Journal of the Pancreas Open Access

Keywords

Enteral Nutrition; Pancreatitis; Parenteral Nutrition

INTRODUCTION

The Revised Classification of Pancreatitis, formulated in Marseilles in 1984 [1], distinguished between different forms of acute and chronic pancreatitis. Based on the predominating structural features, the following descriptive terms were used for chronic calcifying pancreatitis:

· Chronic pancreatitis with focal necrosis;

· Chronic pancreatitis with segmental or diffuse fibrosis;

· Chronic pancreatitis with or without calculus.

A distinct morphologic form of chronic pancreatitis was obstructive chronic pancreatitis. Neither the two Marseilles classifications nor the newer classifications indicated that extended necrosis can occur in chronic calcifying pancreatitis [2] which resembles severe acute necrotizing pancreatitis in many respects such as the extension of the necrosis, the duration of the hospital stay and the artificial nutrition necessary and complications needing surgery or interventional treatment. According to our experiences obtained with a large number of patients having necrotizing pancreatitis, extended necrosis of the pancreas in chronic calcifying pancreatitis is not unusual. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of jejunal feeding in cases of chronic pancreatitis with extended necrosis.

METHODS

Patients

In a five-year period, 86 patients with severe necrotizing pancreatitis were treated for necrosis of the pancreas. There were 57 males and 29 females (mean age: 50.2 years; range 27-67).

In 19 patients (22.1%), chronic calcifying pancreatitis was demonstrated by the morphology and/or functional examination of the exocrine pancreas. Contrast enhanced CT scan scoring was the general characteristic used to diagnose extended necrosis, resulting in at least 20–30% necrosis in the pancreas and its surrounding area. In 10 patients acute fluid collections (acute cysts) developed in the area adjacent to the pancreas. The inflammation markers were not able to be fully evaluated due to the nature of retrospectivity.

Design

The patients were retrospectively analyzed for morbidity and mortality. The rate of healing with conservative treatment was considered as main outcome measure.

Nutritional Treatment

In 12 cases, nutrition was provided by jejunal feeding using an endoscopically placed nasojejunal feeding tube [3] whereas, in 7 patients, hypocaloric total parenteral nutrition was used for feeding. Criteria for the selection of enteral vs. parenteral nutrition depended on the sequence of hospitalization and medical capability. The characteristics of these patients in each nutrition category are reported in Table 1. No significant differences were observed between the two groups.

Jejunal Feeding

Using a large working channel duodenoscope a 10-12 F feeding tube was placed into the second loop of jejunum using the Seldinger technique which we developed [4]. The tube was inserted into one of the nostrils and fitted with a bandage. On the first day, normal saline was perfused continuously into the jejunum; then, from the second day, a polymeric standard composition nutrient was perfused in a progressively increasing concentration at a rate of 1 mL/min. With this method about 2,000 kcal and 2,300 mL of fluid, basic nutrients, vitamins and trace elements were given to the patients without stimulating the pancreas. Nutrison Standard® and Peptison® (Nutricia, Budapest, Hungary) were used for jejunal feeding.

Parenteral Nutrition

The composition formula used for parenteral nutrition was: lipidemulsion: 0.0125 g/kg/h; aminoacid: 0.015 g/kg/h; glucose: 0.2 g/kg/h.

ETHICS

This is a retrospective study and data were collected by the usual methods used in clinical practice.

STATISTICS

Data are reported as mean values and ranges. The Mann-Whitney and the Fisher’s exact tests were used. Statistical analysis was carried out by means of the SPSS/PC+ package [5]. Twotailed P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The outcome of the 19 patients having chronic pancreatitis with severe necrosis is reported in Table 2. Ten patients of the jejunal group recovered without operation or endoscopy and only 2 were operated on due to complications of pancreatitis. In the parenteral group, 4 patients were operated on and one needed endoscopic intervention. The healing rate was significantly higher (P=0.045) in the jejunal nutrition group and fewer operations were necessary in these patients (16.7%) than in the parenteral group (71.4%).

In addition, no significant (P=0.571) difference between the jejunal and the parenteral groups was detected with respect to the number of operations needed in the case of acute pseudocysts (Table 3).

DISCUSSION

Acute pancreatic necrosis has been reported in 11-12% of patients having chronic pancreatitis who underwent surgical therapy shortly after an acute attack [6]. No studies have been done regarding conservative treatment of extended pancreatic necrosis in chronic calcifying pancreatitis. We treated our cases mainly by jejunal feeding as is done with patients having severe acute necrotizing pancreatitis. In comparison to the patients treated with total parenteral nutrition, the healing rate of the jejunal group was significantly better.

