Scott Tenner MD, MPH, FACG1, John Baillie MB, ChB, FRCP, FACG2, John DeWitt MD, FACG3 and Santhi Swaroop Vege MD, FACG4
1State University of New York, Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA; 2Carteret MedicalGroup, Morehead City, North Carolina, USA; 3Indiana University Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA; 4Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108:1400–1415; doi:10.1038/ajg.2013.218; published online 30 July 2013
Received 23 December 2012; accepted 18 June 2013
Correspondence: Santhi Swaroop Vege, MD, FACG, Division of Gastroenterology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
This guideline presents recommendations for the management of patients with acute pancreatitis (AP). During the past decade, there have been new understandings and developments in the diagnosis, etiology, and early and late management of the disease. As the diagnosis of AP is most often established by clinical symptoms and laboratory testing, contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the pancreas should be reserved for patients in whom the diagnosis is unclear or who fail to improve clinically. Hemodynamic status should be assessed immediately upon presentation and resuscitative measures begun as needed. Patients with organ failure and/or the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) should be admitted to an intensive care unit or intermediary care setting whenever possible. Aggressive hydration should be provided to all patients, unless cardiovascular and/or renal comorbidites preclude it. Early aggressive intravenous hydration is most beneficial within the first 12–24 h, and may have little benefit beyond. Patients with AP and concurrent acute cholangitis should undergo endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) within 24 h of admission. Pancreatic duct stents and/or postprocedure rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) suppositories should be utilized to lower the risk of severe post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients. Routine use of prophylactic antibiotics in patients with severe AP and/or sterile necrosis is not recommended. In patients with infected necrosis, antibiotics known to penetrate pancreatic necrosis may be useful in delaying intervention, thus decreasing morbidity and mortality. In mild AP, oral feedings can be started immediately if there is no nausea and vomiting. In severe AP, enteral nutrition is recommended to prevent infectious complications, whereas parenteral nutrition should be avoided. Asymptomatic pancreatic and/or extrapancreatic necrosis and/or pseudocysts do not warrant intervention regardless of size, location, and/or extension. In stable patients with infected necrosis, surgical, radiologic, and/or endoscopic drainage should be delayed, preferably for 4 weeks, to allow the development of a wall around the necrosis.
Acute pancreatitis (AP) is one of the most common diseases of the gastrointestinal tract, leading to tremendous emotional, physical, and financial human burden (1,2). In the United States, in 2009, AP was the most common gastroenterology discharge diagnosis with a cost of 2.6 billion dollars (2). Recent studies show the incidence of AP varies between 4.9 and 73.4 cases per 100,000 worldwide (3,4). An increase in the annual incidence for AP has been observed in most recent studies. Epidemiologic review data from the 1988 to 2003 National Hospital Discharge Survey showed that hospital admissions for AP increased from 40 per 100,000 in 1998 to 70 per 100,000 in 2002. Although the case fatality rate for AP has decreased over time, the overall population mortality rate for AP has remained unchanged (1).
There have been important changes in the definitions and classification of AP since the Atlanta classification from 1992 (5). During the past decade, several limitations have been recognized that led to a working group and web-based consensus revision (6). Two distinct phases of AP have now been identified: (i) early (within 1 week), characterized by the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and/or organ failure; and (ii) late (>1 week), characterized by local complications. It is critical to recognize the paramount importance of organ failure in determining disease severity. Local complications are defined as peripancreatic fluid collections, pancreatic and peripancreatic necrosis (sterile or infected), pseudocysts, and walled-off necrosis (sterile or infected). Isolated extrapancreatic necrosis is also included under the term necrotizing pancreatitis; although outcomes like persistent organ failure, infected necrosis, and mortality of this entity are more often seen when compared to interstitial pancreatitis, these complications are more commonly seen in patients with pancreatic parenchymal necrosis (7). There is now a third intermediate grade of severity, moderately severe AP, that is characterized by local complications in the absence of persistent organ failure. Patients with moderately severe AP may have transient organ failure, lasting <48 h. Moderately severe AP may also exacerbate underlying comorbid disease but is associated with a low mortality. Severe AP is now defined entirely on the presence of persistent organ failure (defined by a modified Marshall Score) (8).
We first discuss the diagnosis, etiology, and severity of AP. We then focus on the early medical management of AP followed by a discussion of the management of complicated disease, most notably pancreatic necrosis. Early management focuses on advancements in our understanding of aggressive intravenous hydration, which when applied early appears to decrease morbidity and mortality (9,10). The evolving issues of antibiotics, nutrition, and endoscopic, radiologic, surgical, and other minimally invasive interventions will be addressed.
A search of MEDLINE via the OVID interface using the MeSH term “acute pancreatitis” limited to clinical trials, reviews, guidelines, and meta-analysis for the years 1966–2012 was undertaken without language restriction, as well as a review of clinical trials and reviews known to the authors were performed for the preparation of this document. The GRADE system was used to grade the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence (11). An explanation of the quality of evidence and strength of the recommendations is shown in Table 1. Each section of the document presents the key recommendations related to the section topic, followed by a summary of the supporting evidence. A summary of recommendations is provided in Table 2.
|High||Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.|
|Moderate||Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.|
|Low||Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.|
|Very Low||Any estimate of the effect is very uncertain.|
|Initial assessment and risk stratification|
|ERCP in acute pancreatitis|
|The role of antibiotics in acute pancreatitis|
|Nutrition in acute pancreatitis|
|The role of surgery in acute pancreatitis|
|AP, acute pancreatitis; CT, computed tomography; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; MRCP, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography.|
- The diagnosis of AP is most often established by the presence of 2 of the 3 following criteria: (i) abdominal pain consistent with the disease, (ii) serum amylase and/or lipase greater than three times the upper limit of normal, and/or (iii) characteristic findings from abdominal imaging (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
- Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the pancreas should be reserved for patients in whom the diagnosis is unclear or who fail to improve clinically within the first 48–72 h after hospital admission or to evaluate complications (strong recommendation, low quality of evidence).
Diagnosis: Clinical presentation
Patients with AP typically present with epigastric or left upper quadrant pain. The pain is usually described as constant with radiation to the back, chest, or flanks, but this description is nonspecific. The intensity of the pain is usually severe, but can be variable. The intensity and location of the pain do not correlate with severity. Pain described as dull, colicky, or located in the lower abdominal region is not consistent with AP and suggests an alternative etiology. Abdominal imaging may be helpful to determine the diagnosis of AP in patients with atypical presentations.
Diagnosis: Laboratory parameters
Because of limitations in sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value, serum amylase alone cannot be used reliably for the diagnosis of AP and serum lipase is preferred. Serum amylase in AP patients generally rises within a few hours after the onset of symptoms and returns to normal values within 3–5 days; however, it may remain within the normal range on admission in as many as one-fifth of patients (12,13). Compared with lipase, serum amylase returns more quickly to values below the upper limit of normal. Serum amylase concentrations may be normal in alcohol-induced AP and hypertriglyceridemia. Serum amylase concentrations might be high in the absence of AP in macroamylasaemia (a syndrome characterized by the formation of large molecular complexes between amylase and abnormal immunoglobulins), in patients with decreased glomerular filtration rate, in diseases of the salivary glands, and in extrapancreatic abdominal diseases associated with inflammation, including acute appendicitis, cholecystitis, intestinal obstruction or ischemia, peptic ulcer, and gynecological diseases.
Serum lipase appears to be more specific and remains elevated longer than amylase after disease presentation. Despite recommendations of previous investigators (14) and guidelines for the management of AP (15) that emphasize the advantage of serum lipase, similar problems with the predictive value remain in certain patient populations, including the existence of macrolipasemia. Lipase is also found to be elevated in a variety of nonpancreatic diseases, such as renal disease, appendicitis, cholecystitis, and so on. In addition, an upper limit of normal greater than 3–5 times may be needed in diabetics who appear to have higher median lipase compared with nondiabetic patients for unclear reasons (16,17). A Japanese consensus conference to determine appropriate “cutoff” values for amylase and lipase could not reach consensus on appropriate upper limits of normal (18). Assays of many other pancreatic enzymes have been assessed during the past 15 years, but none seems to offer better diagnostic value than those of serum amylase and lipase (19). Although most studies show a diagnostic efficacy of greater than 3–5 times the upper limit of normal, clinicians must consider the clinical condition of the patient when evaluating amylase and lipase elevations. When a doubt regarding the diagnosis of AP exists, abdominal imaging, such as CECT, is recommended.
Diagnosis: Abdominal imaging
Abdominal imaging is useful to confirm the diagnosis of AP. CECT provides over 90% sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of AP (20). Routine use of CECT in patients with AP is unwarranted, as the diagnosis is apparent in many patients and most have a mild, uncomplicated course. However, in a patient failing to improve after 48–72 (e.g., persistent pain, fever, nausea, unable to begin oral feeding), CECT or MRI imaging is recommended to assess local complications such as pancreatic necrosis (21,22,23). Computed tomography (CT) and MRI are comparable in the early assessment of AP (24). MRI, by employing magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), has the advantage of detecting choledocholithiasis down to 3 mm diameter and pancreatic duct disruption while providing high-quality imaging for diagnostic and/or severity purposes. MRI is helpful in patients with a contrast allergy and renal insufficiency where T2-weighted images without gadolinium contrast can diagnose pancreatic necrosis (24).
- Transabdominal ultrasound should be performed in all patients with AP (strong recommendation, low quality of evidence).
- In the absence of gallstones and/or history of significant history of alcohol use, a serum triglyceride should be obtained and considered the etiology if > 1,000 mg/dl. (conditional recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
- In a patient > 40 years old, a pancreatic tumor should be considered as a possible cause of AP (conditional recommendation, low quality of evidence).
