Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Abstract. Acute Pancreatitis (AP) is a po- Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) or abdo-
tentially fatal syndrome, associated with a hy- minal Ultrasound (US)1.
per-catabolic state as well as early and late com- Other clinical features may include fever, leu-
plications that may lead to multi-organ failure
and death. Clinical researches produced in re- kocytosis, nausea, vomit, and ileus2.
cent years suggest that acute pancreatitis may Etiology of AP may vary, though the most fre-
benefit from early oral or enteral nutrition. Never- quent causes are biliary gallstones (40-70%) and
theless, many clinicians still believe erroneous- alcohol (25-35%). Less common causes are drugs
ly that fasting particularly in the early phase (especially azathioprine and 6 mercaptopurine),
may reduce AP complications and mortality. primary and secondary hypertriglyceridemia (tri-
The goal of our review is to demonstrate that
such false belief may harm the patients and that
glycerides >1,000 mg/dl), congenital anomalies
the whole management paradigm must change, (such as pancreas divisum), infectious diseases
adopting a more rational, evidence-based ap- (Coxsackie viruses, varicella virus), autoimmuni-
proach. First, we will describe AP physiopathol- ty and genetic disorders3.
ogy and the clinical assessment of its severity. AP incidence varies from 13 to 45 cases per
Then we will discuss evidence-based data sup- 100,000 worldwide and it seems to be increasing4,5.
porting early oral or enteral nutrition in AP. Final- Hospital admissions for AP rose by 20% in the past
ly, we will offer some practice recommendations
as regards nutritional support. 10 years, thus increasing health care costs6.
AP can occur in different patterns, ranging
Key Words: from a mild inflammation to a severe necrosis of
Acute pancreatitis, Starvation, Enteral nutrition, Par- the pancreas. In all forms, AP is consistently as-
enteral nutrition. sociated with a systemic inflammatory response
syndrome (SIRS) due to a local process of auto-
digestion of pancreas and peri-pancreatic tissues.
Introduction Mild pancreatitis is often a self-limiting disea-
se leading to no further damage. It occurs in al-
Acute Pancreatitis (AP) is a potentially fatal most 75-80% of cases.
condition, characterized by: Severe AP, which occurs in the remnant 20-
Sudden and persistent abdominal pain (often 25% of patients, is often characterized by two di-
epigastric but also radiating to the back) stinct phases:
Elevated serum lipase activity (or pancreatic Early phase (within the first week), in which
amylase), three times the upper limit of normal systemic inflammatory response syndrome
range (SIRS) may progress to multiple organ failures;
Typical findings at abdominal imaging, as Late phase (after the first week), in which organ
obtained by Contrast-Enhanced Computer To- failures may become persistent and local com-
mography (CECT) or less frequently by plications may arise.
The mortality rate is relatively low (1%) in duces BT in mesenteric lymph nodes and plasma
mild AP, but it can increase to 30% in severe AP. endotoxin levels in rats with induced AP. Moreo-
Mortality can be as high as 50% in cases with ex- ver, EN maintains villus height and CD4/CD8 ratio
tensive local necrosis and even to 80% in case of in mesenteric lymph nodes, spleen, and peripheral
sepsis7. blood, if compared to PN fed controls. In humans,
Xu et al13 reported a more beneficial effect of EN
The Old Paradigm vs. parenteral nutrition (PN) on gut integrity in 63
Traditionally, nutritional support was not part patient affected by severe AP. EN was also asso-
of AP management, according to the old idea that ciated with significantly lower concentrations of
to put the pancreas at rest could be beneficial plasma endotoxins at any day of observation, com-
in the early phases of AP. Furthermore, it was be- pared to PN. In addition, Zhao et al14 demonstrated
lieved also that enteral feeding might have some a protective effect of EN on the integrity of enteric
negative impact on prognosis, by stimulating exo- mucosa in a setting of AP.
crine pancreatic secretion and, thus, favoring the Enteral starvation contributes to alter gut mu-
autolytic processes of the pancreas and the sur- cosa microenvironment, its immune system, and
rounding soft tissues. In this review, we will de- permeability, enhancing the risk of BT.
monstrate how this old approach is not evidence Hodin et al15 showed morphological and fun-
based and may be detrimental to the patient. ctional changes in Paneth cells in ileal tissue,
after 48 hours of fasting, in a mouse starvation
model. These abnormalities were accompanied
Physiopathology by a significant BT in mesenteric lymph nodes
(twofold increase of colony-forming units per
Metabolic Response to AP gram of tissue [p <0.01] compared to controls).
AP is associated with the typical metabolic Heneghan et al16 recently confirmed these resul-
pattern of a SIRS. AP patients are somehow si- ts in parenterally fed mice. Animal experiments
milar to septic patients in terms of elevated pro- carried out by Kang et al17 showed that total PN
tein catabolism, marked inflammatory state and results in a rapid and severe atrophy of GALT
deranged glucose metabolism (high insulin levels (gut-associated lymphoid tissue) and increased
due to a reduced glucose uptake and accelera- occurrence of BT. Recently, Ralls et al18 demon-
ted neo-glycogenesis)8,9. If AP is complicated by strated a detrimental effect of starvation on gut
sepsis, protein catabolism is further enhanced, EBF (epithelial barrier function) in humans.
