Search

Biliary decompression and drainage done in a timely manner is the cornerstone of acute cholangitis treatment. The mortality rate of acute cholangitis was extremely high when no interventional procedures, other than open drainage, were available. At present, endoscopic drainage is the procedure of first choice, in view of its safety and effectiveness. In patients with severe (grade III) disease, defined according to the severity assessment criteria in the Guidelines, biliary drainage should be done promptly with respiration management, while patients with moderate (grade II) disease also need to undergo drainage promptly with close monitoring of their responses to the primary care. For endoscopic drainage, endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) or stent placement procedures are performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported no difference in the drainage effect of these two procedures, but case-series studies have indicated the frequent occurrence of hemorrhage associated with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), and complications such as pancreatitis. Although the usefulness of percutaneous transhepatic drainage is supported by the case-series studies, its lower success rate and higher complication rates makes it a second-option procedure.

The principal management of acute cholecystitis is early cholecystectomy. However, percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) may be preferable for patients with moderate (grade II) or severe (grade III) acute cholecystitis. For patients with moderate (grade II) disease, PTGBD should be applied only when they do not respond to conservative treatment. For patients with severe (grade III) disease, PTGBD is recommended with intensive care. Percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder aspiration (PTGBA) is a simple alternative drainage method with fewer complications; however, its clinical usefulness has been shown only by case-series studies. To clarify the clinical value of these drainage methods, proper randomized trials should be done. This article describes techniques of drainage for acute cholecystitis.

This article discusses the definitions, pathophysiology, and epidemiology of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. Acute cholangitis and cholecystitis mostly originate from stones in the bile ducts and gallbladder. Acute cholecystitis also has other causes, such as ischemia; chemicals that enter biliary secretions; motility disorders associated with drugs; infections with microorganisms, protozoa, and parasites; collagen disease; and allergic reactions. Acute acalculous cholecystitis is associated with a recent operation, trauma, burns, multisystem organ failure, and parenteral nutrition. Factors associated with the onset of cholelithiasis include obesity, age, and drugs such as oral contraceptives. The reported mortality of less than 10% for acute cholecystitis gives an impression that it is not a fatal disease, except for the elderly and/or patients with acalculous disease. However, there are reports of high mortality for cholangitis, although the mortality differs greatly depending on the year of the report and the severity of the disease. Even reports published in and after the 1980s indicate high mortality, ranging from 10% to 30% in the patients, with multiorgan failure as a major cause of death. Because many of the reports on acute cholecystitis and cholangitis use different standards, comparisons are difficult. Variations in treatment and risk factors influencing the mortality rates indicate the necessity for standardized diagnostic, treatment, and severity assessment criteria.

Biliary drainage is a radical method to relieve cholestasis, a cause of acute cholangitis, and takes a central part in the treatment of acute cholangitis. Emergent drainage is essential for severe cases, whereas patients with moderate and mild disease should also receive drainage as soon as possible if they do not respond to conservative treatment, and their condition has not improved. Biliary drainage can be achieved via three different routes/procedures: endoscopic, percutaneous transhepatic, and open methods. The clinical value of both endoscopic and percutaneous transhepatic drainage is well known. Endoscopic drainage is associated with a low morbidity rate and shorter duration of hospitalization; therefore, this approach is advocated whenever it is applicable. In endoscopic drainage, either endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) or tube stent placement can be used. There is no significant difference in the success rate, effectiveness, and morbidity between the two procedures. The decision to perform endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is made based on the patient’s condition and the number and diameter of common bile duct stones. Open drainage, on the other hand, should be applied only in patients for whom endoscopic or percutaneous transhepatic drainage is contraindicated or has not been successfully performed. Cholecystectomy is recommended in patients with gallbladder stones, following the resolution of acute cholangitis with medical treatment, unless the patient has poor operative risk factors or declines surgery.