- Endoscopic investigation of an elusive etiology in patients with AP should be limited, as the risks and benefits of investigation in these patients are unclear (conditional recommendation, low quality of evidence).
- Patients with idiopathic AP (IAP) should be referred to centers of expertise (conditional recommendation, low quality of evidence).
- Genetic testing may be considered in young patients ( < 30 years old) if no cause is evident and a family history of pancreatic disease is present (conditional recommendation, low quality of evidence).
Etiology: Gallstones and alcohol
The etiology of AP can be readily established in most patients. The most common cause of AP is gallstones (40–70%) and alcohol (25–35%) (25,26,27). Because of the high prevalence and importance of preventing recurrent disease, abdominal ultrasound to evaluate for cholelithiasis should be performed on all patients with AP (28,29,30). Identification of gallstones as the etiology should prompt referral for cholecystectomy to prevent recurrent attacks and potential biliary sepsis (29,30). Gallstone pancreatitis is usually an acute event and resolves when the stone is removed or passes spontaneously.
Alcohol-induced pancreatitis often manifests as a spectrum, ranging from discrete episodes of AP to chronic irreversible silent changes. The diagnosis should not be entertained unless a person has a history of over 5 years of heavy alcohol consumption (31). “Heavy” alcohol consumption is generally considered to be >50 g per day, but is often much higher (32). Clinically evident AP occurs in <5% of heavy drinkers (33); thus, there are likely other factors that sensitize individuals to the effects of alcohol, such as genetic factors and tobacco use (27,33,34).
Other causes of AP
In the absence of alcohol or gallstones, caution must be exercised when attributing a possible etiology for AP to another agent or condition. Medications, infectious agents, and metabolic causes such as hypercalcemia and hyperparathyroidism are rare causes, often falsely identified as causing AP (35,36,37). Although some drugs such as 6-mercaptopurine, azathioprine, and DDI (2′,3′-dideoxyinosine) can clearly cause AP, there are limited data supporting most medications as causative agents (35). Primary and secondary hypertriglyceridemia can cause AP; however, these account for only 1–4% of cases (36). Serum triglycerides should rise above 1,000 mg/dl to be considered the cause of AP (38,39). A lactescent (milky) serum has been observed in as many as 20% of patients with AP, and therefore a fasting triglyceride level should be re-evaluated 1 month after discharge when hypertriglyceridemia is suspected (40). Although most do not, any benign or malignant mass that obstructs the main pancreatic can result in AP. It has been estimated that 5–14% of patients with benign or malignant pancreatobiliary tumors present with apparent IAP (41,42,43). Historically, adenocarcinoma of the pancreas was considered a disease of old age. However, increasingly patients in their 40s—and occasionally younger—are presenting with pancreatic cancer. This entity should be suspected in any patient >40 years of age with idiopathic pancreatitis, especially those with a prolonged or recurrent course (27,44,45). Thus, a contrast-enhanced CT scan or MRI is needed in these patients. A more extensive evaluation including endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and/or MRCP may be needed initially or after a recurrent episode of IAP (46).
IAP is defined as pancreatitis with no etiology established after initial laboratory (including lipid and calcium level) and imaging tests (transabdominal ultrasound and CT in the appropriate patient) (47). In some patients an etiology may eventually be found, yet in others no definite cause is ever established. Patients with IAP should be evaluated at centers of excellence focusing on pancreatic disease, providing advanced endoscopy services and a combined multidisciplinary approach.
Anatomic and physiologic anomalies of the pancreas occur in 10–15% of the population, including pancreas divisum and sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (48). It remains controversial if these disorders alone cause AP (49). There may be a combination of factors, including anatomic and genetic, that predispose to the development of AP in susceptible individuals (48). Endoscopic therapy, focusing on treating pancreas divisum and/or sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, carries a significant risk of precipitating AP and should be performed only in specialized units (50,51). The influence of genetic defects, such as cationic trypsinogen mutations, SPINK, or CFTR mutations, in causing AP is being increasingly recognized. These defects, furthermore, may also increase the risk of AP in patients with anatomic anomalies, such as pancreas divisum (48). However, the role of genetic testing in AP has yet to be determined, but may be useful in patients with more than one family member with pancreatic disease (34). Individuals with IAP and a family history of pancreatic diseases should be referred for formal genetic counseling.
Initial Assessment and Risk Stratification
- Hemodynamic status should be assessed immediately upon presentation and resuscitative measures begun as needed (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
- Risk assessment should be performed to stratify patients into higher- and lower-risk categories to assist triage, such as admission to an intensive care setting (conditional recommendation, low to moderate quality of evidence).
- Patients with organ failure should be admitted to an intensive care unit or intermediary care setting whenever possible (strong recommendation, low quality of evidence).
Summary of evidence
Definition of severe AP
Most episodes of AP are mild and self-limiting, needing only brief hospitalization. Mild AP is defined by the absence of organ failure and/or pancreatic necrosis (5,6). By 48 h after admission, these patients typically would have substantially improved and begun refeeding. In patients with severe disease, two phases of AP are recognized: early (within the first week) and late. Local complications include peripancreatic fluid collections and pancreatic and peripancreatic necrosis (sterile or infected). Most patients with severe disease present to the emergency room with no organ failure or pancreatic necrosis; unfortunately, this has led to many errors in clinical management of this disease (52). These errors include failure to provide adequate hydration, failure to diagnose and treat cholangitis, and failure to treat early organ failure. For this reason, it is critical for the clinician to recognize the importance of not falsely labeling a patient with mild disease within the first 48 h of admission for AP.
Severe AP occurs in 15–20% of patients (53). Severe AP is defined by the presence of persistent (fails to resolve within 48 h) organ failure and/or death (6). Historically, in the absence of organ failure, local complications from pancreatitis, such as pancreatic necrosis, were also considered severe disease (5,6,53). However, these local complications (including pancreatic necrosis with or without transient organ failure) define moderately severe AP (see Table 3). Moderately severe acute pancreatitis is characterized by the presence of transient organ failure or local or systematic complications in the absence of persistent organ failure (6). An example of a patient with moderately severe acute pancreatitis is one who has peripancreatic fluid collections and prolonged abdominal pain, leukocytosis and, fever, causing the patient to remain hospitalized for 7-10 days. In the absence of persistent organ failure, mortality in patients with this entity is less than severe acute pancreatitis. If persistent organ failure develops in a patient with necrotizing pancreatitis, it is then considered severe disease.
|Atlanta criteria (1993)||Atlanta Revision (2013)|
|Mild acute pancreatitis||Mild acute pancreatitis|
|Absence of organ failure||Absence of organ failure|
|Absence of local complications||Absence of local complications|
|Severe acute pancreatitis||Moderately severe acute pancreatitis|
|1. Local complications AND/OR||1. Local complications AND/OR|
|2. Organ failure||2. Transient organ failure (< 48 h)|
|GI bleeding (> 500 cc/24 hr)||Severe acute pancreatitis|
|Shock – SBP ≤ 90 mm Hg||Persistent organ failure > 48 ha|
|PaO 2 ≤ 60%|
|Creatinine ≥ 2 mg/dl|
|GI, gastrointestinal; SBP, systolic blood pressure.
a Persistent organ failure is now defined by a Modified Marshal Score (6,8)
Organ failure had previously been defined as shock (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg), pulmonary insufficiency (PaO2 <60 mm Hg), renal failure (creatinine >2 mg/dl after rehydration), and/or gastrointestinal bleeding (>500 ml of blood loss/24 h) (53). The Revised Atlanta Criteria now define organ failure as a score of 2 or more for one of these organ systems using the modified Marshall scoring system (6,8). The authors feel that rather than calculate a Marshal score (which may be complex for the busy clinician), relying on the older Atlanta definitions would be as useful. Further study is needed to validate the need for using the Marshal score.
Pancreatic necrosis is defined as diffuse or focal areas of nonviable pancreatic parenchyma > 3 cm in size or > 30% of the pancreas (53). Pancreatic necrosis can be sterile or infected (discussed below). In the absence of pancreatic necrosis, in mild disease the edematous pancreas is defined as interstitial pancreatitis. Although there is some correlation between infection, pancreatic necrosis, hospital length of stay, and organ failure, both patients with sterile necrosis and infected necrosis may develop organ failure (55,56). The presence of infection within the necrosis probably does not increase the likelihood of present or future organ failure. Patients with sterile necrosis can suffer from organ failure and appear as ill clinically as those patients with infected necrosis. Persistent organ failure is now defined by a Modified Marshal Score (6,8).
Isolated extrapancreatic necrosis is also included under the term necrotizing pancreatitis. This entity, initially thought to be a nonspecific anatomic finding with no clinical significance, has become better characterized and is associated with adverse outcomes, such as organ failure and persistent organ failure, but these outcomes are less frequent. Extrapancreatic necrosis is more often appreciated during surgery than being identified on imaging studies. Although most radiologists can easily identify pancreatic parenchymal necrosis, in the absence of surgical intervention, extrapancreatic necrosis is appreciated less often (7).
Predicting severe AP
Clinicians have been largely unable to predict which patients with AP will develop severe disease. Uniformly, severity scoring systems are cumbersome, typically require 48 h to become accurate, and when the score demonstrates severe disease, the patient’s condition is obvious regardless of the score (52,57,58). The new scoring systems, such as the BISAP (59), have not shown to be more accurate than the other scoring systems (60,61). In general, AP-specific scoring systems have a limited value, as they provide little additional information to the clinician in the evaluation of patients and may delay appropriate management (52).