up to a net nitrogen loss of 20-40 g/day8. Nega- Analysing tracts of non-inflamed, healthy small
tive nitrogen balance is associated with increased bowel obtained from pediatric patients, they as-
mortality10. sessed trans-epithelial resistance (TER), TNFa
On the other side, nutrient digestion and ab- and toll-like receptor 4 (TLR-4) in fed and unfed
sorption may be impaired during an episode of bowels. Fed bowels showed a significantly great-
acute pancreatitis, and this may lead to nutritional er TER than unfed bowels. Immunofluorescence
deficiencies. This would be particularly harmful analysis showed a loss of staining intensity for
in patients already undernourished, such as al- E-cadherin, Claudin-4, and Zonula Occludens-1
coholics, who are at risk of AP. Without nutritio- (ZO-1) in unfed versus fed bowels; a relative in-
nal support, patients may rapidly develop severe crease in TLRs and TNF-a expression was also
malnutrition, water retention and decreased mu- found in unfed compared to fed bowels. Previ-
scle function. ously, the same group had shown similar results
in a mouse model19.
Starvation, Gut Bacterial and Enteral starvation has also an impact on gut
Inflammatory Mediators Translocation microbiota composition. In PN fed mice there
During AP are significant changes in the small intestinal
Increased permeability of the gut mucosa is microbiota, resulting in reduced levels of the
typical in AP. In an animal model of chemical-in- phylum Firmicutes and increased levels of the
duced pancreatitis, Cicalese et al11 demonstra- phylum Bacteroidetes and Proteobacteria, com-
ted that both mild and severe pancreatitis induce pared to oral fed mice20. As known, Gram-ne-
bacterial translocation (BT) to the pancreatic gland gative bacteria species elicit an inflammatory
in 100% of the cases. On the other hand, Kotani response via Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) TLR-4
et al12 demonstrated that enteral nutrition (EN) re- signalling21.
422
Nutritional support in acute pancreatitis: from physiopathology to practice. An evidence-based approach
Figure 1. Harmful consequences of PN and enteral starvation. Abbreviations: GALT: Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue;
TNF-a: Tumor Necrosis Factor-a; TLR-4: Toll Like Receptor-4; EBF: Epithelial Barrier Function; LPS: Lipopolysaccharide.
423
E. Rinninella, M.G. Annetta, M.L. Serricchio, A.A. Dal Lago, G.A.D. Miggiano, M.C. Mele
Table I. Modified Marshall scoring system (Atlanta 2012) (modified from Banks PA et al1).
0 1 2 3 4
2 (positive predictive value, negative predictive 95% CI 1.66-4.03). Given these results, patients
value, sensitivity and specificity of 55.6%, 97.6%, with a BMI >30 should be categorized at risk of
83.3%, 91.0% vs. 28.6%, 94.5%, 66.7%, 77.5%)31. severe AP.
However, its negative and positive predictive va- Atlanta 2012 Classification of acute Pancrea-
lues are limited in the first 24 hours32. titis1 put the emphasis on the organ failure. Or-
Levels of serum CRP (C-Reactive Protein) gan failure has been defined as a score of 2 or
above 150 mg per liter have been considered in more on the modified Marshall score, in at least
several trials as a measure of severe AP33-35. At 48 one of these organ systems: respiratory, renal and
hours after the onset, serum CRP levels > 150 mg/ cardiovascular (Table I). Organ failure is defined
dl have strong sensitivity and specificity, positive transient if it resolves within 48 hours; permanent
and negative value for severe AP36. At this time, if persists for more than 48 hours.
CRP above this cut-off has also a sensitivity of Another characteristic in AP is the presence
80-86% and specificity of 61-84% for diagnosing of complications, local or systemic. Atlanta 2012
necrotizing pancreatitis37. Khanna et al38 have de- classification1 define as local complications the
monstrated that, compared with other scores in- following findings: acute pancreatic or peri-pan-
cluding APACHE II, Ranson, BISAP (bedside creatic fluid collection, pancreatic pseudocysts,
index for severe acute pancreatitis (BISAP) and acute necrotic collection and walled off necrosis.
Procalcitonin (PCT) CRP had the highest sen- These could be sterile or infected. Local compli-
sitivity (100%), negative predictive value (100%), cations should be suspected if there is still recur-
and specificity (81.4%) for pancreatic necrosis, rent abdominal pain, increased serum pancreatic
with a sensitivity of 86.2% and specificity and enzymes, organ dysfunction and signs of syste-
positive predictive value (PPV) of 100% for pre- mic inflammation (fever, leukocytosis, and in-
diction of severe AP. flammatory markers). Generally, local complica-
CRP is a simple and inexpensive marker of se- tions appear in the late phase of AP. On the other
vere disease in AP. Nevertheless, it cannot be suf- hand, systemic complications are defined as the
ficient alone to evaluate patients on the admission, exacerbation of pre-existing comorbidities (such
because it is not a disease-specific inflammatory as chronic heart or lung diseases).
marker and it takes almost 36-72 hours to peak Given the definitions of organ failure and com-
after the onset of symptoms39. plications, Atlanta classification establishes diffe-
Obesity, defined as a BMI (Body Mass Index) rent grades of severity in AP:
>30, is a measure of severity and mortality du- Mild acute pancreatitis: characterized by the
ring an attack of acute pancreatitis40,41. A meta-a- absence of organ failure and local or systemic
nalysis by Martinez et al42 showed a significantly complications.
