Acute pancreatitis medical therapy: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
No edit summary
Line 13: Line 13:


The incidence of relapse after oral refeeding may be reduced by post-pyloric enteral rather than parenteral feeding prior to oral refeeding.<ref name="pmid17573797"/> IMRIE scoring is also useful.
The incidence of relapse after oral refeeding may be reduced by post-pyloric enteral rather than parenteral feeding prior to oral refeeding.<ref name="pmid17573797"/> IMRIE scoring is also useful.
=== Fluid Resuscitation ===


===Nutritional Support===
===Nutritional Support===
Recently, there has been a shift in the management paradigm from TPN ([[total parenteral nutrition]]) to early, post-pyloric enteral feeding (in which a feeding tube is endoscopically or radiographically introduced to the third portion of the duodenum). The advantage of enteral feeding is that it is more physiological, prevents gut mucosal atrophy, and is free from the side effects of TPN (such as [[fungemia]]).  The additional advantages of post-pyloric feeding are the inverse relationship of pancreatic exocrine secretions and distance of nutrient delivery from the pylorus, as well as reduced risk of aspiration.
 
==== TPN vs. Tube Feeding ====
There has been a shift in the management paradigm from TPN ([[total parenteral nutrition]]) to early, post-pyloric enteral feeding (in which a feeding tube is endoscopically or radiographically introduced to the third portion of the duodenum).
 
Traditionally, complete resolution of pain was a requirement prior to initiation of oral feeding. However, as of late, a low-fat soft or solid diet has been found to benefit patients with shorter durations of hospitalization than slower advancements to solid foods in patients with mild pancreatitis in the absence of organ failure or pancreatic necrosis.
 
The advantage of enteral feeding is that it is more physiological, prevents gut mucosal atrophy, and is free from the side effects of TPN (such as [[fungemia]]).  The additional advantages of tube feeding are the inverse relationship of pancreatic exocrine secretions and distance of nutrient delivery from the pylorus, as well as reduced risk of aspiration.
 
TPN may be utilized in the rare cases where enteral feeding is not at all tolerated and nutritional goals are not met.
 
==== Timing of Enteric Feeding ====
The need for enteral feeding should be assessed by day 5, at latest, based on ongoing assessment of symptoms and the ability to tolerate oral feeds. In milder cases, oral diet should be attempted at 72 hours when symptoms improve and tube feeding only be attempted in cases when oral feeding is not tolerated for 2 to 3 days. Switching from oral to tube feeding should only be considered when oral feeding shows no improvement or worsening of symptoms at 3 to 5 day intervals.
 
'''Types of Tube Feeding'''
 
Naso-jejunal tube feeding is known to minimize pancreatic secretions; however, nasogastric and nasoduodenal feeding are associated with similar patient outcomes.  


Disadvantages of a naso-enteric feeding tube include increased risk of sinusitis (especially if the tube remains in place greater than two weeks) and a still-present risk of accidentally intubating the bronchus even in intubated patients (contrary to popular belief, the endotracheal tube cuff alone is not always sufficient to prevent NG tube entry into the trachea).
Disadvantages of a naso-enteric feeding tube include increased risk of sinusitis (especially if the tube remains in place greater than two weeks) and a still-present risk of accidentally intubating the bronchus even in intubated patients (contrary to popular belief, the endotracheal tube cuff alone is not always sufficient to prevent NG tube entry into the trachea).