Although laboratory testing such as the hematocrit and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) can assist clinicians (52,62,63), no laboratory test is practically available or consistently accurate to predict severity in patients with AP (64,65,66). Even the acute-phase reactant C-reactive protein (CRP), the most widely studied inflammatory marker in AP, is not practical as it takes 72 h to become accurate (54). CT and/or MRI imaging also cannot reliably determine severity early in the course of AP, as necrosis usually is not present on admission and may develop after 24–48 h (24,67). Thus, in the absence of any available test to determine severity, close examination to assess early fluid losses, hypovolemic shock, and symptoms suggestive of organ dysfunction is crucial.
Rather than depending on a scoring system to predict severity of AP, clinicians need to be aware of intrinsic patient-related risk factors, including laboratory and imaging risk factors, for the development of severe disease (Table 4). These include: a patient’s age, comorbid health problems, body mass index (74), the presence of SIRS (70,71), signs of hypovolemia such as an elevated BUN (63) and an elevated hematocrit (62), presence of pleural effusions and/or infiltrates (73), altered mental status (69), and other factors (54,72) (Table 3).
|Age >55 years (53,57)|
|Obesity (BMI >30 kg/m2) (68)|
|Altered mental status (69)|
|Comorbid disease (53)|
|The systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) (6,53,54,70,71) Presence of >2 of the following criteria:|
|– pulse >90 beats/min|
|– respirations >20/min or PaCO2 >32 mm Hg|
|– temperature >38 °C or <36 °C|
|– WBC count >12,000 or <4,000 cells/mm3 or >10% immature neutrophils (bands)|
|BUN >20 mg/dl (63)|
|Rising BUN (63)|
|HCT >44% (62)|
|Rising HCT (62)|
|Elevated creatinine (72)|
|Pleural effusions (73)|
|Pulmonary infiltrates (53)|
|Multiple or extensive extrapancreatic collections (67)|
|BMI, body mass index; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; HCT, hematocrit; WBC, white blood cell.
a The presence of organ failure and/or pancreatic necrosis defines severe acute pancreatitis.
During the early phase of the disease (within the first week), death occurs as a result of the development, persistence, and progressive nature of organ dysfunction (75,76). The development of organ failure appears to be related to the development and persistence of SIRS. The reversal of and early organ failure has been shown to be important in preventing morbidity and mortality in patients with AP (77,78). Although the presence of SIRS during the initial 24 h has a high sensitivity for predicting organ failure and mortality, the presence of SIRS lacks specificity for severe disease (41%). The lack of specificity is due to the fact that the presence of SIRS is not as important as its persistence. For this reason, patients with persistent SIRS, particularly those who are tachypnic and/or tachycardic, should be admitted to an intensive care unit or similar unit for aggressive intravenous hydration and close monitoring.
- Aggressive hydration, defined as 250–500 ml per hour of isotonic crystalloid solution should be provided to all patients, unless cardiovascular, renal, or other related comorbid factors exist. Early aggressive intravenous hydration is most beneficial during the first 12–24 h, and may have little benefit beyond this time period (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
- In a patient with severe volume depletion, manifest as hypotension and tachycardia, more rapid repletion (bolus) may be needed (conditional recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
- Lactated Ringer’s solution may be the preferred isotonic crystalloid replacement fluid (conditional recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
- Fluid requirements should be reassessed at frequent intervals within 6 h of admission and for the next 24–48 h. The goal of aggressive hydration should be to decrease the BUN (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
Early aggressive intravenous hydration
Despite dozens of randomized trials, no medication has been shown to be effective in treating AP (32,53). However, an effective intervention has been well described: early aggressive intravenous hydration. Recommendations regarding aggressive hydration are based on expert opinion (10,52,53), laboratory experiments (79,80), indirect clinical evidence (62,63,81,82), epidemiologic studies (59), and both retrospective and prospective clinical trials (9,83).
The rationale for early aggressive hydration in AP arises from observation of the frequent hypovolemia that occurs from multiple factors affecting patients with AP, including vomiting, reduced oral intake, third spacing of fluids, increased respiratory losses, and diaphoresis. In addition, researchers hypothesize that a combination of microangiopathic effects and edema of the inflamed pancreas decreases blood flow, leading to increased cellular death, necrosis, and ongoing release of pancreatic enzymes activating numerous cascades. Inflammation also increases vascular permeability, leading to increased third space fluid losses and worsening of pancreatic hypoperfusion that leads to increased pancreatic parenchymal necrosis and cell death (84). Early aggressive intravenous fluid resuscitation provides micro- and macrocirculatory support to prevent serious complications such as pancreatic necrosis (10).
Although there are limited prospective data that aggressive intravenous hydration can be monitored and/or guided by laboratory markers, the use of hematocrit (62), BUN (63,83), and creatinine (72) as surrogate markers for successful hydration has been widely recommended (10,15,52,53). Although no firm recommendations regarding absolute numbers can be made at this time, the goal to decrease hematocrit (demonstrating hemodilution) and BUN (increasing renal perfusion) and maintain a normal creatinine during the first day of hospitalization cannot be overemphasized.
Although some human trials have shown a clear benefit to aggressive hydration (9,85,86), other studies have suggested that aggressive hydration may be associated with an increased morbidity and mortality (87,88). These variable study findings may be partly explained by critical differences in study design. Although these studies raise concerns about the continuous use of aggressive hydration over 48 h, the role of early hydration (within the first 6–12 h) was not addressed in these negative studies. In addition, these negative studies included sicker patients who would have required large volumes of hydration by the 48 h time point (87,88). Consistently, the human studies in AP that focused on the initial rate of hydration early in the course of treatment (within the first 24 h) demonstrated a decrease in both morbidity and mortality (9,85,86). Although the total volume of hydration at 48 h after admission appears to have little or no impact on patient outcome, early aggressive intravenous hydration, during the first 12–24 h, with close monitoring is of paramount importance.
In a well-designed prospective randomized trial, hydration with a lactated Ringer’s solution appears to be more beneficial, resulting in fewer patients developing SIRS as compared with patients receiving normal (0.9%) saline (83). The benefit of using lactated Ringer’s solution in large-volume resuscitation has been shown in other disease states to lead to better electrolyte balance and improved outcomes (89,90). In AP, there are additional theoretical benefits to using the more pH-balanced lactated Ringer’s solution for fluid resuscitation compared with normal saline. Low pH activates the trypsinogen, makes the acinar cells more susceptible to injury and increases the severity of established AP in experimental studies. Although both are isotonic crystalloid solutions, normal saline given in large volumes may lead to the development of a non-anion gap, hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis (83).
It is important to recognize that aggressive early hydration will require caution for certain groups of patients, such as the elderly, or those with a history of cardiac and/or renal disease in order to avoid complications such as volume overload, pulmonary edema, and abdominal compartment syndrome (91). Measurement of the central venous pressure via a centrally placed catheter is most commonly used to determine volume status in this setting. However, data indicate that the intrathoracic blood volume index may have a better correlation with cardiac index than central venous pressure. Measurement of intrathoracic blood volume index may therefore allow more accurate assessment of volume status for patients managed in the intensive care unit. Patients not responding to intravenous hydration early (within 6–12 h) may not benefit from continued aggressive hydration.
ERCP in AP
The role of ERCP in AP is related to the management of choledocholithiasis. Although ERCP can be used to identify pancreatic ductal disruption in patients with severe AP, possibly leading to interventions for the so-called dislocated duct syndrome, a consensus has never emerged that ERCP should be performed routinely for this purpose (52).
- Patients with AP and concurrent acute cholangitis should undergo ERCP within 24 h of admission (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
- ERCP is not needed early in most patients with gallstone pancreatitis who lack laboratory or clinical evidence of ongoing biliary obstruction (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
- In the absence of cholangitis and/or jaundice, MRCP or EUS rather than diagnostic ERCP should be used to screen for choledocholithiasis if highly suspected (conditional recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
- Pancreatic duct stents and/or postprocedure rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) suppositories should be utilized to lower the risk of severe post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients (conditional recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
The role of ERCP in AP
Fortunately, most gallstones that cause AP readily pass to the duodenum and are lost in the stool (92). However in a minority of patients, persistent choledocholithiasis can lead to ongoing pancreatic duct and/or biliary tree obstruction, leading to severe AP and/or cholangitis. Removal of obstructing gallstones from the biliary tree in patients with AP should reduce the risk of developing these complications.
There have been several clinical trials performed to answer the question: does early ERCP (within 24–72 h of onset) in acute biliary pancreatitis reduces the risk of progression of AP to severe disease (organ failure and/or necrosis)? Neoptolemos et al. (93) studied 121 patients with probable acute biliary pancreatitis, stratified for severity according to the modified Glasgow criteria. The trial was performed in a single center in the United Kingdom. Patients with predicted severe AP had fewer complications if they underwent ERCP within 72 h of admission (24% vs. 61%, P<0.05). When patients with concurrent acute cholangitis (who would obviously benefit from early ERCP) were excluded, the difference remained significant (15% vs. 61%, P=0.003). Mortality was not significantly different in the two groups. Fan et al. (94) reported a study of 195 patients with suspected biliary pancreatitis stratified for severity according to Ranson’s criteria. Patients in the study group underwent ERCP within 24 h of admission and those in the control group were offered conservative management. The control group was offered ERCP if acute cholangitis developed. Those who underwent early ERCP had fewer complications (13% vs. 54%, P=0.002).
Based on these studies, it was unclear whether patients with severe AP in the absence of acute cholangitis benefit from early ERCP. Therefore, Folsch et al. (95) organized a multicenter study of ERCP in acute biliary pancreatitis that excluded patients most likely to benefit, namely those with a serum bilirubin >5 mg/dl. Thus, patients with acute cholangitis and/or obvious biliary tree obstruction underwent early ERCP and were not included in the study. This study focused on determining the benefit of early ERCP in preventing severe AP in the absence of biliary obstruction. Although this study has been widely criticized for design flaws and the unusually high mortality of patients with mild disease (8% compared with an expected 1%), no benefit in morbidity and/or mortality was seen in patients who underwent early ERCP. From this study, it appears that the benefit of early ERCP is seen in patients with AP complicated by acute cholangitis and biliary tree obstruction, but not severe AP in the absence of acute cholangitis.