higher rate of severe AP (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.9, Moderately severe acute pancreatitis: cha-
95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.8-4.6), systemic racterized by transient (<48 hours) organ fai-
(OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.4-3.8) and local complications lure and/or local or systemic complications
(OR 3.8, 95% CI 2.4-6.6) in obese compared to without persistent organ failure.
non-obese patients with AP. A more recent me- Severe acute pancreatitis: characterized by
ta-analysis by Chen et al43 confirmed these data, persistent (>48 hours) organ failure, both sin-
adding also a significantly higher in-hospital mor- gle and multiple organ failures.
tality in obese patients affected by AP compared In the next days of recovery, assessment seve-
with non-obese ones (Relative Risk [RR] 2.59, rity could be done with CT scan according to CT
424
Nutritional support in acute pancreatitis: from physiopathology to practice. An evidence-based approach
Table III. Assessment of severity during recovery for AP: hours to consider are from the attack of AP.
Moderate Pancreatitis m. Marshall score >2 and/or m. Marshall score >2 and/or m. Marshall score <2 and/or
Local complications or Local complications or Local complications or
Systemic complications Systemic complications Systemic complications
Balthazar CTSI 4-6
m. = modified; h = hours; APACHE: Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation; BMI: Body Mass Index;
CRP: C Reactive Protein; CTSI: CT Severity Index.
425
E. Rinninella, M.G. Annetta, M.L. Serricchio, A.A. Dal Lago, G.A.D. Miggiano, M.C. Mele
Table IV. Randomized clinical trials comparing the use of PN and EN in acute pancreatitis.
Wu XM (50) 2010 107 Severe AP EN vs. PN Surgical intervention 22 vs. 80% <0.05
Pancreatic septic necrosis 23 vs. 72% <0.05
Mortality 11 vs. 43% <0.05
Doley RP (51) 2009 50 Severe AP EN vs. PN Surgical intervention 56 vs. 60% 1
Infective complications 64 vs. 60% 1
Hospital stay 42 vs. 36 days 0.755
Mortality 20% vs. 16% 1
Petrov MS (52) 2006 70 Severe AP EN vs. PN Infected pancreatic necrosis 7 vs. 16 0.02
Multiple organ failure 7 vs. 17 0.02
Overall mortality 2 vs. 12 <0.01
Targarona
Modena J (53) 2006 87 Severe AP EN vs. PN Surgical intervention 25% vs. 88% <0.001
Infected pancreatic necrosis 20% vs. 74% <0.001
Death rate 5% vs. 35% <0.001
Louie BE (54) 2004 28 Severe AP EN vs. PN CRP reduction of 50% 6 vs. 11 days <0.09
Dollar ($) per patient 957 $ vs. 2608 $ =0.03
Sun B (55) 2004 100 Severe AP ISNS vs. PN Superinfections 8% vs. 30% <0.05
Hepatic insufficiency 4% vs. 24% <0.05
Intraperitoneal infections 4% vs. 12% <0.05
Restoring of oral nutrition 18.5 vs. 24.8 days <0.05
Hospital costs in Yuan () 4.1 vs. 5.8 10000 <0.05
Gupta R (56) 2003 17 Severe AP EN vs. PN Hospital stay 7 vs. 10 days =0.05
Time to open bowels 1 vs. 2 =0.01
Zhao G (14) 2003 96 Severe AP EN vs. PN APACHE II reduction 7.1 vs. 5.7 in 7th day <0.05
TNF-a (pg/ml) 43.9 vs. 34.2 in 7th day <0.05
CRP (mg/l) 54.3 vs. 41.2 in 7th day <0.05
Endotoxin (pg/ml) 5.9 vs. 2.4 in 7th day <0.05
L:M ratio in urine 0.097 vs. 0.063 <0.05
Abou-Assi S (57) 2002 53 AP EN vs. PN Duration of feeding 6.7 vs. 10.8 days <0.05
Median glycemia (mg/dl) 138 vs. 180 <0.03
Line infections 1 vs. 9 =0.01
Cost per patient in $ 394 $ vs. 2756 $ <0.0004
Windsor AC (58) 1998 34 AP EN vs. PN APACHE II in EN group From 8 to 6 in 7th day <0.0001
CRP (mg/l) in EN group From 156 to 84
in 7th day <0.005
(in PN group there were not observed significant changes in 7th day)
Abbreviations: AP: Acute Pancreatitits; EN: Enteral Nutrition; PN: Parenteral Nutrition; ISNS: Individually Staged Nutritional
Support; CRP: C Reactive Protein; TNFa: Tumor Necrosis Factora; APACHE: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation;
L:M ratio: Lactulose: Mannitol ratio.
chanisms may explain why EN is safe during an a heavy state of protein catabolism and insulin-re-
attack of AP48. Conversely, PN impairs metabolic sistance. Moreover, PN puts at rest the bowels,
response, increasing plasmatic insulin and gluco- impairing its absorption and barrier function. We
se49. These effects of PN may precipitate metabo- are thus moving toward the antechamber of in-
lic response to stress above described, leading to fection and sepsis.
