Santhi Swaroop Vege

Classification of acute pancreatitis—2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus

Background and objective The Atlanta classification of acute pancreatitis enabled standardised reporting of research and aided communication between clinicians. Deficiencies identified and improved understanding of the disease make a revision necessary. Methods A web-based consultation was undertaken in 2007 to ensure wide participation of pancreatologists. After an initial meeting, the Working Group sent a draft document to 11 national and international pancreatic associations. This working draft was forwarded to all members. Revisions were made in response to comments, and the web-based consultation was repeated three times. The final consensus was reviewed, and only statements based on published evidence were retained. Results The revised classification of acute pancreatitis identified two phases of the disease: early and late. Severity is classified as mild, moderate or severe. Mild acute pancreatitis, the most common form, has no organ failure, local or systemic complications and usually resolves in the first week. Moderately severe acute pancreatitis is defined by the presence of transient organ failure, local complications or exacerbation of co-morbid disease. Severe acute pancreatitis is defined by persistent organ failure, that is, organ failure >48 h. Local complications are peripancreatic fluid collections, pancreatic and peripancreatic necrosis (sterile or infected), pseudocyst and walled-off necrosis (sterile or infected). We present a standardised template for reporting CT images. Conclusions This international, web-based consensus provides clear definitions to classify acute pancreatitis using easily identified clinical and radiologic criteria. The wide consultation among pancreatologists to reach this consensus should encourage widespread adoption.

American College of Gastroenterology guideline: management of acute pancreatitis.

This guideline presents recommendations for the management of patients with acute pancreatitis (AP). During the past decade, there have been new understandings and developments in the diagnosis, etiology, and early and late management of the disease. As the diagnosis of AP is most often established by clinical symptoms and laboratory testing, contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the pancreas should be reserved for patients in whom the diagnosis is unclear or who fail to improve clinically. Hemodynamic status should be assessed immediately upon presentation and resuscitative measures begun as needed. Patients with organ failure and/or the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) should be admitted to an intensive care unit or intermediary care setting whenever possible. Aggressive hydration should be provided to all patients, unless cardiovascular and/or renal comorbidites preclude it. Early aggressive intravenous hydration is most beneficial within the first 12–24 h, and may have little benefit beyond. Patients with AP and concurrent acute cholangitis should undergo endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) within 24 h of admission. Pancreatic duct stents and/or postprocedure rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) suppositories should be utilized to lower the risk of severe post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients. Routine use of prophylactic antibiotics in patients with severe AP and/or sterile necrosis is not recommended. In patients with infected necrosis, antibiotics known to penetrate pancreatic necrosis may be useful in delaying intervention, thus decreasing morbidity and mortality. In mild AP, oral feedings can be started immediately if there is no nausea and vomiting. In severe AP, enteral nutrition is recommended to prevent infectious complications, whereas parenteral nutrition should be avoided. Asymptomatic pancreatic and/or extrapancreatic necrosis and/or pseudocysts do not warrant intervention regardless of size, location, and/or extension. In stable patients with infected necrosis, surgical, radiologic, and/or endoscopic drainage should be delayed, preferably for 4 weeks, to allow the development of a wall around the necrosis.

Immunoglobulin G4–Associated Cholangitis: Clinical Profile and Response to Therapy

BACKGROUND & AIMS Immunoglobulin (Ig)G4-associated cholangitis (IAC) is the biliary manifestation of a steroid-responsive multisystem fibroinflammatory disorder in which affected organs have a characteristic lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate rich in IgG4-positive cells. We describe clinical features, treatment response, and predictors of relapse in IAC and compare relapse rates in IAC with intrapancreatic vs proximal bile duct strictures. METHODS We reviewed clinical, serologic, and imaging characteristics and treatment response in 53 IAC patients. RESULTS IAC patients generally were older (mean age, 62 y) men (85%), presenting with obstructive jaundice (77%) associated with autoimmune pancreatitis (92%), increased serum IgG4 levels (74%), and abundant IgG4-positive cells in bile duct biopsy specimens (88%). At presentation, biliary strictures were confined to the intrapancreatic bile duct in 51%; the proximal extrahepatic/intrahepatic ducts were involved in 49%. Initial presentation was treated with steroids (n = 30; median follow-up period, 29.5 months), surgical resection (n = 18; median follow-up period, 58 months), or was conservative (n = 5; median follow-up period, 35 months). Relapses occurred in 53% after steroid withdrawal; 44% relapsed after surgery and were treated with steroids. The presence of proximal extrahepatic/intrahepatic strictures was predictive of relapse. Steroid therapy normalized liver enzyme levels in 61%; biliary stents could be removed in 17 of 18 patients. Fifteen patients treated with steroids for relapse after steroid withdrawal responded; 7 patients on additional immunomodulatory drugs remain in steroid-free remission (median follow-up period, 6 months). CONCLUSIONS IAC should be suspected in unexplained biliary strictures associated with increased serum IgG4 and unexplained pancreatic disease. Relapses are common after steroid withdrawal, especially with proximal strictures. The role of immunomodulatory drugs for relapses needs further study.

