SBP;

Is there any evidence that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) benefit patients with acute pancreatitis?

FA Manian MD, MPH, , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Despite their widespread use, there is no firm evidence that PPIs should be routinely prescribed in the treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP).1   In fact, current guidelines do not include the use of PPIs as standard therapy in  AP. 1-3

Although a 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis involving 6 randomized controlled trials and 3 cohort studies of patients with AP found a significant decrease in the rate of pancreatic pseudocyst formation in patients who received PPI, no significant difference in the rates of 7-day mortality, length of hospital stay, or acute respiratory distress syndrome was found when compared to control groups.3

Theoretically, PPIs may improve the course of AP through reduction in the incidence of stress-related upper GI hemorrhagic complications.  However, the incidence of such complications in AP is quite low, ranging from 1.2% to 14.5%, with great majority of cases (>85%) unrelated to peptic ulcer disease. 3,4  These findings may help explain why it has been difficult to show any benefit for use of PPIs in reducing the incidence of GI bleed in AP.3,5

Similarly, although PPIs have been shown to reduce secretin-stimulated bicarbonate secretion by the pancreas, the clinical significance of this finding in the overall course of AP—except perhaps a lower risk of pseudocysts—remains unclear.3 Parenthetically, experimental studies have reported contradictory results regarding the inhibition of pancreatic enzyme production by PPIs,  with omeprazole failing to suppress amylase release in isolated pancreatic acini while pantoprazole showing reduced amylase secretion in rats.3

It is also unclear how the reported anti-inflammatory effects of PPIs may benefit the clinical course of AP.3,6 What is clear is that any potential benefits of PPIs in AP should be weighed against their potential adverse effects, including the risk of nosocomial pneumonia, Clostridiodes difficile infection, and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.7,8 

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that PPIs may not only inhibit acid production by gastric parietal cells but also interfere with bactericidal activity of neutrophils?  One potential mechanism is interference with proton pump-dependent H202 generation within lysosomes necessary to create a highly acidic and bactericidal environment. 9  Fascinating!

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

 

References

  1. Arvanitakis M, Dumonceau JM, Albert J, et al. Endoscopic management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) evidence-based multidisciplinary guideline. Endoscopy 2018; 50:524-46. Endoscopic management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) evidence-based multidisciplinary guideline – European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE)
  2. Crocket SD, Wani S, Gardner TB, et al. American Gastroenterological Association Institute Guideline on Initial Management of Acute Pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 2018;154:1096-1101. American Gastroenterological Association Institute Guideline on Initial Management of Acute Pancreatitis (gastrojournal.org)
  3. Horvath IL, Bunduc S, Hanko B , et al. No evidence for the benefit of PPIs in the treatment of acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports 2023;13:2791. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29939-S
  4. Rana SS, Sharma V, Bhasin Dk, et al. Gastrointestinal bleeding in acute pancreatitis: etiology, clinical features, risk factors and outcome. Tropical Gastroenterology 2015;36:31-35. http://www.tropicalgastro.com/articles/36/1/gastrointestinal-bleeding-in-acute.html
  5. Demcsak A, Soos A, Kincses L, et al. Acid suppression therapy, gastrointestinal bleeding and infection in acute pancreatitis-An international cohort study. Pancreatology 2020;20:1323-31.lyso https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S142439032030658X?via%3Dihub
  6. Hackert T, Tudor S, Felix K, et al. Effects of pantoprazole in experimental acute pancreatitis. Comparative Study 2010;8:551-7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20851132/
  7. Elzouki AB, Neffati N, Rasoul FA, et al. Increased risk of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhotic patients using proton pump inhibitors. GE Port J Gastroenterol 2019; 26:83-89. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6454390/#:~:text=The%20result%20showed%20that%20PPI,medical%20literature%20confirm%20this%20association.
  8. Yibirin M, De Oliveira D, Valera R, et al. Cureus 2021;13:e12759/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7887997/#:~:text=The%20most%20likely%20explanation%20for,incidence%20of%20pneumonia%20%5B2%5D
  9. Ozatik O, Ozatik EY, Tesen Y, et al. Research into the effect of proton pump inhibitors on lungs and leukocytes. Turk J Gastroenterol 2021;32:1003-1011. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8975296/

 

Disclosures/Disclaimers: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Mercy Hospital-St. Louis, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, their affiliate academic healthcare centers, or its contributors. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

 

Is there any evidence that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) benefit patients with acute pancreatitis?