A systematic review of references conducted in the process of developing the Guidelines for the Management of Acute Cholangitis and Cholecystitis did not find many high-quality research reports. There were no criteria for diagnosis, severity assessment, or patient transfer, and no established principles of clinical practice guidelines for acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. In order to develop guidelines that would be useful in clinical practice, an understanding of the current status of clinical practice for acute cholangitis and cholecystitis was considered essential. After several open symposia and a survey of these two diseases, we developed and published a Japanese-language version of Evidence-Based Practice Guidelines for the Management of Acute Cholangitis and Cholecystitis. In order to prepare international Guidelines, we had repeated discussions about the draft Guidelines together with international experts, and, following the Consensus Meeting, held on April 1–2, 2006, in Tokyo, with the attendance of 300 world experts in the field, the International Guidelines for the Management of Acute Cholangitis and Cholecystitis were developed. In this article, we outline the comments and opinions given at the International Meeting and how they are reflected in the final version of the Guidelines.

The aim of this article is to propose new criteria for the diagnosis and severity assessment of acute cholecystitis, based on a systematic review of the literature and a consensus of experts. A working group reviewed articles with regard to the diagnosis and treatment of acute cholecystitis and extracted the best current available evidence. In addition to the evidence and face-to-face discussions, domestic consensus meetings were held by the experts in order to assess the results. A provisional outcome statement regarding the diagnostic criteria and criteria for severity assessment was discussed and finalized during an International Consensus Meeting held in Tokyo 2006. Patients exhibiting one of the local signs of inflammation, such as Murphy’s sign, or a mass, pain or tenderness in the right upper quadrant, as well as one of the systemic signs of inflammation, such as fever, elevated white blood cell count, and elevated C-reactive protein level, are diagnosed as having acute cholecystitis. Patients in whom suspected clinical findings are confirmed by diagnostic imaging are also diagnosed with acute cholecystitis. The severity of acute cholecystitis is classified into three grades, mild (grade I), moderate (grade II), and severe (grade III). Grade I (mild acute cholecystitis) is defined as acute cholecystitis in a patient with no organ dysfunction and limited disease in the gallbladder, making cholecystectomy a low-risk procedure. Grade II (moderate acute cholecystitis) is associated with no organ dysfunction but there is extensive disease in the gallbladder, resulting in difficulty in safely performing a cholecystectomy. Grade II disease is usually characterized by an elevated white blood cell count; a palpable, tender mass in the right upper abdominal quadrant; disease duration of more than 72 h; and imaging studies indicating significant inflammatory changes in the gallbladder. Grade III (severe acute cholecystitis) is defined as acute cholecystitis with organ dysfunction.

Acute cholecystitis consists of various morbid conditions, ranging from mild cases that are relieved by the oral administration of antimicrobial drugs or that resolve even without antimicrobials to severe cases complicated by biliary peritonitis. Microbial cultures should be performed by collecting bile at all available opportunities to identify both aerobic and anaerobic organisms. Empirically selected antimicrobials should be administered. Antimicrobial activity against potential causative organisms, the severity of the cholecystitis, the patient's past history of antimicrobial therapy, and local susceptibility patterns (antibiogram) must be taken into consideration in the choice of antimicrobial drugs. In mild cases which closely mimic biliary colic, the administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is recommended to prevent the progression of inflammation (recommendation grade A). When causative organisms are identified, the antimicrobial drug should be changed for a narrower-spectrum antimicrobial agent on the basis of the species and their susceptibility testing results. © Springer-Verlag Tokyo 2007., published_or_final_version

Diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for acute biliary inflammation/infection (acute cholangitis and acute cholecystitis), according to severity grade, have not yet been established in the world. Therefore we formulated flowcharts for the management of acute biliary inflammation/infection in accordance with severity grade. For mild (grade I) acute cholangitis, medical treatment may be sufficient/appropriate. For moderate (grade II) acute cholangitis, early biliary drainage should be performed. For severe (grade III) acute cholangitis, appropriate organ support such as ventilatory/circulatory management is required. After hemodynamic stabilization is achieved, urgent endoscopic or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage should be performed. For patients with acute cholangitis of any grade of severity, treatment for the underlying etiology, including endoscopic, percutaneous, or surgical treatment should be performed after the patient’s general condition has improved. For patients with mild (grade I) cholecystitis, early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the preferred treatment. For patients with moderate (grade II) acute cholecystitis, early laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy is preferred. In patients with extensive local inflammation, elective cholecystectomy is recommended after initial management with percutaneous gallbladder drainage and/or cholecystostomy. For the patient with severe (grade III) acute cholecystitis, multiorgan support is a critical part of management. Biliary peritonitis due to perforation of the gallbladder is an indication for urgent cholecystectomy and/or drainage. Delayed elective cholecystectomy may be performed after initial treatment with gallbladder drainage and improvement of the patient’s general medical condition.