Value of serum IgG4 in the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis and in distinguishing it from pancreatic cancer.

OBJECTIVES:To determine the sensitivity and specificity of elevated serum IgG4 level for the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) and its ability to distinguish AIP from pancreatic cancer, its main differential diagnosis.METHODS:We measured serum IgG4 levels (normal 8–140 mg/dL) in 510 patients including 45 with AIP, 135 with pancreatic cancer, 62 with no pancreatic disease, and 268 with other pancreatic diseases.RESULTS:Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values for elevated serum IgG4 (>140 mg/dL) for diagnosis of AIP were 76%, 93%, and 36%, respectively, and 53%, 99%, and 75%, respectively, for IgG4 of >280 mg/dL. Among subjects with elevated IgG4, non-AIP subjects (N = 32) differed from AIP subjects (N = 34) in that they were more likely to be female (45% vs 9%, P < 0.001), less likely to have serum IgG4 >280 mg/dL (13% vs 71%, P < 0.001), or elevation of total IgG (16% vs 56%, P < 0.001). Serum IgG4 levels were elevated in 13/135 (10%) pancreatic cancer patients; however, only 1% had IgG4 levels >280 mg/dL compared with 53% of AIP. Compared with AIP, pancreatic cancer patients were more likely to have CA19-9 levels of >100 U/mL (71% vs 9%, P < 0.001).CONCLUSION:Elevated serum IgG4 levels are characteristic of AIP. However, mild (<2-fold) elevations in serum IgG4 are seen in up to 10% of subjects without AIP including pancreatic cancer and cannot be used alone to distinguish AIP from pancreatic cancer. Because AIP is uncommon, IgG4 elevations in patients with low pretest probability of having AIP are likely to represent false positives.

Differences in Clinical Profile and Relapse Rate of Type 1 Versus Type 2 Autoimmune Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND & AIMS Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) has been divided into subtypes 1 (lymphoplasmacytic sclerosing pancreatitis) and 2 (idiopathic duct centric pancreatitis). We compared clinical profiles and long-term outcomes of types 1 and 2 AIP. METHODS We compared clinical presentation, relapse, and vital status of 78 patients with type 1 AIP who met the original HISORt criteria and 19 patients with histologically confirmed type 2 AIP. RESULTS At presentation, patients with type 1 AIP were older than those with type 2 AIP (62 +/- 14 vs 48 +/- 19 years; P < .0001) and had a greater prevalence of increased serum levels of immunoglobulin G4 (47/59 [80%] vs 1/6 [17%]; P = .004). Patients with type 1 were more likely than those with type 2 to have proximal biliary, retroperitoneal, renal, or salivary disease (60% vs 0; P < .0001). Inflammatory bowel disease was associated with types 1 and 2 (6% vs 16%; P = .37). During median clinical follow-up periods of 42 and 29 months, respectively, 47% of patients with type 1 and none of those with type 2 experienced a relapse. In type 1 AIP, proximal biliary involvement (hazard ratio [HR], 2.12; P = .038) and diffuse pancreatic swelling (HR, 2.00; P = .049) were predictive of relapse, whereas pancreaticoduodenectomy reduced the relapse rate (vs the corticosteroid-treated group; HR, 0.15; P = .0001). After median follow-up periods of 58 and 89 months (types 1 and 2, respectively), the 5-year survival rates for both groups were similar to those of the age- and sex-matched US population. CONCLUSIONS Types 1 and 2 AIP have distinct clinical profiles. Patients with type 1 AIP have a high relapse rate, but patients with type 2 AIP do not experience relapse. AIP does not affect long-term survival.

American Gastroenterological Association Institute Guideline on the Diagnosis and Management of Asymptomatic Neoplastic Pancreatic Cysts

This article has an accompanying continuing medical education activity on page e12. Learning Objective: At the conclusion of this exercise, the learner will understand the approach to counseling patients regarding the optimal method and frequency of radiologic imaging, indications for invasive tests like endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and surgery, select patients for follow-up after surgery, decide the duration of such follow-up, and decide when to stop surveillance for those with and without surgery.

Do consensus indications for resection in branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm predict malignancy? A study of 147 patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Recent consensus guidelines suggest that presence of ≥1 of the following is an indication for resection (IR) of branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN-Br): cyst-related symptoms, main pancreatic duct diameter ≥10 mm, cyst size ≥30 mm, intramural nodules, or cyst fluid cytology suspicious/positive for malignancy. Among a cohort of patients with IPMN-Br we determined if the consensus IR (CIR), presence of multifocal IPMN-Br, or growth of cyst size on follow-up predict malignancy.METHODS:We identified 147 patients with IPMN-Br of whom 66 underwent surgical resection at diagnosis and 81 were followed conservatively, of whom 11 were resected during follow-up. Clinical, imaging, histological, and cyst fluid characteristics from all 147 patients with IPMN-Br were obtained from clinical records and/or by contacting the patients. In all cases, presence of CIR at baseline and during follow-up (N = 66), presence of multifocal cysts (N = 57), and increase in cyst size (N = 38) were noted.RESULTS:Among the 77 resected IPMN-Brs, at initial evaluation 61 had at least one CIR and 16 had none. Malignancy was present in 9/61 (15%) with CIR and 0/16 without IR (P = 0.1). When presence of any one of the CIR was taken as an indicator of malignancy, the CIR had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 100%, 23%, 14%, and 100%, respectively. Prevalence of malignancy in those with single versus multifocal IPMN-Br was similar (13% vs 11%). No patient has developed malignancy after a median follow-up of 15 months. So far, none of the 38 patients with increase in cyst size on follow-up has developed malignancy related symptoms.CONCLUSIONS:Suggested consensus indications for resection identify all patients with malignancy; however, their specificity is low. In the short term it would be safe to follow patients without these features.

