Clinical practice guideline: management of acute pancreatitis

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.     

Non-compliance with national guidelines in the management of acute pancreatitis in the United kingdom

BACKGROUND: Deficiencies and lack of standardisation of the management of acute pancreatitis in the UK have been reported. National UK guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis were published in 1998. However, implementation of national guidelines in other areas has been patchy, suggesting that evaluation of the uptake of the pancreatitis guidelines would be appropriate. AIM: Identification of current practice in the management of acute pancreatitis as reported by consultant surgeons, in order to determine how effectively the UK guidelines have been introduced into practice. METHODS: A questionnaire was posted to 1,072 full members of the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland. It consisted of 13 questions that aimed to identify the surgeon's practice in the management of patients with acute pancreatitis in relation to key points in the UK guidelines. We compared the practice of hepatobiliary and pancreatic (HBP) vs. non-HBP specialists, and teaching vs. non-teaching hospital surgeons using the chi(2) test. RESULTS: Of 538 responses (50%), 519 were from consultant surgeons. 59 did not look after patients with acute pancreatitis and 89 (17%) had a HBP interest. There were differences between the recommendations in the guidelines and reported practice, particularly in the use of critical care resources and referral to specialist units. Of consultants looking after acute pancreatitis 371 (72%) were non-HBP specialists. There were significant overall differences between the practice of HBP specialists and non-specialists: in severity assessment (Glasgow and C-reactive protein vs. Ranson criteria); indication and timing of requesting computed tomography (routinely at 7-10 days vs. when clinically indicated); nutritional support (enteral feeding vs. no support), and in common bile duct assessment prior to cholecystectomy (intra-operative cholangiography vs. endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography). There was no significant difference between practice in teaching and non-teaching hospitals. CONCLUSION: Implementation of national guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis was greater in the practice of HBP specialists than non-specialists. This has implications for the rationale of creating guidelines, and for the strategies associated with their introduction.     

Diagnostic standards for acute pancreatitis

Peter Shamamian, M.D.      

An audit of the management of the acute scrotum in children with Henoch-Schonlein Purpura

Many children with Henoch-Schonlein anaphylactoid purpura syndrome (HSAPS) who develop an acute scrotum have scrotal explorations to exclude torsion of the spermatic cord. However, the cause of the acute scrotum in the context of HSAPS is known to be vasculitis and not torsion. The aim of this study, therefore, was to identify factors that underlie this practice. In a 10-year retrospective study of male patients admitted to a Children's Hospital with a diagnosis of HSAPS, 22 out of the 93 children identified (22/93 = 24%) had scrotal involvement. Three children (3/22 = 14%) were investigated radiologically, eight children (8/22 = 36%) had surgical exploration and none had testicular torsion. We believe that greater awareness of the syndrome and its clinical presentation amongst paediatric surgical staff could allow the adoption of a conservative approach in children with an unequivocal diagnosis of HSAPS provided such an approach is supported by high resolution colour Doppler sonography and a fully informed parental consent. Surgical exploration is indicated if the diagnosis of the syndrome is not beyond doubt and torsion cannot be excluded on clinical grounds.     

重症急性胰腺炎并发假性动脉瘤大出血的处理

目的探讨重症急性胰腺炎（severe acute pancreatitis,SAP）并发假性动脉瘤大出血的诊断和处理。方法回顾性分析1990年10月至2006年10月收治的12例SAP合并假性动脉瘤出血患者的临床资料。病因：胆源性胰腺炎6例,高脂血症3例,甲状旁腺功能亢进危象1例,原因不明2例。结果CT诊断假性动脉瘤出血6例（6／9）,血管造影均诊断正确（12／12）。受累血管主要为胰腺周围血管。8例“一点法”（出血血管近端）栓塞后成功止血,2例“两点法”（动脉瘤出血血管的近端和远端）血管栓塞后成功止血。2例急诊手术缝扎止血。“一点法”栓塞止血患者中有4例4～7d后再出血,2例急诊手术止血,2例改用“两点法”成功栓塞。3例死于感染和多器官功能不全综合征,总病死率为25％。结论血管造影是SAP并发假性动脉瘤大出血的主要诊断方法,“两点法”血管栓塞止血和急诊手术是有效的治疗手段。     

