Open Access

Contemporary management of infected necrosis complicating severe acute pancreatitis

Critical Care200510:101

https://doi.org/10.1186/cc3928

Published: 22 November 2005

Abstract

Pancreatic necrosis complicating severe acute pancreatitis is a challenging scenario in contemporary critical care practice; it requires multidisciplinary care in a setting where there is a relatively limited evidence base to support decision making. This commentary provides a concise overview of current management of patients with infected necrosis, focusing on detection, the role of pharmacologic intervention, and the timing and nature of surgical interventions. Fine-needle aspiration of necrosis remains the mainstay for establishment of infection. Pharmacological intervention includes antibiotic therapy as an adjunct to surgical debridement/drainage and, more recently, drotrecogin alfa. Specific concerns remain regarding the suitability of drotrecogin alfa in this setting. Early surgical intervention is unhelpful; surgery is indicated when there is strong evidence for infection of necrotic tissue, with the current trend being toward 'less drastic' surgical interventions.

Introduction

Pancreatic necrosis complicating severe acute pancreatitis is a challenging scenario in contemporary critical care practice. Patients are often relatively young (the median age was 55 years [range 19–74 years] in a recent cohort report [1]) and postrecovery quality of life should be good [2], and so there is much to strive for. However, length of stay can be prolonged, and the evidence guiding treatment is limited and contradictory in nature. Crucially, care for these patients involves close multidisciplinary cooperation because the margin for therapeutic error in decision making in relation to the timing and nature of intervention is small.

It is generally accepted that death from acute pancreatitis has a bimodal temporal distribution; early deaths are related to multiple organ failure [3] and may in particular affect elderly patients, in whom decisions on thresholds for intervention may influence treatment and outcome. Death from infected necrosis or the sequelae of peri-pancreatic sepsis is responsible for most late mortality [4]. Management of this group of patients is complex, but there has been a recent increase in the scope of available therapeutic options.

Recent developments can be categorized into those directed at diagnosing infected necrosis, new pharmacological interventions and recent surgical trends.

Diagnosis of infected necrosis

The path finding study conducted by Beger and coworkers [5] showed that the proportion of patients with pancreatic necrosis with evidence of bacterial colonization increased as the disease progressed. Infection of peripancreatic necrosis is relatively uncommon during the first 10 days of illness, and accordingly there is little to be gained by attempts at radiologically guided aspiration of fluid at this stage. Fine-needle aspiration of peripancreatic necrosis to look for evidence of infection comes into play between days 10 and 14 of the illness and, if negative, aspirates should be repeated at regular intervals thereafter. The area to be targeted requires specific attention to detail. In the study conducted by Beger and coworkers [5], fine-needle aspiration was directed at peripancreatic necrosis rather than at intra-abdominal fluid collections. If patients have both, then they should be separately sampled and labelled as such.

Newer methods used for detection of infected necrosis include measurements of biochemical markers such as calcitonin precursors [6]. Procalcitonin is the 116 amino acid precursor of calcitonin; it is released from neuroendocrine cells and detected in high concentrations in serum during severe bacterial or fungal infections [6]. Elevated levels of procalcitonin correlate with disease severity, and there is some evidence of an association between procalcitonin levels and infection of necrosis. Use of genetic analytical techniques to quantify circulating bacteria derived gene products in plasma is interesting but not an established method [7].

Diagnosis of pancreatic infection requires vigilance. Patients receiving critical care are at high risk for developing infected necrosis and require serial imaging and aspiration of necrosis. It should be borne in mind that radiological (computed tomographic) findings such as the presence of gas can indicate infection. It should also be remembered that a clinical diagnosis of infected necrosis based on fever, leucocytosis and other markers of sepsis without substantive proof of infection of necrosis can frequently be incorrect, and in turn may lead to potentially unnecessary surgery [1].

