Downloaded 163 times
Uploaded byJibran Mohsin
Nutrition in Acute Pancreatitis (According to ESPEN guidelines 2002 and ACG guidelines 2013)
The document provides an overview of nutritional management in acute pancreatitis based on the ESPEN and ACG guidelines, highlighting the importance of tailoring nutritional approaches to the severity of the condition. It discusses the controversy surrounding feeding methods, the impact of malnutrition, and emphasizes the need for early enteral feeding to prevent complications. Key recommendations include energy intake of 25-35 kcal/kg/day and a protein intake of 1.2-1.5 g/kg/day, while noting that severe cases may require parenteral nutrition if enteral feeding is not tolerated.
More Related Content
Similar to Nutrition in Acute Pancreatitis (According to ESPEN guidelines 2002 and ACG guidelines 2013)
More from Jibran Mohsin
Nutrition in Acute Pancreatitis (According to ESPEN guidelines 2002 and ACG guidelines 2013)
- 1. Nutrition in AcutePancreatitis: (According to ESPEN guidelines 2002 & ACG guidelines 2013) Jibran Mohsin Resident, Surgical Unit I SIMS/Services Hospital, Lahore
- 3. Outline • Introduction • Pathophysiology •Energy Requirement • Energy Supply • TPN in AP • Early Enteral feeding • Conclusions and Recommendations
- 4. Introduction • Two majorforms of inflammatory pancreatic diseases – acute and chronic pancreatitis – are different entities which require different nutritional approaches. • Despite increasing knowledge in the fields of metabolism, clinical nutrition, and intervention – Still a lot of controversy with respect to the optimal approach concerning treatment regimens. • It is generally accepted that nutritional management depends on the underlying pancreatic disease. • For many years, textbooks have suggested that oral or enteral feeding may be harmful in acute pancreatitis – Feeding was thought to stimulate the exocrine pancreatic secretion and – Consequently autodigestive processes.
- 5. Introduction • On theother hand, nutritional deficiencies can occur in patients with a prolonged and complicated course of an acute necrotizing pancreatitis. • 30% of patients with acute pancreatitis are already malnourished at the time of the initial attack. • It has also been questioned whether early feeding changes the outcome in uncomplicated acute pancreatitis. • Thus far, there is no generally accepted or standardized approach for handling nutrition in patients with acute pancreatitis.
- 6. Introduction • With thisbackground, ESPEN invited a group of gastroenterologists, pancreatologists, intensive care specialists,and nutritionists – To prepare guidelines and a consensus report on nutritional strategies in patients with acute pancreatitis.
- 7. Pathophysiology • Approximately 75%of the patients with acute pancreatitis have a mild disease with a mortality rate well below 1% as classified by the Atlanta criteria • Patients with mild disease may be identified early after symptom onset by the use of a single marker such as – urinary trypsinogen activation peptide (TAP) , scoring system such as the Ranson criteria or CT • The majority of these patients can be managed with standard supportive measures that do not need special nutritional treatment; – most will resume a normal diet within 3–7 days.
- 8. Pathophysiology • Malnutrition may,however, aggravate the course of the disease in acute pancreatitis. • In order to understand potential hazards and benefits of various forms of nutritional support – it is necessary to analyze the patterns of pancreatic secretion during acute inflammation.
- 9. Pathophysiology • During acutepancreatitis, specific and non-specific metabolic changes occur. • Under the influence of inflammatory mediators and pain, BMR may increase leading to a higher energy consumption • These changes do not, however, occur in all the patients. – This emphasizes the importance of direct measurement of energy expenditure using techniques such as indirect calorimetry when possible. • If acute pancreatitis is complicated by sepsis, roughly 80% of the patients are in a hypermetabolic state with an increase of the resting energy expenditure (REE)
- 10. Pathophysiology • These patientshave increased nutrient requirements because of increased rates of REE and protein breakdown • A negative nitrogen balance has been associated with an adverse clinical outcome. – Net nitrogen losses are as much as 20–40 g/day in some patients – 10-fold increased mortality rate than those with a positive balance.