More recent studies have confirmed that early ERCP within 24 h of admission decreases morbidity and mortality in patients with AP complicated by biliary sepsis (96,97). A dilated biliary tree in the absence of an elevated bilirubin and other signs of sepsis should not be confused with cholangitis, but may indicate the presence of a common bile duct stone. In patients with biliary pancreatitis who have mild disease, and in patients who improve, ERCP before cholecystectomy has been shown to be of limited value and may be harmful. Noninvasive imaging studies are the preferred diagnostic modalities in these patients (EUS and/or MRCP). However, it is not clear if any testing needs to be performed in patients who improve.
Preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis
AP remains the most common complication of ERCP. Historically, this complication was seen in 5–10% of cases and in 20–40% of certain high-risk procedures (50,98). Over the past 15 years, the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis has decreased to 2–4% and the risk of severe AP to <1/500 (50,98). In general, the decrease in post-ERCP AP and severe AP is related to increased recognition of high-risk patients and high-risk procedures in which ERCP should be avoided and the application of appropriate interventions to prevent AP and severe AP (50).
Patients with normal or near-normal bile duct and liver tests have a lower likelihood of a common bile duct stone and/or other pathology (stricture, tumor). In these patients, diagnostic ERCP has largely been replaced by EUS or MRCP as the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis is greater in a patient with normal caliber bile duct and normal bilirubin (odds ratio 3.4 for post-ERCP pancreatitis) as compared with a patient who is jaundiced with a dilated common bile duct (odds ratio 0.2 for post-ERCP pancreatitis) (99). Furthermore, MRCP and EUS are as accurate as diagnostic ERCP and pose no risk of pancreatitis (98).
For patients undergoing a therapeutic ERCP, three well-studied interventions to decrease the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis, especially severe disease, include: (i) guidewire cannulation, (ii) pancreatic duct stents, and (iii) rectal NSAIDs. Guidewire cannulation (cannulation of the bile duct and pancreatic duct by a guidewire inserted through a catheter) decreases the risk of pancreatitis (100) by avoiding hydrostatic injury to the pancreas that may occur with the use of radiocontrast agents. In a study of 400 consecutive patients randomized to contrast or guidewire cannulation, there were no cases of AP in the guidewire group as compared with 8 cases in the contrast group (P<0.001). A more recent study in 300 patients prospectively randomized to guidewire cannulation compared with conventional contrast injection also found a decrease in post-ERCP pancreatitis in the guidewire group (101). However, the reduction in post-ERCP pancreatitis may not be entirely related to guidewire cannulation (102) and may have been related to less need for precut sphincterotomy in patients undergoing guidewire cannulation. Regardless, guidewire cannulation compared with conventional contrast cannulation appears to decrease the risk of severe post-ERCP AP (103,104).
Placement of a pancreatic duct stent decreases the risk of severe post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients, such as those undergoing ampullectomy, endoscopic sphincter of Oddi manometry, or pancreatic interventions during ERCP. A 2007 meta-analysis published by Andriulli et al. (105), which evaluated 4 randomized, prospective trials including 268 patients, showed that pancreatic duct stent placement affords a twofold drop in the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (24.1% vs. 12%; P=0.009; odds ratio: 0.44, 95% confidence interval: 0.24–0.81). Although further study is needed, smaller 3 French (Fr) unflanged pancreatic stents appear to lower the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (P=0.0043), pass more spontaneously (P=0.0001), and cause less pancreatic ductal changes (24% vs. 80%) as compared with larger 4 Fr, 5 Fr, or 6 Fr stents (106). However, 3 Fr pancreatic stent placement is more technically demanding because of the need to use a very floppy (0.018-inch diameter) guidewire. Although prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting is a cost-effective strategy for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis for high-risk patients (107), a higher incidence of severe pancreatitis has been reported in patients with failed pancreatic duct stenting (108). Pancreatic duct stenting is not always technically feasible, with reported failure rates ranging from 4 to 10% (108). In addition, long-term complications from pancreatic duct stenting, such as chronic pancreatitis, may occur and further study is needed (49).
Although a large number of pharmacologic interventions for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis have been studied (50), the results of the studies have been largely disappointing. The most promising group of drugs to attenuate the inflammatory response of AP are NSAIDs (109,110). Two clinical trials have shown that a 100 mg rectal suppository of diclofenac reduces the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (111,112). In addition, a recent multicenter, double-blind, randomized placebo controlled trial of 602 patients undergoing a high-risk ERCP demonstrated a significant reduction of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients given postprocedure rectal indomethacin (113). It is important to note that this study included only patients at a high risk of developing post-ERCP pancreatitis and severe AP, which is the population that would benefit the most. When considering the costs, risks, and potential benefits reviewed in the published literature, rectal diclofenac and/or indomethacin should be considered before ERCP, especially in high-risk patients. Although further study is needed to define the optimal dose, at present it is reasonable to consider placement of two indomethacin 50 mg suppositories (total 100 mg) after ERCP in patients at a high risk of developing post-ERCP AP. However, until further study is performed, the placement of rectal NSAIDs does not replace the need for a pancreatic duct stent in the appropriate high-risk patient.
The Role of Antibiotics in AP
- Antibiotics should be given for an extrapancreatic infection, such as cholangitis, catheter-acquired infections, bacteremia, urinary tract infections, pneumonia (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
- Routine use of prophylactic antibiotics in patients with severe AP is not recommended (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
- The use of antibiotics in patients with sterile necrosis to prevent the development of infected necrosis is not recommended (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
- Infected necrosis should be considered in patients with pancreatic or extrapancreatic necrosis who deteriorate or fail to improve after 7–10 days of hospitalization. In these patients, either (i) initial CT-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for Gram stain and culture to guide use of appropriate antibiotics or (ii) empiric use of antibiotics after obtaining necessary cultures for infectious agents, without CT FNA, should be given (strong recommendation, moderate evidence).
- In patients with infected necrosis, antibiotics known to penetrate pancreatic necrosis, such as carbapenems, quinolones, and metronidazole, may be useful in delaying or sometimes totally avoiding intervention, thus decreasing morbidity and mortality (conditional recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
- Routine administration of antifungal agents along with prophylactic or therapeutic antibiotics is not recommended (conditional recommendation, low quality of evidence).
Infectious complications, both pancreatic (infected necrosis) and extrapancreatic (pneumonia, cholangitis, bacteremia, urinary tract infections, and so on), are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with AP. Many infections are hospital-acquired and may have a major impact on mortality (114). Fever, tachycardia, tachypnea, and leukocytosis associated with SIRS that may occur early in the course of AP may be indistinguishable from sepsis syndrome. When an infection is suspected, antibiotics should be given while the source of the infection is being investigated (53). However, once blood and other cultures are found to be negative and no source of infection is identified, antibiotics should be discontinued.
Preventing the infection of sterile necrosis
The paradigm shift and controversy over using antibiotics in AP has centered on pancreatic necrosis. When compared with patients with sterile necrosis, patients with infected pancreatic necrosis have a higher mortality rate (mean 30%, range 14–69%) (53). For this reason, preventing infection of pancreatic necrosis is important. Although it was previously believed that infectious complications occur late in the course of the disease (115,116), a recent review found that 27% of all cases of infected necrosis occur within the first 14 days (117); in another study, nearly half of all infections appear to occur within 7 days of admission (118).
Although early unblinded trials suggested that administration of antibiotics may prevent infectious complications in patients with sterile necrosis (119,120), subsequent, better-designed trials have consistently failed to confirm an advantage (121,122,123,124,125). Because of the consistency of pancreatic necrosis, few antibiotics penetrate when given intravenously. The antibiotics shown to penetrate and used in clinical trials include carbapenems, quinolones, metronidazole, and high-dose cephalosporins (52,116,123). Since 1993, there have been 11 prospective, randomized trials with proper study design, participants, and outcome measures that evaluated the use of prophylactic antibiotics in severe AP (126). From this meta-analysis, the number needed to treat was 1,429 for one patient to benefit. It remains uncertain if a subgroup of patients with severe AP (such as extensive necrosis with organ failure) may benefit from antibiotics, but large studies required to determine whether any benefit exists will be difficult to perform. Based on the current literature, use of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent infection in patients with sterile necrosis (even predicted as having severe disease) is not recommended.
Prevention of fungal infections in these patients is also not recommended. Although it was suggested that fungal infection may be a more common cause of mortality in AP, further study has not confirmed this finding (127). There is one successful randomized controlled, clinical trial that used selective decontamination of the bowel, targeting both bacteria and fungi, in order to prevent infected necrosis (128). Because of the decreased morbidity and mortality in this trial in patients with severe AP who had undergone selective decontamination, further study in this area is needed. Finally, probiotics should not be given in severe AP. Although earlier trials suggested a benefit, a very well-conducted, randomized controlled clinical trial demonstrated increased mortality (129). This lack of benefit has also been shown in a recent meta-analysis (130).
