Recurrence of idiopathic acute pancreatitis after cholecystectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Umans DS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7003758 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background/objectivesThe 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.MethodsScopus, 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.ResultsQuantitative 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.ConclusionsThe 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.
| S-EPMC6584228 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsAlthough abdominal pain is one of the major criteria to diagnose acute pancreatitis (AP), there are no standardized guidelines to treat this troublesome symptom in the hospital setting. The aims of the study are to conduct a meta-analysis and to assess the efficacy of nonopioids vs opioids for pain management in AP.MethodsWe searched the medical literature through May 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy of opioids with nonopioids in AP pain management. Efficacy was reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of each comparison tested.ResultsWe identified 7 eligible randomized controlled trials, containing 389 patients. No significant difference in terms of pain intensity at day 1 (OR 0.82, 95% CI -2.55 to 4.19) was found between opioids and nonopioids. Nonopioids have a significantly high risk of supplementary analgesic use compared with opioids (OR 3.87, 95% CI 1.25-12.04). However, this significance is not seen when comparing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and paracetamol with opioids (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.73-3.82) after excluding trials with procaine. Opioids did not show a significant increase in the complications of pancreatitis, nausea and vomiting, sedation, and deaths when compared with nonopioids.ConclusionWe found nonopioids, especially nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and paracetamol, can provide adequate pain relief in patients with AP with no change in supplementary analgesic use and adverse events when compared with opioids. Further research is needed to optimize the use of nonopioids along or in combination with opioids for better pain control in patients with AP.
| S-EPMC11308224 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is an endoscopic technique whereby surgical interventions can be performed with a flexible endoscope passed through a natural orifice (mouth, vulva, urethra, anus) then through a transluminal opening of the stomach, vagina, bladder, or colon. Although in the early stage of research and development, NOTES has been clinically applied across the globe, above all the transvaginal cholecystectomy is among the most frequently performed procedures. In the existing 2 types of transvaginal routes, the hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy (NC) is more likely to be accepted. However, there has been controversy regarding the safety outcomes of hybrid NC in comparison with classical laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The primary objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the characteristics between NC and classical LC.A meta-analysis of eligible studies comparing NC with classical LC was performed to evaluate the safety outcomes including wound complications, other postoperative complications and intraoperative conversion between the 2 groups.Pooling 3 randomized controlled trials (n=157) and 7 nonrandomized trial (n=593) demonstrated that the rates of wound complications and other postoperative complications in NC group did not significantly differ from those of classical LC group [wound complications: ratio difference (RD)=-0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04to 0.01, P=0.23; other postoperative complication: RD=-0.01; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.02; P=0.6]. The intraoperative conversion rate in NC groups was higher than that of LC groups (RD=0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.06; P=0.02).There is no significate difference between the safety of NC and laparoscope cholecystectomy. NC is associated with a higher rate of intraoperative conversion when compared with LC. It is worthy of further promotion and validation in clinical settings.
| S-EPMC5054957 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesThe prognosis of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) patients is closely related to early nutritional support. It is well-established that changes in glutamine (Gln), an important amino acid and nutritional supplement, can reflect disease severity. However, no consensus has been reached on the role of Gln nutrition therapy for SAP patients. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize and evaluate the advantages of Gln supplementation in SAP.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, the Embase, Cochrane Library, and Chinese databases (CNKI, SinoMed, Wanfang, and VIP) were systematically searched for eligible studies that included glutamine supplementation in SAP patients from inception to October 31 2021, excluding non-SAP studies. Primary outcome measures included mortality, APACHE II score, complications, and length of hospital stay. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021288371) and was conducted using Review Manager and Stata softwares.ResultsThis meta-analysis included 30 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 1,201 patients. Six primary outcomes and six secondary outcomes were analyzed. For the primary outcomes, Gln supplementation was associated with lower mortality (OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.21-0.69, P = 0.001), total hospital stay (MD = -3.41, 95% CI: -4.93 to -1.88, P < 0.0001) and complications (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.31-0.66, P < 0.0001) compared with conventional nutrition. Further subgroup analysis found that parenteral glutamine was more effective in reducing mortality. In terms of secondary outcomes, Gln supplementation helped restore liver, kidney and immune function, with significantly increased serum albumin (SMD = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.74-1.31, P < 0.00001) and IgG levels (MD = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.82-1.67, P < 0.00001), and decreased serum creatinine (Scr) (MD = -12.60, 95% CI: -21.97 to -3.24, P = 0.008), and inflammatory indicators such as C-reaction protein (CRP) (SMD = -1.67, 95% CI: -2.43 to -0.90, P < 0.0001).ConclusionAlthough Gln supplementation is not routinely recommended, it is beneficial for SAP patients. Indeed, glutamine nutrition has little effect on some indicator outcomes but contributes to improving the prognosis of this patient population.Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (york.ac.uk). Unique Identifier: CRD42021288371.
