Abstract
Objectives
The use of prophylactic antibiotics in severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) is controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of antibiotics administered as prophylaxis and as treatment on demand, respectively, in two prospective, non-randomized cohorts of patients.
Methods
The study population consisted of 210 patients treated for SAP. In Group 1 (n = 103), patients received prophylactic antibiotics (ciprofloxacin, metronidazole). In Group 2 (n = 107), patients were treated on demand. Ultrasound-guided drainage and/or surgical debridement of infected necrosis were performed when the presence of infected pancreatic necrosis was demonstrated. The primary endpoints were infectious complication rate, need for and timing of surgical interventions, incidence of nosocomial infections and mortality rate.
Results
Ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration [in 18 (16.8%) vs. 13 (12.6%) patients; P = 0.714], ultrasound-guided drainage [in 15 (14.0%) vs. six (5.8%) patients; P = 0.065] and open surgical necrosectomy [in 10 (9.3%) vs. five (4.9%) patients; P = 0.206] were performed more frequently and earlier [at 16.6 ± 7.8 days vs. 17.2 ± 6.7 days (P = 0.723); at 19.5 ± 9.4 days vs. 24.5 ± 14.2 days (P = 0.498), and at 22.6 ± 13.5 days vs. 26.7 ± 18.1 days (P = 0.826), respectively] in Group 2 compared with Group 1. There were no significant differences between groups in mortality and duration of stay in the surgical ward or intensive care unit.
Conclusions
The results of this study support the suggestion that the use of prophylactic antibiotics does not affect mortality rate, but may decrease the need for interventional and surgical management, and lower the number of reoperations.
Keywords: acute pancreatitis, antibiotic prophylaxis, treatment, outcomes, infected necrosis, surgical management
Introduction
Annual incidences of acute pancreatitis (AP) are reported to range from five to 80 cases per 100 000 population.1–3 This wide variation in incidence reflects several factors, including: population differences; dominant aetiology (alcohol abuse, biliary stone disease, etc.), and variations in clinical assessment.3,4 Overall mortality rates are between 10% and 20% and can reach 50% in patients with severe acute necrotizing pancreatitis.5,6 Persistent organ failure and uncontrolled systemic inflammatory response syndrome are associated with the highest mortality rates during the first weeks of the disease.6,7 Secondary pancreatic infection, which usually develops from the third week after the onset of AP, may affect up to 40–70% of patients with pancreatic necrosis exceeding 30%.7–9
In most patients, bacteria complicating acute necrotizing pancreatitis originate from the gastrointestinal tract and include Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis, Enterococcus faecalis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Bacteroides spp. and Clostridium spp.10,11 Some recent research has reported a rising incidence of fungal infection (Candida spp.) of up to 35%.12 Despite some clinical and experimental studies, the pathogenesis of secondary infection of the necrotic pancreas remains unclear; however, some evidence supports the hypothesis that such infection represents the translocation of a microorganism from the gastrointestinal tract.10,13,14 Haematogenous dissemination, ascending infection caused by reflux into the pancreatic duct, the migration of microorganisms via the lymphatic system or a combination of these factors are the likely point of entry.15,16
The prophylactic use of antibiotics to reduce the rate of secondary infection of pancreatic tissue, systemic infectious complications and mortality rates remains controversial.16–18 Broad-spectrum antibiotics that achieve a minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) in necrotic pancreatic tissue are needed if antibiotics are to be successful in clinical practice.7,12,19
A number of experimental and clinical studies evaluating the benefit of antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent secondary infection of pancreatic necrosis have been published within the last decade.17,18,20–27 However, there is still no unanimous agreement as to whether prophylactic antibiotics should be used routinely. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of antibiotic prophylaxis with the effects of antibiotic treatment administered on demand in two prospective, non-randomized cohorts of patients.