Why do we often prescribe ceftriaxone in preference to fluoroquinolones for prophylaxis of infections in patients with cirrhosis and upper GI bleed?

FA Manian MD, MPH, , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Preference of ceftriaxone over fluoroquinolones (FQs) for prophylaxis of infection in patients with cirrhosis and upper GI bleed (UGIB) can often be traced back to a small 2006 Spanish randomized controlled trial (RCT)1 which found a significantly lower rate of proved or possible bacterial infection and lower rate of fermentative Gram-negative bacilli infection in the ceftriaxone group (vs norfloxacin) over a 10-day period (11% vs 33% and 0% vs 11%, respectively). There was no significant difference in the incidence of proved bacterial infection (spontaneous bacterial peritonitis or bacteremia, P=0.07) or 10-day mortality between the 2 groups.   

It’s worth emphasizing that the primary impetus for this study was evaluation of the efficacy of ceftriaxone in patients with cirrhosis and UGIB in a setting where FQ Gram-negative bacilli was thought to be highly prevalent. Parenthetically, a similar RCT performed where the prevalence of FQ resistance was considered low failed to find a significant difference in breakthrough bacterial infection, rebleeding or mortality when ceftriaxone was compared to IV ciprofloxacin.2

Another caveat of the 2006 study was that an IV antibiotic (ceftriaxone) was compared to a oral antibiotic (norfloxacin) which, in the setting of active UGIB, may be problematic.

Despite these limitations, its favorable safety profile compared to FQs coupled with its ease of administration has often made ceftriaxone the drug of choice for prophylaxis of infections in patients with cirrhosis and UGIB. The 2016 Practice Guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases considers ceftriaxone as the first choice in patients with advanced cirrhosis, on FQ prophylaxis, and in hospital settings with high prevalence of FQ resistant bacterial infection.3

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that the prevalence of FQ resistant in Enterobacteriaceae may be as high as 30% in certain regions of U.S. and >50% in certain regions of the world? 4

Also see related 2 P4P pearls (1, 2) on the association of UGIB bleed with infections in patients with cirrhosis.

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

References

  1. Fernandez J, Del Arbol LR, Gomez C, et al. Norfloxacin vs ceftriaxone in the prophylaxis of infections in patients with advanced cirrhosis and hemorrhage. Gastroenterol 2006;131:1049-1056. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17030175/
  2. Pittayanon R, Reknimir R, Kullavanijaya P, et al. Intravenous ciprofloxacin vs ceftriaxone for the prevention of bacterial infections in cirrhotic patients with gastrointestinal bleeding:A randomized controlled trial. Thai J Gastroenterol 2016;17:24-30. http://www.thaigastro.com/books.php?act=content&content_id=476&book_id=61
  3. Garcia-Tsao G, Abraldes JG, Berzigotti A, et al. Portal hypertensive bleeding in cirrhosis:risk stratification, diagnosis and management: 2016 Practice Guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology 2017;65:310-335. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27786365/
  4. Spellberg B, Doi Y. The rise of fluoroquinolone-resistant Escherichia coli in the community:scarier than we thought. J Infect Dis 2015;212:1853-1855. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25969562/

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Mercy Hospital-St. Louis, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, their affiliate academic healthcare centers, or its contributors. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

Why do we often prescribe ceftriaxone in preference to fluoroquinolones for prophylaxis of infections in patients with cirrhosis and upper GI bleed?

Why are antibiotics routinely administered in patients with cirrhosis and upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleed?