| S-EPMC9237617 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Studies have reported that cholecystectomy may increase the risk of cholangiocarcinoma. However, this association is controversial. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the relationship between cholecystectomy and the risk of cholangiocarcinoma. Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science published before February 2017. We used the random effects model proposed by DerSimonian and Laird to quantify the relationship between cholecystectomy and risk of cholangiocarcinoma. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots, Begg's and Egger's tests. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to validate the stability of the results. 16 articles, comprising 220,376 patients with cholecystectomy and 562,392 healthy controls, were included in our research. Our meta-analysis suggested that the risk of cholangiocarcinoma was significantly higher in the cholecystectomized patients in comparison with healthy controls, with heterogeneity among studies (summary odds ratio [OR] = 0.72; confidence interval [CI] = 0.55-0.90; I2 = 69.5%). Additionally, this association was also observed in cohort studies (OR = 0.83; 95% CI = 0.73-0.94) and case-control studies (OR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.40-0.80). However, When the intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma were analyzed separately, the present study only indicated cholecystectomy was associated with increased the risk of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (OR = 1.19; 95% CI = 0.32-2.05), rather than intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (OR = 1.19; 95% CI = 0.32-2.05). In conclusion, cholecystectomy was associated with a significant 54% increase in the risk of cholangiocarcinoma, especially in the extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.
| S-EPMC5601764 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundIn February 2008, the results of the PRObiotics in PAncreatitis TRIAl (PROPATRIA) were published. This study investigated the use of probiotics in patients suffering from severe acute pancreatitis. No differences between the groups were found for any of the primary endpoints. However, mortality in the probiotics group was significantly higher than in the placebo group. This result was unexpected in light of the results of the animal studies referred to in the trial protocol. We used the methods of systematic review and meta-analysis to take a closer look at the relation between the animal studies on probiotics and pancreatitis and the PROPATRIA-trial, focussing on indications for harmful effects and efficacy.Methods and resultsBoth PubMed and Embase were searched for original articles concerning the effects of probiotics in experimental acute pancreatitis, yielding thirteen studies that met the inclusion criteria. Data on mortality, bacterial translocation and histological damage to the pancreas were extracted, as well as study quality indicators. Meta-analysis of the four animal studies published before PROPATRIA showed that probiotic supplementation did not diminish mortality, reduced the overall histopathological score of the pancreas and reduced bacterial translocation to pancreas and mesenteric lymph nodes. Comparable results were found when all relevant studies published so far were taken into account.ConclusionsA more thorough analysis of all relevant animal studies carried out before (and after) the publication of the study protocol of the PROPATRIA trial could not have predicted the harmful effects of probiotics found in the PROPATRIA-trial. Moreover, meta-analysis of the preclinical animal studies did show evidence for efficacy. It may be suggested, however, that the most appropriate animal experiments in relation to the design of the human trial have not yet been conducted, which compromises a fair comparison between the results of the animal studies and the PROPATRIA trial.