Materials and methods
Study design and patient population
This was a prospective, non-randomized, single-centre, cohort study. The study was approved by the regional ethics committee. All patients provided written informed consent. Prospective data collection was performed at the Department of Surgery, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences using a specially developed and maintained database from 1 January 2005 to 1 March 2010. All patients admitted to the Department of Surgery or transferred from other institutions with predicted severe and/or necrotizing severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) for which the onset of disease occurred within the previous 72 h were eligible for inclusion in the study (n = 210). The diagnosis of SAP was based on clinical symptoms (abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting), elevation of serum α-amylase greater than three times the normal level, and either or both of the following characteristics: C-reactive protein (CRP) of > 120 mg/l, and a clinical picture of SAP as demonstrated by an APACHE II (acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II) score of > 7. The presence of pancreatic necrosis was confirmed and its volume assessed by contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) performed at 5–7 days after the onset of disease, even if CT had been performed on admission. Two different scoring systems were consistently employed to assess the severity of AP on admission and during follow-up: APACHE II, and MODS (multiple organ dysfunction syndrome).
The study timeframe was divided into two distinct periods, characterized by the different treatment strategies utilized in each. A total of 103 patients (Group 1), admitted to the surgical ward from 1 January 2005 to 31 January 2007, were routinely given antibiotic prophylaxis (ciprofloxacin 800 mg/day, metronidazole 1500 mg/day for 14 days) if at least one of the following indications was present within the first 72 h from the onset of disease: CRP > 120 mg/l; APACHE II score > 7, and/or necrosis of > 30% as demonstrated on contrast-enhanced CT.
During the period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2009, a total of 107 patients (Group 2), admitted to the surgical ward based on the same criteria, received no prophylactic antibiotic treatment because meta-analyses published in the period from 2003 to 2008 demonstrated no clear benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis in the management of SAP.14,18,28 Instead, patients in this group were treated on demand with i.v. antibiotics according to bacterial culture results.
Patients treated during the period from 1 February 2007 to 31 December 2007 were deliberately excluded from the statistical analysis because this was a transitional period during which the follow-up and management protocol of patients with AP remained essentially the same as those applied during the period from 1 January 2005 to 31 January 2007, but antibiotic prophylaxis was gradually withdrawn from routine clinical practice. The only change to the former protocol other than that to antibiotic prophylaxis was that patients diagnosed with SAP were routinely monitored for intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) starting from May 2007. At that time, a study had been initiated to assess the value of widely used clinical scores in the early identification of AP patients who were likely to suffer from intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS).29 In the context of this study, the feasibility and effectiveness of subcutaneous fasciotomy of the anterior rectus abdominis sheath were assessed, as well as the role of ultrasound (US)-guided drainage of intra-abdominal and peripancreatic fluid collections in the management of ACS.30 However, Group 1 patients were not routinely monitored for elevated IAP.
All patients included in the current study were continuously monitored until discharge. A septic condition or extrapancreatic organ failure were considered as indications to obtain bacterial cultures from peripancreatic fluid collections, blood, urine, sputum and/or tracheal aspirate. Ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) was performed in all patients in whom pancreatic necrosis had been confirmed by CT and in whom persisting symptoms of SAP (APACHE II score > 7 or failure of at least one extrapancreatic organ) and/or signs of sepsis (usually not earlier than week 2 after the onset of disease) were apparent. When infection was demonstrated, US-guided drainage, or retroperitoneoscopic or surgical debridement of infected necrosis was performed. A minimally invasive step-up approach was used throughout the entire study period. Percutaneous drainage was performed in all patients as a first step, whereas retroperitoneoscopic or open surgical debridement (depending on the size and accessibility of the infected collection) was reserved only for patients in whom no improvement was seen after percutaneous drainage. A septic condition (sepsis) in the current study was defined as acute organ dysfunction secondary to infection and/or septic shock (severe sepsis plus hypotension not reversed with fluid resuscitation).
Patients with chronic pancreatitis and patients with AP referred from other institutions at > 72 h after the onset of disease were excluded from this study.
Multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) were defined as pathogens, predominantly bacteria, that were resistant to one or more classes of antimicrobial agents. In particular, these included methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and certain Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) producing extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs), and others that were resistant to multiple classes of antimicrobial agents.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using spss Version 14.0 for Windows (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) (for normally distributed data) or as the median and range. For comparisons between groups, Student's t-test (for normally distributed data) or Mann–Whitney test were employed as appropriate. A P-value of < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. The power analysis for the study was performed based on previously reported rates of the primary outcomes (e.g. rates of image-guided drainage and surgical debridement) with α= 0.05 and an estimated sample size of 100 patients in each arm, and was estimated to be > 0.8.