426
Nutritional support in acute pancreatitis: from physiopathology to practice. An evidence-based approach
427
E. Rinninella, M.G. Annetta, M.L. Serricchio, A.A. Dal Lago, G.A.D. Miggiano, M.C. Mele
Proteins 1.2- 1.5 g/kg/day If not present renal failure or severe hepatic failure
Carbohydrates 3- 6 g/kg/day Plasma glucose should be 10 mmol/l (180 mg/dl)
Triglycerides Up to 2 g/kg/day Plasma triglycerides should be 3 mmol/l (266 mg/dl)
perfused to the jejunum72. Regarding the times of Semi-elemental formulas contain peptides of
supply, continuous infusion is preferred over bo- vary chain length, simple sugar, glucose polymers
lus administration (grade B recommendation)70. or starch and medium chain triglycerides (MCTs).
Polymeric formulas contain intact proteins,
Energy Requirements complex carbohydrates and long chain triglyce-
In severe AP, ESPEN guidelines72 recommend to rides (LCTs).
provide an energy supply of 25-35 kcal/kg/day, with Elemental and semi-elemental formulas have
1.2-1.5 g/kg of protein/day (unless there are renal been preferred in many trials on AP, because they
failure or severe hepatic failure), 3-6 g/kg of car- have a better profile of absorption than polymeric
bohydrates/day and up to 2 g/kg of lipid/day. Howe- ones. However, several works have demonstrated
ver, plasma glucose concentration should not exceed that also standard formulations are safe and effecti-
10 mmol/l (180 mg/dl) and plasma triglycerides 3-4 ve if administered via nasojejunal tube78-80. Tiengou
mmol/l (266 mg/dl) (Table V). et al81 compared semi-elemental and polymeric for-
mulas in AP in a randomized trial: both were well
Nasogastric vs. Nasojejunal Tube tolerated, even if, in the semi-elemental group, the
Regarding the placement of the tube, the na- length of hospital stay was shorter (23 2 vs. 27
sogastric tube has demonstrated to be safe and 1, p=0.006). A meta-analysis by Petrov et al82 about
useful as well as the nasojejunal tube. Two ran- nutrition in AP concluded that the use of polymeric
domized controlled trials74,75, comparing naso- compared with semi-elemental EN formulations did
gastric and nasojejunal feeding, concluded that not lead to a significantly higher risk of feeding in-
there were no differences in terms of dischar- tolerance, infectious complications or death. More-
ge, surgery and mortality rate, between the two over, semi-elemental feeds are sevenfold expensive
ways. A successive meta-analysis76, involving 157 than polymeric ones80.
patients, concluded that there were no significant All international guidelines recommend a small
differences in terms of mortality (RR= 0.69, 95% peptide and medium chain triglyceride (MCT) oil
CI: 0.37 to 1.29, p=0.25), tracheal aspiration (RR= based formulation (grade B recommendation)66,70.
0.46, 95% CI: 0.14 to 1.53, p=0.20), diarrhea (RR= ESPEN guidelines70 recommend peptide-based
1.43, 95% CI: 0.59 to 3.45, p=0.43), exacerbation formulas with a grade A recommendation, even if
of pain (RR= 0.94, 95% CI: 0.32 to 2.70, p=0.90) they acknowledge that a standard formula can be
and meeting energy balance (RR= 1.00, 95% CI: tried if tolerated (grade C recommendation).
0.92 to 1.09, p=0.97) between nasogastric and na- The use of glutamine supplementation, immu-
sojejunal feeding. Therefore, a post pyloric place- ne-nutrition, prebiotics or probiotics is not suppor-
ment of the tip is no longer considered necessary ted by large-scale studies83-85. Conversely, glutami-
(grade of recommendation: B)30,66,70. This eviden- ne-supplements are effective in reducing mortality,
ce makes EN more feasible in clinical practice (no complications, and length of stay if given in total
more need for endoscopic or radiologic placement PN86, when such approach is inevitable.
of the feeding tube).
Time of Enteral Support
Nutritional Formula The starting time of enteral support is crucial, be-
Enteral formulas are classified into elemental cause of the issues of gut permeability and BT dis-
(monomeric), semi-elemental (oligomeric) and cussed above. A meta-analysis conducted by Petrov
standard (polymeric) formulas77. They differ on et al87 and based on 11 RCT (451 patients) found that
protein and fat contents. benefits of EN versus PN, in terms of reduction of
Elemental formulas contain aminoacids, sim- MOF, pancreatic infectious complications and mor-
ple sugars, and very low fats. tality rate, were statistically significant if EN was
428
Nutritional support in acute pancreatitis: from physiopathology to practice. An evidence-based approach
started within the first 48 hours of admission. After Pancreatitis Classification Working Group. Clas-
this time, no significant differences were observed sification of acute pancreatitis 2012: revision of
the Atlanta classification and definitions by inter-
in comparison with PN. The advantages of start- national consensus. Gut 2013; 62: 102-111.
ing EN in AP before 48 hours from the admission 2) Uomo G, R abbitti PG. Severe acute pancreatitis:
have been also observed in more successive stud- clinical findings and therapeutic tools in Internal
ies88,89 and another meta-analysis90. A more recent Medicine practice. Italian Journal of Medicine
meta-analysis, conducted on 8 RCT (165 patients) by 2009; 3: 9-18.
Bakker et al91, demonstrated that starting EN within 3) Tenner S, Baillie J, DeWitt J, Vege SS. American Col-
24 hours after hospital admission, compared with lege of Gastroenterology Guideline: management
of acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2013;
after 24 hours, was associated with lower compli- 108: 1400-1415; 1416.
cations. Among other guidelines, a position paper of
4) Yadav D, Lowenfels AB. The epidemiology of pan-
the Italian Association for the Study of the Pancreas creatitis and pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterology
(AISP)71 states that EN should be started within 24- 2013; 144: 1252-1261.