===Antibiotics===
===Antibiotics===
A [[meta-analysis]] by the [[Cochrane Collaboration]] concluded that antibiotics help with a [[number needed to treat]] of 11 patients to reduce mortality <ref name="pmid17054156">{{cite journal |author=Villatoro E, Bassi C, Larvin M |title=Antibiotic therapy for prophylaxis against infection of pancreatic necrosis in acute pancreatitis |journal=Cochrane Database Syst Rev |volume= |issue= |pages=CD002941 |year= |id=PMID 17054156}}</ref>. However, the one study in the [[meta-analysis]] that used a quinolone, and a subsequent [[randomized controlled trial]] that studied [[ciprofloxacin]] were both negative <ref name="pmid15057739">{{cite journal |author=Isenmann R, Rünzi M, Kron M, Kahl S, Kraus D, Jung N, Maier L, Malfertheiner P, Goebell H, Beger H |title=Prophylactic antibiotic treatment in patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis: a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial |journal=Gastroenterology |volume=126 |issue=4 |pages=997-1004 |year=2004 |id=PMID 15057739 | doi = 10.1053/j.gastro.2003.12.050 }}</ref>. In summary, the role of antibiotics is controversial. One recent expert opinion (prior to the last negative trial of [[meropenem]]<ref name="pmid17457158"/>) suggested the use of [[imipenem]] if CT scan showed more than 30% necrosis of the pancreas.<ref name="pmid16707751">{{cite journal |author=Whitcomb D |title=Clinical practice. Acute pancreatitis |journal=N Engl J Med |volume=354 |issue=20 |pages=2142-50 |year=2006 |id=PMID 16707751 | doi=10.1056/NEJMcp054958 | url=http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/20/2142}}</ref>
There is no benefit for prophylactic antibiotics in patients with acute pancreatitis unless infection is suspected or confirmed.  
====Carbapenems====
An early [[randomized controlled trial]] of [[imipenem]] 0.5 gram intravenously every eight hours for two weeks showed a reduction in from pancreatic sepsis from 30% to 12%. <ref name="pmid8480272">{{cite journal |author=Pederzoli P, Bassi C, Vesentini S, Campedelli A |title=A randomized multicenter clinical trial of antibiotic prophylaxis of septic complications in acute necrotizing pancreatitis with imipenem |journal=Surgery, gynecology & obstetrics |volume=176 |issue=5 |pages=480-3 |year=1993 |pmid=8480272 |doi=}}</ref>
 
Another [[randomized controlled trial]] with patients who had at least 50% pancreatic necrosis found a benefit from [[imipenem]] compared to [[pefloxacin]] with a reduction in infected necrosis from 34% to 20%<ref name="pmid9834279">{{cite journal |author=Bassi C, Falconi M, Talamini G, ''et al'' |title=Controlled clinical trial of pefloxacin versus imipenem in severe acute pancreatitis |journal=Gastroenterology |volume=115 |issue=6 |pages=1513-7 |year=1998 |pmid=9834279 |doi=}}</ref>
 
A subsequent [[randomized controlled trial]] that used [[meropenem]] 1 gram intravenously every 8 hours for 7 to 21 days stated no benefit; however, 28% of patients in the group subsequently required open antibiotic treatment vs. 46% in the placebo group. In addition, the control group had only 18% incidence of peripancreatic infections and less biliary pancreatitis that the treatment group (44% versus 24%).<ref name="pmid17457158">{{cite journal |author=Dellinger EP, Tellado JM, Soto NE, ''et al'' |title=Early antibiotic treatment for severe acute necrotizing pancreatitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study |journal=Ann. Surg. |volume=245 |issue=5 |pages=674-83 |year=2007 |pmid=17457158 |doi=10.1097/01.sla.0000250414.09255.84}}</ref>
===Other Measures===
===Other Measures===
*Pancreatic enzyme inhibitors are not proven to work.<ref>{{cite book |title=Current Obstetric & Gynecologic Diagnosis & Treatment |last=DeCherney |first=Alan H. |coauthors=Lauren Nathan |year=2003 |publisher=McGraw-Hill Professional |isbn=0838514014}}</ref>
*Pancreatic enzyme inhibitors are not proven to work.<ref>{{cite book |title=Current Obstetric & Gynecologic Diagnosis & Treatment |last=DeCherney |first=Alan H. |coauthors=Lauren Nathan |year=2003 |publisher=McGraw-Hill Professional |isbn=0838514014}}</ref>

Revision as of 23:57, 25 November 2016

Acute pancreatitis Microchapters

Home

American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines

Patient Information

Overview

Historical Perspective

Classification

Pathophysiology

Causes

Differentiating Acute Pancreatitis from other Diseases

Epidemiology and Demographics

Risk Factors

Screening

Natural History, Complications and Prognosis

Diagnosis

Diagnostic criteria

History and Symptoms

Physical Examination

Laboratory Findings

Abdominal X Ray

CT

MRI

Ultrasound

Other Imaging Findings

Other Diagnostic Studies

Treatment

Approach to Therapy

Medical Therapy

Surgery

Primary Prevention

Secondary Prevention

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy

Future or Investigational Therapies

Case Studies

Case #1

Acute pancreatitis medical therapy On the Web

Most recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Images

American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Acute pancreatitis medical therapy