Results
Patient demographics and the aetiology of pancreatitis by group are shown in Table 1.
Table 1.
Demographic data for patients and characteristics of acute pancreatitis
| Characteristic | Group 1 (n= 103) | Group 2 (n= 107) | Whole sample (n= 210) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years, mean ± SD | 54 ± 16 | 51 ± 18 | 53 ± 17 | 0.424 |
| Gender, n (%) | ||||
| Male | 54 (52.4%) | 60 (56.1%) | 114 (54.3%) | 0.678 |
| Female | 49 (47.6%) | 47 (43.9%) | 96 (45.7%) | – |
| Aetiology of acute pancreatitis, n (%) | ||||
| Alcohol (ethanol) | 44 (42.7%) | 39 (36.4%) | 83 (39.5%) | 0.434 |
| Biliary | 54 (52.4%) | 66 (61.7%) | 120 (57.2%) | – |
| Idiopathic | 5 (4.9%) | 2 (1.9%) | 7 (3.3%) | – |
| Severity of acute pancreatitis | ||||
| APACHE II score, mean ± SD | 7 ± 5 | 7 ± 4 | 7 ± 5 | 0.811 |
| MODS score, mean ± SD | 3 ± 3 | 2 ± 2 | 2 ± 2 | 0.141 |
| Necrosis ≥ 30%, n (%) | 49 (47.6%) | 65 (60.7%) | 114 (54.3%) | 0.072 |
| Total | 103 (100%) | 107 (100%) | 210 (100%) | |
SD, standard deviation; APACHE II, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II; MODS, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome.
In Group 1, all patients were administered with prophylactic antibiotics and 60 (58.3%) patients remained on antibiotics for > 14 days. In Group 2, antibiotics were administered to only 20 patients (18.7%). Multidrug-resistant microorganisms, requiring the administration of carbapenems, were identified more frequently in Group 1 [in eight patients (7.8%)] compared with Group 2 [in five patients (4.7%)]; however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.519).
Ultrasound-guided FNA, US-guided drainage and open surgical necrosectomy were performed more frequently and earlier in Group 2 than in Group 1, although the differences did not reach statistical significance (Table 2). Positive cultures from first FNA samples were obtained in nine patients in Group 2 and seven patients in Group 1 (P = 0.796). Repeated FNA (two or more procedures) was performed in six patients in Group 2 and five patients in Group 1 (P = 0.712). Overall, surgical interventions (open necrosectomy, repeated surgery and debridement) were more frequently performed in Group 2 (P = 0.016). The timing of surgical debridement did not differ statistically between the groups (Table 2).
Table 2.
Interventional procedures
| Interventional procedure | Group 1 (n= 103) | Group 2 (n= 107)a | Whole sample (n= 210) | P-valueb |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ultrasound-guided FNA, n (%) | 13 (12.6%) | 18 (16.8%) | 31 (14.8%) | 0.714 |
| Day, mean ± SD | 17 ± 7 | 7 ± 8 | 17 ± 7 | 0.723 |
| Ultrasound-guided drainage, n (%) | 6 (5.8%) | 15 (14.0%) | 21 (10.0%) | 0.065 |
| Day, mean ± SD | 25 ± 14 | 20 ± 9 | 21 ± 11 | 0.498 |
| Necrosectomy, n (%) | 5 (4.9%) | 10 (9.3%) | 15 (7.1%) | 0.206 |
| Day, mean ± SD | 27 ± 18 | 23 ± 13 | 24 ± 15 | 0.826 |
| All surgical interventionsc | 8 (7.6%) | 21 (19.6%) | 29 (13.8%) | 0.016 |
Patients with increased intra-abdominal pressure were excluded (FNA and drainage were performed in the course of the first week after the onset of disease).
Values shown in bold indicate statistical significance at P < 0.05.
All surgical interventions = open necrosectomy, fasciotomy, repeated surgery.
SD, standard deviation; FNA, fine needle aspiration.
