10 10 Jakobs R, Adamek MU, von Bubnoff AC, Riemann JF. Buprenorphine or procaine for pain relief in acute pancreatitis. A prospective randomized study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2000; 35(12):1319–1323.
11 11 Kahl S, Zimmermann S, Pross M, et al. Procaine hydrochloride fails to relieve pain in patients with acute pancreatitis. Digestion 2004; 69(1):5–9.
12 12 Stevens M, Esler R, Asher G. Transdermal fentanyl for the management of acute pancreatitis pain. Appl Nurs Res 2002; 15(2):102–110.
13 13 McNicol ED, Ferguson MC, Hudcova J. Patient controlled opioid analgesia versus non‐patient controlled opioid analgesia for postoperative pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;( 6):CD003348.
14 14 Windisch O, Heidegger CP, Giraud R, et al. Thoracic epidural analgesia: a new approach for the treatment of acute pancreatitis? Crit Care 2016; 20(1):116.
15 15 Sadowski SM, Andres A, Morel P, et al. Epidural anesthesia improves pancreatic perfusion and decreases the severity of acute pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21(43):12448–12456.
16 16 Jabaudon M, Belhadj‐Tahar N, Rimmelé T, et al. Thoracic epidural analgesia and mortality in acute pancreatitis: a multicenter propensity analysis. Crit Care Med 2018; 46(3):e198–e205.
17 17 Bulyez S, Pereira B, Caumon E, et al. Epidural analgesia in critically ill patients with acute pancreatitis: the multicentre randomised controlled EPIPAN study protocol. BMJ Open 2017; 7(5):e015280.
18 18 Layer P, Bronisch HJ, Henniges UM, et al. Effects of systemic administration of a local anesthetic on pain in acute pancreatitis: a randomized clinical trial. Pancreas 2011; 40(5):673–679.
10 Nutrition in the Acute Phase of Pancreatitis : Why, When, How and How Long?
Angela Pham and Chris E. Forsmark
Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Why
Nutritional intervention in the treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP) is a continually evolving topic. It is clear that the triggering insult and sentinel event of inflammation involve the pancreas directly, with the process of inflammation and necrosis within the gland serving as a key source for the overall systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). However, the downstream effects include large fluid losses from third‐spacing, redistribution of blood away from the splanchnic circulation, autoregulatory abnormalities, and vasoconstriction of mesenteric afferent arterioles infusing the pancreas and causing classic ischemia/reperfusion injury [1,2]. The ensuing ischemia can damage the intestinal mucosa [2], with oxidative stress and activation of inflammatory cytokines and release of lysosomes causing increased intestinal permeability [1]. Furthermore, slowing of gut motility due to intestinal ischemia/reperfusion injury can result in small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, intestinal dysbiosis, and bacterial translocation [1].
Although the initial sentinel event is important, subsequent damage to the intestinal mucosa resulting in intestinal injury and breakdown of mucosal barrier defenses can have a significant impact on overall disease severity [3]. Maintaining the intestinal mucosal barrier is important in the process of treating AP, and can be considered a logical part of the treatment strategy. Nutritional support is a necessary step in maintaining intestinal mucosal barrier health, and has become a focus in the treatment of AP. Nutritional management is not only important in sustaining mucosal immunity, but also important because AP is a highly metabolic disease process with activation of an inflammatory cascade that leads to catabolic stress, formation of reactive oxygen species, and activation of immune responses that can rapidly overwhelm innate immune regulation and inherent antioxidant capacity [4–6]. AP is associated with the typical metabolic pattern of SIRS, with elevated protein catabolism, a marked inflammatory state, and deranged glucose metabolism [7,8]. If AP is complicated by sepsis, protein catabolism is further enhanced, with high net nitrogen losses; negative nitrogen balance is associated with increased mortality [7,9]. In severe necrotizing pancreatitis, 80% of all patients are catabolic [10], with high energy expenditure and enhanced protein catabolism [11]. Furthermore, nutrient digestion and absorption can be impaired during AP, and without nutritional support patients may rapidly develop severe malnutrition, water retention, and decreased muscle function [12,13]. Because of their increased energy expenditures, all patients with pancreatitis should be classified as having a moderate to high nutritional risk [14,15]. Nutritional assessment of these patients within the first 24–48 hours of admission is required to formulate a plan for the appropriate nutritional intervention [16].
Despite the clear importance of nutrition in AP, the historic focus of nutrition and feeding during AP aimed to “rest the pancreas” by providing nil by mouth, thereby removing the food‐induced stimulation of exocrine pancreatic secretion. This approach would presumably reduce enzyme‐driven inflammation, and/or address intolerance to feeding by mouth via fasting or administering total parenteral nutrition (TPN). Over the past two decades, there has been a shift in the nutritional management of all critically ill patients, including AP patients, toward early feeding, either by mouth or enteral tube feeding if oral intake is not possible due to abdominal pain or nausea. Results on early feeding (initiated within 24–36 hours of admission) in AP have demonstrated lower risk of multiple organ failure (MOF), operative interventions, systemic infections, septic complications, and mortality compared to standard therapy (no enteral/parenteral nutrition) or delayed enteral nutrition (EN) [17]. Randomized clinical trials and meta‐analysis [18] have demonstrated the superiority of EN over TPN with regard to reducing complications, cost, and mortality in predicted severe and necrotizing types of AP, and possibly in mild AP. EN, as compared with TPN, decreases systemic infections, MOF, need for surgical intervention, and mortality [4,19]. The overall focus has shifted toward protecting the gut mucosal barrier by initiating enteral feeding, either orally or by enteral tube. Enteral feeding maintains villous height and the CD4/CD8 ratio in mesenteric lymph nodes, spleen, and peripheral blood when compared with TPN‐fed controls [20]. TPN results in rapid and severe atrophy of gut‐associated lymphoid tissue and increased occurrence of bacterial translocation [21]. Consequently, the reliance on TPN has decreased in response to an increased awareness of attendant problems, such as catheter‐related sepsis, high cost of treatment, electrolyte and metabolic disturbances, villous atrophy, and gut barrier failure with promotion of bacterial translocation, systemic sepsis, and MOF [22].
When
The previous section established why nutritional intervention is important in the treatment of AP. The next crucial question in the management of AP is when to initiate nutritional intervention in the treatment process.
It is common practice to wait until pancreatic enzyme levels have normalized, and abdominal pain and nausea are resolved, before commencing oral refeeding, as recommended in numerous guidelines [23]. Traditionally, patients following a conventional refeeding protocol are started on a hypocaloric clear liquid diet, and if this first meal is well tolerated, light diet (modified in texture) and full diet (solid with calorie and fat content of a normal or low‐fat diet) are introduced in a stepwise manner until the patient can tolerate a full oral diet [24]. As widely practiced as this protocol is, in actuality many randomized controlled trials have shown that immediate oral refeeding with a normal diet is safe in predicted mild pancreatitis and may even lead to a shorter hospital stay. A large multicenter study by Teich et al. [25] randomized 143 patients with mild AP to either lipase‐directed refeeding (when lipase had normalized to less than twice the upper limit of normal) or patient‐directed refeeding (when opioid analgesics were no longer needed) and showed that there was no difference in length of hospitalization and that pain levels were similar in both groups. It should be noted that recruitment to this study was prematurely terminated due to poor accrual rate, which may have influenced study results. Using subjective signals to begin refeeding, Larino‐Noia