Gallstones, along with alcohol, are one of the primary etiological factors of acute pancreatitis, and knowledge of the etiology as well as the diagnosis and management of gallstones, is crucial for managing acute pancreatitis. Because of this, evidence regarding the management of gallstone-induced pancreatitis in Japan was collected, and recommendation levels were established by comparing current clinical practices with optimal clinical practices. The JPN Guidelines for managing gallstone-induced acute pancreatitis recommend two procedures: (1) an urgent endoscopic procedure should be performed in patients in whom biliary duct obstruction is suspected and in patients complicated by cholangitis (Recommendation A); and (2) after the attack of gallstone pancreatitis has subsided, a laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be performed during the same hospital stay (Recommendation B).

The basic principles of the initial management of acute pancreatitis are adequate monitoring of vital signs, fluid replacement, correction of any electrolyte imbalance, nutritional support, and the prevention of local and systemic complications. Patients with severe acute pancreatitis should be transferred to a medical facility where adequate monitoring and intensive medical care are available. Strict cardiovascular and respiratory monitoring is mandatory for maintaining the cardiopulmonary system in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Maximum fluid replacement is needed to stabilize the cardiovascular system. Prophylactic antibiotic administration is recommended to prevent infectious complications in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Although the efficacy of the intravenous administration of protease inhibitors is still a matter of controversy, there is a consensus in Japan that a large dose of a synthetic protease inhibitor should be given to patients with severe acute pancreatitis in order to prevent organ failure and other complications. Enteral feeding is superior to parenteral nutrition when it comes to the nutritional support of patients with severe acute pancreatitis. The JPN Guidelines recommend, as optional measures, blood purification therapy and continuous regional arterial infusion of a protease inhibitor and antibiotics, depending on the patient’s condition.

Acute pancreatitis represents a spectrum of disease ranging from a mild, self-limited course to a rapidly progressive, severe illness. The mortality rate of severe acute pancreatitis exceeds 20%, and some patients diagnosed as mild to moderate acute pancreatitis at the onset of the disease may progress to a severe, life-threatening illness within 2–3 days. The Japanese (JPN) guidelines were designed to provide recommendations regarding the management of acute pancreatitis in patients having a diversity of clinical characteristics. This article sets forth the JPN guidelines for the surgical management of acute pancreatitis, excluding gallstone pancreatitis, by incorporating the latest evidence for the surgical management of severe pancreatitis in the Japanese-language version of the evidence-based Guidelines for the Management of Acute Pancreatitis published in 2003. Ten guidelines are proposed: (1) computed tomography-guided or ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for bacteriology should be performed in patients suspected of having infected pancreatic necrosis; (2) infected pancreatic necrosis accompanied by signs of sepsis is an indication for surgical intervention; (3) patients with sterile pancreatic necrosis should be managed conservatively, and surgical intervention should be performed only in selected cases, such as those with persistent organ complications or severe clinical deterioration despite maximum intensive care; (4) early surgical intervention is not recommended for necrotizing pancreatitis; (5) necrosectomy is recommended as the surgical procedure for infected pancreatic necrosis; (6) simple drainage should be avoided after necrosectomy, and either continuous closed lavage or open drainage should be performed; (7) surgical or percutaneous drainage should be performed for pancreatic abscess; (8) pancreatic abscesses for which clinical findings are not improved by percutaneous drainage should be subjected to surgical drainage immediately; (9) pancreatic pseudocysts that produce symptoms and complications or the diameter of which increases should be drained percutaneously or endoscopically; and (10) pancreatic pseudocysts that do not tend to improve in response to percutaneous drainage or endoscopic drainage should be managed surgically.