All Images
X-rays
Echo & Ultrasound
CT Images
MRI

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

FDA on Acute pancreatitis medical therapy

CDC on Acute pancreatitis medical therapy

Acute pancreatitis medical therapy in the news

Blogs on Acute pancreatitis medical therapy

Directions to Hospitals Treating Acute pancreatitis

Risk calculators and risk factors for Acute pancreatitis medical therapy

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Raviteja Guddeti, M.B.B.S. [2]

Overview

Medical therapy for acute pancreatitis includes pain control, bowel rest, nutritional support, intravenous fluids, and occasionally antibiotics. ERCP is also a possible treatment for acute pancreatitis, but can also cause pancreatitis.

Medical Therapy

Pain Control

Analgesia should not be provided by morphine because it may cause spasm of the sphincter of Oddi and worsen the pain, so the drug of choice is Meperidine.

Bowel Rest

In the management of acute pancreatitis, the treatment is to stop feeding the patient, giving him or her nothing by mouth, giving intravenous fluids to prevent dehydration, and sufficient pain control. As the pancreas is stimulated to secrete enzymes by the presence of food in the stomach, having no food pass through the system allows the pancreas to rest. Approximately 20% of patients have a relapse of pain during acute pancreatitis.[1] Approximately 75% of relapses occur within 48 hours of oral refeeding.

The incidence of relapse after oral refeeding may be reduced by post-pyloric enteral rather than parenteral feeding prior to oral refeeding.[1] IMRIE scoring is also useful.

Fluid Resuscitation

Nutritional Support

TPN vs. Tube Feeding

There has been a shift in the management paradigm from TPN (total parenteral nutrition) to early, post-pyloric enteral feeding (in which a feeding tube is endoscopically or radiographically introduced to the third portion of the duodenum).

Traditionally, complete resolution of pain was a requirement prior to initiation of oral feeding. However, as of late, a low-fat soft or solid diet has been found to benefit patients with shorter durations of hospitalization than slower advancements to solid foods in patients with mild pancreatitis in the absence of organ failure or pancreatic necrosis.

The advantage of enteral feeding is that it is more physiological, prevents gut mucosal atrophy, and is free from the side effects of TPN (such as fungemia). The additional advantages of tube feeding are the inverse relationship of pancreatic exocrine secretions and distance of nutrient delivery from the pylorus, as well as reduced risk of aspiration.

TPN may be utilized in the rare cases where enteral feeding is not at all tolerated and nutritional goals are not met.

Timing of Enteric Feeding

The need for enteral feeding should be assessed by day 5, at latest, based on ongoing assessment of symptoms and the ability to tolerate oral feeds. In milder cases, oral diet should be attempted at 72 hours when symptoms improve and tube feeding only be attempted in cases when oral feeding is not tolerated for 2 to 3 days. Switching from oral to tube feeding should only be considered when oral feeding shows no improvement or worsening of symptoms at 3 to 5 day intervals.

Types of Tube Feeding

Naso-jejunal tube feeding is known to minimize pancreatic secretions; however, nasogastric and nasoduodenal feeding are associated with similar patient outcomes.

Disadvantages of a naso-enteric feeding tube include increased risk of sinusitis (especially if the tube remains in place greater than two weeks) and a still-present risk of accidentally intubating the bronchus even in intubated patients (contrary to popular belief, the endotracheal tube cuff alone is not always sufficient to prevent NG tube entry into the trachea).

Antibiotics

There is no benefit for prophylactic antibiotics in patients with acute pancreatitis unless infection is suspected or confirmed.

Other Measures

  • Pancreatic enzyme inhibitors are not proven to work.[2]
  • The use of octreotide has not been shown to improve outcome.[3]

Contraindicated medications

Acute pancreatitis accompanied by hyperlipidemia is considered an absolute contraindication to the use of the following medications:

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Petrov MS, van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, Cirkel GA, Brink MA, Gooszen HG (2007). "Oral Refeeding After Onset of Acute Pancreatitis: A Review of Literature". doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01357.x. PMID 17573797.
  2. DeCherney, Alan H. (2003). Current Obstetric & Gynecologic Diagnosis & Treatment. McGraw-Hill Professional. ISBN 0838514014. Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (help)
  3. Peitzman, Andrew B. (2007). The Trauma Manual: Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 0781762758. Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (help); line feed character in |publisher= at position 20 (help)

Template:WS Template:WH