In nine patients in Group 2, FNA and/or US-guided drainage of large intra-abdominal fluid collections were performed in the course of the first week to relieve ACS. Furthermore, a subcutaneous anterior m. rectus fasciotomy was performed in one patient in Group 2 during the first week of disease in response to multiple organ dysfunction and ACS when conservative and interventional management had failed. However, these interventions were not included in the final statistical analysis because patients in Group 1 were not routinely monitored for elevated IAP and presence of ACS (only one patient was identified as having ACS in Group 1 and a subcutaneous anterior m. rectus fasciotomy was performed).
The main clinical outcomes are shown in Table 3.
Table 3.
Clinical outcomes
| Clinical outcomes | Group 1 (n= 103) | Group 2 (n= 107) | Whole sample (n= 210) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcomes, n (%) | ||||
| Sepsis | 6 (5.8%) | 7 (6.5%) | 13 (6.2%) | 1.000 |
| Contiguous infections | 13 (12.6%) | 12 (11.2%) | 25 (11.9%) | 0.833 |
| Infected pancreatic necrosis | 9 (8.7%) | 7 (6.5%) | 16 (7.6%) | 0.796 |
| Major organ failurea | 17 (16.5%) | 13 (12.1%) | 30 (14.3%) | 0.432 |
| Severe acute pancreatitis | 40 (38.8%) | 47 (43.9%) | 87 (41.4%) | 0.486 |
| Need for ICU stay | 29 (28.2%) | 27 (25.2%) | 56 (26.7%) | 0.643 |
| Length of stay, days, mean ± SD | ||||
| Surgical ward | 14 ± 12 | 11 ± 11 | 13 ± 12 | 0.244 |
| Intensive care unit | 2 ± 7 | 3 ± 10 | 3 ± 9 | 0.148 |
| Deaths, n (%) | ||||
| Overall deaths | 13 (12.6%) | 21 (19.6%) | 34 (16.2%) | 0.192 |
| Early deathsb | 9 (8.7%) | 12 (11.2%) | 21 (10.0%) | 0.306 |
Major organ failure represents the failure of two or more organ systems.
Early deaths represent deaths in the course of the first week after the onset of disease.
ICU, intensive care unit; SD, standard deviation.
Bacterial and fungal culture analyses are shown in Table 4. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups in the prevalence of MDROs (Table 5).
Table 4.
Bacterial culture analysis
| Bacterial culture | Group 1 (n= 103) | Group 2 (n= 107) | P-valuea |
|---|---|---|---|
| All, n | 299 | 199 | |
| Positive, n (%) | 145 (48.5%) | 95 (47.7%) | 0.686 |
| Microorganisms, n | 103 | 132 | 0.001 |
| Enterobacteriaceae, n (%) | 31 (30.1%) | 69 (52.3%) | 0.029 |
| Escherichia coli | 14 (13.6%) | 26 (19.7%) | 0.387 |
| Citrobacter spp. | 6 (5.8%) | 2 (1.5%) | 0.145 |
| Proteus spp. | 1 (0.9%) | 8 (6.1%) | 0.278 |
| Klebsiella spp. | 7 (6.8%) | 21 (15.9%) | 0.643 |
| Enterobacter spp. | 2 (1.9%) | 5 (3.8%) | 1.000 |
| Other | 1 (0.9%) | 7 (5.3%) | 0.432 |
| Enterococcaceae, n (%) | 17 (16.5%) | 15 (11.4%) | 0.707 |
| Staphylococcaceae, n (%) | 6 (5.8%) | 18 (13.6%) | 0.046 |
| Staphylococcus aureus | 1 (0.9%) | 8 (6.1%) | 0.224 |
| Coagulase-negative staphylococci | 3 (2.9%) | 10 (7.6%) | 0.813 |
| Other | 2 (1.9%) | 0 | 0.011 |
| Streptococcaceae, n (%) | 3 (2.9%) | 1 (0.8%) | 0.205 |
| Candida spp., n (%) | 11 (10.7%) | 5 (3.8%) | 0.043 |
| Corynebacterium spp., n (%) | 11 (10.7%) | 1 (0.8%) | 0.002 |
| Pseudomonas spp. +Acinetobacter spp., n (%) | 17 (16.5%) | 14 (10.6%) | 0.175 |
| Other, n (%) | 7 (6.8%) | 9 (6.8%) | 0.995 |
Values shown in bold indicate statistical significance at P < 0.05.
Table 5.