Rather than preventing infection, the role of antibiotics in patients with necrotizing AP is now to treat established infected necrosis. The concept that infected pancreatic necrosis requires prompt surgical debridement has also been challenged by multiple reports and case series showing that antibiotics alone can lead to resolution of infection and, in select patients, avoid surgery altogether (131,132,133,134). Garg et al. (134) reported 47/80 patients with infected necrosis over a 10-year period who were successfully treated conservatively with antibiotics alone (134). The mortality in the conservative group was 23% as compared with 54% in the surgical group. The same group published a meta-analysis of 8 studies involving 409 patients with infected necrosis of whom 324 were successfully treated with antibiotics alone (135). Overall, 64% of the patients with infected necrosis in this meta-analysis could be managed by conservative antibiotic treatment with 12% mortality, and only 26% underwent surgery. Thus, a select group of relatively stable patients with infected pancreatic necrosis could be managed by antibiotics alone without requiring percutaneous drainage. However, it should be cautioned that these patients require close supervision and percutaneous or endoscopic or necrosectomy should be considered if the patient fails to improve or deteriorates clinically.
The role of CT FNA
The technique of computed tomography guided fine needle aspiration (CT FNA) has proven to be safe, effective, and accurate in distinguishing infected and sterile necrosis (53,136). As patients with infected necrosis and sterile necrosis may appear similar with leukocytosis, fever, and organ failure (137), it is impossible to separate these entities without needle aspiration. Historically, the use of antibiotics is best established in clinically proven pancreatic or extrapancreatic infection, and therefore CT FNA should be considered when an infection is suspected. An immediate review of the Gram stain will often establish a diagnosis. However, it may be prudent to begin antibiotics while awaiting microbiologic confirmation. If culture reports are negative, the antibiotics can be discontinued.
There is some controversy as to whether a CT FNA is necessary in all patients (Figure 1). In many patients, the CT FNA would not influence the management (138). Increased use of conservative management and minimally invasive drainage have decreased the use of FNA for the diagnosis of infected necrosis (54). Many patients with sterile or infected necrosis either improve quickly or become unstable, and decisions on intervention via a minimally invasive route will not be influenced by the results of the aspiration. A consensus conference concluded that FNA should only be used in select situations where there is no clinical response to antibiotics, such as when a fungal infection is suspected (54).
Nutrition in AP
- In mild AP, oral feedings can be started immediately if there is no nausea and vomiting, and the abdominal pain has resolved (conditional recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
- In mild AP, initiation of feeding with a low-fat solid diet appears as safe as a clear liquid diet (conditional recommendations, moderate quality of evidence).
- In severe AP, enteral nutrition is recommended to prevent infectious complications. Parenteral nutrition should be avoided, unless the enteral route is not available, not tolerated, or not meeting caloric requirements (strong recommendation, high quality of evidence).
- Nasogastric delivery and nasojejunal delivery of enteral feeding appear comparable in efficacy and safety (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
Summary of evidence
Nutrition in mild AP
Historically, despite the absence of clinical data, patients with AP were kept NPO (nothing by mouth) to rest the pancreas (32). Most guidelines in the past recommended NPO until resolution of pain and some suggested awaiting normalization of pancreatic enzymes or even imaging evidence of resolution of inflammation before resuming oral feedings (53). The need to place the pancreas at rest until complete resolution of AP no longer seems imperative. The long-held assumption that the inflamed pancreas requires prolonged rest by fasting does not appear to be supported by laboratory and clinical observation (139). Clinical and experimental studies showed that bowel rest is associated with intestinal mucosal atrophy and increased infectious complications because of bacterial translocation from the gut. Multiple studies have shown that patients provided oral feeding early in the course of AP have a shorter hospital stay, decreased infectious complications, decreased morbidity, and decreased mortality (117,140,141,142,143).
In mild AP, oral intake is usually restored quickly and no nutritional intervention is needed. Although the timing of refeeding remains controversial, recent studies have shown that immediate oral feeding in patients with mild AP appears safe (139). In addition, a low-fat solid diet has been shown to be safe compared with clear liquids, providing more calories (144). Similarly, in other randomized trials, oral feeding with a soft diet has been found to be safe compared with clear liquids and it shortens the hospital stay (145,146). Early refeeding also appears to result in a shorter hospital stay. Based on these studies, oral feedings introduced in mild AP do not need to begin with clear liquids and increase in a stepwise manner, but may begin as a low-residue, low-fat, soft diet when the patient appears to be improving.
Total parenteral nutrition should be avoided in patients with mild and severe AP. There have been multiple randomized trials showing that total parenteral nutrition is associated with infectious and other line-related complications (53). As enteral feeding maintains the gut mucosal barrier, prevents disruption, and prevents the translocation of bacteria that seed pancreatic necrosis, enteral nutrition may prevent infected necrosis (142,143). A recent meta-analysis describing 8 randomized controlled clinical trials involving 381 patients found a decrease in infectious complications, organ failure, and mortality in patients with severe AP who were provided enteral nutrition as compared with total parenteral nutrition (143). Although further study is needed, continuous infusion is preferred over cyclic or bolus administration.
Although the use of a nasojejunal route has been traditionally preferred to avoid the gastric phase of stimulation, nasogastric enteral nutrition appears as safe. A systematic review describing 92 patients from 4 studies on nasogastric tube feeding found that nasogastric feeding was safe and well tolerated in patients with predicted severe AP (117). There have been some reports of nasogastric feeding slightly increasing the risk of aspiration. For this reason, patients with AP undergoing enteral nutrition should be placed in a more upright position and be placed on aspiration precautions. Although further study is needed, evaluating for “residuals,” retained volume in the stomach, is not likely to be helpful. Compared with nasojejunal feeding, nasogastric tube placement is far easier, which is important in patients with AP, especially in the intensive care setting. Nasojejunal tube placement requires interventional radiology or endoscopy and thus can be expensive. For these reasons, nasogastric tube feeding should be preferred (147). A large multicenter trial sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is currently being performed to investigate whether nasogastric or nasojejunal feedings are preferred in these patients because of significant experimental and some human evidence of superiority of distal jejunal feeding in AP.
The Role of Surgery in AP
- In patients with mild AP, found to have gallstones in the gallbladder, a cholecystectomy should be performed before discharge to prevent a recurrence of AP (moderate recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
- In a patient with necrotizing biliary AP, in order to prevent infection, cholecystectomy is to be deferred until active inflammation subsides and fluid collections resolve or stabilize (strong recommendation, moderate evidence).
- Asymptomatic pseudocysts and pancreatic and/or extrapancreatic necrosis do not warrant intervention regardless of size, location, and/or extension (moderate recommendation, high quality of evidence).
- In stable patients with infected necrosis, surgical, radiologic, and/or endoscopic drainage should be delayed preferably for more than 4 weeks to allow liquefication of the contents and the development of a fibrous wall around the necrosis (walled-off necrosis) (strong recommendation, low quality of evidence).
- In symptomatic patients with infected necrosis, minimally invasive methods of necrosectomy are preferred to open necrosectomy (strong recommendation, low quality of evidence).
Summary of evidence
In patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis, cholecystectomy should be performed during the index hospitalization. The current literature, which includes 8 cohort studies and one randomized trial describing 998 patients who had and who had not undergone cholecystectomy for biliary pancreatitis, 95 (18%) were readmitted for recurrent biliary events within 90 days of discharge (0% vs. 18%, P<0.0001), including recurrent biliary pancreatitis (n=43, 8%) (148). Some of the cases were found to be severe. Based on this experience, there is a need for early cholecystectomy during the same hospitalization, if the attack is mild. Patients who have severe AP, especially with pancreatic necrosis, will require complex decision making between the surgeon and gastroenterologist. In these patients, cholecystectomy is typically delayed until (i) a later time in the typically prolonged hospitalization, (ii) as part of the management of the pancreatic necrosis if present, or (iii) after discharge (148,149). Earlier guidelines recommended a cholecystectomy after 2 attacks of IAP, with a presumption that many such cases might be because of microlithiasis. However, a population-based study found that cholecystectomy performed for recurrent attacks of AP with no stones/sludge on ultrasound and no significant elevation of liver tests during the attack of AP was associated with a >50% recurrence of AP (150).
In the majority of patients with gallstone pancreatitis, the common bile duct stone passes to the duodenum. Routine ERCP is not appropriate unless there is a high suspicion of a persistent common bile duct stone, manifested by an elevation in the bilirubin (151). Patients with mild AP, with normal bilirubin, can undergo laproscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative cholangiography, and any remaining bile duct stones can be dealt with by postoperative or intraoperative ERCP. In patients with low to moderate risk, MRCP or EUS can be used preoperatively, but routine use of MRCP is unnecessary. In patients with mild AP who cannot undergo surgery, such as the frail elderly and/or those with severe comorbid disease, biliary sphincterotomy alone may be an effective way to reduce further attacks of AP, although attacks of cholecystitis may still occur (53).
Debridement of necrosis
Historically, open necrosectomy/debridement was the treatment of choice for infected necrosis and symptomatic sterile necrosis. Decades ago, patients with sterile necrosis underwent early debridement that resulted in increased mortality. For this reason, early open debridement for sterile necrosis was abandoned (32). However, debridement for sterile necrosis is recommended if associated with gastric outlet obstruction and/or bile duct obstruction. In patients with infected necrosis, it was falsely believed that mortality of infected necrosis was nearly 100% if debridement was not performed urgently (53,152). In a retrospective review of 53 patients with infected necrosis treated operatively (median time to surgery of 28 days) mortality fell to 22% when necrosectomy necrosis was delayed (118). After reviewing 11 studies that included 1,136 patients, the authors found that postponing necrosectomy in stable patients treated with antibiotics alone until 30 days after initial hospital admission is associated with a decreased mortality (131).
The concept that infected pancreatic necrosis requires prompt surgical debridement has also been challenged by multiple reports and case series showing that antibiotics alone can lead to resolution of infection and, in select patients, avoid surgery altogether (6,54). In one report (133) of 28 patients given antibiotics for the management of infected pancreatic necrosis, 16 avoided surgery. There were two deaths in the patients who underwent surgery and two deaths in the patients who were treated with antibiotics alone. Thus, in this report, more than half the patients were successfully treated with antibiotics and the mortality rate in both the surgical and nonsurgical groups was similar. The concept that urgent surgery is required in patients found to have infected necrosis is no longer valid. Asymptomatic pancreatic and/or extrapancreatic necrosis does not mandate intervention regardless of size, location, and extension. It will likely resolve over time, even in some cases of infected necrosis (54).
