OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the effect of prophylactic use of carbapenems for acute pancreatitis on clinical outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: It was conducted according to the preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines by using the keywords "Pancrea * AND carbapenem OR imipenem OR ertapenem OR meropenem OR doripenem." Primer outcomes were mortality, surgical intervention, and pancreatic and non-pancreatic infection. Subgroup analyses were also performed to reduce the risk of bias.
RESULTS: Ten studies with 4038 patients were included in the meta-analyses. While eight of ten were randomized controlled trials, two were observational studies. The prophylactic use of carbapenems had no statistically significant effect on mortality (OR=0.82, 95% CI=0.65-1.04, I²=0%) and surgical intervention. (OR=0.81, 95% CI=0.57-1.17, I²=0%). However, the real impact of prophylaxis on reducing the incidence of mortality and surgical intervention was uncertain due to the insufficient sample size. The prophylactic use of carbapenems was significantly associated with a lower risk of peripancreatic (OR=0.37, 95% CI=0.25-0.55, I²=61%) and non-pancreatic infection risk (OR=0.60, 95% CI=0.46-0.78, I²=65%). The definitions of infection in the articles were not clear, and the diagnostic approach to infection was based on subjective criteria. In addition, there was inadequate collateral damage and safety assessments. In high-quality studies with a low risk of bias, prophylactic carbapenems had no effect on peripancreatic infection (RR=1.54, 95% CI=0.65-3.47, I²=0%) and non-pancreatic infection (RR=0.72, 95% CI=0.48-1.07, I²=0%).
CONCLUSION: Although there is a reduction in the infection risk, routine carbapenem use in acute pancreatitis cases should not be recommended based on current evidence. Cooperation with Infectious Disease specialists and developing diagnostic algorithms are required instead of routine prophylaxis to prevent infection, especially non-pancreatic infection.
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.
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics in severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) remains a debatable issue. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy of prophylactic carbapenem antibiotics in SAP.
METHODS: This meta-analysis of prophylactic carbapenem antibiotics for SAP was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library up to February 2021. The related bibliographies were manually searched. The primary outcomes involved infected pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis, mortality, complications, infections, and organ failure.
RESULTS: Seven articles comprised 5 randomized controlled trials and 2 retrospective observational studies, including 3,864 SAP participants. Prophylactic carbapenem antibiotics in SAP were associated with a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of infections (odds ratio [OR]: 0.27; p = 0.03) and complications (OR: 0.48; p = 0.009). Nevertheless, no statistically significant difference was demonstrated in the incidence of infected pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis (OR: 0.74; p = 0.24), mortality (OR: 0.69; p = 0.17), extrapancreatic infection (OR: 0.64, p = 0.54), pulmonary infection (OR: 1.23; p = 0.69), blood infection (OR: 0.60; p = 0.35), urinary tract infection (OR: 0.97; p = 0.97), pancreatic pseudocyst (OR: 0.59; p = 0.28), fluid collection (OR: 0.91; p = 0.76), organ failure (OR: 0.63; p = 0.19), acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR: 0.80; p = 0.61), surgical intervention (OR: 0.97; p = 0.93), dialysis (OR: 2.34; p = 0.57), use of respirator or ventilator (OR: 1.90; p = 0.40), intensive care unit treatment (OR: 2.97; p = 0.18), and additional antibiotics (OR: 0.59; p = 0.28) between the experimental and control groups.
CONCLUSIONS: It is not recommended to administer routine prophylactic carbapenem antibiotics in SAP.