- 11. Pathophysiology • Protein caloriesmalnutrition can also arise in patients with acute pancreatitis simply because – they are subjected to prolonged periods (>10 days) of inadequate oral intake. • Deficiencies in certain amino acids may enhance pancreatic inflammation, leading to a potential vicious circle • Increased endogenous gluconeogenesis in patients with acute pancreatitis is a manifestation of the metabolic response to severe inflammation. – In common with patients with sepsis or trauma this can only be partially suppressed with exogenous glucose.
- 12. Pathophysiology • Finally, anincrease in oxygen extraction by 20–30% indicates – an enhanced energy consumption or – a decreased blood supply to vital organs due to hypovolemia or decreased cardiac performance during the inflammatory process
- 13. Pathophysiology Substrate metabolism inAP Lipids • In the injured pancreas, capillary permeability is increased which facilitates leakage of activated pancreatic enzymes – in turn promote local hydrolysis of triglycerides from chylomicrons – Which exhibit local toxicity towards capillary membranes causing further damage to pancreas Hyperlipidemia Pancreatitis
- 14. Pathophysiology • IV lipiddoes not increase exocrine pancreatic secretion • Stimulatory effect of lipid administered into the small intestine depends on the anatomic site of administration. – Lipid perfused into the duodenum is a powerful stimulus for exocrine pancreatic secretion. – If, however, the same amount of lipid is perfused into the jejunum, then only a minimal stimulation of exocrine pancreatic secretion occurs. (true for all forms of jejunal food administration)
- 15. Pathophysiology • This providesa theoretical rationale for jejunal administration of nutrients in patients with acute pancreatitis receiving enteral nutrition. • BUT as per ACG 2013 guidelines there is no practical significant difference in nasojejunal vs nasogastric feeding • No firm evidence to contraindicate the use IV lipofundin in AP
- 16. Pathophysiology Protein and aminoacids • Negative nitrogen balance has been associated with a poor clinical outcome in severe AP • Major objective of nutrition in these patients is to minimize protein losses in order to compensate the increased protein turnover • As for lipid administration, jejunal perfusion of elemental diets containing defined amounts of protein or amino acids is well tolerated(ACG 2013 no significant effect)
- 17. Pathophysiology • Elemental dietpreferred over standard diets containing intact protein, regardless of site of administration • Amino acids, when given parenterally, do not stimulate the exocrine pancreas directly – stimulate gastric acid secretion which may stimulate itself in the duodenum, pancreatic secretion(INDIRECTLY)
- 18. Pathophysiology Carbohydrates • Preferred energysupply in AP – can be easily supplied – Protein conserving : prevents gluconeogenesis from protein degradation – reduce the potential risk of hyperlipidemia • physiological maximum to the rate of glucose oxidation (4 mg/kg/min) – provision of glucose in excess of this is wasteful both in terms of lipogenesis and glucose recycling, – Results in hyperglycemia and hypercapnia
- 19. Pathophysiology • IV highdoses of glucose – Doesn’t stimulate pancreatic exocrine secretions – carries the risk of hyperglycemia as the insulin response is often impaired. • Corrected only in part by exogenous insulin administration and
- 20. Energy Requirements • Reductionin the ingestion of food together with an increased demand in patients with severe pancreatitis – results in a negative energy balance with the potential of development of malnutrition • Patients with acute severe pancreatitis are hypermetabolic, – non-suppressible gluconeogenesis despite sufficient caloric intake, – an increased ureagenesis and – an accentuated net protein catabolism
- 21. Energy Requirement • MoreRanson’s prognostic signs are present – more excessive is hypermetabolism • Resting Energy Expenditure is variable in patients with pancreatitis which range from 77% to 139% of predicted energy expenditure – Especially high in pancreatitis complicated by sepsis or multiorgan failure (MOF)
- 22. Energy supply • Inseverely ill patients, neither hypercaloric nor isocaloric nutritional support can prevent protein catabolism. – both enhance the metabolic burden as measured by energy expenditure, thermogenesis, urea production rate, glucose and lactate levels • Hypocaloric energy supply of 15–20 kcal/kg/day is more suitable during the early catabolic stage of non-surgical patients with MOF
- 23. Energy Supply • Goalof 1.2–1.5 g/kg/day of protein intake is optimal for most patients with AP • Attempt to deliver the caloric need by enteral route – determined by patient tolerance. – If the enteral supply is inadequate, then the rest should be given parenterally. – When enteral nutrition is impossible total parenteral nutrition should be started.