Antibiotic-resistant strands
| Bacterial culture analysis | Group 1 (n= 103) | Group 2 (n= 107) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enterobacteriaceae (cefotaxim) | 15 (48.4%) | 26 (37.7%) | 0.314 |
| Escherichia coli | 5 (35.7%) | 3 (11.5%) | 0.376 |
| Citrobacter spp. | 3 (50.0%) | 0 | 0.673 |
| Proteus spp. | 1 (100%) | 1 (12.5%) | 0.478 |
| Klebsiella spp. | 4 (57.0%) | 17 (80.0%) | 0.499 |
| Enterobacter spp. | 2 (100%) | 2 (40.0%) | 0.546 |
| Other | 0 | 3 (42.9%) | 0.408 |
| Enterococcaceae (penicillin) | 7 (41.2%) | 8 (53.3%) | 0.739 |
| Staphylococcaceae (oxacillin) | 4 (66.7%) | 10 (55.5%) | 0.633 |
| Staphylococcus aureus | 0 | 5 (62.5%) | 0.906 |
| Coagulase-negative staphylococci | 2 (66.7%) | 5 (50.0%) | 0.612 |
| Other | 2 (100%) | 0 | 0.242 |
| Streptococcaceae (penicillin) | 0 | 0 | 0.540 |
| Candida spp. | 1 (9.1%) | 0 | 0.486 |
| Corynebacterium spp. (cefuroxim) | 9 (81.8%) | 1 (100%) | 0.389 |
| Pseudomonas spp. +Acinetobacter spp. (meropenem) | 3 (17.6%) | 2 (14.2%) | 0.800 |
Table represents number and percentage of antibiotic resistant bacteria in each particular family and or species of bacteria, i.e. E. coli identified in Group 1 in 15 cases, and in 5 cases it was an antibiotic resistant strand (35.7%).
Subgroup analysis of patients with necrotizing AP (49 patients in Group 1 and 65 patients in Group 2) revealed no statistically significant differences in terms of the main outcomes, such as sepsis, infected pancreatic necrosis, contiguous infections (infections of the urinary or respiratory tracts), MODS, mortality rate, and interventional or surgical management. Potentially, this may be explained by the overlap of subgroups presenting with organ failure and/or sepsis and necrotizing AP (31/40 patients in Group 1 and 32/40 patients in Group 2 presenting with severe multiple organ failure and/or sepsis also had pancreatic necrosis of ≥ 30%).
Discussion
Antibiotic prophylaxis in SAP (presenting with pancreatic necrosis, organ failure and/or sepsis) has been a subject of controversy over the last two decades. Numerous clinical trials have been performed, with somewhat contradictory results.24,31–38 The aim of the current study was to compare the effects of antibiotic prophylaxis and treatment on demand, respectively, in two sequential non-randomized cohorts of patients.
The results of the current study showed that the use of prophylactic antibiotics (Group 1) (ciprofloxacin, metronidazole) had no significant positive effect on primary endpoints, such as the incidence of infectious complications and overall mortality rate, compared with treatment on demand (Group 2). However, prophylactic antibiotic management in SAP seems to have some indirect positive effects in that it may lower the number of image-guided and surgical interventions (percutaneous drainage, necrosectomy, repeated debridement) required, without increasing the risk for occurrence of nosocomial and multidrug-resistant infections. Although the latter factors had no significant direct effects on patient survival and/or morbidity, repeated surgery undoubtedly causes an additional burden to the patient and is associated with increased postoperative morbidity and additional treatment costs;39,40 therefore this phenomenon should be examined in further dedicated trials. Whether these differences related to better local infection control in the antibiotic prophylaxis group or a sense of insecurity about the ‘wait and see’ strategy adopted in the context of worsening health status in patients in the treatment-on-demand group remains debatable. However, the lower rate of surgical interventions and the absence of any obvious association of antibiotic prophylaxis with nosocomial infection in the current study at least indirectly support the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in SAP, which is in accord with the recently published recommendations of an expert panel on the management of AP.41
After analysing bacteriology in SAP, Noor et al.42 concluded that E. coli (Enterobacteriaceae) was the most common organism in SAP. The antibiotic sensitivity pattern showed that most of the bacteria were sensitive to β-lactam antibiotics, aminoglycosides and imipenem.
