Search

AIM To assess the outcomes of drug therapy (DT) followed by pancreatic endotherapy for continuing painful episodes in recurrent acute pancreatitis. METHODS DT comprised of pancreatic enzymes and anti-oxidants failing which, endotherapy (ET; pancreatic sphincterotomy and stent placement) was done. The frequency of pain, its visual analogue score (VAS), quality of life (QoL), serum C peptide and faecal elastase were compared between baseline and after 1 year of follow up in all patients and in the two subgroups on DT and ET. Response was defined as at least 50% reduction in the severity of pain to below a score of 5. RESULTS Of the thirty nine patients analysed, 21 (53.9%) responded to DT and 18 (46.1%) underwent ET. The VAS for pain (7.0 ± 2.0 vs 1.3 ± 2.5, P < 0.001) and the number of days with pain per month decreased [1.0 (1.0, 2.0) vs 1.0 (0.0, 1.0), P < 0.001], and the QoL scores [55.0 (44.0, 66.0) vs 38.0 (32.00, 51.00), P < 0.01] improved significantly during follow up. Similar significant improvements were seen in patients in the subgroups of DT and ET except for QoL in ET. The serum C-peptide (P = 0.001) and FE (P < 0.001) levels improved significantly in the entire group and in the two subgroups of patients except for the C peptide levels in patients on DT. CONCLUSION A standardised protocol of DT, followed by ET decreased the intensity and frequency of pain in recurrent acute pancreatitis, enhanced QoL and improved pancreatic function.

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), a newly recognized clinical entity seen in hospitalized patients with chronic liver disease including cirrhosis, is associated with high short- and medium term morbidity and mortality. None of the definitions of ACLF proposed so far have been universally accepted, the two most commonly used being those proposed by the Asia-Pacific Association for the Study of Liver (APASL) and the European Association for the Study of Liver - Chronic Liver Failure (EASL-CLIF) consortium. On paper both definitions and diagnostic criteria appear to be different from each other, reflecting the differences in cut-off values for individual parameters used in diagnosis, the acute insult or precipitating event and the underlying chronic liver disease. Data directly comparing these two criteria are limited, and available studies reveal different outcomes when the two are applied to the same set of patients. However a review of the literature suggests that both definitions do not seem to identify the same set of patients. The definition given by the APASL consortium is easier to apply in day-to-day practice but the EASL-CLIF criteria appear to better predict mortality in ACLF. The World Gastroenterology Organization working party have proposed a working definition of ACLF which will identify patients from whom relevant data can be collected so that the similarities and the differences between the two regions, if any, can be clearly defined.