RESUMO
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Acute pancreatitis (AP) progresses to necrotizing pancreatitis in 15% of cases. An important pathophysiological mechanism in AP is third spacing of fluids, which leads to intravascular volume depletion. This results in a reduced splanchnic circulation and reduced venous return. Non-visualisation of the portal and splenic vein on early computed tomography (CT) scan, which might be the result of smaller vein diameter due to decreased venous flow, is associated with infected necrosis and mortality in AP. This observation led us to hypothesize that smaller diameters of portal system veins (portal, splenic and superior mesenteric) are associated with increased severity of AP. METHODS: We conducted a post-hoc analysis of data from two randomized controlled trials that included patients with predicted severe and mild AP. The primary endpoint was AP-related mortality. The secondary endpoints were (infected) necrotizing pancreatitis and (persistent) organ failure. We performed additional CT measurements of portal system vein diameters and calculated their prognostic value through univariate and multivariate Poisson regression. RESULTS: Multivariate regression showed a significant inverse association between splenic vein diameter and mortality (RR 0.75 (0.59-0.97)). Furthermore, there was a significant inverse association between splenic and superior mesenteric vein diameter and (infected) necrosis. Diameters of all veins were inversely associated with organ failure and persistent organ failure. CONCLUSIONS: We observed an inverse relationship between portal system vein diameter and morbidity and an inverse relationship between splenic vein diameter and mortality in AP. Further research is needed to test whether these results can be implemented in predictive scoring systems.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: With an overall incidence of 3.5%, pancreatitis is the most frequent complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Periprocedural hydration may prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis by maintaining pancreatic microperfusion, thereby inhibiting the pancreatic inflammatory response. However, the evidence for periprocedural hydration as a preventive measure is unclear. AIM: To conduct a systematic review to assess the evidence regarding periprocedural hydration as a preventive measure for post-ERCP pancreatitis. METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE databases and adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. We included studies addressing periprocedural hydration as a preventive measure to reduce frequency and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Study quality was assessed by using the MINORS and Cochrane Collaboration's tool. RESULTS: Six studies with a total of 1102 patients were included. Two randomised controlled trials reported a decreased incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis after hydration: 0% vs. 17% (P = 0.016) and 5.3% vs. 22.7% (P = 0.002). A third trial and two case-controls studies did not report significant differences. Two retrospective studies found that patients with mild post-ERCP pancreatitis had received significantly more fluids during (mean 940 mL vs. 810 mL; P = 0.031) or after ERCP (median 2834 mL vs. 2044 mL; P < 0.02) compared to patients with moderate/severe disease. Adverse events of periprocedural hydration were not reported in any of the included studies. The different methodologies of the included studies precluded a formal data synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence to suggest that hydration affords protection against post-ERCP pancreatitis, but study heterogeneity precludes firm conclusions. Adequately powered randomised trials are needed to evaluate the preventive effect of periprocedural hydration.