The diagnosis of acute pancreatitis is based on the following findings: (1) acute attacks of abdominal pain and tenderness in the epigastric region, (2) elevated blood levels of pancreatic enzymes, and (3) abnormal diagnostic imaging findings in the pancreas associated with acute pancreatitis. In Japan, in accordance with criteria established by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, the severity of acute pancreatitis is assessed based on the clinical signs, hematological findings, and imaging findings, including abdominal contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Severity must be re-evaluated, especially in the period 24 to 48 h after the onset of acute pancreatitis, because even cases diagnosed as mild or moderate in the early stage may rapidly progress to severe. Management is selected according to the severity of acute pancreatitis, but it is imperative that an adequate infusion volume, vital-sign monitoring, and pain relief be instituted immediately after diagnosis in every patient. Patients with severe cases are treated with broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents, a continuous high-dose protease inhibitor, and continuous intraarterial infusion of protease inhibitors and antimicrobial agents; continuous hemodiafiltration may also be used to manage patients with severe cases. Whenever possible, transjejunal enteral nutrition should be administered, even in patients with severe cases, because it seems to decrease morbidity. Necrosectomy is performed when necrotizing pancreatitis is complicated by infection. In this case, continuous closed lavage or open drainage (planned necrosectomy) should be the selected procedure. Pancreatic abscesses are treated by surgical or percutaneous drainage. Emergency endoscopic procedures are given priority over other methods of management in patients with acute gallstone-associated pancreatitis, patients suspected of having bile duct obstruction, and patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis complicated by cholangitis. These strategies for the management of acute pancreatitis are shown in the algorithm in this article.

Acute pancreatitis is a common disease with an annual incidence of between 5 and 80 people per 100 000 of the population. The two major etiological factors responsible for acute pancreatitis are alcohol and cholelithiasis (gallstones). The proportion of patients with pancreatitis caused by alcohol or gallstones varies markedly in different countries and regions. The incidence of acute alcoholic pancreatitis is considered to be associated with high alcohol consumption. Although the incidence of alcoholic pancreatitis is much higher in men than in women, there is no difference in sexes in the risk involved after adjusting for alcohol intake. Other risk factors include endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, surgery, therapeutic drugs, HIV infection, hyperlipidemia, and biliary tract anomalies. Idiopathic acute pancreatitis is defined as acute pancreatitis in which the etiological factor cannot be specified. However, several studies have suggested that this entity includes cases caused by other specific disorders such as microlithiasis. Acute pancreatitis is a potentially fatal disease with an overall mortality of 2.1%–7.8%. The outcome of acute pancreatitis is determined by two factors that reflect the severity of the illness: organ failure and pancreatic necrosis. About half of the deaths in patients with acute pancreatitis occur within the first 1–2 weeks and are mainly attributable to multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS). Depending on patient selection, necrotizing pancreatitis develops in approximately 10%–20% of patients and the mortality is high, ranging from 14% to 25% of these patients. Infected pancreatic necrosis develops in 30%–40% of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis and the incidence of MODS in such patients is high. The recurrence rate of acute pancreatitis is relatively high: almost half the patients with acute alcoholic pancreatitis experience a recurrence. When the gallstones are not treated, the risk of recurrence in gallstone pancreatitis ranges from 32% to 61%. After recovering from acute pancreatitis, about one-third to one-half of acute pancreatitis patients develop functional disorders, such as diabetes mellitus and fatty stool; the incidence of chronic pancreatitis after acute pancreatitis ranges from 3% to 13%. Nevertheless, many reports have shown that most patients who recover from acute pancreatitis regain good general health and return to their usual daily routine. Some authors have emphasized that endocrine function disorders are a common complication after severe acute pancreatitis has been treated by pancreatic resection.