BACKGROUND: In people with acute pancreatitis, it is unclear what the role should be for medical treatment as an addition to supportive care such as fluid and electrolyte balance and organ support in people with organ failure.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different pharmacological interventions in people with acute pancreatitis.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trial registers to October 2016 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered only RCTs performed in people with acute pancreatitis, irrespective of aetiology, severity, presence of infection, language, blinding, or publication status for inclusion in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We did not perform a network meta-analysis as planned because of the lack of information on potential effect modifiers and differences of type of participants included in the different comparisons, when information was available. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the binary outcomes and rate ratios with 95% CIs for count outcomes using a fixed-effect model and random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 84 RCTs with 8234 participants in this review. Six trials (N = 658) did not report any of the outcomes of interest for this review. The remaining 78 trials excluded 210 participants after randomisation. Thus, a total of 7366 participants in 78 trials contributed to one or more outcomes for this review. The treatments assessed in these 78 trials included antibiotics, antioxidants, aprotinin, atropine, calcitonin, cimetidine, EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), gabexate, glucagon, iniprol, lexipafant, NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), octreotide, oxyphenonium, probiotics, activated protein C, somatostatin, somatostatin plus omeprazole, somatostatin plus ulinastatin, thymosin, ulinastatin, and inactive control. Apart from the comparison of antibiotics versus control, which included a large proportion of participants with necrotising pancreatitis, the remaining comparisons had only a small proportion of patients with this condition. Most trials included either only participants with severe acute pancreatitis or included a mixture of participants with mild acute pancreatitis and severe acute pancreatitis (75 trials). Overall, the risk of bias in trials was unclear or high for all but one of the trials. Source of funding: seven trials were not funded or funded by agencies without vested interest in results. Pharmaceutical companies partially or fully funded 21 trials. The source of funding was not available from the remaining trials.Since we considered short-term mortality as the most important outcome, we presented only these results in detail in the abstract. Sixty-seven studies including 6638 participants reported short-term mortality. There was no evidence of any differences in short-term mortality in any of the comparisons (very low-quality evidence). With regards to other primary outcomes, serious adverse events (number) were lower than control in participants taking lexipafant (rate ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96; N = 290; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), octreotide (rate ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.89; N = 770; 5 studies; very low-quality evidence), somatostatin plus omeprazole (rate ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.70; N = 140; 1 study; low-quality evidence), and somatostatin plus ulinastatin (rate ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.60; N = 122; 1 study; low-quality evidence). The proportion of people with organ failure was lower in octreotide than control (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; N = 430; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). The proportion of people with sepsis was lower in lexipafant than control (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.83; N = 290; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of differences in any of the remaining comparisons in these outcomes or for any of the remaining primary outcomes (the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event and the occurrence of infected pancreatic necrosis). None of the trials reported heath-related quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very low-quality evidence suggests that none of the pharmacological treatments studied decrease short-term mortality in people with acute pancreatitis. However, the confidence intervals were wide and consistent with an increase or decrease in short-term mortality due to the interventions. We did not find consistent clinical benefits with any intervention. Because of the limitations in the prognostic scoring systems and because damage to organs may occur in acute pancreatitis before they are clinically manifest, future trials should consider including pancreatitis of all severity but power the study to measure the differences in the subgroup of people with severe acute pancreatitis. It may be difficult to power the studies based on mortality. Future trials in participants with acute pancreatitis should consider other outcomes such as complications or health-related quality of life as primary outcomes. Such trials should include health-related quality of life, costs, and return to work as outcomes and should follow patients for at least three months (preferably for at least one year).
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics use for acute necrotizing pancreatitis has been explored and a number of systematic reviews have been published with conflicting results. The timing of antibiotics administration can be fundamental to their effectiveness, but thus far no reviews have focused on the timing of administration.
METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of prophylactic antibiotics for acute necrotizing pancreatitis was conducted using MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL and Japana Centra Revuo Medicina. Trials in which antibiotics were administered within 72 h after onset of symptoms or 48 h after admission were included. Our primary outcomes were the mortality rate and the incidence of infected pancreatic necrosis, and secondary outcomes were the incidence of non-pancreatic infection and the incidence of surgical intervention.
RESULTS: The search revealed six RCTs with a total of 397 patients. The mortality rates were significantly different for those taking antibiotics (7.4%), and controls (14.4%) (odds ratio [OR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.94). Also, early prophylactic antibiotics use was associated with reduced incidence of infected pancreatic necrosis (antibiotics 16.3%, controls 25.1%; OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.33-0.92).
CONCLUSION: Early use of prophylactic antibiotics for acute necrotizing pancreatitis is associated with reduced mortality and lower incidence of infected pancreatic necrosis.
UNLABELLED: Several studies have yielded conflicting results on the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in improving outcomes in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. A meta-analysis was carried out to investigate the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis in the incidence of infected pancreatic necrosis and mortality.
METHODOLOGY: Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies investigating impact of prophylactic systemic antibiotic used in acute necrotizing pancreatitis were retrieved from online databases. An overall analysis was done with all studies (Group 1), followed by subgroup analyses with randomized controlled trials (Group 2) and cohort studies (Group 3). Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis in the incidence of infected pancreatic necrosis and mortality in each group using random effects model.