Pharmacological intervention in infected necrosis

There remains no specific pharmacological treatment for infected necrosis, and the mainstay of treatment is drainage or debridement. Antibiotic therapy has a role to play as an adjunct to debridement/drainage. More recently, based on the results of the PROWESS (Recombinant human protein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis) trial [8], drotrecogin alfa (recombinant human activated protein C) has been used in patients with sepsis. In an experimental model of acute pancreatitis, administration of drotrecogin alfa resulted in improvement in markers of tissue injury and inflammation [9]. However, there are specific concerns relating to the risk for haemorrhage. More pragmatically, when criteria for use of drotrecogin alfa are met in a patient with pancreatitis, it could be argued that the thrust of treatment should be to find and treat any intra-abdominal focus of infection [1012].

Timing and nature of surgical intervention

Although these issues remain controversial, some consensus regarding the timing of surgical intervention is emerging. Early surgery for pancreatic necrosis is unprofitable because areas of necrosis will not yet have 'demarcated' and the risk for haemorrhage is high [13]. In practice, early laparotomy in severe acute pancreatitis can be justified in those individuals in whom there is concern about coexisting pathological processes, such as colonic ischaemia. Thus, a practical management plan emerges; early pancreas-directed intervention is unprofitable, and surgery has a role to play only when it is needed to rule out coexisting disease.

At the risk of adding complexity to this algorithm, we must consider the current trend toward measurement of intra-abdominal compartment pressure. An observational study of 293 patients with severe acute pancreatitis [14] demonstrated that early onset of organ dysfunction (within 72 hours of onset of symptoms) was associated with intra-abdominal hypertension (defined as intra-abdominal pressure >15 mmHg) in 78% of patients. This led to speculation about whether there is a role for early surgical intervention in the form of a 'decompressing' laparotomy for raised intra-abdominal pressure [15, 16]. A practical compromise is required here. 'Decompressing' laparotomy in patients without prior surgery carries a high risk for postoperative evisceration, intra-abdominal infection and colonization of previously sterile pancreatic necrosis, and cannot be generally recommended. Similarly, insertion of abdominal drains seems illogical. Intra-abdominal hypertension is due to fluid sequestration as a result of capillary endothelial injury, and thus there will be interstitial fluid in addition to free intra-peritoneal fluid. Simple drainage of fluid collections is unlikely to be of benefit. However, in selected cases, in particular where diaphragmatic splinting may compromise ventilation, an argument can be made for decompression.

What of the nature of intervention? Our group demonstrated that 'traditional' surgical open necrosectomy, involving a long bisubcostal incision, extensive intra-abdominal mobilization and multiple drains, was a major surgical undertaking and associated with a worsening in organ failure scores during the immediate postoperative period [1]. In light of this, there has been a movement toward less drastic surgery. The Glasgow group pioneered minimally invasive necrosectomy [17] – following a radiologically placed guide wire (under general anaesthesia) with a urological scope to effect debridement under irrigation. Various permutations of this procedure have been reported, and there is as yet no consensus on descriptive terminology or technique.

Again, a pragmatic policy is required. Infected necrosis in which there is a predominance of solid and semisolid tissue in the peripancreatic area requires surgical debridement. The available evidence suggests that 'less drastic' surgery (i.e. a mildine laparotomy, debridement, drainage and placement of a feeding jejunostomy) is a safe and adequate option [18]. To maintain a balanced perspective, it must be acknowledged that the minimally invasive procedures may be equally effective, but these are critically dependent on the expertise of the operator. Equally importantly, in those patients with pancreatic necrosis with a predominantly liquid collection, a pancreatic abscess can often be managed by radiological drainage (which adheres to the principles outlined above) and thus avoid surgery. In all cases repeated intervention may be indicated, and the minimum requirement for contemporary care is the availability of radiological, critical care and pancreatic surgical expertise.

Conclusion

Contemporary critical care management of the patient with pancreatic necrosis complicating acute pancreatitis is an area of relatively rapid change. Newer methods for detecting infection, new pharmacological interventions and more sophisticated surgery are all changing the face of care for this complex disease. These developments should not obscure the importance of the underlying principle that patients with infected necrosis require debridement/drainage of their intra-abdominal focus of sepsis.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Research Fellow, Hepatobiliary Unit, Department of Surgery, Manchester Royal Infirmary
(2)
Consultant Surgeon, Hepatobiliary Unit, Department of Surgery, Manchester Royal Infirmary