A Diagnostic Strategy to Distinguish Autoimmune Pancreatitis From Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND & AIMS Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) and pancreatic cancer (PaC) have similar presentations; a diagnostic strategy is needed to distinguish the 2 diseases. METHODS We compared computed tomography images (for pancreas and other organ involvement), serum IgG4 levels, histology data, and the response to steroids between patients with AIP (n = 48) and those with PaC (n = 100). RESULTS Pancreatic imaging findings stratified patients into 3 groups. Group 1 was highly suggestive of AIP, with diffuse pancreatic enlargement without group 3 features (n = 25, 100% AIP). Group 2 was indeterminate, with normal-sized pancreas or focal pancreatic enlargement without group 3 features (n = 20, 75% AIP). Group 3 was highly suggestive of PaC, with presence of >1 low-density mass, pancreatic duct cutoff, or upstream pancreatic atrophy (n = 103, 92% PaC). Although all patients in group 1 had AIP, only 20 of the 25 patients had increased serum IgG4 levels and/or other organ involvement. Of the patients in groups 2 and 3 who did not have cancer, all those with serum IgG4 levels >2-fold the upper limit of normal or a combination of increased serum IgG4 levels and other organ involvement (n = 15) had AIP. In AIP subjects without supportive serologic evidence or other organ involvement (n = 14), diagnosis required pancreatic core biopsy (n = 7), steroid trial (n = 5), or resection (n = 2). CONCLUSIONS PaC can be distinguished from AIP by pancreatic imaging, measurement of serum IgG4 levels, and determination of other organ involvement. However, a pancreatic core biopsy, steroid trial, or surgery is required for diagnosis in approximately 30% of patients with AIP.

Treatment of relapsing autoimmune pancreatitis with immunomodulators and rituximab: the Mayo Clinic experience

Background There is a paucity of data on long-term management of type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP), a relapsing steroid-responsive disorder. Objective We describe our experience with treatment of relapses and maintenance of remission using steroid-sparing immunomodulators (IMs) and induction of remission using rituximab (RTX). Methods We obtained details of disease relapse and treatment in 116 type 1 AIP patients from clinic visits, medical records and telephone interviews. We compared relapse free survival in those treated with IMs versus those treated with steroids alone, assessed patients’ response to RTX, and identified treatment-related complications. Results During a median follow-up of 47 months, 52/116 AIP patients experienced 76 relapse episodes. The first relapse was treated with another course of steroids in 24 patients, and with steroids plus IM in another 27 patients; subsequent relapse-free survival until a second relapse was similar in the two groups (p=0.23). 38 patients received an IM for >2 months; failure or intolerance of IM therapy occurred in 17 (45%). 12 patients with steroid or IM intolerance/resistance were treated with RTX, an antiCD20 antibody; 10 (83%) experienced complete remission and had no relapses while on maintenance therapy. Treatment-limiting side effects related to RTX were uncommon. Conclusions In type 1 AIP relapses are common. Relapse-free survival is similar in those treated with steroids plus IM compared to those treated with steroids alone. Nearly half the patients on IMs will relapse during treatment. RTX is effective in the treatment of both IM resistant and steroid intolerant patients.

Interventions for Necrotizing Pancreatitis Summary of a Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference

Abstract Pancreatic and peripancreatic necrosis may result in significant morbidity and mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis. Many recommendations have been made for management of necrotizing pancreatitis, but no published guidelines have incorporated the many recent developments in minimally invasive techniques for necrosectomy. Hence, a multidisciplinary conference was convened to develop a consensus on interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis. Participants included most international experts from multiple disciplines. The evidence for efficacy of interventions was reviewed, presentations were given by experts, and a consensus was reached on each topic. In summary, intervention is primarily indicated for infected necrosis, less often for symptomatic sterile necrosis, and should ideally be delayed as long as possible, preferably 4 weeks or longer after the onset of disease, for better demarcation and liquefaction of the necrosis. Both the step-up approach using percutaneous drainage followed by minimally invasive video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement and per-oral endoscopic necrosectomy have been shown to have superior outcomes to traditional open necrosectomy with respect to short-term and long-term morbidity and are emerging as treatments of choice. Applicability of these techniques depends on the availability of specialized expertise and a multidisciplinary team dedicated to the management of severe acute pancreatitis and its complications.