OBJECTIVE: The main causes of death in severe pancreatitis are multiorgan failure and septic complications. Prophylactic treatment with effective antibiotics is therefore a tempting therapeutic option. However, there could be side effects such as selection of resistant microbes and fungi. The aim of the present study was to compare the rate of infectious complications, interventions, days in the intensive care unit (ICU), morbidity and mortality in patients with severe pancreatitis randomized to prophylactic therapy with imipenem compared with those receiving no treatment at all. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy-three patients with severe pancreatitis were included in a prospective, randomized, clinical study in seven Norwegian hospitals. The number of patients was limited to 73 because of slow patient accrual. Severe pancreatitis was defined as a C-reactive protein (CRP) level of >120 mg/l after 24 h or CRP >200 48 h after the start of symptoms. The patients were randomized to either early antibiotic treatment (imipenem 0.5 g x 3 for 5-7 days) (imipenem group) (n=36) or no antibiotics (control group) (n=37). RESULTS: The groups were similar in age, cause of pancreatitis, duration of symptoms and APACHE II score. Patients in the imipenem group experienced lower rates of complications (12 versus 22 patients) (p=0.035) and infections (5 versus 16 patients) (p=0.009) than those in the control group. There was no difference in length of hospital stay (18 versus 22 days), need of intensive care (8 versus 7 patients), need of acute interventions (10 versus 13), nor for surgery (3 versus 3) or 30-day mortality rates (3 versus 4). CONCLUSIONS: The study, although underpowered, supports the use of early prophylactic treatment with imipenem in order to reduce the rate of septic complications in patients with severe pancreatitis.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: In patients with severe, necrotizing pancreatitis, it is common to administer early, broad-spectrum antibiotics, often a carbapenem, in the hope of reducing the incidence of pancreatic and peripancreatic infections, although the benefits of doing so have not been proved. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized study set in 32 centers within North America and Europe. Participants: One hundred patients with clinically severe, confirmed necrotizing pancreatitis: 50 received meropenem and 50 received placebo. Interventions: Meropenem (1 g intravenously every 8 hours) or placebo within 5 days of the onset of symptoms for 7 to 21 days. Main Outcome Measures: Primary endpoint: development of pancreatic or peripancreatic infection within 42 days following randomization. Other endpoints: time between onset of pancreatitis and the development of pancreatic or peripancreatic infection; all-cause mortality; requirement for surgical intervention; development of nonpancreatic infections within 42 days following randomization. RESULTS: Pancreatic or peripancreatic infections developed in 18% (9 of 50) of patients in the meropenem group compared with 12% (6 of 50) in the placebo group (P = 0.401). Overall mortality rate was 20% (10 of 50) in the meropenem group and 18% (9 of 50) in the placebo group (P = 0.799). Surgical intervention was required in 26% (13 of 50) and 20% (10 of 50) of the meropenem and placebo groups, respectively (P = 0.476). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups for pancreatic or peripancreatic infection, mortality, or requirement for surgical intervention, and did not support early prophylactic antimicrobial use in patients with severe acute necrotizing pancreatitis.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Antibiotic prophylaxis in necrotizing pancreatitis remains controversial. Until now, there have been no double-blind studies dealing with this topic. METHODS: A total sample size of 200 patients was calculated to demonstrate with a power of 90% that antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the proportion of patients with infected pancreatic necrosis from 40% placebo (PLA) to 20% ciprofloxacin/metronidazole (CIP/MET). One hundred fourteen patients with acute pancreatitis in combination with a serum C-reactive protein exceeding 150 mg/L and/or necrosis on contrast-enhanced CT scan were enrolled and received either intravenous CIP (2 x 400 mg/day) + MET (2 x 500 mg/day) or PLA. Study medication was discontinued and switched to open antibiotic treatment when infectious complications, multiple organ failure sepsis, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) occurred. After half of the planned sample size was recruited, an adaptive interim analysis was performed, and recruitment was stopped. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients received CIP/MET and 56 patients PLA. Twenty-eight percent in the CIP/MET group required open antibiotic treatment vs. 46% with PLA. Twelve percent of the CIP/MET group developed infected pancreatic necrosis compared with 9% of the PLA group (P = 0.585). Mortality was 5% in the CIP/MET and 7% in the PLA group. In 76 patients with pancreatic necrosis on contrast-enhanced CT scan, no differences in the rate of infected pancreatic necrosis, systemic complications, or mortality were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study detected no benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis with respect to the risk of developing infected pancreatic necrosis.
