BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Prophylactic antibiotics (PAB) are being still widely used for treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP) despite trials showing no firm evidence of efficacy. We aimed to evaluate effects of PAB for AP in a meta-analysis and the need for further research by trial sequential analysis (TSA).
METHODS: Medline, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for randomized clinical trials. Primary outcomes were all infections and mortality. Secondary outcomes comprised infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN), specific infections, organ failure, surgical interventions, and length of hospital stay.
RESULTS: Twenty-one trials with 1383 pts were included. PAB were received by 703 pts, while 680 were controls. Mortality was similar with RR 0.85 (95% CI 0.66-1.10). Infections were significantly reduced (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.49-0.74), mainly due to decreased risk of sepsis (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.25-0.73) and urinary tract infections (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.25-0.86). No significant reduction for IPN was shown (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.63-1.04). Length of hospital stay was diminished by MD -6.65 (95% CI -8.86 to -4.43) days. TSA for all infections showed that the cumulative Z score crossed both conventional and monitoring boundaries at 526 pts from a heterogeneity-corrected required information size of 1113 pts based on a 40% incidence of infections in the control group, RRR of 30%, alpha 5%, beta 20%, and heterogeneity 56%.
CONCLUSIONS: PABs decrease the rate of infections in AP, mainly due to RRR of extra-pancreatic infections, requiring no further research. No significant effect is shown on IPN and mortality, although firmer evidence is needed.
AIM: To investigate the role of prophylactic antibiotics in the reduction of mortality of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) patients, which is highly questioned by more and more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses.
METHODS: An updated meta-analysis was performed. RCTs comparing prophylactic antibiotics for SAP with control or placebo were included for meta-analysis. The mortality outcomes were pooled for estimation, and re-pooled estimation was performed by the sensitivity analysis of an ideal large-scale RCT.
RESULTS: Currently available 11 RCTs were included. Subgroup analysis showed that there was significant reduction of mortality rate in the period before 2000, while no significant reduction in the period from 2000 [Risk Ratio, (RR) = 1.01, P = 0.98]. Funnel plot indicated that there might be apparent publication bias in the period before 2000. Sensitivity analysis showed that the RR of mortality rate ranged from 0.77 to 1.00 with a relatively narrow confidence interval (P < 0.05). However, the number needed to treat having a minor lower limit of the range (7-5096 patients) implied that certain SAP patients could still potentially prevent death by antibiotic prophylaxis.
CONCLUSION: Current evidences do not support prophylactic antibiotics as a routine treatment for SAP, but the potentially benefited sub-population requires further investigations.
OBJECTIVE: The effect of prophylactic antibiotic treatment on infection and survival of acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term efficacy of prophylactic antibiotic treatment for ANP. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Searches were carried out of electronic databases including Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the Science Citation Index, and PubMed (updated to December 2007), and manual bibliographical searches were also conducted. A meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic antibiotic treatment with placebo or no treatment was performed. RESULTS: Eight RCTs including 540 patients were assessed. The outcomes included infected necrosis, death, non-pancreatic infection, surgical intervention, and length of hospital stay. Prophylactic antibiotic use leads to a significant reduction of infected necrosis (relative risk (RR) 0.69, 95% CI, 0.50-0.95; p=0.02), non-pancreatic infections (RR 0.66 95% CI, 0.48-0.91; p=0.01), and length of hospital stay (p=0.004) but was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in mortality (RR 0.76 95% CI, 0.50-1.18; p=0.22) and surgical intervention (RR 0.90 95% CI, 0.66-1.23; p=0.52). In a subgroup analysis, carbapenem was associated with a significant reduction in infected necrosis (p=0.009) and non-pancreatic infections (p=0.006), whereas other antibiotics were not. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic antibiotic treatment is associated with a significant reduction of pancreatic or peripancreatic infection, non-pancreatic infection, and length of hospital stay, but cannot prevent death and surgical intervention in acute necrotizing pancreatitis.
BACKGROUND: Death from infected necrosis in acute pancreatitis is common and prevention has focused on prophylactic antibiotics. This study assesses whether intravenous prophylactic antibiotic use reduces infected necrosis and death in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. METHODS: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was carried out. Medline, Web of Science, the Cochrane controlled trials register and international conference proceedings were searched, with a citation review of relevant primary and review articles. RESULTS: Six of 328 studies assessed were included in data extraction. Primary outcome measures were infected necrosis and death. Secondary outcome measures were non-pancreatic infections, surgical intervention and length of hospital stay. Prophylactic antibiotic use was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in infected necrosis (relative risk (RR) 0.77 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.54 to 1.12); P = 0.173), mortality (RR 0.78 (95 per cent c.i. 0.44 to 1.39); P = 0.404), non-pancreatic infections (RR 0.71 (95 per cent c.i. 0.32 to 1.58); P = 0.402) and surgical intervention (RR 0.78 (95 per cent c.i. 0.55 to 1.11); P = 0.167). It was, however, associated with a statistically significant reduction in hospital stay (P = 0.040). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic antibiotics do not prevent infected necrosis or death in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Copyright (c) 2006 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prophylactic antibiotics (PAB) are being still widely used for treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP) despite trials showing no firm evidence of efficacy. We aimed to evaluate effects of PAB for AP in a meta-analysis and the need for further research by trial sequential analysis (TSA).
METHODS:
Medline, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for randomized clinical trials. Primary outcomes were all infections and mortality. Secondary outcomes comprised infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN), specific infections, organ failure, surgical interventions, and length of hospital stay.
RESULTS:
Twenty-one trials with 1383 pts were included. PAB were received by 703 pts, while 680 were controls. Mortality was similar with RR 0.85 (95% CI 0.66-1.10). Infections were significantly reduced (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.49-0.74), mainly due to decreased risk of sepsis (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.25-0.73) and urinary tract infections (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.25-0.86). No significant reduction for IPN was shown (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.63-1.04). Length of hospital stay was diminished by MD -6.65 (95% CI -8.86 to -4.43) days. TSA for all infections showed that the cumulative Z score crossed both conventional and monitoring boundaries at 526 pts from a heterogeneity-corrected required information size of 1113 pts based on a 40% incidence of infections in the control group, RRR of 30%, alpha 5%, beta 20%, and heterogeneity 56%.
CONCLUSIONS:
PABs decrease the rate of infections in AP, mainly due to RRR of extra-pancreatic infections, requiring no further research. No significant effect is shown on IPN and mortality, although firmer evidence is needed.
