The Effect of Prophylactic Carbapenem Use on Outcomes in Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Merve Buyukkoruk, Ahmet Furkan Senturk, Hasan Selcuk Ozger
{"title":"The Effect of Prophylactic Carbapenem Use on Outcomes in Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Merve Buyukkoruk, Ahmet Furkan Senturk, Hasan Selcuk Ozger","doi":"10.36519/idcm.2023.239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This study aimed to determine the effect of prophylactic use of carbapenems for acute pancreatitis on clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: It was conducted according to the preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines by using the keywords “Pancrea* AND carbapenem OR imipenem OR ertapenem OR meropenem OR doripenem.” Primer outcomes were mortality, surgical intervention, and pancreatic and non-pancreatic infection. Subgroup analyses were also performed to reduce the risk of bias. Results: Ten studies with 4038 patients were included in the meta-analyses. While eight of ten were randomized controlled trials, two were observational studies. The prophylactic use of carbapenems had no statistically significant effect on mortality (OR=0.82, 95% CI=0.65-1.04, I²=0%) and surgical intervention. (OR=0.81, 95% CI=0.57-1.17, I²=0%). However, the real impact of prophylaxis on reducing the incidence of mortality and surgical intervention was uncertain due to the insufficient sample size. The prophylactic use of carbapenems was significantly associated with a lower risk of peripancreatic (OR=0.37, 95% CI=0.25-0.55, I²=61%) and non-pancreatic infection risk (OR=0.60, 95% CI=0.46-0.78, I²=65%). The definitions of infection in the articles were not clear, and the diagnostic approach to infection was based on subjective criteria. In addition, there was inadequate collateral damage and safety assessments. In high-quality studies with a low risk of bias, prophylactic carbapenems had no effect on peripancreatic infection (RR=1.54, 95% CI=0.65-3.47, I²=0%) and non-pancreatic infection (RR=0.72, 95% CI=0.48-1.07, I²=0%). Conclusion: Although there is a reduction in the infection risk, routine carbapenem use in acute pancreatitis cases should not be recommended based on current evidence. Cooperation with Infectious Disease specialists and developing diagnostic algorithms are required instead of routine prophylaxis to prevent infection, especially non-pancreatic infection. Keywords: acute pancreatitis, necrotizing pancreatitis, carbapenem, prophylaxis, systematic review, meta-analysis","PeriodicalId":11964,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36519/idcm.2023.239","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to determine the effect of prophylactic use of carbapenems for acute pancreatitis on clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: It was conducted according to the preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines by using the keywords “Pancrea* AND carbapenem OR imipenem OR ertapenem OR meropenem OR doripenem.” Primer outcomes were mortality, surgical intervention, and pancreatic and non-pancreatic infection. Subgroup analyses were also performed to reduce the risk of bias. Results: Ten studies with 4038 patients were included in the meta-analyses. While eight of ten were randomized controlled trials, two were observational studies. The prophylactic use of carbapenems had no statistically significant effect on mortality (OR=0.82, 95% CI=0.65-1.04, I²=0%) and surgical intervention. (OR=0.81, 95% CI=0.57-1.17, I²=0%). However, the real impact of prophylaxis on reducing the incidence of mortality and surgical intervention was uncertain due to the insufficient sample size. The prophylactic use of carbapenems was significantly associated with a lower risk of peripancreatic (OR=0.37, 95% CI=0.25-0.55, I²=61%) and non-pancreatic infection risk (OR=0.60, 95% CI=0.46-0.78, I²=65%). The definitions of infection in the articles were not clear, and the diagnostic approach to infection was based on subjective criteria. In addition, there was inadequate collateral damage and safety assessments. In high-quality studies with a low risk of bias, prophylactic carbapenems had no effect on peripancreatic infection (RR=1.54, 95% CI=0.65-3.47, I²=0%) and non-pancreatic infection (RR=0.72, 95% CI=0.48-1.07, I²=0%). Conclusion: Although there is a reduction in the infection risk, routine carbapenem use in acute pancreatitis cases should not be recommended based on current evidence. Cooperation with Infectious Disease specialists and developing diagnostic algorithms are required instead of routine prophylaxis to prevent infection, especially non-pancreatic infection. Keywords: acute pancreatitis, necrotizing pancreatitis, carbapenem, prophylaxis, systematic review, meta-analysis
预防性使用碳青霉烯对急性胰腺炎预后的影响:系统回顾和荟萃分析
目的:本研究旨在确定预防使用碳青霉烯类药物治疗急性胰腺炎对临床预后的影响。材料和方法:根据系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,使用关键词“胰*和碳青霉烯南或亚胺培南或厄他培南或美罗培南或多利培南”进行研究。初步结果为死亡率、手术干预、胰腺和非胰腺感染。还进行了亚组分析以减少偏倚风险。结果:10项研究4038例患者被纳入meta分析。其中8项是随机对照试验,2项是观察性研究。预防性使用碳青霉烯类药物对死亡率(OR=0.82, 95% CI=0.65-1.04, I²=0%)和手术干预均无统计学意义。(or =0.81, 95% ci =0.57-1.17, i²=0%)。然而,由于样本量不足,预防对降低死亡率和手术干预的实际影响尚不确定。预防性使用碳青霉烯类药物与较低的胰腺周围感染风险(OR=0.37, 95% CI=0.25-0.55, I²=61%)和非胰腺感染风险(OR=0.60, 95% CI=0.46-0.78, I²=65%)显著相关。文献中感染的定义不明确,感染的诊断方法以主观标准为依据。此外,附带损害和安全评估也不充分。在低偏倚风险的高质量研究中,预防性碳青霉烯类药物对胰腺周围感染(RR=1.54, 95% CI=0.65-3.47, I²=0%)和非胰腺感染(RR=0.72, 95% CI=0.48-1.07, I²=0%)没有影响。结论:尽管感染风险降低,但根据目前的证据,不应推荐在急性胰腺炎病例中常规使用碳青霉烯类药物。需要与传染病专家合作并开发诊断算法,而不是常规预防感染,特别是非胰腺感染。关键词:急性胰腺炎,坏死性胰腺炎,碳青霉烯,预防,系统评价,荟萃分析
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信