Background/Purpose: To provide a framework for clinicians to manage acute pancreatitis, evidence-based guidelines have been developed by the Japanese Society of Abdominal Emergency Medicine. Methods: Evidence was collected by a systematic search of MEDLINE and Japana Centra Revuo Medicina. A total of 1348 papers were reviewed and levels of evidence were assessed. Practical recommendations were also graded. Results: The present guidelines consist of introductions, a summary of recommendations, practice algorithms, definitions, epidemiology, diagnosis, severity assessment, and therapy. The main points of recommendation in these guidelines are: (1) measuring lipase for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis (recommendation grade [RG], A). (2) The Severity of acute pancreatitis should be assessed using a scoring system, such as that of the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare or Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II (RG, A). (3) Enhanced computed tomography (CT) should be used for assessment of degree of pancreatic necrosis and inflammation (RG, B). (4) Prophylactic antibiotic administration should be used for severe pancreatitis (RG, A), but not for mild to moderate pancreatitis (RG, D). (5) Gabexate mesilate should be used for severe pancreatitis (RG, B). (6) Enteral feeding should be used for all pancreatitis (RG, B). (7) Continuous hemodiafiltration and continuous arterial infusion of proteinase inhibitor and antibiotics may be of benefit (RG, C). (8) Fine-needle aspiration should be done for the diagnosis of infectious pancreatic necrosis, and if positive, necrosectomy is indicated (RG, A). Conclusions: These guidelines provide useful information for physicians to manage this troublesome disease.

The health insurance system in Japan is based upon the Universal Medical Care Insurance System, which gives all citizens the right to join an insurance scheme of their own choice, as guaranteed by the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution of Japan, which states: “All people shall have the right to maintain the minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living.” The health care system in Japan includes national medical insurance, nursing care for the elderly, and government payments for the treatment of intractable diseases. Medical insurance provisions are handled by Employee’s Health Insurance (Social Insurance), which mainly covers employees of private companies and their families, and by National Health Insurance, which provides for the needs of self-employed people. Both schemes have their own medical care service programs for retired persons and their families. The health care system for the elderly covers people 75 years of age and over and bedridden people 65 years of age and over. There is also a system under which the government pays all or part of medical expenses, and/or pays medical expenses not covered by insurance. This is referred to collectively as the “medical expenses payment system” and includes the provision of medical assistance for specified intractable diseases. Because severe acute pancreatitis has a high mortality rate, it is specified as an intractable disease. In order to lower the mortality rate of various diseases, including severe acute pancreatitis, the specification system has been adopted by the government. The cost of treatment for severe acute pancreatitis is paid in full by the government from the date the application is made for a certificate verifying that the patient has an intractable disease.

There are no evidence-based-criteria for the diagnosis, severity assessment, of treatment of acute cholecystitis or acute cholangitis. For example, the full complement of symptoms and signs described as Charcot's triad and as Reynolds' pentad are infrequent and as such do not really assist the clinician with planning management strategies. In view of these factors, we launched a project to prepare evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis that will be useful in the clinical setting. This research has been funded by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, in cooperation with the Japanese Society for Abdominal Emergency Medicine, the Japan Biliary Association, and the Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery. A working group, consisting of 46 experts in gastroenterology, surgery, internal medicine, emergency medicine, intensive care, and clinical epidemiology, analyzed and examined the literature on patients with cholangitis and cholecystitis in order to produce evidence-based guidelines. During the investigations we found that there was a lack of high-level evidence, for treatments, and the working group formulated the guidelines by obtaining consensus, based on evidence categorized by level, according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence of May 2001 (version 1). This work required more than 20 meetings to obtain a consensus on each item from the working group. Then four forums were held to permit examination of the Guideline details in Japan, both by an external assessment committee and by the working group participants (version 2). As we knew that the diagnosis and management of acute biliary infection may differ from country to country, we appointed a publication committee and held 12 meetings to prepare draft Guidelines in English (version 3). We then had several discussions on these draft guidelines with leading experts in the field throughout the world, via e-mail, leading to version 4. Finally, an International Consensus Meeting took place in Tokyo, on 1-2 April, 2006, to obtain international agreement on diagnostic criteria, severity assessment, and management.