JPN Guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis: medical management of acute pancreatitis

The basic principles of the initial management of acute pancreatitis are adequate monitoring of vital signs, fluid replacement, correction of any electrolyte imbalance, nutritional support, and the prevention of local and systemic complications. Patients with severe acute pancreatitis should be transferred to a medical facility where adequate monitoring and intensive medical care are available. Strict cardiovascular and respiratory monitoring is mandatory for maintaining the cardiopulmonary system in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Maximum fluid replacement is needed to stabilize the cardiovascular system. Prophylactic antibiotic administration is recommended to prevent infectious complications in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Although the efficacy of the intravenous administration of protease inhibitors is still a matter of controversy, there is a consensus in Japan that a large dose of a synthetic protease inhibitor should be given to patients with severe acute pancreatitis in order to prevent organ failure and other complications. Enteral feeding is superior to parenteral nutrition when it comes to the nutritional support of patients with severe acute pancreatitis. The JPN Guidelines recommend, as optional measures, blood purification therapy and continuous regional arterial infusion of a protease inhibitor and antibiotics, depending on the patient's condition.     

重症急性胰腺炎并发假性动脉瘤出血的介入放射治疗

目的：探讨重症急性胰腺炎（severe acute pancreatitis,SAP）并发假性动脉瘤出血的介入治疗。方法：回顾分析SAP合并假性动脉瘤出血进行介入治疗的病例10例。结果：10例患者均行有血管造影,7例CT检查。CT诊断假性动脉瘤出血5例,血管造影均正确诊断。受累血管主要为胰周血管。8例“一点法”（出血血管近端）栓塞后获得止血,2例“两点法”（动脉瘤出血血管的近端和远端）血管栓塞成功。“一点法”栓塞止血患者中有4例4-7天后再出血,2例急诊手术止血,2例改用行“两点法”成功栓塞。3例患者死于感染和多器官功能不全综合症（multiple organ dysfunction syndromes,补充英文全称,MODS）,总体死亡率30%。结论：血管造影是SAP并发假性动脉瘤出血的主要诊断方法,首选血管栓塞治疗,“两点法”血管栓塞止血和急诊手术是有效的治疗手段。     

An audit of bronchoscopy practice in the United Kingdom: a survey of adherence to national guidelines

BACKGROUND: Both patient and staff safety are of major importance during the procedure of fibreoptic bronchoscopy. Patient safety depends partly on adequate disinfection of instruments and accessories used as well as careful monitoring during the procedure. Adequate facilities, manpower and training are also essential. Staff safety depends partly on adequate procedures to minimise any risks of sensitisation to agents such as glutaraldehyde. An audit was carried out of bronchoscopy procedures in hospitals in the UK and the findings were compared with published guidelines on good practice and clinical consensus. METHODS: A postal questionnaire was sent to 218 bronchoscopy units in the UK. Findings were then compared with published evidence of good practice in the areas of disinfection, including the use of glutaraldehyde, patient monitoring, manpower, facilities, and training. RESULTS: A 73% response rate was obtained. Recommended minimum disinfection times before and after routine bronchoscopies were not achieved by 35% of units. No disinfection was carried out in 34% of units before emergency bronchoscopies and in 19% of units after suspected cases of tuberculosis. Adequate rinsing of the bronchoscope with sterile or filtered water was not carried out by 43% of units. Contrary to recommendations, 31% of departments were still using glutaraldehyde in the patient examination room and inadequate room ventilation was common. Protective clothing was often not worn by staff during bronchoscopy. Inadequate intravenous access and use of supplementary oxygen were found in many units. Practice standards were higher in departments where dedicated bronchoscopy/endoscopy units of the hospital were used, and also where staff had been on external training courses. CONCLUSIONS: This audit has shown that many units do not adhere to guidelines on disinfection procedures and patient monitoring. Unnecessary potential risks due to staff exposure to glutaraldehyde were apparent. National guidelines on good practice are not being followed in areas which may potentially affect patient and staff safety.