RESULTS: Eleven studies involving 864 patients were included. No significant differences in the incidence of infected pancreatic necrosis were observed with prophylactic antibiotic use in all groups. Prophylactic antibiotic use was not associated with significant differences in all-cause mortality in Group 2 (RR = 0.75; p = 0.24) but was associated with a reduction in Groups 1 (RR = 0.66, p = 0.02) and 3 (RR = 0.55, p = 0.04). There was no statistical difference in the incidence of fungal infections and surgical interventions.
CONCLUSION: Antibiotic prophylaxis does not significantly reduce the incidence of infected pancreatic necrosis but may affect all-cause mortality in acute necrotizing pancreatitis.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Extra-pancreatic infectious complications in acute pancreatitis increase morbidity, but their incidence and association with infected pancreatic necrosis is unknown. Half of bacterial cultures of pancreatic necrosis are of non-enteric origin, raising the possibility of other sources of infection. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the incidence of extra-pancreatic infectious complications in acute pancreatitis, their timing, and relation to severity of pancreatitis and mortality.
METHODS: A systematic review was performed using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Libraries, following PRISMA guidelines. Search terms were "Pancreatitis" AND "Infection" AND ("Complication" OR "Outcome").
RESULTS: 19 studies with 1741 patients were included. Extra-pancreatic infectious complication incidence was 32% (95% CI 23-41%), with the commonest being respiratory infection (9.2%) and bacteraemia (8.4%). Extra-pancreatic infectious complications were not associated with the predicted severity or the mortality of acute pancreatitis. Only 3 studies reported a relation of timing between extra-pancreatic and pancreatic infectious complications.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review to evaluate the incidence of extra-pancreatic infectious complications in acute pancreatitis, which a third of patients with acute pancreatitis will develop. Implications are vigilance and prompt treatment of extra-pancreatic infection, to reduce possibility of progression to infected pancreatic necrosis.
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 incidence of acute pancreatitis varies from 5 to 80 per 100,000 throughout the world. The most common cause of death in these patients is infection of pancreatic necrosis by enteric bacteria, spurring the discussion of whether or not prophylactic antibiotic administration could be a beneficial approach. In order to provide evidence of the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis in severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) we performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on this topic.
METHODS: The review of randomized controlled trials was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. We conducted a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. For assessment of the treatment effects we calculated the risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data of included studies.
RESULTS: Fourteen trials were included with a total of 841 patients. The use of antibiotic prophylaxis was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in mortality (RR 0.74 [95% CI 0.50-1.07]), in the incidence of infected pancreatic necrosis (RR 0.78 [95% CI 0.60-1.02]), in the incidence of non-pancreatic infections (RR 0.70 [95% CI 0.46-1.06]), and in surgical interventions (RR 0.93 [95% CI 0.72-1.20]).
CONCLUSION: In summary, to date there is no evidence that supports the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with SAP.
This study aimed to determine the effect of prophylactic use of carbapenems for acute pancreatitis on clinical outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
It was conducted according to the preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines by using the keywords "Pancrea * AND carbapenem OR imipenem OR ertapenem OR meropenem OR doripenem." Primer outcomes were mortality, surgical intervention, and pancreatic and non-pancreatic infection. Subgroup analyses were also performed to reduce the risk of bias.
RESULTS:
Ten studies with 4038 patients were included in the meta-analyses. While eight of ten were randomized controlled trials, two were observational studies. The prophylactic use of carbapenems had no statistically significant effect on mortality (OR=0.82, 95% CI=0.65-1.04, I²=0%) and surgical intervention. (OR=0.81, 95% CI=0.57-1.17, I²=0%). However, the real impact of prophylaxis on reducing the incidence of mortality and surgical intervention was uncertain due to the insufficient sample size. The prophylactic use of carbapenems was significantly associated with a lower risk of peripancreatic (OR=0.37, 95% CI=0.25-0.55, I²=61%) and non-pancreatic infection risk (OR=0.60, 95% CI=0.46-0.78, I²=65%). The definitions of infection in the articles were not clear, and the diagnostic approach to infection was based on subjective criteria. In addition, there was inadequate collateral damage and safety assessments. In high-quality studies with a low risk of bias, prophylactic carbapenems had no effect on peripancreatic infection (RR=1.54, 95% CI=0.65-3.47, I²=0%) and non-pancreatic infection (RR=0.72, 95% CI=0.48-1.07, I²=0%).
CONCLUSION:
Although there is a reduction in the infection risk, routine carbapenem use in acute pancreatitis cases should not be recommended based on current evidence. Cooperation with Infectious Disease specialists and developing diagnostic algorithms are required instead of routine prophylaxis to prevent infection, especially non-pancreatic infection.