Pancreatic infection is the main indication for surgery and the principal determinant of prognosis in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Previous studies on the effects of antibiotics have not, however, uniformly demonstrated any reduction in the need for surgery or any decrease in mortality among these patients, although the incidence of pancreatic infections was significantly reduced. This single-center randomized study was designed to compare early vs. delayed imipenem treatment for acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Ninety patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis (C-reactive protein > 150 mg/L, necrosis on CT) were randomized within 48 hours either to a group receiving imipenem (1.0 g plus cilastatin intravenously 3 times a day) or a control group. Not included were those who had been started on antibiotics at the referring clinic, those who were taken directly to the intensive care unit for multiorgan failure, and those who refused antibiotics or might have had adverse reactions. Thirty-two patients were excluded because they were over 70 years of age (not potentionally operable) or for any study violation. There were 25 patients in the imipenem group and 33 patients in the control group. The main end point was the indication for necrosectomy due to infection (i.e., after the initial increase and decrease, there was a second continuous increase in temperature, white blood cell count [> 30%] and C-reactive protein [> 30%], with other infections ruled out, or bacteria were found on Gram stain of the pancreatic fine-needle aspirate). In the control group, imipenem was started when the operative indication was fulfilled. Conservative treatment was continued for at least 5 days before necrosectomy. The study groups did not differ from each other with regard to sex distribution, patient age, etiology, C-reactive protein concentration, and extent of pancreatic necrosis on CT. Two (8%) of 25 patients in the imipenem group compared to 14 (42%) of 33 in the control group fulfilled the operative indications (P = 0.003). Nine patients in the control group responded to delayed antibiotics but five had to undergo surgery. Of those receiving antibiotics, 2 (8%) of 25 in the early antibiotic (imipenem) group needed surgery compared to 5 (36%) of 14 in the delayed antibiotic (control) group (P = 0.04). Two (8%) of 25 patients in the imipenem group and 5 (15%) of 13 patients in the control group died (P = NS [no significant difference]). Seven (28%) of 25 in the imipenem group and 25 (76%) of 33 in the control group had major organ complications (P = 0.0003). Based on the preceding criteria, early imipenem-cilastatin therapy appears to significantly reduce the need for surgery and the overall number of major organ complications in acute necrotizing pancreatitis, and reduces by half the mortality rate; this is not, however, statistically significant in a series of this size.
Infectious complications currently account for 80% of deaths from acute pancreatitis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the necessity for prophylactic antibiotics in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Twenty-three consecutive patients suffering from acute alcoholic pancreatitis with computed tomography demonstrating two or more fluid collections were randomly assigned to one of two groups receiving either nonantibiotic treatment or prophylactic antibiotics (ceftazidime, amikacine, and metronidazole for 10 days). Sepsis was always diagnosed by positive cultures. Seven episodes of severe sepsis occurred (pancreatic infection and septic shock) in the nonantibiotic group, and no infection occurred in the prophylactic antibiotic group (p < 0.03). In conclusion, the use of prophylactic antibiotics in severe alcoholic acute pancreatitis significantly reduces the incidence of severe infection.
Despite improvements in surgical treatment and intensive care, mortality from severe acute pancreatitis remains high. We have carried out a randomised study of 60 consecutive patients with alcohol-induced necrotising pancreatitis to find out whether early antibiotic treatment can improve outcome. 30 patients were assigned cefuroxime (4.5 g/day intravenously) from admission. In the second group, no antibiotic treatment was given until clinical or microbiologically verified infection or after a secondary rise in C-reactive protein. The inclusion criteria were C-reactive protein concentration above 120 mg/L within 48 h of admission and low enhancement (< 30 Hounsfield units) on contrast-enhanced computed tomography. There were more infectious complications in the non-antibiotic than in the antibiotic group (mean per patient 1.8 vs 1.0, p = 0.01). The most common cause of sepsis was Staphylococcus epidermidis; positive cultures were obtained from pancreatic necrosis or the central venous line in 14 of 18 patients with suspected but blood-culture-negative sepsis. Mortality was higher in the non-antibiotic group (seven vs one in the antibiotic group; p = 0.03). Four of the eight patients who died had cultures from pancreatic necrosis positive for Staph epidermidis. We conclude that cefuroxime given early in necrotising pancreatitis is beneficial and may reduce mortality, probably by decreasing the frequency of sepsis.
Recent evidence of pancreatic penetration of several antibiotics active against the usual flora found in pancreatic sepsis, at therapeutic minimal inhibitory concentration, prompted the authors to perform a randomized, multicenter, clinical trial on imipenem prophylaxis in acute pancreatitis. Seventy-four patients with computed tomographic (CT) scans demonstrating necrotizing pancreatitis within 72 hours of onset were randomly assigned to two groups receiving no antibiotic treatment or 0.5 gram of prophylactic imipenem administered intravenously every eight hours for two weeks. Pancreatic sepsis was always detected by means of cultures (percutaneous CT or ultrasound-guided needle aspiration and intraoperative samples). The incidence of pancreatic sepsis was much less in treated patients (12.2 versus 30.3 percent, p < 0.01). Therefore, the authors recommend prophylactic use of imipenem in patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis.
The main causes of death in severe pancreatitis are multiorgan failure and septic complications. Prophylactic treatment with effective antibiotics is therefore a tempting therapeutic option. However, there could be side effects such as selection of resistant microbes and fungi. The aim of the present study was to compare the rate of infectious complications, interventions, days in the intensive care unit (ICU), morbidity and mortality in patients with severe pancreatitis randomized to prophylactic therapy with imipenem compared with those receiving no treatment at all.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
Seventy-three patients with severe pancreatitis were included in a prospective, randomized, clinical study in seven Norwegian hospitals. The number of patients was limited to 73 because of slow patient accrual. Severe pancreatitis was defined as a C-reactive protein (CRP) level of >120 mg/l after 24 h or CRP >200 48 h after the start of symptoms. The patients were randomized to either early antibiotic treatment (imipenem 0.5 g x 3 for 5-7 days) (imipenem group) (n=36) or no antibiotics (control group) (n=37).
RESULTS:
The groups were similar in age, cause of pancreatitis, duration of symptoms and APACHE II score. Patients in the imipenem group experienced lower rates of complications (12 versus 22 patients) (p=0.035) and infections (5 versus 16 patients) (p=0.009) than those in the control group. There was no difference in length of hospital stay (18 versus 22 days), need of intensive care (8 versus 7 patients), need of acute interventions (10 versus 13), nor for surgery (3 versus 3) or 30-day mortality rates (3 versus 4).
CONCLUSIONS:
The study, although underpowered, supports the use of early prophylactic treatment with imipenem in order to reduce the rate of septic complications in patients with severe pancreatitis.