Although unstable patients with infected necrosis should undergo urgent debridement, current consensus is that the initial management of infected necrosis for patients who are clinically stable should be a course of antibiotics before intervention to allow the inflammatory reaction to become better organized (54). If the patient remains ill and the infected necrosis has not resolved, minimally invasive necrosectomy by endoscopic, radiologic, video-assisted retroperitoneal, laparoscopic approach, or combination thereof, or open surgery is recommended once the necrosis is walled-off (54,153,154,155,156).
Minimally invasive management of pancreatic necrosis
Minimally invasive approaches to pancreatic necrosectomy including laproscopic surgery either from an anterior or retroperitoneal approach, percutaneous, radiologic catheter drainage or debridement, video-assisted or small incision-based left retroperitoneal debridement, and endoscopy are increasingly becoming the standard of care. Percutaneous drainage without necrosectomy may be the most frequently used minimally invasive method for managing fluid collections complicating necrotizing AP (54,68,148,152,153,154,155,156,157). The overall success appears to be ~50% in avoiding open surgery. In addition, endoscopic drainage of necrotic collections and/or direct endoscopic necrosectomy has been reported in several large series to be equally successful (53,54,155). Sometimes these modalities can be combined at the same time or sequentially, for example, combined percutaneous and endoscopic methods. Recently, a well-designed study from the Netherlands using a step-up approach (percutaneous catheter drainage followed by video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement) (68,156) demonstrated the superiority of the step-up approach as reflected by lower morbidity (less multiple organ failure and surgical complications) and lower costs compared with open surgical necrosectomy.
Although these guidelines cannot discuss in detail the various methods of debridement, or the comparative effectiveness of each, because of limitations in available data and the focus of this review, several generalizations are important. Regardless of the method employed, minimally invasive approaches require the pancreatic necrosis to become organized (54,68,154,155,156,157). Whereas early in the course of the disease (within the first 7–10 days) pancreatic necrosis is a diffuse solid and/or semisolid inflammatory mass, after ~4 weeks a fibrous wall develops around the necrosis that makes removal more amenable to open and laproscopic surgery, percutaneous radiologic catheter drainage, and/or endoscopic drainage.
Currently, a multidisciplinary consensus favors minimally invasive methods over open surgery for the management of pancreatic necrosis (54). A recent randomized controlled trial clearly demonstrated the superiority of endoscopic debridement over surgery (154). Although advances in surgical, radiologic, and endoscopic techniques exist and are in development, it must be stressed that many patients with sterile pancreatic necrosis, and select patients with infected necrosis, clinically improve to a point where no intervention is necessary (54,134). The management of patients with pancreatic necrosis should be individualized, requiring consideration of all the available data (clinical, radiologic, laboratory) and using available expertise. Early referral to a center of excellence is of paramount importance, as delaying intervention with maximal supportive care and using a minimally invasive approach have both been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality.
Conflict of Interest
Guarantor of the article: Scott Tenner, MD, MPH, FACG.
Specific author contributions: All four authors shared equally in conceiving, initiating, and writing the manuscript.
Financial support: None.
Potential competing interests: None.
- 1. Peery AE, Dellon ES, Lund J et al. Burden of gastrointestinal diseases in the United States: 2012 Update. Gastroenterology 2012;143:1179–1187.
- 2. Fagenholz PJ, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Harris NS et al. Direct medical costs of acute pancreatitis hospitalizations in the United States. Pancreas 2007;35:302–307.
- 3.Fagenholz PJ, Castillo CF, Harris NS et al. Increasing United States hospital admissions for acute pancreatitis, 1988-2003. Ann Epidemiol 2007;17:491–497.
- 4. Yadav D, Lowenfels AB. Trends in the epidemiology of the first attack of acute pancreatitis: a systemic review. Pancreas 2006;33:323–330.
- 5. Bradley EL. A clinically based classification system of acute pancreatitis. Arch Surg 1993;128:586–590.
- 6. Banks PA, Bollen TL, Dervenis C et al. Classification of acute pancreatitis—2012: revision of Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut 2013;62:102–111.
- 7. Busquets J, Fabregat J, Pelaez N et al. Factors influencing mortality in patients undergoing surgery for acute pancreatitis: importance of peripancreatic tissue and fluid infection. Pancreas 2013;42:285–292.
- 8. Marshall JC, Cook DJ, Christou NV et al. Multiple organ dysfunction score: a reliable descriptor of complex clinical outcome. Crit Care Med 1995;23:1638–1652.
- 9. Wall I, Badalov N, Baradarian R et al. Decreased morbidity and mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis related to aggressive intravenous hydration. Pancreas 2011;40:547–550.
- 10. Gardner TB, Vege SS, Pearson RK et al. Fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;6:1070–1076.
- 11. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924–926.
- 12. Clavien PA, Robert J, Meyer P et al. Acute pancreatitis and normoamylasemia. Not an uncommon combination. Ann Surg 1989;210:614–620.
- 13. Winslet M, Hall C, London NJM. Relation of diagnostic serum amylase levels to aetiology and severity of acute pancreatitis. Gut 1992;33:982–986.
- 14. Malka D, Rosa-Hezode I. Positive and etiological diagnosis of acute pancreatitis. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 2001;25:1S153–11S68.
- 15. UK guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis. Gut 2005;54:1–9.
- 16. Steinberg WM, DeVries JH, Wadden T et al. Longitudinal monitoring of lipase and amylase in adults with type 2 diabetes and obesity: Evidence from two phase 3 randomized clinical trials with the once-daily GLP-1 analog liraglutide. Gastroenterology 2012;121: A246.
- 17. Shah AM, Eddi R, Kothari ST et al. Acute pancreatitis with normal serum lipase: a case series. JOP 2010;11:369–372.
- 18. Kiriyama, Gabata T, Takada T et al. New diagnostic criteria of acute pancreatitis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2010;17:24–36.
- 19. Lippil G, Valentino M, Cervellin G. Laboratory diagnosis of acute pancreatitis: in search of the Holy Grail. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 2012;49:18–31.
- 20. Balthazar EJ. Acute pancreatitis: assessment of severity with clinical and CT evaluation. Radiology 2002;223:603–613.
- 21. Arvanitakis M, Delhaye M, Maertelaere VD et al. Computed tomography and MRI in the assessment of acute pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 2004;126:715–723.
- 22. Zaheer A, Singh VK, Qureshi RO et al. The revised Atlanta classification for acute pancreatitis: updates in imaging terminology and guidelines. Abdom Imaging 2013;38:125–136.
- 23. Bollen TL, Singh VK, Maurer R et al. Comparative evaluation of the modified CT severity index and CT severity index in assessing severity of acute pancreatitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197:386–392.
- 24. Stimac D, Miletic D, Radic M et al. The role of non enhanced mangetic resonance imaging in the early assessment of acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:997–1004.
- 25. Lankisch PG, Assmus C, Lehnick D et al. Acute pancreatitis: does gender matter? Dig Dis Sci 2001;46:2470–2474.
- 26. Gullo I, Migliori M, Olah A et al. Acute pancreatitis in five European countries: etiology and mortality. Pancreas 2002;24:223–227.
- 27. Lowenfels AB, Maisonneuve P, Sullivan T. The changing character of acute pancreatitis: epidemiology, etiology, and prognosis. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2009;11:97–103.
- 28. Johnson C, Lévy P. Detection of gallstones in acute pancreatitis: when and how? Pancreatology 2010;10:27–32.
- 29. Moreau JA, Zinsmeister AR, Melton LJ et al. Gallstone pancreatitis and the effect of cholecystectomy. Mayo Clin Proc 63;466:1988.
- 30. Yadav D, O’Connell M, Papachristou GI. Natural history following the first attack of acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:1096–1103.
- 31. Ammann RW. The natural history of alcoholic chronic pancreatitis. Intern Med 2001;40:368–375.
- 32. Steinberg W, Tenner S. Medical progress: acute pancreatitis. New Engl J Med 1994;330:1198–1210.
- 33. Rebours V, Vullierme MP, Hentic O et al. Smoking and the course of recurrent acute and chronic alcoholic pancreatitis: a dose-dependent relationship. Pancreas 2012;41:1219–1224.
- 34. Whitcomb DC. Genetic polymorphisms in alcoholic pancreatitis. Dig Dis Sci 2005;23:247–254.
- 35. Badalov N, Baradarian R, Iswara K et al. Drug induced acute pancreatitis: an evidence based approach. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;101:454–476.
- 36. Fortson MR, Freeman SN, Webster PD. Clinical assessment of hyperlipidmeic pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 1995;90:2134–2139.
- 37. Parenti DM, Steinberg W, Kang P. Infectious causes of acute pancreatitis. Pancreas 1996;13:356–371.
- 38. Farmer RG, Winkelman EI, Brown HB et al. Hyperlipoproteinemia and pancreatitis. Am J Med 1973;54:161–165.
- 39. Toskes PP. Hyperlipidmic pancreatitis. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 1990;19:783–791.
- 40. Yadav D, Pitchumoni CS. Issues in hyperlipidemic pancreatitis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2003;36:54–62.
- 41. Simpson WF, Adams DB, Metcalf JS et al. Nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors presenting as pancreatitis: report of four cases. Pancreas 1988;3:223–231.
- 42. Kohler H, Lankisch PG. Acute pancreatitis and hyperamylasaemia in pancreatic carcinoma. Pancreas 1987;2:117–119.