FA Manian MD, MPH, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

Antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis and upper gastrointestinal bleed (UGIB) reduce bacterial infections, all-cause mortality, bacterial infection, mortality, rebleeding events and hospitalization.1

A 2011 Cochrane meta-analysis involving 12 trials comparing antibiotic prophylaxis to no prophylaxis or placebo found reduction in bacterial infection (RR 0.35, 95% C.I., 0.26-0.47) and overall mortality (RR 0.79, 95% C.I. 0.63-0.98). It also found a significant reduction in rebleeding and days of hospitalization, based on more limited data. Trials in this meta-analysis involved a variety of antibiotics, including norfloxacin, ciprofloxacin, cefazolin, cefotaxime, ceftriaxone and ampicillin-sulbactam. 1

So why is ceftriaxone the often-favored bacterial prophylaxis in UGIB? First, infections in cirrhotic patients often originate from bacterial translocation through the GI tract with aerobic gram-negative GI flora expected to be susceptible to ceftriaxone.2 Second, the emerging quinolone resistance among aerobic Gram-negative bacteria 2 and frequent use of ciprofloxacin for prophylaxis against spontaneous bacterial peritonitis have made use of ceftriaxone in this setting more desirable than quinolones.

Of note, a 2006 study involving patients with advanced cirrhosis (Child Pugh B or C) and GI hemorrhage receiving either norfloxacin or ceftriaxone for 7 days found a significantly lower risk of suspected or proven infections (11% vs 33%) and bacteremia or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (2% vs 12%) in the ceftriaxone group; there was no difference in hospital mortality. 3 Although the overall prevalence of quinolone-resistant gram-negatives was unknown, 6 of 7 gram-negative bacilli isolated in the norfloxacin group were quinolone resistant.

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that 30-40% of cirrhotic patients presenting with UGIB will develop a bacterial infection within a week of their admission? 1

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

References

  1. Chavez-Tapia NC, Barrientos-Gutierrez T, Tellez-Avila F, et al. Meta-analysis: antibiotic prophylaxis for cirrhotic patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding-an updated Cochrane review. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011;34:509-518. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04746.x
  2. Mallet M, Rudler M, Thabut D. Variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients. Gastroenterology Reports 2017;5:185-192. https://academic.oup.com/gastro/article/5/3/185/4002779
  3. Fernandez J, del Arbo LR, Gomez C, et al. Norfloxacin vs ceftriaxone in the prophylaxis of infections in patients with advanced cirrhosis and hemorrhage. Gastroenterology 2006;131:1049-1056. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016508506015356

 

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, its affiliate academic healthcare centers, or its contributors. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

Why are antibiotics routinely administered in patients with cirrhosis and upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleed?

When should I consider a switch to oral antibiotics and discharge from hospital in my recently admitted elderly patient with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP)?

FA Manian MD, MPH, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

A frequently used validated set of clinical stability criteria in patients with CAP and supported by the 2019 ATS/IDSA CAP guidelines consists of a temperature ≤37.8 ᵒC (100.0 ᵒF) AND no more than 1 CAP-related sign of clinical instability as listed below: 1-3

  • Heart rate >100/min
  • Systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg
  • Respiration rate >24 breaths/min
  • Arterial oxygen saturation <90% or Pa02<60 mm Hg (room air)

Using these criteria, the risk of clinical deterioration serious enough to necessitate transfer to an intensive care unit may be 1% or less, 1 while failure to achieve clinical stability within 5 days is associated with higher mortality and worse clinical outcome. 2 The median time to clinical stability (as defined) for CAP treatment is 3 days.1  

A 2016 randomized-controlled trial involving patients hospitalized with CAP found that implementation of above clinical stability criteria was associated with safe discontinuation of antibiotics after a minimum of 5 days of appropriate therapy. 3 

Potential limitations of the above study include heavy use of quinolones (80%), underrepresentation of patients with severe CAP (Pneumonia Risk Index, PSI, V), and exclusion of nursing home residents, immunosuppressed patients, those with chest tube, or infection caused by less common organisms, such as Staphylococcus aureus or Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Lack of clinical stability after 5 days of CAP treatment should prompt evaluation for complications of pneumonia (eg, empyema, lung abscess), infection due to  organisms resistant to selected antibiotics, or an alternative source of infection/inflammatory/poor response. 2

References

  1. Halm, EA, Fine MJ, Marrie TJ, et al. Time to clinical stability in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia: implications for practice guidelines. JAMA 1998;279:279:1452-57. https://reference.medscape.com/medline/abstract/9600479
  2. Metlay JP, Waterer GW, Long AC, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2019;200:e45-e67. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31573350
  3. Uranga A, Espana PP, Bilbao A, et al. Duration of antibiotic treatment in community-acquired pneumonia. A multicenter randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2016;176:1257-65. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27455166/
When should I consider a switch to oral antibiotics and discharge from hospital in my recently admitted elderly patient with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP)?