     

An assessment of clinical guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines have been issued for the management of acute pancreatitis. The aim of this study was to audit the management of acute pancreatitis in one district general hospital, to determine the problems and benefits associated with the implementation of such guidelines. METHODS: Data were collected over the period 1991-1995 for all patients diagnosed as having acute pancreatitis who were admitted to one district general hospital. Data regarding severity grading, determination of aetiology and treatment of mild and severe pancreatitis were analysed in conjunction with the recommendations issued by the British Society of Gastroenterology Working Party on the management of acute pancreatitis in 1995. RESULTS: A total of 210 patients were admitted on 263 occasions; 16% of cases were severe but severity prediction was inaccurate. 56.1% had gallstone pancreatitis and 20.9% had idiopathic pancreatitis. Definitive treatment of gallstones was within the recommended time limit in only 70.1%. 27 patients experienced recurrent attacks of pancreatitis before definitive treatment of their gallstones, due either to inadequate investigation for gallstones after suboptimal ultrasound examination (n = 12) or to inappropriate delay before definitive treatment of gallstones (n = 15). Recommendations for the management of severe cases with early ITU/HDU admissions and CT scanning were not followed. 28 day mortality was 6.3%, median age of those dying was 80.5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptable mortality can be achieved for acute pancreatitis despite failure to implement BSG guidelines for the management of severe acute pancreatitis. Inadequate investigation and treatment of gallstone disease leads to an unacceptable incidence of recurrent acute pancreatitis.     

急性胰腺炎患者的营养支持

急性胰腺炎,尤其重症急性胰腺炎,病变可累及胰周组织、应[1];我国在上世纪80年代末和90年代初,营养支持的起始时间在急性胰腺炎发病后1个月左右,至90年代中、后期逐渐提早至患者入院后的2周;目前,多在患者入院后5~7 d就开始,甚至早至入院后1~2 d。对此,临床也有疑问,即过早提供营养支持,尤其是EN是否会潜在地加重急性胰腺炎病情或延长病程。最近,McClave等[3]分析了27篇随机对照试验,结果发现,重症急性胰腺炎患者若在入院后24 h内即开始肠外营养(parenteral nutrition,PN)将对预后不利,而在全面液体复苏后再应用PN则可改善预后。故认为…     

Surgical management of acute pancreatitis

This review examines the lack of improvement in terms of mortality and outcome in patients with acute pancreatitis. Energetic fluid replacement is the only treatment of proven value. There is a strong case for identification of patients with severe disease who may benefit from early operative intervention. Eradication of gallstones may prevent further attacks in patients with gallstone pancreatitis. The benefits of pancreatic resection and necrosectomy still require full evaluation.     

���������������ιؼ�̽��

目的　探讨暴发性胰腺炎 (FAP)发生、发展的特点及治疗方法。方法　回顾性分析出现症状 72h内住院的重症急性胰腺炎 (SAP) 2 0 9例。所有病人均在ICU行监护及最大限度地加强治疗。FAP为出现症状 72h内发生器官功能障碍的SAP ,比较 5 6例FAP(FAP组 )与 15 3例 72h内未发生器官功能障碍的重症急性胰腺炎 (SAP组 )的临床特点。结果　FAP组胰腺病变程度 (CT分级 )较SAP组严重 (5 19± 0 68vs 3 72± 0 2 5 ) ;FAP组病死率及低氧血症、胰腺感染和多器官功能障碍综合征 (MODS)发生率明显高于SAP组 (5 3 6%vs 2 6%、85 71%vs2 2 88%、17 86%vs 6 5 4%和 78 6%vs 9 15 % )。FAP组中与病死率相关的高危因素为低氧血症、高APACHE Ⅱ分值、器官功能障碍数目以及胰腺病变严重程度。结论　FAP的特征包括MODS发生率高、胰腺病变程度严重、早期发生低氧血症、腹腔室隔综合征 (ACS)、高APACHE Ⅱ评分和高病死率。监护重要脏器功能、适当补充血容量、早期预防性应用抗生素、积极纠正低氧血症、缓解ACS(包括经腹腔镜腹腔冲洗及早期促进胃肠蠕动 )等处理可能对FAP的治疗有益     