Cholecystectomy has been widely performed in the treatment of acute cholecystitis, and laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been increasingly adopted as the method of surgery over the past 15 years. Despite the success of laparoscopic cholecystectomy as an elective treatment for symptomatic gallstones, acute cholecystitis was initially considered a contraindication for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The reasons for it being considered a contraindication were the technical difficulty of performing it in acute cholecystitis and the development of complications, including bile duct injury, bowel injury, and hepatic injury. However, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is now accepted as being safe for acute cholecystitis, when surgeons who are expert at the laparoscopic technique perform it. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been found to be superior to open cholecystectomy as a treatment for acute cholecystitis because of a lower incidence of complications, shorter length of postoperative hospital stay, quicker recuperation, and earlier return to work. However, laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis has not become routine, because the timing and approach to the surgical management in patients with acute cholecystitis is still a matter of controversy. These Guidelines describe the timing of and the optimal surgical treatment of acute cholecystitis in a question-and-answer format.

The Tokyo Guidelines formulate clinical guidance for healthcare providers regarding the diagnosis, severity assessment, and treatment of acute cholangitis and acute cholecystitis. The Guidelines were developed through a comprehensive literature search and selection of evidence. Recommendations were based on the strength and quality of evidence. Expert consensus opinion was used to enhance or formulate important areas where data were insufficient. A working group, composed of gastroenterologists and surgeons with expertise in biliary tract surgery, supplemented with physicians in critical care medicine, epidemiology, and laboratory medicine, was selected to formulate draft guidelines. Several other groups (including members of the Japanese Society for Abdominal Emergency Medicine, the Japan Biliary Association, and the Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery) have reviewed and revised the draft guidelines. To build a global consensus on the management of acute biliary infection, an international expert panel, representing experts in this area, was established. Between April 1 and 2, 2006, an International Consensus Meeting on acute biliary infections was held in Tokyo. A consensus was determined based on best available scientific evidence and discussion by the panel of experts. This report describes the highlights of the Tokyo International Consensus Meeting in 2006. Some important areas focused on at the meeting include proposals for internationally accepted diagnostic criteria and severity assessment for both clinical and research purposes.

This article addresses the criteria for severity assessment and the severity scoring system of the Ministry of Health and Welfare of Japan; now the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (the JPN score). It also presents data comparing the JPN score with the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score and the Ranson score, which are the major measuring scales used in the United States and Europe. The goal of investigating these scoring systems is the achievement of earlier diagnosis and more appropriate and successful treatment of severe or moderate acute pancreatitis, which has a high mortality rate. This article makes the following recommendations in terms of assessing the severity of acute pancreatitis: (1) Severity assessment is indispensable to the selection of proper initial treatment in the management of acute pancreatitis (Recommendation A). (2) Assessment by a severity scoring system (JPN score, APACHE II score) is important for determining treatment policy and identifying the need for transfer to a specialist unit (Recommendation A). (3) C-reactive protein (CRP) is a useful indicator for assessing severity (Recommendation A). (4) Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scanning and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) play an important role in severity assessment (Recommendation A). (5) A JPN score of 2 or more (severe acute pancreatitis) has been established as the criterion for hospital transfer (Recommendation A). (6) It is preferable to transfer patients with severe acute pancreatitis to a specialist medical institution where they can receive continuous monitoring and systemic management.