- 43. Robertson JF, Imrie CW. Acute pancreatitis associated with carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater. Br J Surg 1987;74:395–397.
- 44. Bank S, Indaram A. Causes of acute and recurrent pancreatitis. Clinical considerations and clues to diagnosis. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 1999;28:571–589, viii.
- 45. Banks PA. Epidemiology, natural history, and predictors of disease outcome in acute and chronic pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:S226–S230.
- 46. Tandon M, Topazian M. Endoscopic ultrasound in idiopathic acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:705–709.
- 47. Al-Haddad M, Wallace MB. Diagnostic approach to patients with acute idiopathic pancreatitis, what should be done? World J Gastroenterol 2008;14:1007–1010.
- 48. DiMagno MJ, Dimagno EP. Pancreas divisum does not cause pancreatitis, but associates with CFTR mutations. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:318–320.
- 49. Steinberg WM, Chari ST, Forsmark CE et al. Controversies in clinical pancreatology: management of acute idiopathic recurrent pancreatitis. Pancreas 2003;27:103–117.
- 50. Badalov N, Tenner S, Baillie J. Prevention and treatment of post-ERCP pancreatitis. JOP 2009;10:88–97.
- 51. Cote GA, Imperiale TF, Schmidt SE et al. Similar efficacies of biliary, with or without pancreatic, sphincterotomy in treatment of idiopathic recurrent acute pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 2012;6):1502–1509.
- 52. Tenner S. Initial management of acute pancreatitis: critical decisions during the first 72 hours. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:2489–2494.
- 53. Banks PA, Freeman ML. Practice guidelines in acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:2379–2400.
- 54. Freeman MF, Werner J, van Santvoort HC et al. Interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis. Summary of a multi-disciplinary consensus conference. Pancreas 2012;8:1176–1194.
- 55. Perez A, Whang EE, Brooks DC et al. Is severity of necrotizing pancreatitis increased in extending necrosis and infected necrosis? Pancreas 2002;25:229–233.
- 56. Bakker OJ, van Santvoort H, Besselink MG et al. Extrapancreatic necrosis without pancreatic parenchymal necrosis: a separate entity in necrotising pancreatitis? Gut 2012;18:143–149.
- 57. Ranson JH, Pasternack BS. Statistical methods for quantifying the severity of clinical acute pancreatitis. J Surg Res 1977;22:79–91.
- 58. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP et al. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 1985;13:818–829.
- 59. Wu BU, Johannes RS, Sun X et al. The early prediction of mortality in acute pancreatitis: a large population-based study. Gut 2008;57:1698Y1703.
- 60. Papachristou GI, Muddana V, Yadav D et al. Comparison of BISAP, Ranson’s, APACHE-II, and CTSI scores in predicting organ failure, complications, and mortality in acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:435–441.
- 61. Wu BU, Johannes RS, Sun X et al. Early changes in blood urea nitrogen predict mortality in acute pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 2009;137:129–135.
- 62. Mounzer R et al. Comparison of existing clinical scoring systems to predict persistent organ failure in patients with acute pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 2012;142:1476–1482.
- 63. Brown A, Orav J, Banks PA. Hemoconcentration is an early marker for organ failure and necrotizing pancreatitis. Pancreas 2000;20:367–372.
- 64. Lankisch PG, Mahlke R, Blum T et al. Hemoconcentration: an early marker of severe and/or necrotizing pancreatitis? A critical appraisal. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:2081–2085.
- 65. Frossard JL, Hadengue A, Pastor CM. New serum markers for the detection of severe acute pancreatitis in humans. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001;164:162–170.
- 66. Papachristou GI, Whitcomb DC. Inflammatory markers of disease severity in acute pancreatitis. Clin Lab Med 2005;25:17–37.
- 67. Balthazar EJ, Robinson DL, Megibow AJ et al. Acute pancreatitis: value of CT in establishing prognosis. Radiology 1990;174:331–336.
- 68. van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, Bakker OJ et al. A step-up approach or open necrosectomy for necrotizing pancreatitis. New Engl J Med 2013;362:1491–1502.
- 69. Tran DD, Cuesta MA. Evaluation of severity in patients with acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 1992;87:604–608.
- 70. Mofidi R, Duff MD, Wigmore SJ et al. Association between early systemic inflammatory response, severity of multiorgan dysfunction and death in acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg 2006;93:738–744.
- 71. Buter A, Imrie CW, Carter CR et al. Dynamic nature of early organ dysfunction determines outcome in acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg 2002;89:298–302.
- 72. Papachristou GI, Muddana V, Yadav D et al. Increased serum creatinine is associated with pancreatic necrosis in acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:1451–1452.
- 73. Heller SJ, Noordhoek E, Tenner SM et al. Pleural effusion as a predictor of severity in acute pancreatitis. Pancreas 1997;15:222–225.
- 74. Funnell IC, Bornman PC, Weakley SP et al. Obesity: an important prognostic factor in acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg 1993;80:484–486.
- 75. Mann DV, Hershman MJ, Hittinger R et al. Multicentre audit of death from acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg 1994;81:890–893.
- 76. Mutinga M, Rosenbluth A, Tenner SM et al. Does mortality occur early or late in acute pancreatitis? Int J Pancreatol 2000;28:91–95.
- 77. Johnson CD, Abu-Hilal M. Persistent organ failure during the first week as a marker of fatal outcome in acute pancreatitis. Gut 2004;53:1340–1344.
- 78. Lytras D, Manes K, Triantopoulou C et al. Persistent early organ failure: defining the high risk group of patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Pancreas 2008;36:249–254.
- 79. Kerner T, Vollmar B, Menger MD et al. Determinants of pancreatic microcirculation in acute pancreatitis in rats. J Surg Res 1996;62:165–171.
- 80. Bassi D, Kollias N, Fernandez-del Castillo C et al. Impairment of pancreatic microcirculation correlates with the severity of acute experimental pancreatitis. J Am Coll Surg 1994;179:257–263.
- 81. Inoue K, Hirota M, Beppu T et al. Angiographicfeatures in acute pancreatitis: the severity of abdominal vessel ischemic change reflects the severity of acute pancreatitis. JOP 2003;4:207–213.
- 82. Bize P, Platon A, Becker C. Perfusion measurement in acute pancreatitis using dynamic perfusion MD CT. Am J Radiol 2006;186:114–118.
- 83. Wu BU, Hwang JQ, Gardner TH et al. Lactated Ringer’s solution reduces systemic inflammation compared with saline in patients with acute pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;9:710–717.
- 84. Takeda K, Mikami Y, Fukuyama S et al. Pancreatic ischemia associated with vasospasm in the early phase of human acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Pancreas 2005;30:40–49.
- 85. Gardner TB, Vege SS, Chari ST et al. Faster rate of initial fluid resuscitation in severe acute pancreatitis diminishes in-hospital mortality. Pancreatology 2009;9:770–776.
- 86. Warndorf MG, Kurtzman JT, Bartel MJ et al. Early fluid resuscitation reduces morbidity among patients with acute pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 87. 2011;9:705–709.
- 87. Mao EQ, Fei J, Peng YB et al. Rapid hemodilution is associated with increased sepsis and mortality among patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Chin Med J (Engl) 2010;123:1639–1644.
- 88. de-Madaria E, Soler-Sala G, Sánchez-Paya J et al. Influence of fluid therapy on the prognosis of acute pancreatitis: a prospective cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:1843–1850.
- 89. Khajavi MR, Etezadi F, Moharari RS et al. Effects of normal saline vs. lactated Ringer’s during renal transplantation. Renal Fail 2008;30:535–539.
- 90. Cho YS, Lim H, Kim SH. Comparison of lactated Ringer’s solution and 0.9% saline in the treatment of rhabdomyolysis induced by doxylamine intoxication. Emerg Med J 2007;24:276–280.
- 91. Eckerwall G, Olin H, Andersson B et al. Fluid resuscitation and nutritional support during severe acute pancreatitis in the past: what have we learned and how can we do better? Clin Nutr 2006;25:497–504.
- 92. Acosta JM, Ledesma CL. Gallstone migration as a cause of acute pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 1974;290:484–487.
- 93. Neoptolemos JP, London NJ, James D et al. Controlled trail of urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic sphincterotomy versus conservative management for acute pancreatitis due to gallstones. Lancet 1988;3:979–983.
- 94. Fan ST, Lai EC, Mok FP et al. Early treatment of acute biliary pancreatitis by endoscopic papillotomy. New Engl J Med 1993;328:228–232.|
- 95. Folsch UR, Nitsche R, Ludtke R et al. Early ERCP and papillotomy compared with conservative treatment for acute biliary pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 1997;336:237–242.
- 96. Arguedas MR, Dupont AW, Wilcox CM. Where do ERCP, endoscopic ultrasound, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, and intraoperative cholangiography fit in the management of acute biliary pancreatitis? A decision analysis model. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:2892–2899.
- 97. Moretti A, Papi C, Aratari A et al. Is early endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography useful in the management of acute biliary pancreatitis? A meta-analysis of 98. randomized controlled trials. Div Liver Dis 2008;40:379–385.
- 98. Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;54:425–434.
- 99. Mehta SN, Pavone E, Barkun JS et al. Predictors of post-ERCP complications in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. Endoscopy 1998;30:457–463.
- 100. Lella F, Bagnolo F, Colombo E et al. A simple way of avoiding post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;59:830–834.
- 101. Artifon EL, Sakai P, Cunha JE et al. Guidewire cannulation reduces risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis and facilitates bile duct cannulation. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:2147–2153.
- 102. Mariani A, Giussani A, Di Leo M et al. Guidewire biliary cannulation does not reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis compared with the contrast injection technique in low-risk and high-risk patients. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:339–346.