It has previously been shown that the most important cause of mortality and morbidity in acute pancreatitis is the development of pancreatic and retroperitoneal infection [7]. Total parenteral nutrition was shown to enhance bacterial translocation through the atrophied bowel wall [8]. Jejunal feeding seems to maintain the physiologic motility of the gut [9], prevent atrophy of the villi, increase mesenteric circulation and allow the pancreas to rest [10, 11, 12]. The slow, continuous infusion of nutrients did not interrupt the volume and bicarbonate changes characterizing the interdigestive phases, and the postprandial peak and integrated secretions were the same as during basal secretion [13, 14]. The slowly administered jejunal diet does not stimulate pancreatic secretion; furthermore, it does not interrupt the characteristic cyclic changes of the basal secretion allowing the pancreas to rest, similar to what occurs during fasting, and avoiding the harmful metabolic, circulatory and motility effects of starvation. It has been demonstrated that in all illnesses and states where the increase of the pancreatic exocrine function is not desirable, continuously administered jejunal feeding can be safely used.

Conclusion

In cases of chronic calcifying pancreatitis, serious necrosis can develop in the residual pancreas resulting in an acute pancreatitis-like disease [15]. Using nasojejunal tube feeding a better healing rate was achieved and less endoscopic interventions or surgery were carried out than in the parenteral nutrition group. Duration of the nutrition and the hospital stay were shorter [16, 17]. From an economic point of view, jejunal feeding was better than parenteral nutrition. This form of pancreatitis has not yet been described in the literature; therefore, it should be registered as a new entity.

Tables at a glance

Table 1 Table 2 Table 3

References

1. Gyr KE, Singer MV, Sarles H. Pancreatitis Concepts and Classifications. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica, 1984.
2. Lankisch PG, Banks PA. Pancreatitis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1998.
3. Hamvas J, Berger Z, Bálint L, Gál I, Pap Á. Jejunal feeding (JF) in acute pancreatitis. Int J Pancreatol 1992; 12:81.
4. Pap Á, Hamvas J, Burai M, Topa I, Balgha V. Endoscopic technique for placement of nasojejunal feeding tube or taking serial jejunal biopsies. Gastroenterology 1995; 108:A382.
5. SPSS/PC+. Base System User’s Guide. Version 5.0. SPSS Inc.; Chicago, Illinois: 1992.
6. Kloppel G, Maillet B. Pseudocysts in chronic pancreatitis: a morphological analysis of 57 resection specimens and 9 autopsy pancreata. Pancreas 1991; 6:266-74. [91319679]
7. Friess H, Berberat P. Kleef J, Uhl W, Buchler MW. Surgical treatment of infected necrosis. In: Johnson CD, Imrie CW, eds. Pancreatic Disease: Towards the Year 2000. 2nd ed. London: Springer-Verlag. 1999:101-7.
8. Machado MC, Monteiro da Cunda JE, Bacchella T, de Barros Mott C, Duarte I, Bettarello A. Acute pancreatic necrosis in chronic alcoholic pancreatitis. Dig Dis Sci 1984; 29:709-13. [84260929]
9. Bank S, Gassal MA. Bacterial translocation. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 1992; 8:81-111.
10. Jackson WD, Grand RJ. The human intestinal response to enteral nutrients: A review. J Am Coll Nutr 1991; 10:500-9. [92064867]
11. Bodoky GY, Harsányi L, Pap Á, Tihanyi T, Flautner L. Effect of enteral nutrition on exocrine pancreatic function. Am J Surg 1991; 161:144-8. [91103383]
12. Keane FB, DiMagno EP, Malagelada JR. Duodenogastric reflux in humans: its relationship to fasting antroduodenal motility and gastric, pancreatic, and biliary secretion. Gastroenterology 1981; 81:726-31. [81261814]
13. McClave SA; Greene LM; Snider HL, Makk LJ, Cheadle WG, Owens NA, et al. Comparison of the safety of early enteral vs. parenteral nutrition in mild acute pancreatitis. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1997; 21:14-20. [97155365]
14. McClave SA, Spain DA, Snider HL Nutritional management in acute and chronic pancreatitis. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 1998; 27:421-34. [98313711]
15. Kudsk KA, Campbell SM, O’Brien T, Fuller R. Postoperative jejunal feedings following complicated pancreatitis. Nutr Clin Pract 1990; 5:14-7. [90190568]
16. Hamvas J, Schwab R, Pap A. Jejunal feeding in necrotising acute pancreatitis − a retrospective study. Acta Chir Hung 1999; 38:177−85. [20064122]
17. Scolapio JS; Malhi−Chowla N, Ukleja A. Nutrition supplementation in patients with acute and chronic pancreatitis. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 1999; 28:695−707. [99432763]