48 hours from admission (Evidence level 1, Recom- 5) L ankisch PG, A pte M, Banks PA. Acute pancreatitis.
mendation grade A). Lancet 2015; 4; 386: 85-96.
6) Forsmark CE, Swaroop Vege S, Mel Wilcox C. Acute
Pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 1972-1981.
Conclusions 7) Renner IG, Savage WT, Pantoja JL, Renner VJ. Death due
to acute pancreatitis: a retrospective analysis of 405
AP (especially severe AP) is a sepsis-like syn- autopsy cases. Dig Dis Sci 1985; 30: 1005-1018.
drome characterized by a systemic inflammation 8) Bouffard YH, Delafosse BX, A nnat GJ, Viale JP, Ber -
trand OM, Motin JP. Energy expenditure during
(SIRS). Patients affected by AP are consistently
severe acute pancreatitis. JPEN J Parenter Ente-
at nutritional risk. Intestinal starvation impairs ral Nutr 1989; 13: 26-29.
gut barrier and favours BT, leading to sepsis and 9) Dungan KM, Braithwaite SS, Preiser JC. Stress
429
E. Rinninella, M.G. Annetta, M.L. Serricchio, A.A. Dal Lago, G.A.D. Miggiano, M.C. Mele
lymphoid tissue and mucosal immunity by reduc- 32) Chatzicostas C, Roussomoustakaki M, Vlachonikolis
ing lymphotoxin Beta receptor expression. Ann IG, Notas G, Mouzas I, Samonakis D, Kourouma-
Surg 2006; 244: 392-399. lis EA. Comparison of Ranson, APACHE II and
18) R alls MW, Demehri FR, Feng Y, Woods Ignatoski KM, APACHE III scoring systems in acute pancreatitis.
Teitelbaum DH. Enteral nutrient deprivation in pa- Pancreas 2002; 25: 331-335.
tients leads to a loss of intestinal epithelial barrier 33) Bakker OJ, van Brunschot S, van Santvoort HC,
function. Surgery 2015; 157: 732-742. Besselink MG, Bollen TL, Boermeester MA, Dejong
19) Miyasaka EA, Feng Y, Poroyko V, Falkowski NR, CH, van Goor H, Bosscha K, A hmed A li U, Bouwense
Erb -Downward J, Gillilland MG 3rd, M ason KL, S, van Grevenstein WM, Heisterkamp J, Houdijk AP,
Huffnagle GB, Teitelbaum DH. Total parenteral nu- Jansen JM, K arsten TM, M anusama ER, Nieuwenhuijs
trition-associated lamina propria inflammation in VB, Schaapherder AF, van der Schelling GP, Schwartz
mice is mediated by a MyD88-dependent mecha- MP, Spanier BW, Tan A, Vecht J, Weusten BL, Wit-
nism. J Immunol 2013; 190: 6607-6615. teman BJ, A kkermans LM, Bruno MJ, Dijkgraaf MG,
van R amshorst B, Gooszen HG; Dutch Pancreatitis
20) R alls MW, Miyasaka E, Teitelbaum DH. Intestinal mi- Study Group. Early versus on-demand nasoen-
crobial diversity and perioperative complications. teric tube feeding in acute pancreatitis. N Engl J
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2014; 38: 392-399. Med 2014; 371: 1983-1993.
21) Su H, Yan X, Dong Z, Chen W, L in ZT, Hu QG. 34) Eckerwall GE, A xelsson JB, A ndersson RG. Early
Differential roles of Porphyromonas gingivalis li- nasogastric feeding in predicted severe acute
popolysaccharide and Escherichia coli lipopoly- pancreatitis: a clinical, randomized study. Ann
saccharide in maturation and antigen-presenting Surg 2006; 244: 959-965.
functions of dentritic cells. Eur Rev Med Pharma-
col Sci 2015; 19: 2482-2492 35) C asas M, Mora J, Fort E, A racil C, Busquets D, G al-
ter S, Juregui CE, Ayala E, C ardona D, Gich I, Farr
22) Schmid -Schnbein GW. Biomechanical aspects A. Total enteral nutrition vs total parenteral nu-
of the auto-digestion theory. Mol Cell Biomech trition in patients with severe acute pancreatitis.
2008; 5: 83-95. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2007; 99: 264-269.
23) Schmid -Schnbein GW, Chang M. The autodigestion 36) L arvin M. Assessment of severity and prognosis
hypothesis for shock and multi-organ failure. Ann in acute pancreatitis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol
Biomed Eng 2014; 42: 405-414. 1997; 9: 122-130.
24) Gogos CA, K alfarentzos F. Total parenteral nutri- 37) Neoptolemos JP, K emppainen EA, M ayer JM, Fitzpat-
tion and immune system activity: a review. Nutri- rick JM, R araty MG, Slavin J, Beger HG, Hietaranta
tion 1995; 11: 339-344. AJ, Puolakkainen PA. Early prediction of severity
25) Perioperative total parenteral nutrition in surgical pa- in acute pancreatitis by urinary trypsinogen acti-
tients. The Veterans Affairs Total Parenteral Nu-
vation peptide: a multicentre study. Lancet 2000;
trition Cooperative Study Group. N Engl J Med 355: 1955-1960.
