Severity, Treatment, and Outcome of Acute Pancreatitis in Thailand: The First Comprehensive Review Using Revised Atlanta Classification

Background. Severity and outcome of acute pancreatitis (AP) in Thailand are unknown. Methods. A retrospective study of 250 patients with AP during 2011–2014 was performed. Severity, treatment, and outcome were evaluated. Severity was classified by revised Atlanta classification. Results. The mean age was 58 years and 56% were men. Etiologies were gallstones (45%), alcohol (16%), postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (14%), and idiopathic (15%). Overall, 72%, 16%, and 12% of patients had mild, moderately severe, and severe AP, respectively. Two major types of initial intravenous fluid were normal saline (64%) and Ringer’s lactate solution (RLS, 28%). Enteral nutrition was given in 77% of patients with severe AP, median duration 48 hours, and via a nasogastric tube in 67% of patients. Necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) developed in 7% of patients, and 29% of them developed infection (median 17 days). The median length of stay was 6, 9, and 13 days, and the mortality rate was 1%, 3%, and 42% in mild, moderately severe, and severe AP, respectively. The overall mortality rate was 6%. Conclusion. The severity of AP in Thailand was mild, moderately severe, and severe in 72%, 16%, and 12% of patients, respectively. NP was not prevalent. Mortality was high in severe AP. Most treatments complied with standard guidelines except the underuse of RLS

Fecal Calprotectin in Nosocomial Diarrhea: A Prospective Observational Study

Objective: Fecal calprotectin (FC) has an essential role in differentiating inflammatory diarrhea from functional diarrhea in an outpatient setting; however, its role in nosocomial diarrhea remains not well explored. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective observational study. We included adult inpatients with nosocomial diarrhea and categorized them into diarrhea likely (group A) and unlikely (group B) to have lesions in the colonic mucosa. Group A included infectious diarrhea such as Clostridium difficile and ischemic colitis. Group B comprised tube-feeding diarrhea, non-C. difficile antibiotic-associated diarrhea, and drug-induced diarrhea. The FC levels were compared between the two groups. Results: 135 patients were included, 45 in group A and 90 in group B. Median FC was 902 mg/kg (interquartile range [IQR] 549-2,175) of feces in group A, significantly higher than the median level of 377 mg/kg (IQR 141-664) of feces in group B (p<0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.798 (95% confidence interval: 0.717-0.879). At the standard cutoff of 50 mg/kg of feces, the sensitivity and specificity were 97.8% and 7.8%, respectively. Conclusion: FC was significantly higher in nosocomial diarrhea likely to have mucosal lesions; however, its clinical usefulness was limited due to poor specificity

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008. DESIGN: A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO (2)/FiO (2) ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a PaO (2)/FI O (2) 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5-10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C). CONCLUSIONS: Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients

Etiology of Recurrent Acute Pancreatitis: 10-year Review from a Large Tertiary Hospital

Objective: To determine the etiology of recurrent acute pancreatitis (RAP) in a single tertiary hospital in Thailand. Methods: Medical records, imaging and endoscopic data of patients who presented with acute pancreatitis for more than once during 2005-2014 were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed. Results: There were 66 RAP patients over the 10-year period. Majority (69.7%) were men. Mean age was 47 ± 19 years. Thirty percent smoked and 48% drank significant alcohol (defined as ethanol >80 g/day for >5 years). Liver function test, serum triglyceride and calcium were done in every case. Ultrasonography, computed tomography and endoscopic ultrasonography were performed in 54.5%, 53.0% and 33.3%, respectively. Genetic studies (PRSS1 and SPINK1 mutations) were performed in 9 patients (13.6%) and mutations were found for PRSS1 in 1 and SPINK1 in 2 patients. Alcohol was the most common etiology of RAP (40.9%), followed by biliary stone (27.3%), all of which were macrolithiasis. ICP was the third most common cause (9.1%) and hereditary pancreatitis was diagnosed in 1 patient (1.5%). Seventeen patients (25.7%) had miscellaneous etiologies and 2 (3.0%) finally had idiopathic recurrent acute pancreatitis (IRAP). More than half (61%) of patients with RAP from macrolithiasis were associated with delayed cholecystectomy after sentinel gallstone pancreatitis. Conclusion: The most common etiologies of RAP in order were alcohol, macrolithiasis and ICP. Among RAP patients from macrolithiasis, the main cause was delayed cholecystectomy after sentinel gallstone pancreatitis

Repeat Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients with Functional Dyspepsia: Yield, Findings, and Predictors of Positive Findings

Background. No guideline on repeat esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in functional dyspepsia (FD) exists. This study aimed to define yield, findings, and predictors of positive findings on repeat EGD in FD. Methods. FD patients who underwent at least 2 EGDs during October 2005 to November 2011 were enrolled and reviewed. Yield and findings were analyzed and univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of positive repeat EGD. Results. The median time to repeat EGD was 34 months. Among 146 patients, 115 patients (79%) had negative and 31 (21%) had positive repeat EGD, including erosive gastritis (13.0%), peptic ulcer (7.5%), reflux esophagitis (1.4%), and Barrett’s esophagus (0.7%). Four independent predictors of positive repeat EGD were smoking (HR 3.88, 95% CI 1.31–11.51, P=0.015), hypertension (HR 2.96, 95% CI 1.38–6.36, P=0.050), history of malignancies (HR 3.65, 95% CI 1.16–11.46, P=0.027), and antiplatelets or NSAIDs used within 4 weeks (HR 4.10, 95% CI 1.13–14.90, P=0.032), while alarm features or failure to treatment did not predict positive repeat EGD.  Conclusion. Yield of repeat EGD in FD was substantially low, all findings were acid-related disorders, and there was no malignancy. Smoking, hypertension, history of malignancies, and antiplatelets/NSAIDs use associated with positive repeat EGD