Acute pancreatitis is a common indication for hospital admission, increasing in incidence, including in children, pregnancy and the elderly. Moderately severe acute pancreatitis with fluid and/or necrotic collections causes substantial morbidity, and severe disease with persistent organ failure causes significant mortality. The diagnosis requires two of upper abdominal pain, amylase/lipase ≥ 3 ×upper limit of normal, and/or cross-sectional imaging findings. Gallstones and ethanol predominate while hypertriglyceridaemia and drugs are notable among many causes. Serum triglycerides, full blood count, renal and liver function tests, glucose, calcium, transabdominal ultrasound, and chest imaging are indicated, with abdominal crosssectional imaging if there is diagnostic uncertainty. Subsequent imaging is undertaken to detect complications, for example, if C-reactive protein exceeds 150 mg/L, or rarer aetiologies. Pancreatic intracellular calcium overload, mitochondrial impairment, and inflammatory responses are critical in pathogenesis, targeted in current treatment trials, which are crucially important as there is no internationally licenced drug to treat acute pancreatitis and prevent complications. Initial priorities are intravenous fluid resuscitation, analgesia, and enteral nutrition, and when necessary, critical care and organ support, parenteral nutrition, antibiotics, pancreatic exocrine and endocrine replacement therapy; all may have adverse effects. Patients with local complications should be referred to specialist tertiary centres to guide further management, which may include drainage and/or necrosectomy. The impact of acute pancreatitis can be devastating, so prevention or reduction of the risk of recurrence and progression to chronic pancreatitis with an increased risk of pancreas cancer requires proactive management that should be long term for some patients.

Background/Objectives The epidemiology of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) after acute pancreatitis (AP) is uncertain. We sought to determine the prevalence, progression, etiology and pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) requirements for EPI during follow-up of AP by systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods Scopus, Medline and Embase were searched for prospective observational studies or randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of PERT reporting EPI during the first admission (between the start of oral refeeding and before discharge) or follow-up (≥ 1 month of discharge) for AP in adults. EPI was diagnosed by direct and/or indirect laboratory exocrine pancreatic function tests. Results Quantitative data were analyzed from 370 patients studied during admission (10 studies) and 1795 patients during follow-up (39 studies). The pooled prevalence of EPI during admission was 62% (95% confidence interval: 39–82%), decreasing significantly during follow-up to 35% (27–43%; risk difference: − 0.34, − 0.53 to − 0.14). There was a two-fold increase in the prevalence of EPI with severe compared with mild AP, and it was higher in patients with pancreatic necrosis and those with an alcohol etiology. The prevalence decreased during recovery, but persisted in a third of patients. There was no statistically significant difference between EPI and new-onset pre-diabetes/diabetes (risk difference: 0.8, 0.7–1.1, P = 0.33) in studies reporting both. Sensitivity analysis showed fecal elastase-1 assay detected significantly fewer patients with EPI than other tests. Conclusions The prevalence of EPI during admission and follow-up is substantial in patients with a first attack of AP. Unanswered questions remain about the way this is managed, and further RCTs are indicated. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s10620-019-05568-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

No abstract

Background Position intervention has been shown to improve oxygenation, but its role in non-invasively ventilated severe COVID-19 patients has never been assessed. The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy of early position intervention on non-invasively ventilated severe COVID-19 patients. Methods This was a single-center, prospective observational study in consecutive severe COVID-19 patients managed in a provisional ICU at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University during January 31st to February 15th, 2020. Patients with chest CT showing exudation or consolidation in bilateral peripheral and posterior part of the lungs were included. Early position intervention (prone or lateral) was commenced for > 4 hours daily for 10 days, while others had standard care. Results The baseline parameters were comparable between position intervention group (n = 17) and standard care group (n = 35). Position intervention was well-tolerated and increased cumulative adjusted mean difference of SpO2/FiO2 (409, 95% CI 86 to 733) and ROX index (26, 95% CI 9 to 43) with decreased Borg scale (−9, 95 CI −15 to −3) during first 7 days. It also facilitated absorption of lung lesions and reduced patients of high National Early Warning Score 2 (≥ 7) on days 7 and 14 with a trend toward fastened clinical improvement. Virus shedding and length of hospital stay were comparable between the two groups. Conclusions This study provides the first evidence for improved oxygenation and lung lesion absorption using early position intervention in non-invasively ventilated severe COVID-19 patients and warrants further randomized trials.

Background: Pain management is an important priority in the treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP). Current evidence and guideline recommendations are inconsistent on the most effective analgesic protocol. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of analgesics for pain relief in AP.Methods: A literature search was performed to identify all RCTs assessing analgesics in patients with AP. The primary outcome was the number of participants who needed rescue analgesia. Study quality was assessed using Jadad score. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were analysed using a random-effects model.Results: Twelve studies comprising 699 patients with AP (83% mild AP) were analysed. The tested analgesics significantly decreased the need for rescue analgesia (3 studies, OR.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.60) vs. placebo or conventional treatment. The analgesics also improved the pain score [Visual Analogue Scale (Δ-VAS)] at 24 h (WMD 18.46, 0.84 to 36.07) and by the 3rd to 7th days (WMD 11.57, 0.87 to 22.28). Opioids vs. non-opioids were associated with a decrease in the need for rescue analgesia (6 studies, OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.86, p = 0.03) but without significance in pain score. In subgroup analyses, opioids were similar to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) regarding the primary outcome (4 studies, OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.32, p = 0.18). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes and rate of adverse events. Other studies, comparing epidural anaesthesia vs. patient-controlled analgesia and opioid (buprenorphine) vs. opioid (pethidine) did not show significant difference in primary outcome. Study quality issues significantly contributed to overall study heterogeneity.Conclusions: NSAIDs and opioids are equally effective in decreasing the need for rescue analgesia in patients with mild AP. The relative paucity of trials and high-quality data in this setting is notable and the optimal analgesic strategy for patients with moderately severe and severe AP still requires to be determined.

Background Intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) in acute pancreatitis (AP) is associated with deterioration in organ function. This trial aimed to assess the efficacy of neostigmine for IAH in patients with AP. Methods In this single-center, randomized trial, consenting patients with IAH within 2 weeks of AP onset received conventional treatment for 24 h. Patients with sustained intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) ≥ 12 mmHg were randomized to receive intramuscular neostigmine (1 mg every 12 h increased to every 8 h or every 6 h, depending on response) or continue conventional treatment for 7 days. The primary outcome was the percent change of IAP at 24 h after randomization. Results A total of 80 patients were recruited to neostigmine (n = 40) or conventional treatment (n = 40). There was no significant difference in baseline parameters. The rate of decrease in IAP was significantly faster in the neostigmine group compared to the conventional group by 24 h (median with 25th–75th percentile: −18.7% [− 28.4 to − 4.7%] vs. − 5.4% [− 18.0% to 0], P = 0.017). This effect was more pronounced in patients with baseline IAP ≥ 15 mmHg (P = 0.018). Per-protocol analysis confirmed these results (P = 0.03). Stool volume was consistently higher in the neostigmine group during the 7-day observational period (all P < 0.05). Other secondary outcomes were not significantly different between neostigmine and conventional treatment groups. Conclusion Neostigmine reduced IAP and promoted defecation in patients with AP and IAH. These results warrant a larger, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase III trial. Trial registration Clinical Trial No: NCT02543658 (registered August /27, 2015).