Search

Background: Acute pancreatitis is among the most common and costly reasons for hospitalization in the United States. Bowel rest, pain control, and intravenous fluids are the cornerstones of treatment, but early feeding might also be beneficial., Purpose: To compare length of hospital stay, mortality, and readmission in adults hospitalized with pancreatitis who received early versus delayed feeding., Data Sources: MEDLINE via Ovid, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science through January 2017., Study Selection: Two authors independently reviewed and selected studies if they were randomized clinical trials, included adults hospitalized with acute pancreatitis, and compared early versus delayed feeding (≤48 vs. >48 hours after hospitalization)., Data Extraction: Two investigators independently extracted study data and rated risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration tool., Data Synthesis: Eleven randomized trials (8 peer-reviewed publications, 3 abstract-only presentations) that included 948 patients were eligible. Seven trials (3 with low risk of bias) enrolled patients with mild to moderate pancreatitis. Four trials (1 with low risk of bias) included patients with predicted severe pancreatitis. Routes used for early feeding included oral (4 studies), nasogastric (2 studies), nasojejunal (4 studies), and oral or nasoenteric (1 study). Among patients with mild to moderate pancreatitis, early feeding was associated with reduced length of stay in 4 of 7 studies (including 2 of 3 with low risk of bias). Other outcomes were heterogeneous and variably reported, but no study showed an increase in adverse events with early feeding. Among patients with severe pancreatitis, limited evidence revealed no statistically significant difference in outcomes between early and delayed feeding., Limitation: Heterogeneity of feeding protocols and outcomes, scant data, and unclear or high risk of bias in several studies., Conclusion: Limited data suggest that early feeding in patients with acute pancreatitis does not seem to increase adverse events and, for patients with mild to moderate pancreatitis, may reduce length of hospital stay., Primary Funding Source: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42015016193).

Background & Aims: There is controversy over the efficacy of pharmacologic agents for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (PEP). We performed a systematic review of PEP pharmacoprevention to evaluate safety and efficacy., Methods: We performed a systematic search of the literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of PEP pharmacoprevention through February 2014. After identifying relevant studies, 2 reviewers each extracted information on study characteristics, clinical outcomes, and risk of bias. A research classification scale was developed to identify pharmacologic agents ready for clinical use, agents for which a confirmatory RCT should be considered a high priority, agents for which exploratory studies are still necessary, and agents for which additional research should be of low priority. Clinical and research recommendations for each agent were made by consensus after considering research classification results and other important factors such as magnitude of benefit, safety, availability, and cost., Results: After screening 851 citations and 263 potentially relevant articles, 2 reviewers identified 85 RCTs and 28 meta-analyses that were eligible. On the basis of these studies, rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were found to be appropriate for clinical use, especially for high-risk cases. Sublingual nitroglycerin, bolus-administered somatostatin, and nafamostat were found to be promising agents for which confirmatory research is warranted. Additional research was found to be required to justify confirmatory RCTs for topical epinephrine, aggressive intravenous fluids, gabexate, ulinastatin, secretin, and antibiotics., Conclusions: On the basis of a systematic review, NSAIDs are appropriate for use in prevention of PEP, especially for high-risk cases. Additional research is necessary to clarify the role of other pharmacologic agents. These findings could inform future research and guide clinical decision-making and policy., (Copyright © 2015 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)