. Palmer K,
    3. Carter D
    .Factors influencing morbidity and mortality in acute pancreatitis; an analysis of 279 cases.Gut 1995;37:121–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Hartwig W,
    2. Maksan S-M,
    3. Foitzik T,
    4. et al
    .Reduction in mortality with delayed surgical therapy of severe pancreatitis.J Gastrointest Surg 2002;6:481–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Uomo G,
    2. Visconti M,
    3. Manes G,
    4. et al
    .Nonsurgical treatment of acute necrotizing pancreatitis.Pancreas 1996;12:142–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  82. ↵
    1. Götzinger P,
    2. Wamser P,
    3. Exner R,
    4. et al
    .Surgical treatment of severe acute pancreatitis: timing of operation is crucial for survival.Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2003;4:205–11.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Götzinger P,
    2. Wamser P,
    3. Barlan M,
    4. et al
    .Candida infection of local necrosis in severe acute pancreatitis is associated with increased mortality.Shock 2000;14:320–3.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  83. ↵
    1. Sainio V,
    2. Kemppainen E,
    3. Puolakkainen P,
    4. et al
    .Early antibiotic treatment in acute necrotising pancreatitis.Lancet 1995;346:663–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    1. Cantasdemir M,
    2. Kara B,
    3. Kantarci F,
    4. et al
    .Percutaneous drainage for treatment of infected pancreatic pseudocysts.South Med J 2003;96:136–40.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  85. ↵
    1. Brattström C,
    2. Malmborg AS,
    3. Tyden G
    .Penetration of imipenem into human pancreatic juice following single intravenous dose administration.Chemotherapy 1989;35:83–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  86. ↵
    1. Wittau M,
    2. Wagner E,
    3. Kaever V,
    4. et al
    .Intraabdominal tissue concentration of ertapenem.J Antimicrob Chemother 2006;57:312–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. ↵
    1. Wacke R,
    2. Forster S,
    3. Adam U,
    4. et al
    .Penetration of moxifloxacin into the human pancreas following a single intravenous or oral dose.J Antimicrob Chemother 2006;58:994–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. ↵
    1. Schubert S,
    2. Dalhoff A
    .Activity of moxifloxacin, imipenem, and ertapenem against Escherichia coli, Enterobacter cloacae, Enterococcus faecalis, and Bacteroides fragilis in monocultures and mixed cultures in an in vitro pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model simulating concentrations in the human pancreas.Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012;56:6434–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  89. ↵
    1. Gloor B,
    2. Müller C,
    3. Worni M,
    4. et al
    .Late mortality in patients with severe acute pancreatitis.Br J Surg 2001;88:975–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. ↵
    1. Bittner R,
    2. Block S,
    3. Büchler M,
    4. et al
    .Pancreatic abscess and infected pancreatic necrosis: different local septic complications in acute pancreatitis.Acute PancreatitisSpringer1987216–223.
  91. ↵
    1. Widdison AL,
    2. Karanjia N
    .Pancreatic infection complicating acute pancreatitis.Br J Surg 1993;80:148–54.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  92. ↵
    1. Fernández-del Castillo C,
    2. Rattner DW,
    3. Makary MA,
    4. et al
    .Debridement and closed packing for the treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis.Ann Surg 1998;228:676
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. ↵
    1. van Santvoort HC,
    2. Besselink MG,
    3. Bakker OJ,
    4. et al
    .A step-up approach or open necrosectomy for necrotizing pancreatitis.N Engl J Med 2010;362:1491–502.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. ↵
    1. Wittau M,
    2. Scheele J,
    3. Golz I,
    4. et al
    .Changing role of surgery in necrotizing pancreatitis: a single-center experience.Hepatogastroenterology 2010;57:1300–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  95. ↵
    1. Brun A,
    2. Agarwal N,
    3. Pitchumoni CS
    .Fluid collections in and around the pancreas in acute pancreatitis.J Clin Gastroenterol 2011;45:614–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  96. ↵
    1. Uhl W,
    2. Warshaw A,
    3. Imrie C,
    4. et al
    .IAP guidelines for the surgical management of acute pancreatitis.Pancreatology 2002;2:565–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. ↵
    1. Parekh D
    .Laparoscopic-assisted pancreatic necrosectomy: a new surgical option for treatment of severe necrotizing pancreatitis.Arch Surg 2006;141:895–903.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Connor S,
    2. Ghaneh P,
    3. Raraty M,
    4. et al
    .Minimally invasive retroperitoneal pancreatic necrosectomy.Dig Surg 2003;20:270–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  98. ↵
    1. Charnley RM,
    2. Lochan R,
    3. Gray H,
    4. et al
    .Endoscopic necrosectomy as primary therapy in the management of infected pancreatic necrosis.Endoscopy 2006;38:925–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  99. ↵
    1. Bradley EL,
    2. Gonzalez AC,
    3. Clements JL Jr.
    .Acute pancreatic pseudocysts: incidence and implications.Ann Surg 1976;184:734–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  100. ↵
    1. Aranha GV,
    2. Prinz RA,
    3. Esguerra AC,
    4. et al
    .The nature and course of cystic pancreatic lesions diagnosed by ultrasound.Arch Surg 1983;118:486–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. ↵
    1. Yeo CJ,
    2. Bastidas JA,
    3. Lynch-Nyhan A,
    4. et al