The P3 iso-enzyme of serum amylase in the management of patients with acute pancreatitis

The concept of the P3 index and its use in separating acute pancreatitis from other causes of hyperamylasaemia is described. The mean P3 index of 12 healthy volunteers was 94.8 per cent. All 69 patients with acute pancreatitis had a P3 index below 80 per cent with a mean value of 67.9 per cent. The P3 index is abnormal longer than the raised serum amylase, which increases diagnostic accuracy. Causes of hyperamylasaemia other than acute pancreatitis have been studied and most patients have a P3 index above 80 per cent, although certain false positive values have been obtained. No patient with acute pancreatitis has had a P3 index above 80 per cent on admission. Five cases of acute pancreatitis have been studied in whom the P3 index remained abnormal; all had continuing pancreatic disease, usually with pseudocyst formation. The test has proved most valuable in identifying those patients at risk of developing subsequent problems. To date, the test cannot be relied upon to help in deciding upon the severity of an attack of acute pancreatitis.     

重症急性胰腺炎死亡相关因素分析

目的探索与重症急性胰腺炎死亡相关的危险因素。方法回顾性分析自1997年8月至2004年2月入院的全部重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)57例,其中男性32例,女性25例,中位年龄51岁。根据结局的不同将SAP患者分为生存组和死亡组,分别对两组资料的一般特征、严重程度和手术相关因素进行对比分析。结果SAP共57例,死亡11例,病死率为19.3%,手术治疗30例,死亡8例,病死率为26.7%。两组在年龄、Ranson评分、APACHEⅡ评分、腹水、多器官功能不全、ARDS、心功能衰竭、肾衰竭等发生率差异有统计学意义。多因素回归分析显示,年龄、腹水、多器官功能不全是和死亡相关的独立危险因素。结论年龄、腹水、多器官功能不全是和死亡相关的独立危险因素。     

重症胰腺炎手术时机和手术方式的探讨

目的　探讨重症胰腺炎 (SAP)最佳手术时机和手术方式。方法　对我院 1986年～2 0 0 1年 12月连续手术治疗的 70例SAP病人手术时机、术式及病死率进行回顾性分析。结果　手术病死率为 2 1.4 3% ,性别及病因分类无差异 ;早期手术与延期手术的死亡率分别为 33.33%和 6 .4 % ,二者差异具有显著意义 ;手术死亡率随胰腺坏死程度及器官衰竭个数的增多而明显增加 ;手术方式与手术死亡率无关。结论　SAP病人应尽量避免在发病一周内手术 ,术式选择应以简单、有效、充分引流、清除坏死组织、去除病因为原则     

A representative assessment of the management of open fractures of the lower limb within UK orthoplastic centres: A two-centre audit of compliance with national standards

BackgroundOpen fractures of the lower limb represent a complex and varied array of injuries. The BOAST 4 document produced by BAPRAS and the BOA provides standards on how to manage these patients, and NICE have recently produced additional guidance. We aimed to assess concordance with these standards in a large cohort representative of UK orthoplastic centres.MethodsPatients admitted to the orthoplastic units at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital and Royal Stoke University Hospital with open lower limb fractures between 2009 and 2014 were included. Data was gathered from notes and endpoints based on the BOAST 4 document.ResultsIn total, 84 patients were included across the two sites, with 83 having their initial debridement within 24 h (98.8%). Forty-two patients had a documented out-of-hours initial surgery. Of these, 10 (23.8%) had an indication for urgent surgery. This pattern was consistent across both hospitals. A plastic surgeon was present at 33.3% of initial operations. Of 78 patients receiving definitive soft tissue cover, 56.4% had cover within 72 h and 78.2% within 7 days. Main reasons for missing these targets were transfer from other hospitals, plastic surgeons not present at initial operation and intervening critical illness.ConclusionsThis study has identified key areas for improving compliance with the national BOAST 4 and NICE standards. Out-of-hours operating is occurring unnecessarily and time targets are being missed. The development of dedicated referral pathways and a true orthoplastic approach are required to improve the management of this complex set of injuries.