References

  1. Beattie GC, Mason J, Swan D, Madhavan KK, Siriwardena AK: Outcome of necrosectomy in acute pancreatitis: the case for continued vigilance. Scand J Gastroenterol 2002, 37: 1449-1453. 10.1080/003655202762671341View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Fenton-Lee D, Imrie CW: Pancreatic necrosis: assessment of outcome related to quality of life and cost of management. Br J Surg 1993, 80: 1579-1582.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. McKay CJ, Imrie CW: The continuing challenge of early mortality in acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg 2004, 91: 1243-1244. 10.1002/bjs.4750View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashley SW, Perez A, Pierce EA, Brooks DC, Moore FD, Whang EE, Banks PA, Zinner MJ: Necrotizing pancreatitis. Contemporary analysis of 99 consecutive cases. Ann Surg 2001, 234: 572-579. 10.1097/00000658-200110000-00016PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Beger HG, Bittner R, Block S, Buchler M: Bacterial contamination of pancreatic necrosis. A prospective clinical study. Gastroenterology 1986, 91: 433-438.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Al-Bahrani A, Ammori BJ: Clinical laboratory assessment of acute pancreatitis. Clin Chim Acta 2005, 362: 26-48. 10.1016/j.cccn.2005.06.008View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Ammori BJ, Fitzgerald P, Hawkey P, McMahon MJ: The early increase in intestinal permeability and systemic endotoxin exposure in patients with severe acute pancreatitis is not associated with systemic bacterial translocation: molecular investigation of microbial DNA in the blood. Pancreas 2003, 26: 18-22. 10.1097/00006676-200301000-00004View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernard GR, Vincent JL, Laterre PF, LaRosa SP, Dhainaut JF, Lopez-Rodriguez A, Steingrub JS, Garber GE, Helterbrand JD, Ely EW, Recombinant human protein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis (PROWESS) study group, et al.: Efficacy and safety of recombinant human activated protein C for severe sepsis. N Engl J Med 2001, 344: 699-709. 10.1056/NEJM200103083441001View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Yamanel L, Mas MR, Comert B, Isik AT, Aydin S, Mas N, Deveci S, Ozyurt M, Tasci I, Unal T: The effect of activated protein C on experimental acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Crit Care 2005, 9: 184-190. 10.1186/cc3485View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Jamdar S, Siriwardena AK: Drotrecogin alfa (recombinant human activated protein C) in severe acute pancreatitis. Crit Care 2005, 9: 321-322. 10.1186/cc3777PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerlach H: Risk management in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Crit Care 2004, 8: 430-432. 10.1186/cc3007PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kirschenbaum L, Astiz M: Acute pancreatitis: a possible role for activated protein C. Crit Care 2005, 9: 243-244. 10.1186/cc3515PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Mier J, Leon EL, Castillo A, Robledo F, Blanco R: Early versus late necrosectomy in severe necrotizing pancreatitis. Am J Surg 1997, 173: 71-75. 10.1016/S0002-9610(96)00425-4View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Tao HQ, Zhang JX, Zou SC: Clinical characteristics and management of patients with early severe pancreatitis: experience from a medical center in China. World J Gastroenterol 2004, 10: 919-921.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. De Waele JJ, Hoste E, Blot SI, Decruyenaere J, Colardyn F: Intra-abdominal hypertension in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Crit Care 2005, 9: 452-457. 10.1186/cc3754View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Leppaniemi A, Kemppainen E: Recent advances in the surgical management of necrotizing pancreatitis. Curr Opin Crit Care 2005, 11: 349-352. 10.1097/01.ccx.0000166398.50517.fbView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Carter CR, McKay CJ, Imrie CW: Percutaneous necrosectomy and sinus tract endoscopy in the management of infected pancreatic necrosis: an initial experience. Ann Surg 2000, 232: 175-180. 10.1097/00000658-200008000-00004PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Virlos IT, Mason J, Schofield D, McCloy RF, Eddleston JM, Siriwardena AK: Intravenous n-actylcysteine, ascorbic acid and selenium-based anti-oxidant therapy in severe acute pancreatitis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2003, 38: 1262-1267. 10.1080/00365520310006540View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© BioMed Central Ltd 2006