Should I continue nadolol in my patient with cirrhosis and refractory ascites?

FA Manian MD, MPH, , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Under certain circumstances, you may need to! Although nonselective beta blockers (NSBBs), such as nadolol and propranolol, have been the cornerstone of medical treatment of portal hypertension in preventing variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis for decades, recent reports of their association with worsening survival, increased risk of hepatorenal syndrome and acute kidney injury in patients with refractory ascites or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis [SBP]) 1,2 have added controversy to their routine use in end-stage cirrhosis.

This is because patients with end-stage cirrhosis may be highly dependent on their cardiac output (particularly the heart rate) in maintaining an adequate arterial blood pressure 3-5 and the negative inotropic and chronotropic effects of NSBBs blunt this compensatory mechanism. The result is a drop in the cardiac output that may be particularly significant in the presence of conditions already associated with hypotension, such as sepsis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), or hemorrhage, further increasing the risk of renal hypoperfusion and hepatorenal syndrome.3

Although 2 meta-analysis studies failed to find an association between NSBBs and increased mortality among patients with cirrhosis and ascites, 6,7 serious concerns over the adverse effects of these drugs in at least a subset of patients has not waned.  Some have recommended reducing NSBB dose or discontinuing treatment in patients with refractory ascites or SBP and any of the following parameters: 4

  • Systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg
  • Serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dL
  • Hyponatremia <130 mmol/L

Similar recommendations were made by a 2015 consensus conference on individualizing the care of patients with portal hypertension. 8 

In the absence of randomized-controlled studies, it seems prudent to proceed with more caution when using NSBBs in patients with end-stage cirrhosis and watch closely for any signs of hypotension or renal function deterioration.

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

[blog_subscription_form]

 References

  1. Serste T, Njimi H, Degre D, et al. The use of beta-lackers is associated with the occurrence of acute kidney injury in severe hepatitis. Liver In 2015;35:1974-82. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25611961
  2. Mandorfer M, Bota S, Schwabl P, et al. Nonselective beta blockers increase risk of hepatorenal syndrome and death in patients with cirrhosis and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Gastroenterol 2014;146:1680-90. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016508514003060?via%3Dihub
  3. Garcia-Tsao G. The use of nonselective beta blockers for treatment of portal hypertension. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;13: 617-19. http://www.gastroenterologyandhepatology.net/archives/october-2017/the-use-of-nonselective-beta-blockers-for-treatment-of-portal-hypertension/
  4. Reiberger T, Mandorfer M. Beta adrenergic blockade and decompensated cirrhosis. J Hepatol 2017;66: 849-59. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27864004
  5. Giannelli V, Lattanzi, Thalheimer U, et al. Beta-blockers in liver cirrhosis. Ann Gastroenterol 2014;27:20-26. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24714633
  6. Facciorusso A, Roy S, Livadas S, et al. Nonselective beta-blockers do not affect survival in cirrhotic patients with ascites. Digest Dis Sci 2018;63:1737-46. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10620-018-5092-6
  7. Njei B, McCarty TR, Garcia-Tsao G. Beta-blockers in patients with cirrhosis and ascites: type of betablocker matters. Gut 206;65:1393-4. https://gut.bmj.com/content/gutjnl/65/8/1393.full.pdf
  8. De Franchis R. Expanding consensus in portal hypertension. Report of the Baveno VI Consensus Workshop: stratifying risk and individualizing care for portal hypertension.  J Hepatol 2015;63:743-52.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26047908  

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Mercy Hospital-St. Louis or its affiliate healthcare centers. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you

Should I continue nadolol in my patient with cirrhosis and refractory ascites?