1991; 325: 525-532. 38) K hanna AK, Meher S, Prakash S, Tiwary SK, Singh
26) Ojetti V, Migneco A, M anno A, Verbo A, Rizzo G, U, Srivastava A, Dixit VK. Comparison of Ranson,
Glasgow, MOSS, SIRS, BISAP, APACHE-II, CTSI
Gentiloni Silveri N. Management of acute pancre-
scores, IL-6, CRP, and procalcitonin in predicting
atitis in emergency. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci
severity, organ failure, pancreatic necrosis, and
2005; 9: 133-140.
mortality in acute pancreatitis. HPB Surg 2013;
27) Spanier BWM, Nio Y, van der Hulst RW, Tuynman HA, 2013: 367581.
Dijkgraaf MG, Bruno MJ. Practice and yield of ear- 39) Weber CK, A dler G. From acinar cell damage to
ly CT scan in acute pancreatitis: a Dutch observa- systemic inflammatory response: current con-
tional multicenter study. Pancreatology 2010; 10: cepts in pancreatitis. Pancreatology 2001; 1: 356-
222-228. 362.
28) Tenner S, Sica G, Hughes M, Noordhoek E, Feng S, 40) Premkumar R, Phillips AR, Petrov MS, Windsor JA.
Zinner M, Banks PA. Relationship of necrosis to or- The clinical relevance of obesity in acute pancre-
gan failure in severe acute pancreatitis. Gastroen- atitis: targeted systematic reviews. Pancreatology
terology 1997; 113: 899-903. 2015; 15: 25-33.
29) K naus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. 41) A bu Hilal M, A rmstrong T. The impact of obesity
APACHE II: a severity of disease classification on the course and outcome of acute pancreatitis.
system. Crit Care Med 1985; 13: 818-829. Obes Surg 2008; 18: 326-328.
30) Greenberg JA, Hsu J, Bawazeer M, M arshall J, Frie- 42) M artnez J, Johnson CD, Snchez-Pay J, de M adaria
drich JO, N athens A, Coburn N, M ay GR, Pearsall E, Robles-Daz G, Prez-M ateo M. Obesity is a de-
E, McL eod RS. Clinical practice guideline: manage- finitive risk factor of severity and mortality in acute
ment of acute pancreatitis. Can J Surg 2016; 59: pancreatitis: an updated meta-analysis. Pancrea-
128-140. tology 2006; 6: 206-209.
31) Yeung YP, L am BY, Yip AW. APACHE system is bet- 43) Chen SM, Xiong GS, Wu SM. Is obesity an indicator
ter than Ranson system in the prediction of sever- of complications and mortality in acute pancreati-
ity of acute pancreatitis. Hepatobiliary Pancreat tis? An updated meta-analysis. J Dig Dis 2012; 13:
Dis Int 2006; 5: 294-299. 244-251.
430
Nutritional support in acute pancreatitis: from physiopathology to practice. An evidence-based approach
44) Balthazar EJ. Acute pancreatitis: assessment of 57) A bou -A ssi S, Craig K, OK eefe SJ. Hypocaloric jeju-
severity with clinical and CT evaluation. Radiolo- nal feeding is better than total parenteral nutrition
gy 2002; 223: 603-613. in acute pancreatitis: results of a randomized
45) OK eefe SJ, Lee RB, A nderson FP, Gennings C, comparative study. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97:
A bou -A ssi S, Clore J, Heuman D, Chey W. Physio- 2255-2262.
logical effects of enteral and parenteral feeding 58) Windsor AC, K anwar S, L i AG, Barnes E, Guthrie JA,
on pancreaticobiliary secretion in humans. Am Spark JI, Welsh F, Guillou PJ, Reynolds JV. Compa-
J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2003; 284: red with parenteral nutrition, enteral feeding atte-
G27-36. nuates the acute phase response and improves
46) Niederau C, Niederau M, Lthen R, Strohmeyer G, Fer - disease severity in acute pancreatitis. Gut 1998;
rell LD, Grendell JH. Pancreatic exocrine secre- 42: 431-435.
tion in acute experimental pancreatitis. Gastroen- 59) K alfarentzos F, K ehagias J, Mead N Kokkinis K, Go -
terology 1990; 99: 1120-1127. gos CA. Enteral nutrition is superior to parenteral
47) Boreham B, A mmori BJ. A prospective evaluation of nutrition in severe acute pancreatitis: results of a
pancreatic exocrine function in patients with acu- randomized prospective trial. Br J Surg 1997; 84:
te pancreatitis: correlation with extent of necrosis 1665-1669.
and pancreatic endocrine insufficiency. Pancrea- 60) McClave SA, Greene LM, Snider HL M akk LJ, Cheadle
tology 2003; 3: 303-308. WG, Owens NA, Dukes LG, Goldsmith LJ. Compari-
48) OK eefe SJ, McClave SA. Feeding the injured pan- son of the safety of early enteral vs parenteral nu-
creas. Gastroenterology 2005; 129: 1129-1130. trition in mild acute pancreatitis. JPEN J Parenter
Enteral Nutr 1997; 21: 14-20.
49) Olh A, Romics L Jr. Enteral nutrition in acute pan-
creatitis: a review of the current evidence. World J 61) M arik PE, Z aloga GP. Meta-analysis of parenteral
Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 16123-16131. nutrition versus enteral nutrition in patients with
acute pancreatitis. Br Med J 2004; 328: 1407.
