Literature DB >> 28869389

The use of imaging in acute pancreatitis in United Kingdom hospitals: findings from a national quality of care study.

Simon John McPherson1,2, Derek A O'Reilly2,3, Martin T Sinclair2,4, Neil Smith2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess use of imaging in patients admitted to UK hospitals with acute pancreatitis (AP).
METHODS: 4,479 patients had a diagnosis AP in the first 6 months of 2014. The National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) selected patients with more severe AP for case review. Clinicians completed 712 questionnaires and case reviewers assessed 418 cases. The use of imaging in patients with AP is reported.
RESULTS: The common causes of AP were gallstones (46.5%) and alcohol excess (22%) with no cause identified in 17.5%. Imaging was needed to diagnose AP in 12%. 60.1% of patients had one or more CT scan. The timing of the CT scan(s) was appropriate in 90% of patients. The number of CTs was appropriate in all except 6.6% (equally split between too many and too few). AP collection intervention was radiological in 49/613 and surgical in 23/613. 69.8% had an ultrasound scan which diagnosed gallstones in 46.4% and bile duct dilatation in 12.9%. At least 21% had ultrasound scan inappropriately omitted. The National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death recommends gallstones are excluded in all patients with AP, including suspected alcohol-related AP. 29.8% underwent magnetic resonance cholangio--pancreatography diagnosing gallstones in 62.4%, bile duct dilatation in 25.4% and common bile duct stones in 14.4%. 20.6% had recurrent pancreatitis with gallstones accounting for a third. 17% with gallstone AP had a cholecystectomy within the guideline recommended time period.
CONCLUSION: Imaging is rarely required for the diagnosis of AP. CT is used responsibly in AP management. Imaging should be used more to exclude gallstones, including in presumed alcohol related AP. Increased diagnostic efforts will not reduce recurrent biliary AP unless matched by earlier gallstone treatment. Advances in knowledge: Whilst CT is used responsibly in AP greater use of other diagnostic modalities is required to identify reversible causes, in particular gallstones, in order to prevent recurrent AP.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28869389      PMCID: PMC6047645          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20170224

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  6 in total

1.  UK guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 23.059

2.  Is magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography the new gold standard in biliary imaging?

Authors:  V Shanmugam; G C Beattie; S R Yule; W Reid; M A Loudon
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 3.  Timing of cholecystectomy after mild biliary pancreatitis: a systematic review.

Authors:  Mark C van Baal; Marc G Besselink; Olaf J Bakker; Hjalmar C van Santvoort; Alexander F Schaapherder; Vincent B Nieuwenhuijs; Hein G Gooszen; Bert van Ramshorst; Djamila Boerma
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 4.  Acute pancreatitis.

Authors:  C D Johnson; M G Besselink; R Carter
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2014-08-12

5.  IAP/APA evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Pancreatology       Date:  2013 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.996

6.  A step-up approach or open necrosectomy for necrotizing pancreatitis.

Authors:  Hjalmar C van Santvoort; Marc G Besselink; Olaf J Bakker; H Sijbrand Hofker; Marja A Boermeester; Cornelis H Dejong; Harry van Goor; Alexander F Schaapherder; Casper H van Eijck; Thomas L Bollen; Bert van Ramshorst; Vincent B Nieuwenhuijs; Robin Timmer; Johan S Laméris; Philip M Kruyt; Eric R Manusama; Erwin van der Harst; George P van der Schelling; Tom Karsten; Eric J Hesselink; Cornelis J van Laarhoven; Camiel Rosman; Koop Bosscha; Ralph J de Wit; Alexander P Houdijk; Maarten S van Leeuwen; Erik Buskens; Hein G Gooszen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-04-22       Impact factor: 91.245

  6 in total
  6 in total

Review 1.  Quantitative pancreatic MRI: a pathology-based review.

Authors:  Manil D Chouhan; Louisa Firmin; Samantha Read; Zahir Amin; Stuart A Taylor
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-06-14       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Impaired thiol/disulfide homeostasis in patients with mild acute pancreatitis.

Authors:  Ahmet Uyanıkoğlu; Tevfik Sabuncu; Rukiye Yıldız; Çiğdem Cindioğlu; Adnan Kirmit; Özcan Erel
Journal:  Turk J Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 1.852

Review 3.  2019 WSES guidelines for the management of severe acute pancreatitis.

Authors:  Ari Leppäniemi; Matti Tolonen; Antonio Tarasconi; Helmut Segovia-Lohse; Emiliano Gamberini; Andrew W Kirkpatrick; Chad G Ball; Neil Parry; Massimo Sartelli; Daan Wolbrink; Harry van Goor; Gianluca Baiocchi; Luca Ansaloni; Walter Biffl; Federico Coccolini; Salomone Di Saverio; Yoram Kluger; Ernest Moore; Fausto Catena
Journal:  World J Emerg Surg       Date:  2019-06-13       Impact factor: 5.469

4.  Uncovering the Pharmacology of Xiaochaihu Decoction in the Treatment of Acute Pancreatitis Based on the Network Pharmacology.

Authors:  Lianghui Zhan; Jinbao Pu; Yijuan Hu; Pan Xu; Weiqing Liang; Chunlian Ji
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2021-03-20       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 5.  Interventional strategies in infected necrotizing pancreatitis: Indications, timing, and outcomes.

Authors:  Birte Purschke; Louisa Bolm; Max Nikolaus Meyer; Hiroki Sato
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-07-21       Impact factor: 5.374

Review 6.  Application of nanotechnology in the diagnosis and treatment of acute pancreatitis.

Authors:  WeiLu Jia; LinFeng Xu; WenJing Xu; Meng Yang; YeWei Zhang
Journal:  Nanoscale Adv       Date:  2022-03-19
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.