Diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic duct disruption or disconnection: an international expert survey and case vignette study

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

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign sepsis change bundles and clinical research

Editorialinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

An international survey: Public awareness and perception of sepsis

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a common cause of death throughout the world. Early treatment improves outcome; however, treatment may be delayed if the patient does not present himself/herself for medical care until late in the disease process. Lack of knowledge about the syndrome may contribute to delay in presenting for medical care. However, we need to acknowledge the complexity of sepsis. General awareness of sepsis by the public may increase political pressure for research funding. Increased public awareness of acute myocardial infarction has contributed to reduced mortality over the last 50 yrs. This example provides a rationale for future efforts to increase the public awareness of sepsis. OBJECTIVE: The survey was designed to gain insight into public perceptions and attitudes regarding sepsis. DESIGN: Prospective, international survey performed using structured telephone interviews. SUBJECTS: A total of 6021 interviewees, 5021 in Europe and 1000 in the United States. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, France and the United States, a mean of 88% of interviewees had never heard of the term "sepsis". In Germany 53% of people knew the word sepsis. In Italy, Spain, United Kingdom, France, and United States, of people who recognized the term sepsis, 58% did not recognize that sepsis is a leading cause of death. CONCLUSIONS: There is poor public awareness about the existence of a syndrome known as sepsis. Results of this questionnaire underscore the challenges in early management and treatment of infected patients at risk for developing sepsis syndrome

Talactoferrin in Severe Sepsis: Results From the Phase II/III Oral tAlactoferrin in Severe sepsIS Trial

Contains fulltext : 154081.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)OBJECTIVE: Talactoferrin alfa is a recombinant form of the human glycoprotein, lactoferrin, which has been shown to have a wide range of effects on the immune system. This phase II/III clinical trial compared talactoferrin with placebo, in addition to standard of care, in patients with severe sepsis. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II/III clinical study. SETTING: Seventy-seven centers in 10 countries. PATIENTS: Adult (> 18 yr) patients admitted to one of the participating centers with severe sepsis who were receiving antimicrobial therapy and able to take liquid medication by mouth or feeding tube. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive either talactoferrin (1.5 g, 15 mL) or placebo three times a day orally or by another enteral route for 28 days or until ICU discharge. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The study was terminated after 305 patients had been enrolled (153 talactoferrin and 152 placebo) because of futility and safety concerns identified by the Data Safety Monitoring Board. There were no significant differences between groups in baseline characteristics including age, sex, site of infection, and severity scores. Twenty-eight-day mortality was higher in talactoferrin-treated patients although this difference was not statistically significant (24.8% vs 17.8% placebo; p = 0.117). The difference was largely the result of differences in patients with shock (talactoferrin, 33/105 [31.4%] vs placebo, 21/104 [20.2%]; p = 0.064); no mortality difference was seen in patients without shock (talactoferrin, 5/48 [10.4%] vs placebo, 6/48 [12.5%]; p = 0.806). In-hospital (43/153 [28.1%] vs 27/152 [17.8%]; p = 0.037) and 3-month (46/153 [30.1%] vs 31/152 [20.4%]; p = 0.036) mortality rates were significantly higher in talactoferrin-treated patients than in patients in the placebo group. The occurrence of treatment-related adverse or serious adverse events was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of oral talactoferrin was not associated with reduced 28-day mortality in patients with severe sepsis and may even be harmful