Search

IntroductionDespite evidence-based guidelines, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency is frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Therefore, the aim of this study is to provide insight into the current opinion and clinical decision-making of international pancreatologists regarding the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency.MethodsAn online survey and case vignette study was sent to experts in chronic pancreatitis and members of various pancreatic associations: EPC, E-AHPBA and DPSG. Experts were selected based on publication record from the past 5 years.ResultsOverall, 252 pancreatologists participated of whom 44% had ≥ 15 years of experience and 35% treated ≥ 50 patients with chronic pancreatitis per year. Screening for exocrine pancreatic insufficiency as part of the diagnostic work-up for chronic pancreatitis is performed by 69% and repeated annually by 21%. About 74% considers nutritional assessment to be part of the standard work-up. Patients are most frequently screened for deficiencies of calcium (47%), iron (42%), vitamin D (61%) and albumin (59%). In case of clinically steatorrhea, 71% prescribes enzyme supplementation. Of all pancreatologists, 40% refers more than half of their patients to a dietician. Despite existing guidelines, 97% supports the need for more specific and tailored instructions regarding the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency.ConclusionThis survey identified a lack of consensus and substantial practice variation among international pancreatologists regarding guidelines pertaining the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. These results highlight the need for further adaptation of these guidelines according to current expert opinion and the level of available scientific evidence. Introduction: Despite evidence-based guidelines, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency is frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Therefore, the aim of this study is to provide insight into the current opinion and clinical decision-making of international pancreatologists regarding the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Methods: An online survey and case vignette study was sent to experts in chronic pancreatitis and members of various pancreatic associations: EPC, E-AHPBA and DPSG. Experts were selected based on publication record from the past 5 years. Results: Overall, 252 pancreatologists participated of whom 44% had ≥ 15 years of experience and 35% treated ≥ 50 patients with chronic pancreatitis per year. Screening for exocrine pancreatic insufficiency as part of the diagnostic work-up for chronic pancreatitis is performed by 69% and repeated annually by 21%. About 74% considers nutritional assessment to be part of the standard work-up. Patients are most frequently screened for deficiencies of calcium (47%), iron (42%), vitamin D (61%) and albumin (59%). In case of clinically steatorrhea, 71% prescribes enzyme supplementation. Of all pancreatologists, 40% refers more than half of their patients to a dietician. Despite existing guidelines, 97% supports the need for more specific and tailored instructions regarding the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Conclusion: This survey identified a lack of consensus and substantial practice variation among international pancreatologists regarding guidelines pertaining the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. These results highlight the need for further adaptation of these guidelines according to current expert opinion and the level of available scientific evidence.

Contains fulltext : 238998.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Pancreatic duct disruption or disconnection is a potentially severe complication of necrotizing pancreatitis. With no existing treatment guidelines, it is unclear whether there is any consensus among experts in clinical practice. We evaluated current expert opinion regarding the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic duct disruption and disconnection in an international case vignette study. METHODS: An online case vignette survey was sent to 110 international expert pancreatologists. Expert selection was based on publications in the last 5 years and/or participation in development of IAP/APA and ESGE guidelines on acute pancreatitis. Consensus was defined as agreement by at least 75% of the experts. RESULTS: The response rate was 51% (n = 56). Forty-four experts (79%) obtained a MRI/MRCP and 52 experts (93%) measured amylase levels in percutaneous drain fluid to evaluate pancreatic duct integrity. The majority of experts favored endoscopic transluminal drainage for infected (peri)pancreatic necrosis and pancreatic duct disruption (84%, n = 45) or disconnection (88%, n = 43). Consensus was lacking regarding the treatment of patients with persistent percutaneous drain production, and with persistent sterile necrosis. CONCLUSION: This international survey of experts demonstrates that there are many areas for which no consensus existed, providing clear focus for future investigation.

Background/objectives This paper is part of the international consensus guidelines on chronic pancreatitis, presenting for interventional endoscopy. Methods An international working group with experts on interventional endoscopy evaluated 26 statements generated from evidence on 9 clinically relevant questions. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to evaluate the level of evidence. To determine the level of agreement, a nine-point Likert scale was used for voting on the statements. Results Strong consensus was obtained for 15 statements relating to nine questions including the recommendation that endoscopic intervention should be offered to patients with persistent severe pain but not to those without pain. Endoscopic decompression of the pancreatic duct could be used for immediate pain relief, and then offered surgery if this fails or needs repeated endoscopy. Endoscopic drainage is preferred for portal-splenic vein thrombosis and pancreatic fistula. A plastic stent should be placed and replaced 2–3 months later after insertion. Endoscopic extraction is indicated for stone fragments remaining after ESWL. Interventional treatment should be performed for symptomatic/complicated pancreatic pseudocysts. Endoscopic treatment is recommended for bile duct obstruction and afterwards surgery if this fails or needs repeated endoscopy. Surgery may be offered if there is significant calcification and/or mass of the pancreatic head. Percutaneous endovascular treatment is preferred for hemosuccus pancreaticus. Surgical treatment is recommended for duodenal stenosis due to chronic pancreatitis. Conclusions This international expert consensus guideline provides evidenced-based statements concerning indications and key aspects for interventional endoscopy in the management of patients with chronic pancreatitis.