50) Wu XM, Ji KQ, Wang HY, L i GF, Z ang B, Chen WM.
Total enteral nutrition in prevention of pancreatic 62) Petrov MS, van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, van
necrotic infection in severe acute pancreatitis. der Heijden GJ, Windsor JA, Gooszen HG. Enteral
Pancreas 2010; 39: 248-251. nutrition and the risk of mortality and infectious
complications in patients with severe acute pan-
51) Doley RP, Yadav TD, Wig JD, Kochhar R, Singh G, creatitis: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Bharathy KG, Kudari A, Gupta R, Gupta V, Poorna- Arch Surg 2008; 143: 1111-1117.
chandra KS, Dutta U, Vaishnavi C. Enteral nutrition
in severe acute pancreatitis. JOP 2009; 10: 157- 63) C ao Y, Xu Y, Lu T, G ao F, Mo Z. Meta-analysis of
162. enteral nutrition versus total parenteral nutrition in
patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Ann Nutr
52) Petrov MS, Kukosh MV, Emelyanov NV. A rand- Metab 2008; 53: 268-275.
omized controlled trial of enteral versus paren-
teral feeding in patients with predicted severe 64) Yi F, Ge L, Zhao J, L ei Y, Zhou F, Chen Z, Zhu Y, Xia
acute pancreatitis shows a significant reduction B. Meta-analysis: total parenteral nutrition versus
in mortality and in infected pancreatic complica- total enteral nutrition in predicted severe acute
tions with total enteral nutrition. Dig Surg 2006; pancreatitis. Intern Med 2012; 51: 523-530.
23: 336-344. 65) A l-Omran M, A lbalawi ZH, Tashkandi MF, A l-A nsary
53) Targarona Modena J, Barreda Cevasco L, A rroyo LA. Enteral versus parenteral nutrition for acute
Basto C, Orellana Vicua A, Portanova R amrez M. pancreatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;
Total enteral nutrition as prophylactic therapy for CD002837.
pancreatic necrosis infection in severe acute pan- 66) Mirtallo JM, Forbes A, McClave SA, Jensen GL,
creatitis. Pancreatology 2006; 6: 58-64. Waitzberg DL, Davies AR; International Consensus
54) Louie BE, Noseworthy T, Hailey D, Gramlich LM, Ja- Guideline Committee Pancreatitis Task Force. In-
cobs P, Warnock GL. 2004 MacLean-Mueller prize ternational consensus guidelines for nutrition the-
enteral or parenteral nutrition for severe pancrea- rapy in pancreatitis. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr
titis: a randomized controlled trial and health te- 2012; 36: 284-291.
chnology assessment. Can J Surg 2005; 48: 298- 67) Spanier BW, Bruno MJ, M athus-Vliegen EM. Enteral
306. nutrition and acute pancreatitis: a review. Gastro-
55) Sun B, G ao Y, Xu J, Zhou XL, Zhou ZQ, L iu C, Jiang enterol Res Pract 2011; 2011.
HC. Role of individually staged nutritional support 68) Sathiaraj E, Murthy S, M ansard MJ, R ao GV, M ahukar
in the management of severe acute pancreatitis. S, Reddy DN. Clinical trial: oral feeding with a soft
Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2004; 3: 458-463. diet compared with clear liquid diet as initial meal
56) Gupta R, Patel K, C alder PC, Yaqoob P, Primrose JN, in mild acute pancreatitis. Aliment Pharmacol
Johnson CD. A randomised clinical trial to assess Ther 2008; 28: 777-781.
the effect of total enteral and total parenteral nu- 69) L ario -Noia J, L indkvist B, Iglesias-G arca J, Seijo -Ros
tritional support on metabolic, inflammatory and S, Iglesias-C anle J, Domnguez-Muoz JE. Early and/
oxidative markers in patients with predicted seve- or immediately full caloric diet versus standard re-
re acute pancreatitis (APACHE II > or =6). Pancre- feeding in mild acute pancreatitis: a randomized
atology 2003; 3: 406-413. open-label trial. Pancreatology 2014; 14: 167-173.
431
E. Rinninella, M.G. Annetta, M.L. Serricchio, A.A. Dal Lago, G.A.D. Miggiano, M.C. Mele
70) Meier R, Ockenga J, Pertkiewicz M, Pap A, Milinic N, 81) Tiengou LE, Gloro R, Pouzoulet J, Bouhier K, Read MH,
M acfie J; DGEM (German Society for Nutritional Arnaud-Battandier F, Plaze JM, Blaizot X, Dao T, Piquet
Medicine), Lser C, K eim V; ESPEN (European Society MA. Semi-elemental formula or polymeric formula:
for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition). ESPEN Gui- is there a better choice for enteral nutrition in acu-
delines on Enteral Nutrition: Pancreas. Clin Nutr te pancreatitis? Randomized comparative study.
2006; 25: 275-284. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2006; 30: 1-5.
71) Pezzilli R, Zerbi A, C ampra D, C apurso G, Golfieri 82) Petrov MS, Loveday BP, P ylypchuk RD, McIlroy K,
R, A rcidiacono PG, Billi P, Butturini G, C alculli L, Phillips AR, Windsor JA. Systematic review and
C annizzaro R, C arrara S, Crippa S, De G audio R, De meta-analysis of enteral nutrition formulations in
R ai P, Frulloni L, M azza E, Mutignani M, Pagano N, acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg 2009; 96: 1243-1252.