- 103. Cheung J, Tsoi KK, Quan WL et al. Guidewire versus conventional contrast cannulation of the common bile duct for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;70:1211–1219.
- 104. Adler DG, Verma D, Hilden K et al. Dye-free wire-guided cannulation of the biliary tree during ERCP is associated with high success and low complication rates: outcomes in a single operator experience of 822 cases. J Clin Gastroenterol 2010;44:e57–e62.
- 105. Andriulli A, Forlano R, Napolitano G et al. Pancreatic duct stents in the prophylaxis of pancreatic damage after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a systematic analysis of benefits and associated risks. Digestion 2007;75:156–163.
- 106. Rashdan A, Fogel EL, McHenry Jr L et al. Improved stent characteristics for prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004;2:322–329.
- 107. Das A, Singh P, Sivak Jr MV et al. Pancreatic-stent placement for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a cost effectiveness analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2007;65:960–968.
- 108. Freeman ML. Pancreatic stents for prevention of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;5:1354–1365.
- 109. Sotoudehmanesh R, Khatibian M, Kolahdoozan S et al. Indomethacin may reduce the incidence and severity of acute pancreatitis after ERCP. Am J Gastroenterog 2007;102:978–983.
- 110. Elmunzer BJ, Waljee AK, Elta GH et al. A meta-analysis of rectal NSAIDs in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gut 2008;57:1262–1267.
- 111. Murray B, Carter R, Imrie C et al. Diclofenac reduces the incidence of acute pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastroenterology 2003;124:1786–1791.
- 112. Khoshbaten M, Khorram H, Madad L et al. Role of diclofenac in reducing post-endoscopicretrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;23:11–16.
- 113. Elmunzer BJ, Scheiman JM, Lehman GA et al. A randomized trial of rectal indomethacin to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1414–1422.
- 114. Baril NB, Ralls PW, Wren SM et al. Does an infected peripancreatic fluid collection or abscess mandate operation? Ann Surg 2000;231:361–367.
- 115. Beger HG, Rau B, Isenmann R. Natural history of necrotizing pancreatitis. Pancreatology 2003;3:93–101.
- 116. Beger HG, Bittner R, Block S et al. Bacterial contamination of pancreatic necrosis: a perspective clinical study. Gastroenterology 1986;91:433–438.
- 117. Petrov MS, Kukosh MV, Emelyanov NV. A randomized controlled trial of enteral versus parenteral feeding in patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis shows a significant reduction in mortality and in infected pancreatic complications with total enteral nutrition. Dig Surg 2006;23:336–345.
- 118. Besselink MG, Berwer TJ, Shoenmaeckers EJ et al. Timing of surgical intervention in necrotizing pancreatitis. Arch Surg 2007;142:1194–1201.
- 119. Pederzoli P, Bassi C, Vesontini S et al. A randomized multicenter clinical trial of antibiotic prophylaxis of septic complications in acute necrotizing pancreatitis with imipenem. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1993;176:480–483.
- 120. Saino V, Kemppainem E, Puolakkainen P et al. Early antibiotic treatment in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Lancet 1995;346:663–667.
- 121. Dellinger EP, Tellado JM, Soto NE et al. Early antibiotic treatment for severe acute necrotizing pancreatitis: a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled study. Ann Surg 2007;245:674–683.
- 122. Isenmann R, Runzi M, Kron M et al. Prophylactic antibiotic treatment in patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis: a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. Gastroenterology 2004;126:997–1004.
- 123. Villatoro E, Bassi C, Larvin M. Antibiotic therapy for prophylaxis against infection of pancreatic necrosis in acute pancreatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev:CD002941.
- 124. De Vries A, Besselink MG, Buskens E et al. Randomized controlled trials of antibiotic prophylaxis in severe acute pancreatitis: relationship between methodologic quality and outcome. Pancreatology 2007;7:531–538.
- 125. Jafri NS, Mahid SS, Idstein SR et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not protective in severe acute pancreatitis: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg 2009;197:806–813.
- 126. Jiang K, Huang W, Yang XN et al. Present and future of prophylactic antibiotics for severe acute pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol 2012;18:279–284.
- 127. Trikudanathan G, NAvaneethan U, Vege SS. Intra-abdominal fungal infections complicating acute pancreatitis: a review. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:1188–1192.
- 128. Luiten EJ, Hop WC, Lange JF et al. Controlled clinical trial of selective decontamination for the treatment of severe acute pancreatitis. Ann Surg 1995;222:57–65.
- 129. Besselink MG, van Santvoort HC, Buskens E et al. Probiotic prophylaxis in predicted severe acute pancreatitis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2008;371:651–659.
- 130. Sun S, Yang K, He X et al. Langenbecks Probiotics in patients with severe acute pancreatitis: a meta-analysis. Arch Surg 2009;394:171–177.131.
- 131.Hartwig W, Maksan SM, Foitzik T et al. Reduction in mortality with delayed surgical therapy of severe pancreatitis. J Gastrointest Surg 2002;6:481–487.
- 132. Dubner H, Steinberg W, Hill M et al. Infected pancreatic necrosis and peripancreatic fluid collections: serendipitous response to antibiotics and medical therapy in three patients. Pancreas 12;298:1996.
- 133. Runzi M, Niebel W, Goebell H et al. Severe acute pancreatitis: non surgical treatment of infected necrosis. Pancreas 2005;30:195–199.
- 134. Garg PK, Sharma M, Madan K et al. Primary conservative treatment results in mortality comparable to surgery in patients with infected pancreatic necrosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;8:1089–1094.
- 135. Mouli VP, Vishnubhatla S, Garg PK. Efficacy of conservative treatment, without necrosectomy, for infected pancreatic necrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2013;144:333–340.
- 136. Buchler MW, Gloor B, Musller CA et al. Acute necrotizing pancreatitis: treatment strategy according to the status of infection. Ann Surg 2000;232:619–626.
- 137. Tenner SM, Feng S, Noerdook S et al. The relationship of organ failure to pancreatic necrosis. Gastroenterology 1997;113:899–903.
- 138. Pappas T. Is CT guided fine needle aspiration helpful in patients with infected necrosis. Am J Gastroenterol 2005;100:2371–2374.
- 139. Eckerwall GE, Tingstedt BB, Bergenzaun PE et al. Immediate oral feeding in patients with acute pancreatitis is safe and may accelerate recovery–a randomized clinical study. Clin Nutr 2007;26:758–763.
- 140. Louie BE, Noseworthy T, Hailey D et al. 2004 MacLean-Mueller Prize enteral or parenteral nutrition for severe pancreatitis: a randomized controlled trial and health technology assessment. Can J Surg 2005;48:298–306.
- 141. Casas M, Mora J, Fort E et al. Total enteral nutrition vs. total parenteral nutrition in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2007;99:264–269.
- 142. Gupta R, Patel K, Calder PC et al. A randomised clinical trial to assess the effect of total enteral and total parenteral nutritional support on metabolic, inflammatory and oxidative markers in patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis II (APACHE ≥6). Pancreatology 2003;3:406–413.
- 143. Yi F, Ge L, Zhao J et al. Meta-analysis: total parenteral nutrition versus total enteral nutrition in predicted severe acute pancreatitis. Intern Med 2012;51:523–530.
- 144. Jacobson BC, Vandr Vliet MB, Hughes MD 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;5:946–951.
- 145. Sathiaraj E, Murthy S, Mansard MJ et al. Clinical trial; oral feeding with a soft diet compared with clear liquid diet as initial meal in mild acute pancreatitis. Aliment Pharmacol 2008;28:777–781.
- 146. Moraes JM, Felga GE, Chebli LA et al. A full solid diet as the initial meal in mild acute pancreatitis is safe and result in a shorter length of hospitalization; results from a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial. J Clin Gastroenterol 2010;44:517–522.
- 147. Singh N, Sharma B, Sharma M et al. Evaluation of early enteral feeding through nasogastric and nasojejunal tube in severe acute pancreatitis. A non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. Pancreas 2012;41:153–159.
- 148. Larson SD, Nealson WH, Evers BM. Management of gallstone pancreatitis. Adv Surg 2006;40:265–284.
- 149. Uhl W, Muller CA, Krahenbuhl L et al. Acute gallstone pancreatitis: timing of cholecystectomy in mild and severe disease. Surg Endosc 1999;11:1070–1076.
- 150. Trna J, Vege SS, Pribramska V et al. Lack of significant liver enzyme elevation and gallstones and/or sludge on ultrasound on day 1 of acute pancreatitis is associated with recurrence after cholecystectomy: a population-based study. Surgery 2102;151:199–205.
- 151. Ayub K, Imada R, Slavin J. ERCP in gallstone associated acute pancreatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004:CD003630.
- 152. Adler DG, Chari ST, Dahl TJ et al. Conservative management of infected necrosis complicating severe acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:98–103.
- 153. van Baal MC, van Santvoort HC, Bollen TL et al. Systematic review of percutaneous catheter drainage as primary treatment for necrotizing pancreatitis. Br J Surg 2011;98:18–27.
- 154. Bakker OJ, van Santvoort HC, van Brunschott S et al. Endoscopic transgastric vs surgical necrosectomy for infected necrotizing pancreatitis; a randomized trial. JAMA 2012;307:1053–1061.
- 155. Vege SS, Baron TH. Management of pancreatic necrosis in severe acute pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004;99:2489–2494.
- 156. van Santvoort HC, Bakker OJ, Bollen T et al. A conservative and minimally invasive approach to necrotizing pancreatitis improves the outcome. Gastroenterology 2011;141:1254–1263.
- 157. Hong S, Qiwen B, Ying J et al. Body mass index and the risk and prognosis of acute pancreatitis: a meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;12:136–143.