Background Patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP) have an increased risk of pancreatic cancer. We present the international consensus guidelines for surveillance of pancreatic cancer in CP. Methods The international group evaluated 10 statements generated from evidence on 5 questions relating to pancreatic cancer in CP. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the level of evidence available per statement. The working group voted on each statement for strength of agreement, using a nine-point Likert scale in order to calculate Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient. Results In the following domains there was strong consensus: (1) the risk of pancreatic cancer in affected individuals with hereditary pancreatitis due to inherited PRSS1 mutations is high enough to justify surveillance; (2) the risk of pancreatic cancer in patients with CP associated with SPINK1 p. N34S is not high enough to justify surveillance; (3) surveillance should be undertaken in pancreatic specialist centers; (4) surveillance should only be introduced after the age of 40 years and stopped when the patient would no longer be suitable for surgical intervention. All patients with CP should be advised to lead a healthy lifestyle aimed at avoiding risk factors for progression of CP and pancreatic cancer. There was only moderate or weak agreement on the best methods of screening and surveillance in other types of environmental, familial and genetic forms of CP. Conclusions Patients with inherited PRSS1 mutations should undergo surveillance for pancreatic cancer, but the best methods for cancer detection need further investigation.

Background Chronic pancreatitis is a complex multifactorial fibro-inflammatory disease. Consensus guidelines are needed for the histopathological evaluation of non-autoimmune chronic pancreatitis (CP). Methods An international working group with experts on the histopathology of CP evaluated 15 statements generated from evidence on seven key clinically relevant questions. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the level of evidence available for each statement. To determine the level of agreement, the working group voted on the statements for strength of agreement, using a nine-point Likert scale, and Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients were calculated. Results Strong consensus was obtained for 12 statements relating to all seven key questions including that: the cardinal features of CP are the triad of fibrosis, loss of acinar tissue and duct changes; there are no unique histopathological features that distinguish the different aetiologies of CP; clinical history and laboratory investigations, including genetic testing, are important in establishing the aetiology of CP; there is no reproducible and universally accepted histological grading system for assessing severity of CP, although classification as “mild”, “moderate” and “severe” is usually applied; scoring systems for fibrosis are not validated for clinical use; asymptomatic fibrosis is a common finding associated with ageing, and not necessarily evidence of CP; there are no obvious diagnostic macroscopic features of early CP; histopathology is not the gold standard for the diagnosis of CP; and cytology alone is not a reliable method for the diagnosis of CP. Conclusions Cardinal histopathological features of CP are well-defined and internationally accepted and pathological assessment is relevant for the purpose of differential diagnosis with other pancreatic diseases, especially cancer. However, a reliable diagnosis of CP requires integration of clinical, laboratory and imaging features and cannot be made by histology alone.

Abdominal pain is the foremost complication of chronic pancreatitis (CP). Pain can be related to recurrent or chronic inflammation, local complications or neurogenic mechanisms with corresponding changes in the nervous systems. Both pain intensity and the frequency of pain attacks have been shown to reduce quality of life in patients with CP. Assessment of pain follows the guidelines for other types of chronic pain, where the multidimensional nature of symptom presentation is taken into consideration. Quantitative sensory testing may be used to characterize pain, but is currently used in a research setting in advanced laboratories. For pain relief, current guidelines recommend a simple stepwise escalation of analgesic drugs with increasing potency until pain relief is obtained. Abstinence from alcohol and smoking should be strongly advised. Pancreatic enzyme therapy and antioxidants may be helpful as initial treatment. Endoscopic treatment can be used in patients with evidence of ductal obstruction and may be combined with extracorporeal shock wave lithothripsy. The best candidates are those with distal obstruction of the main pancreatic duct and in early stage of disease. Behavioral interventions should be part of the multidisciplinary approach to chronic pain management particularly when psychological impact is experienced. Surgery should be considered early and after a maximum of five endoscopic interventions. The type of surgery depends on morphological changes of the pancreas. Long-term effects are variable, but high success rates have been reported in open studies and when compared with endoscopic treatment. Finally, neurolytical interventions and neuromodulation can be considered in difficult patients., SCOPUS: re.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published