R abitti P, Balzano G. Consensus guidelines on se- 83) Petrov MS, Atduev VA, Z againov VE. Advanced en-
vere acute pancreatitis. Italian Association for the teral therapy in acute pancreatitis: is there a room
Study of the Pancreas (AISP). Dig Liver Dis 2015; for immunonutrition? A meta-analysis. Int J Surg
47: 532-543. 2008; 6: 119-124.
72) Meier R, Beglinger C, L ayer P, Gullo L, K eim V, L au - 84) Besselink MG, van Santvoort HC, Buskens E, Boerme-
gier R, Friess H, Schweitzer M, M acfie J, ESPEN Con- ester MA, van Goor H, Timmerman HM, Nieuwenhuijs
sensus Group. ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in VB, Bollen TL, van R amshorst B, Witteman BJ, Rosman
acute pancreatitis. European Society of Parente- C, Ploeg RJ, Brink MA, Schaapherder AF, Dejong CH,
ral and Enteral Nutrition. Clin Nutr 2002; 21: 173- Wahab PJ, van L aarhoven CJ, van der Harst E, van Eijck
183 CH, Cuesta MA, Akkermans LM, Gooszen HG; Dutch
73) OK eefe S, Rolniak S, R aina A, Graham T, Hegazi R, Acute Pancreatitis Study Group. Probiotic prophylaxis
Centa-Wagner P. Enteral feeding patients with ga- in predicted severe acute pancreatitis: a randomi-
stric outlet obstruction. Nutr Clin Pract 2012; 27: sed, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet
76-81. 2008; 371: 651-659.
74) E atock FC, Chong P, Menezes N, Murray L, McK ay 85) R ayes N, Seehofer D, Neuhaus P. Prebiotics, probioti-
CJ, C arter CR, Imrie CW. A randomized study of cs, synbiotics in surgery-are they only trendy, truly
early nasogastric versus nasojejunal feeding in effective or even dangerous? Langenbecks Arch
severe acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol Surg 2009; 394: 547-555.
2005; 100: 432-439. 86) L iu X, Wang J, L i ZH. The role of glutamine supple-
75) Kumar A, Singh N, Prakash S, Saraya A, Joshi YK. mented total parenteral nutrition (TPN) in severe
Early enteral nutrition in severe acute pancreati- acute pancreatitis. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci
tis: a prospective randomized controlled trial com- 2016; 20: 4176-4180.
paring nasojejunal and nasogastric routes. J Clin 87) Petrov MS, P ylypchuk RD, Uchugina AF. A system-
Gastroenterol 2006; 40: 431-434. atic review on the timing of artificial nutrition in
76) Chang YS, Fu HQ, Xiao YM, L iu JC. Nasogastric acute pancreatitis. Br J Nutr 2009; 101: 787-793.
or nasojejunal feeding in predicted severe acute 88) Sun JK, Mu XW, L i WQ, Tong ZH, L i J, Zheng SY.
pancreatitis: a meta-analysis. Crit Care 2013; 17: Effects of early enteral nutrition on immune func-
R118. tion of severe acute pancreatitis patients. World J
77) Reddy BR. Enteral nutrition: whom, why, when, Gastroenterol 2013; 19: 917-922.
what and where to feed? Nestle Nutr Inst Work- 89) Wereszczynska-Siemiatkowska U, Swidnicka-Siergiejko
shop Ser 2015; 82: 53-59. A, Siemiatkowski A, Dabrowski A. Early enteral nutri-
78) Windsor AC, K anwar S, L i AG, Barnes E, Guthrie JA, tion is superior to delayed enteral nutrition for the
Spark JI, Welsh F, Guillou PJ, Reynolds JV. Compa- prevention of infected necrosis and mortality in
red with parenteral nutrition, enteral feeding atte- acute pancreatitis. Pancreas 2013; 42: 640-646.
nuates the acute phase response and improves 90) L i JY, Yu T, Chen GC, Yuan YH, Zhong W, Zhao LN,
disease severity in acute pancreatitis. Gut 1998; Chen QK. Enteral nutrition within 48 hours of ad-
42: 431-435. mission improves clinical outcomes of acute pan-
79) Pupelis G, Selga G, Austrums E, K aminski A. Jeju- creatitis by reducing complications: a meta-analy-
nal feeding, even when instituted late, improves sis. PLoS One 2013; 8: e64926.
outcomes in patients with severe pancreatitis and 91) Bakker OJ, van Brunschot S, Farre A, Johnson CD,
peritonitis. Nutrition 2001; 17: 91-94. K alfarentzos F, Louie BE, Olh A, OK eefe SJ, Pet-
80) M akola D, K renitsky J, Parrish C, Dunston E, Shaffer rov MS, Powell JJ, Besselink MG, van Santvoort HC,
HA, Yeaton P, K ahaleh M. Efficacy of enteral nutri- Rovers MM, Gooszen HG. Timing of enteral nutri-
tion for the treatment of pancreatitis using stan- tion in acute pancreatitis: meta-analysis of indi-
dard enteral formula. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; viduals using a single-arm of randomised trials.
101: 2347-2355. Pancreatology 2014; 14: 340-346.
432