The intensity of brief interventions in patients with acute alcoholic pancreatitis should be increased, especially in young patients with heavy alcohol consumption

Abstract

Aims: After the first acute alcoholic pancreatitis (AAP), active repeated brief interventions (BIs) have been shown to protect against recurrent acute pancreatitis (RAP). However, in daily hospital practice the treatment of alcohol problems varies. Our aim was to study BIs performed in the clinic during AAP and whether this prevents from future RAP episodes. Methods: Data on all patients discharged between 10/2010 and 10/2012 with acute pancreatitis as the primary diagnosis were obtained from the hospital database. Patients with the first attack of AAP were included in the study. Documented BIs during hospitalization for AAP and RAP and the development of RAP and chronic pancreatitis during median (range) follow-up of 4.2 (0.2-6.1) years were analyzed. Patients were also contacted with a mailed questionnaire. Results: A total of 74 patients with first AAP during the study period were included. Of these, 32% developed RAP during follow-up. Of the patients, 72% received a documented BI during initial hospitalization, with no difference between patients who later did or did not develop RAP (71 vs. 72%; ns). Younger age (OR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.92-1.00) and higher AUDIT points (P = 0.044; OR = 5.6; 95% CI = 1.02-30.9 for ≥20 AUDIT points) were associated with RAP. AUDIT test had 70% sensitivity and 71% specificity at a cut-offvalue of 20 points for predicting RAP. Conclusions: Only 72% of the patients received a documented BI during the initial hospitalization for AAP. The in-hospital BI as such did not prevent the development of RAP. Young patients with AUDIT points ≥20 are especially at high risk for developing RAP and should be included in a more intense follow-up care program to maximize prevention. Short summary: During hospitalization for acute alcoholic pancreatitis (AAP), one third of the patients did not receive brief interventions (BIs). The in-hospital BI by itself was not sufficient enough to prevent disease recurrence in follow-up of 4 years. Young age and higher AUDIT-points were significant risk factors for recurrent attacks of AAP.