- 24. Energy Supply • impairedglucose oxidation rate cannot be normalized by insulin administration or by increasing glucose administration. – Normally, the blood glucose levels should not exceed 10 mmol/l. – Insulin doses higher than 4–6 units/h should be avoided
- 25. Energy Supply • Aggressivenutritional support (enteral or parenteral) is not required for mild-to- moderate forms of acute pancreatitis (the majority of patients).
- 26. TPN in AP •Standard treatment for providing nutrients to patients with severe AP if enteral route not tolerated or not fulfilling the requirements – avoid stimulation of exocrine pancreatic secretory responses (‘to put the pancreas at rest’-NO LONGER RECOMMENDED if enteral tolerated) and – secondly, to improve the nutritional status
- 27. TPN in AP –MERIT: useful as an adjunct in the nutritional maintenance of the patients. – DEMERITS: • catheter-related sepsis and metabolic disturbances such as hyperglycemia (due to overfeeding ) • prolonged TPN may suppress the immune system, promote gastrointestinal leakage by a loss of intestinal mucosal barrier with the potential risk of subsequent bacterial translocation.
- 28. Enteral feeding • presenceof complications (pancreatic ascites, fistula formation or fluid collection) is not a contraindication to enteral feeding.
- 29. ESPEN 2002 Nutritional supportin mild-to-moderate pancreatitis
- 30. ACG 2013 • Inmild AP – oral feedings can be started immediately if there is no nausea/vomiting, and the abdominal pain/tenderness/Ileus has resolved(amylase return to normal, patient feel hunger) – Initiation of feeding with a small and slowly increasing low-fat (low-protein) soft diet appears as safe as a clear liquid diet, providing more calories • Stepwise manner increase from clear liquids to soft diet NOT necessary • In severe AP – Enteral route is recommended to prevent infectious complications – Parenteral nutrition should be avoided, unless enteral route is not available, not tolerated, or not meeting caloric requirements
- 31. RATIONALE OF EARLYENTERAL NUTRITION • The need to place pancreas at rest until complete resolution of AP no longer seem imperative – Bowel rest associated with intestinal mucosal atrophy and bacterial translocation from gut and increased infectious complications • Early enteral feeding maintains the gut mucosal barrier, prevents disruption, and prevents translocation of bacteria that seed pancreatic necrosis – Decrease in infectious complications, organ failure and mortality
- 32. ……………………………………………….. Rather than usingantibiotics to prevent infected necrosis………….start early enteral feeding to prevent translocation of bacteria RATIONALE MANAGEMENT PREVENTION OF STERILE NECROSIS Early aggressive IV hydration PREVENTION OF INFECTED NECCROSIS Early enteral feeding( NOT antibiotics) TREATMENT OF INFECTED NECROSIS Antibiotics, drainage, necrosectomy
- 33. Route of enteralNutrition • Traditionally nasojejunal route has been preferred to avoid the gastric phase of stimulation BUT – Nasogastric route appears comparable in efficacy and safety MERITS OF NASOGASTRIC ROUTE DEMERITS OF NASOGASTRIC ROUTE NG tube placement is far easier than nasojejunal tube placement( requiring interventional radiology or endoscopy, thus expensive) especially in HDU/ICU setting Slight increased risk of aspiration (Can be overcome by placing patient in upright position and be placed on aspiration precautions)
- 34. Recommendations • Nutrient requirements: –energy 25–35 kcal/kg BW/day; – protein 1.2–1.5 g/kg BW/day; – Carbohydrates 3–6 g/kg BW/day (BSR <10 mmol/l) – Lipids up to 2 g/kg BW/day (TAG <12 mmol/l)
- 35.