Bassi et al.43 reported a multicentre trial comparing the effects of pefloxacin with those of imipenem in the treatment of acute necrotizing pancreatitis (n = 60). The trial revealed a theoretical benefit with imipenem, although mortality rates did not differ significantly between the two groups.43 In a multicentre study, Isenmann et al.37 showed that prophylactic antibiotic treatment (ciprofloxacin 400 mg b.i.d. combined with metronidazole 500 mg b.i.d.) did not significantly reduce the incidence of infected pancreatic necrosis. Similar results were obtained in the current study, in which incidences of infected pancreatic necrosis were determined as 8.4% in Group 1 and 6.8% in Group 2 (P > 0.05).
In 2009 Garcia-Barrasa et al.23 published the results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, which demonstrated that the prophylactic use of ciprofloxacin in patients with severe necrotizing pancreatitis reduced neither the risk for secondary pancreatic infection nor the mortality rate. However, the small number of patients (n = 41) included in this study should be considered a serious drawback to the conclusiveness of this negative result.
A meta-analysis of nine randomized trials, analysing the effects of prophylactic antibiotics in acute necrotizing pancreatitis, was published by Yao et al.44 in 2010. It showed that prophylactic antibiotics reduced the occurrence of infected pancreatic necrosis (in the single-centre trials subgroup), but did not affect mortality rate, occurrence of non-pancreatic infection or need for surgical intervention.44 Similarly, the current study showed no beneficial results of prophylactic antibiotics in terms of the prevalence of infected pancreatic necrosis, length of hospital stay (13.71 ± 12.15 days vs. 11.43 ± 11.16 days) or mortality (12.6% vs. 19.6%).
Other meta-analyses have shown contradictory results. A meta-analysis of five trials, by Mazaki et al.,45 found no positive effect of prophylactic antibiotics. However, another meta-analysis of eight trials, by Xue et al.,34 showed that prophylactic antibiotics were associated with a significant reduction in pancreatic, peripancreatic and non-pancreatic infection, and in length of hospital stay, but were not beneficial in reducing mortality rate and need for surgical intervention. Seven trials were included in a meta-analysis published in 2008.28 This study suggested that prophylactic i.v. antibiotics did not reduce infected pancreatic necrosis or mortality.
In a recently updated Cochrane Database review of seven studies, Villatoro et al.46 found no benefit of antibiotics in preventing infection of pancreatic necrosis or mortality, except when imipenem (a β-lactam) was considered in isolation, when a significant decrease in pancreatic infection was found. The authors noted that none of the studies included in the review were adequately powered and further better designed studies are needed if the use of antibiotic prophylaxis is to be recommended.46
In conclusion, whether or not prophylactic antibiotics are effective in preventing infection in SAP remains controversial. A panel of experts recently provided a Level A recommendation regarding the use of prophylactic broad-spectrum antibiotics in CT-proven necrotizing pancreatitis.41 The current data support this recommendation as this strategy decreases the need for interventional and surgical management, and reduces the frequency of reoperation, although it does not affect the rate of mortality.
Conflicts of interest
None declared.