The JPN Guidelines for the Management of Acute Pancreatitis are organized under the subject headings: epidemiology, diagnosis, management strategy, severity assessment and transfer criteria, management of gallstone pancreatitis, nonsurgical management, and surgical management. The Guidelines contain cutting-edge information on each of these subjects, as well as a section on the Japanese medical insurance system which provides information that should prove useful to physicians in other countries. The quality of the evidence was evaluated by the evidence-based classification method used at the Cochrane Library. The levels of recommendation of the individual management methods contained in the Guidelines were determined on the basis of the evaluation of evidence by the consensus of the members of the Working Group (see below). The Japanese Society for Abdominal Emergency Medicine, the Japan Pancreas Society, and the Research Group for Intractable Diseases and Refractory Pancreatic Diseases (which is sponsored by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare) were commissioned to produce the JPN Guidelines for the Management of Acute Pancreatitis. A Working Group of 20 physicians specializing in pancreatic diseases and emergency medicine investigated and analyzed 14821 cases retrieved by means of a Medline (1960–2004) search and discussed the available literature on acute pancreatitis (limited to human pancreatitis). The Working Group held many general discussions in order to reach a consensus on the content of the Guidelines. After producing a draft, the Publishing Committee of the JPN Guidelines for the Management of Acute Pancreatitis posted it on a website and asked for comments and criticisms. Subsequently, a final version of the Guidelines was published in Japanese in 2003. The Publishing Committee is now making the Guidelines available to a much wider readership by bringing out an English version.

The currently used diagnostic criteria for acute pancreatitis in Japan are presentation with at least two of the following three manifestations: (1) acute abdominal pain and tenderness in the upper abdomen; (2) elevated levels of pancreatic enzyme in the blood, urine, or ascitic fluid; and (3) abnormal imaging findings in the pancreas associated with acute pancreatitis. When a diagnosis is made on this basis, other pancreatic diseases and acute abdomen can be ruled out. The purpose of this article is to review the conventional criteria and, in particular, the various methods of diagnosis based on pancreatic enzyme values, with the aim of improving the quality of diagnosis of acute pancreatitis and formulating common internationally agreed criteria. The review considers the following recommendations: — Better even than the total blood amylase level, the blood lipase level is the best pancreatic enzyme for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis and its differentiation from other diseases. — A pivotal factor in the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis is identifying an increase in pancreatic enzymes in the blood. — Ultrasonography (US) is also one of the procedures that should be performed in all patients with suspected acute pancreatitis. — Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is one of the most important imaging procedures for diagnosing acute pancreatitis and its intraperitoneal complications. — Computed tomography (CT) is also one of the most important imaging procedures for diagnosing acute pancreatitis and its intraabdominal complications. CT should be performed when a diagnosis of acute pancreatitis cannot be established on the basis of the clinical findings, results of blood and urine tests, or US, or when the etiology of the pancreatitis is unknown. — When acute pancreatitis is suspected, chest and abdominal X-ray examinations should be performed to determine whether any abnormal findings caused by acute pancreatitis are present. — Because the etiology of acute pancreatitis can have a crucial influence on both the treatment policy and severity assessment, it should be evaluated promptly and accurately. It is particularly important to differentiate between gallstone-induced acute pancreatitis, which requires treatment of the biliary system, and alcohol-induced acute pancreatitis, which requires a different form of treatment.

To provide a framework for clinicians to manage acute pancreatitis, evidence-based guidelines have been developed by the Japanese Society of Abdominal Emergency Medicine.Evidence was collected by a systematic search of MEDLINE and Japana Centra Revuo Medicina. A total of 1348 papers were reviewed and levels of evidence were assessed. Practical recommendations were also graded.The present guidelines consist of introductions, a summary of recommendations, practice algorithms, definitions, epidemiology, diagnosis, severity assessment, and therapy. The main points of recommendation in these guidelines are: (1) measuring lipase for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis (recommendation grade [RG], A). (2) The Severity of acute pancreatitis should be assessed using a scoring system, such as that of the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare or Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II (RG, A). (3) Enhanced computed tomography (CT) should be used for assessment of degree of pancreatic necrosis and inflammation (RG, B). (4) Prophylactic antibiotic administration should be used for severe pancreatitis (RG, A), but not for mild to moderate pancreatitis (RG, D). (5) Gabexate mesilate should be used for severe pancreatitis (RG, B). (6) Enteral feeding should be used for all pancreatitis (RG, B). (7) Continuous hemodiafiltration and continuous arterial infusion of proteinase inhibitor and antibiotics may be of benefit (RG, C). (8) Fine-needle aspiration should be done for the diagnosis of infectious pancreatic necrosis, and if positive, necrosectomy is indicated (RG, A).These guidelines provide useful information for physicians to manage this troublesome disease.