    .The natural history of pancreatic pseudocysts documented by computed tomography.Surg Gynecol Obstet 1990;170:411–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  102. ↵
    1. Soliani P,
    2. Ziegler S,
    3. Franzini C,
    4. et al
    .The size of pancreatic pseudocyst does not influence the outcome of invasive treatments.Dig Liver Dis 2004;36:135–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  103. ↵
    1. Nguyen BL,
    2. Thompson JS,
    3. Edney JA,
    4. et al
    .Influence of the etiology of pancreatitis on the natural history of pancreatic pseudocysts.Am J Surg 1991;162:527–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. ↵
    1. Habashi S,
    2. Draganov PV
    .Pancreatic pseudocyst.World J Gastroenterol 2009;15:38–47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Cannon JW,
    2. Callery MP,
    3. Vollmer CM Jr.
    .Diagnosis and management of pancreatic pseudocysts: What is the evidence?.J Am Coll Surg 2009;209:385–93.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Baron TH
    .Treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts, pancreatic necrosis, and pancreatic duct leaks. [vii.].Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2007;17:559–79.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  105. ↵
    1. Brugge WR
    .Approaches to the drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts.Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2004;20:488–92.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  106. ↵
    1. Tse F,
    2. Yuan Y
    .Early routine endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography strategy versus early conservative management strategy in acute gallstone pancreatitis.Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;5:CD009779
    OpenUrlPubMed
  107. ↵
    1. Wu XN
    .Guidelines for treatment of severe acute pancreatitis.Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2002;1:446–51.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  108. ↵
    1. van Baal MC,
    2. Besselink MG,
    3. Bakker OJ,
    4. et al
    .Timing of cholecystectomy after mild biliary pancreatitis: a systematic review.Ann Surg 2012;255:860–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  109. ↵
    1. Hernandez V,
    2. Pascual I,
    3. Almela P,
    4. et al
    .Recurrence of acute gallstone pancreatitis and relationship with cholecystectomy or endoscopic sphincterotomy.Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:2417–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  110. ↵
    1. Hwang SS,
    2. Li BH,
    3. Haigh PI
    .Gallstone pancreatitis without cholecystectomy.JAMA Surg 2013;148:867–72.
    OpenUrl
  111. ↵
    1. Ito K,
    2. Ito H,
    3. Whang EE
    .Timing of cholecystectomy for biliary pancreatitis: Do the data support current guidelines?.J Gastrointest Surg 2008;12:2164–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  112. ↵
    1. Aboulian A,
    2. Chan T,
    3. Yaghoubian A,
    4. et al
    .Early cholecystectomy safely decreases hospital stay in patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis: a randomized prospective study.Ann Surg 2010;251:615–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  113. ↵
    1. Randial Pérez LJ,
    2. Fernando Parra J,
    3. Aldana Dimas G
    .The safety of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (<48hours) for patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.Cir Esp 2014;92:107–13.
    OpenUrl
  114. ↵
    1. Uhl W,
    2. Müller C,
    3. Krähenbühl L,
    4. et al
    .Acute gallstone pancreatitis: timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in mild and severe disease.Surg Endosc 1999;13:1070
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Journal of Surgery: 59 (2)
CAN J SURG
Vol. 59, Issue 2
1 Apr 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CJS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Clinical practice guideline: management of acute pancreatitis
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CJS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CJS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Clinical practice guideline: management of acute pancreatitis
Joshua A. Greenberg, Jonathan Hsu, Mohammad Bawazeer, John Marshall, Jan O. Friedrich, Avery Nathens, Natalie Coburn, Gary R. May, Emily Pearsall, Robin S. McLeod
CAN J SURG Apr 2016, 59 (2) 128-140; DOI: 10.1503/cjs.015015

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Clinical practice guideline: management of acute pancreatitis
Joshua A. Greenberg, Jonathan Hsu, Mohammad Bawazeer, John Marshall, Jan O. Friedrich, Avery Nathens, Natalie Coburn, Gary R. May, Emily Pearsall, Robin S. McLeod
CAN J SURG Apr 2016, 59 (2) 128-140; DOI: 10.1503/cjs.015015
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • American Association for the Surgery of Trauma emergency general surgery guideline summaries 2018: acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis, acute diverticulitis, acute pancreatitis, and small bowel obstruction
  • Gallstones: Watch and wait, or intervene?
  • Epidural analgesia in critically ill patients with acute pancreatitis: the multicentre randomised controlled EPIPAN study protocol
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Alerts
  • RSS

Authors & Reviewers

  • Overview for Authors
  • Publication Fees
  • Forms
  • Editorial Policies
  • Submit a manuscript

About

  • General Information
  • Staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • Reprints
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibility
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 2291-0026

All editorial matter in CJS represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected].

View CMA's Accessibility policy.

Powered by HighWire