| S-EPMC3496732 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC8718672 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and Aims: Patients who have an episode of acute pancreatitis (AP) frequently develop diabetes mellitus (DM) over time. The reported incidence of DM after AP varies depending on the severity, etiology and the extent of pancreatic necrosis during AP. We performed a systematic review to determine the incidence of new-onset DM after AP episode (s), and compared the rate of DM in AP patients based upon different disease characteristics. Methods: A total of 31 relevant studies with 13894 subjects were collected from Medline, Embase, and Web of Science. Stata 15 software was used for data analyses in the meta-analysis. Results: The random-effects pooled incidence was 23.0% for DM (95% CI 16.0-31.0%) and 15.0% (95% CI 9.0-23.0%) for DM treated with insulin. We noted substantial heterogeneity in incidence estimates for DM and DM treated with insulin (I 2 = 95.61 and 71.78%; both p < 0·001). The DM incidence was higher in the populations that had a severe AP (SAP) episode than in those with mild acute pancreatitis (MAP) (39 vs. 14%). Patients that displayed pancreatic necrosis during the AP attack(s) had a higher frequency of DM than those without necrosis (37 vs. 11%). In addition, the pooled incidence of DM was higher after alcoholic compared to biliary AP (28 vs. 12%). The incidence of insulin use after SAP and alcoholic AP was 21 and 18%, respectively, with very low heterogeneities. According to duration of follow-up, the pooled rate of DM and insulin use within 5 years after AP was 20 and 14%, while the rate associated with follow-up duration of more than 5 years was elevated to 37 and 25%, respectively. On meta-regression, year of publication, male proportion, age at DM test, and duration of follow-up were neither positively nor negatively associated with the incidence of DM and DM treated with insulin in patients who had a prior AP attack. Conclusion: Patients with AP developed DM after discharge from hospital with a frequency of about 23%. SAP, alcoholic AP and acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) were associated with increased incidence of DM. Assessments of severity, etiology, and pancreatic necrosis are critical for predicting DM development after AP.
| S-EPMC6558372 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Clinical evidence suggests that acupuncture is effective for relieving abdominal pain and distension in acute pancreatitis (AP). However, there is a lack of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that provide high-quality evidence of the efficacy and safety of acupuncture in this context. Aim: To assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for relieving abdominal pain and distension in AP. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and China Biomedical Literature databases. Randomized controlled trials of acupuncture plus routine treatment (RT) vs. RT alone or RT plus sham/placebo acupuncture were included. Primary outcomes included total effectiveness rate, VAS scores for abdominal pain and distension, and time until relief of abdominal pain and distension. Secondary outcomes included time until recovery of bowel sound, time until first defecation, length of hospital stay, and APACHE II score. Results: Nineteen eligible original studies (n = 1,503) were included. The results showed that acupuncture in combination with RT had a significant advantage in terms of increasing the total effectiveness rate [risk ratio: 1.15; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-1.24; P = 0.001]. Acupuncture also reduced the VAS score for abdominal pain [weighted mean difference (WMD): -1.45; 95% CI: -1.71 to -1.19; P < 0.0001] and the VAS score for abdominal distension (WMD: -0.71; 95% CI: -1.04 to -0.37; P < 0.0001) in patients with AP. Other results also showed the efficacy of acupuncture. One study reported adverse events after acupuncture. Conclusion: Acupuncture in combination with RT has a better effect than RT alone for relieving abdominal pain and distension in AP. More rigorous studies are needed to confirm this result. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42019147503 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=147503).
| S-EPMC8678533 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To clarify prognostic factors of acute exacerbation (AE) of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). DESIGN:A systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES:Medline, Embase and Science Citation Index Expanded were searched from 2002 through 1 March 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:The review included primary studies addressing the association between the outcomes such as all-cause mortality of AE of IPF and its potential prognostic factors, which were designated as any clinical information related to the outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two reviewers extracted relevant data independently and assessed risk of bias. Univariate results were pooled using a random-effect model if at least three studies were available. Prognostic factors were determined based on significant and consistent results on both univariate and multivariate analyses in the majority of studies. RESULTS:Out of a total of 6763 articles retrieved, 37 were eligible and 31 potential prognostic factors for all-cause mortality were selected. Each study was subject to certain methodological shortcomings. The following five factors were statistically significant by a meta-analysis of univariate results, which was confirmed by multivariate analysis, that is, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score (HR 1.10, 1.01 to 1.19), partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio (ORs 0.99 in two studies and HRs 0.31 and 0.99 in two studies, respectively), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (HRs 1.002, 1.003, 1.01 and 1.02), white blood cell (WBC) count (OR 1.38, 1.04 to 1.83) and oxygen therapy before AE (HRs 3.68, 1.05 to 12.9 and 2.34, 1.04 to 5.28) (multivariate analysis, 95% CI). CONCLUSIONS:APACHE II score, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, LDH, WBC count and oxygen therapy before AE were deemed as prognostic factors of AE of IPF. Although there are some methodological limitations in this study, these findings are reliable due to consistent results by both univariate and multivariate analyses. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42018106172.
| S-EPMC7299085 | biostudies-literature