References
- 1.Halvorsen FA, Ritland S. Acute pancreatitis in Buskerud County, Norway. Incidence and aetiology. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1996;31:411–414. doi: 10.3109/00365529609006419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Eland IA, Sturkenboom MJ, Wilson JH, Stricker BH. Incidence and mortality of acute pancreatitis between 1985 and 1995. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2000;35:1110–1116. doi: 10.1080/003655200451261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Appelros S, Borgstrom A. Incidence, aetiology and mortality rate of acute pancreatitis over 10 years in a defined urban population in Sweden. Br J Surg. 1999;86:465–470. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.1999.01049.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Yadav D, Lowenfels AB. Trends in the epidemiology of the first attack of acute pancreatitis: a systematic review. Pancreas. 2006;33:323–330. doi: 10.1097/01.mpa.0000236733.31617.52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Baron TH, Morgan DE. Acute necrotizing pancreatitis. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1412–1417. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199905063401807. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Dellinger EP, Tellado JM, Soto NE, Ashley SW, Barie PS, Dugernier T, et al. Early antibiotic treatment for severe acute necrotizing pancreatitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Ann Surg. 2007;245:674–683. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000250414.09255.84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Sharma VK, Howden CW. Prophylactic antibiotic administration reduces sepsis and mortality in acute necrotizing pancreatitis: a meta-analysis. Pancreas. 2001;22:28–31. doi: 10.1097/00006676-200101000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Slavin J, Ghaneh P, Sutton R, Hartley M, Rowlands P, Garvey C, et al. Management of necrotizing pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2001;7:476–481. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v7.i4.476. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Widdison AL, Karanjia ND. Pancreatic infection complicating acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg. 1993;80:148–154. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800800208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Balzan S, de Almeida QuadrosC, de ClevaR, Zilberstein B, Cecconello I. Bacterial translocation: overview of mechanisms and clinical impact. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;22:464–471. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2007.04933.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Cicalese L, Sahai A, Sileri P, Rastellini C, Subbotin V, Ford H, et al. Acute pancreatitis and bacterial translocation. Dig Dis Sci. 2001;46:1127–1132. doi: 10.1023/a:1010786701289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Beger HG, Rau B, Isenmann R, Schwarz M, Gansauge F, Poch B. Antibiotic prophylaxis in severe acute pancreatitis. Pancreatology. 2005;5:10–19. doi: 10.1159/000084485. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Olah A, Romics L., Jr Evidence-based use of enteral nutrition in acute pancreatitis. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2010;395:309–316. doi: 10.1007/s00423-010-0631-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Dervenis C, Smailis D, Hatzitheoklitos E. Bacterial translocation and its prevention in acute pancreatitis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2003;10:415–418. doi: 10.1007/s00534-002-0727-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Isenmann R, Beger HG. Bacterial infection of pancreatic necrosis: role of bacterial translocation, impact of antibiotic treatment. Pancreatology. 2001;1:79–89. doi: 10.1159/000055798. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Widdison AL, Karanjia ND, Reber HA. Routes of spread of pathogens into the pancreas in a feline model of acute pancreatitis. Gut. 1994;35:1306–1310. doi: 10.1136/gut.35.9.1306. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Wittau M, Mayer B, Scheele J, Henne-Bruns D, Dellinger EP, Isenmann R. Systematic review and meta-analysis of antibiotic prophylaxis in severe acute pancreatitis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2011;46:261–270. doi: 10.3109/00365521.2010.531486. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Dambrauskas Z, Gulbinas A, Pundzius J, Barauskas G. Meta-analysis of prophylactic parenteral antibiotic use in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Medicina (Kaunas) 2007;43:291–300. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Zhou YM, Xue ZL, Li YM, Zhu YQ, Cao N. Antibiotic prophylaxia in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2005;4:23–27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Avard B, Fergusson J. Necrotizing pancreatitis and antibiotic prophylaxis. To use or not to use . . . that is the question. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;24:710–711. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2009.05837.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Pezzilli R. Antibiotic prophylaxis in severe acute pancreatitis: do we need more meta-analytic studies? JOP. 2009;10:223–224. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Wittau M, Hohl K, Mayer J, Henne-Bruns D, Isenmann R. The weak evidence base for antibiotic prophylaxis in severe acute pancreatitis. Hepatogastroenterology. 2008;55:2233–2237. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Garcia-Barrasa A, Borobia FG, Pallares R, Jorba R, Poves I, Busquets J, et al. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ciprofloxacin prophylaxis in patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13:768–774. doi: 10.1007/s11605-008-0773-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.De Waele JJ. A role for prophylactic antibiotics in necrotizing pancreatitis? Why we may never know the answer. Crit Care. 2008;12:195. doi: 10.1186/cc7122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Fritz S, Hartwig W, Lehmann R, Will-Schweiger K, Kommerell M, Hackert T, et al. Prophylactic antibiotic treatment is superior to therapy on demand in experimental necrotizing pancreatitis. Crit Care. 2008;12:141. doi: 10.1186/cc7118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Otto W, Komorzycki K, Krawczyk M. Efficacy of antibiotic penetration into pancreatic necrosis. HPB. 2006;8:43–48. doi: 10.1080/13651820500467275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Howard TJ. As good as it gets: the study of prophylactic antibiotics in severe acute pancreatitis. Ann Surg. 2007;245:684–685. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000261458.39058.fc. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Bai Y, Gao J, Zou DW, Li ZS. Prophylactic antibiotics cannot reduce infected pancreatic necrosis and mortality in acute necrotizing pancreatitis: evidence from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:104–110. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01575.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Dambrauskas Z, Parseliunas A, Gulbinas A, Pundzius J, Barauskas G. Early recognition of abdominal compartment syndrome in patients with acute pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15:717–721. doi: 10.3748/wjg.15.717. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Dambrauskas Z, Parseliunas A, Maleckas A, Gulbinas A, Barauskas G, Pundzius J. Interventional and surgical management of abdominal compartment syndrome in severe acute pancreatitis. Medicina (Kaunas) 2010;46:249–255. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Manes G, Uomo I, Menchise A, Rabitti PG, Ferrara EC, Uomo G. Timing of antibiotic prophylaxis in acute pancreatitis: a controlled randomized study with meropenem. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:1348–1353. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00567.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Xue P, Deng LH, Zhang ZD, Yang XN, Wan MH, Song B, et al. Effect of antibiotic prophylaxis on acute necrotizing pancreatitis: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;24:736–742. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2008.05758.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Jafri NS, Mahid SS, Idstein SR, Hornung CA, Galandiuk S. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not protective in severe acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg. 2009;197:806–813. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.08.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Xue T, Cai Q. Prophylactic antibiotic treatment in acute necrotizing pancreatitis: results from a meta-analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2008;43:1249–1258. doi: 10.1080/00365520802130175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Heinrich S, Schafer M, Rousson V, Clavien PA. Evidence-based treatment of acute pancreatitis: a look at established paradigms. Ann Surg. 2006;243:154–168. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000197334.58374.70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Manes G, Rabitti PG, Menchise A, Riccio E, Balzano A, Uomo G. Prophylaxis with meropenem of septic complications in acute pancreatitis: a randomized, controlled trial versus imipenem. Pancreas. 2003;27:79–83. doi: 10.1097/00006676-200311000-00018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Isenmann R, Runzi M, Kron M, Kahl S, Kraus D, Jung N, et al. Prophylactic antibiotic treatment in patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis: a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. Gastroenterology. 2004;126:997–1004. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2003.12.050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Maravi-Poma E, Gener J, Alvarez-Lerma F, Olaechea P, Blanco A, Dominguez-Munoz JE. Early antibiotic treatment (prophylaxis) of septic complications in severe acute necrotizing pancreatitis: a prospective, randomized, multicentre study comparing two regimens with imipenem–cilastatin. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29:1974–1980. doi: 10.1007/s00134-003-1956-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, Bakker OJ, Hofker HS, Boermeester MA, Dejong CH, et al. A step-up approach or open necrosectomy for necrotizing pancreatitis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1491–1502. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0908821. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Beenen E, Brown L, Connor S. A comparison of the hospital costs of open vs. minimally invasive surgical management of necrotizing pancreatitis. HPB. 2011;13:178–184. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2010.00267.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Pezzilli R, Zerbi A, Di CV, Bassi C, Delle Fave GF. Practical guidelines for acute pancreatitis. Pancreatology. 2010;10:523–535. doi: 10.1159/000314602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Noor MT, Radhakrishna Y, Kochhar R, Ray P, Wig JD, Sinha SK, et al. Bacteriology of infection in severe acute pancreatitis. JOP. 2011;12:19–25. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Bassi C, Falconi M, Talamini G, Uomo G, Papaccio G, Dervenis C, et al. Controlled clinical trial of pefloxacin versus imipenem in severe acute pancreatitis. Gastroenterology. 1998;115:1513–1517. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5085(98)70030-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Yao L, Huang X, Li Y, Shi R, Zhang G. Prophylactic antibiotics reduce pancreatic necrosis in acute necrotizing pancreatitis: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Dig Surg. 2010;27:442–449. doi: 10.1159/000318780. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Mazaki T, Ishii Y, Takayama T. Meta-analysis of prophylactic antibiotic use in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Br J Surg. 2006;93:674–684. doi: 10.1002/bjs.5389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Villatoro E, Mulla M, Larvin M. Antibiotic therapy for prophylaxis against infection of pancreatic necrosis in acute pancreatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(5) doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002941.pub3. CD002941. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]