Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

Risk factor for steatorrhea in pediatric chronic pancreatitis patients

Contributed equally
BMC Gastroenterology201818:182

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-018-0902-z

  • Received: 18 October 2017
  • Accepted: 31 October 2018
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

Pediatric patients always suffer from chronic pancreatitis (CP), especially those with steatorrhea. This study aimed to identify the incidence of and risk factors for steatorrhea in pediatric CP. To our best knowledge, there is no pediatric study to document the natural history of steatorrhea in CP.

Methods

CP patients admitted to our center from January 2000 to December 2013 were enrolled. Patients were assigned to the pediatric (< 18 years old) and adult group according to their age at onset of CP. Cumulative rates of steatorrhea in both groups were calculated. Risk factors for both groups were identified, respectively.

Results

The median follow-up duration for the whole cohort was 7.6 years. In a total of 2153 patients, 13.5% of them were pediatrics. The mean age at the onset and the diagnosis of CP in pediatrics were 11.622 and 19.727, respectively. Steatorrhea was detected in 46 patients (46/291, 15.8%) in the pediatric group and in 447 patients (447/1862, 24.0%) in the adult group. Age at the onset of CP (hazard ratio [HR], 1.121), diabetes mellitus (DM, HR, 51.140), and severe acute pancreatitis (SAP, HR, 13.946) was identified risk factor for steatorrhea in the pediatric group.

Conclusions

Age at the onset of CP, DM and SAP were identified risk factors for the development of steatorrhea in pediatric CP patients. The high-risk populations were suggested to be followed up closely. They may benefit from a full adequate pancreatic exocrine replacement therapy.

Keywords

  • Chronic pancreatitis
  • Pediatric
  • Steatorrhea
  • Risk factors

Background

Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a rare disease in children. Recent studies have estimated that the incidence of CP in children is approximately 0.5 per 100,000 per year [13]. The essence of this disease is the destruction of the organ’s parenchyma by a progressive inflammation process [4]. Pediatric patients with CP always suffer from the severe pain and progressive loss of both exocrine and endocrine function. The irreversible damage of pancreatic exocrine function in CP patients will result in pancreatic enzyme insufficiency (PEI). Severe PEI, or pancreatic exocrine failure, is considered to be clinical steatorrhea, and is a common adverse event of CP. PEI usually manifests as malnutrition, which resulting in vitamin and micronutrient deficiency and weight loss [5, 6], and is at risk of developing premature atherosclerosis, cardiovascular events, osteoporosis, fracture, immune deficiency, and infection [79]. PEI is extremely harmful for children. It is well known that malnutrition caused by reduced dietary intake and malabsorption delays the growth and development of these children [10], which also seriously impairs their childhood and mental health [11].

However, in CP patients, a significant proportion of PEI did not show dominant steatorrhea. Functional testing directly for PEI is difficult in clinical practice. Therefore, patients with PEI were rarely confirmed at the early stage [12]. The detection of risk factors for PEI may be clinical important for pediatrics. Pancreatic exocrine replacement therapy (PERT) was recommended in pediatric CP patients according to Australasian Pancreatic Club recommendations [13], but it has a lower level of evidence, and more clinical data was needed. To our best knowledge, there is no pediatric study to document the natural history of steatorrhea in CP. Thus, we aimed to compare the profile of pediatric and adult CP patients. This study was based on a retrospective-prospective cohort of 2153 CP patients with a long duration of follow-up after the onset of CP. We compared the natural history, etiology, complications, and treatment of CP in pediatrics and adults. We also determined the incidence of steatorrhea, and identified the risk factors for this complication in pediatric and adult CP patients, respectively.

Methods

Patients and database

The subjects of this study were CP patients hospitalized in Shanghai Changhai Hospital from January 2000 to December 2013. From January 2000 to December 2004, a retrospective collection of patient data was made according to the medical record system, telephone, mail and e-mail follow-up. In order to follow up the patients with CP and facilitate the study of CP. The database system of CP (version 2.1, YINMA Information Technology Company, Shanghai, China) has been established in the Department of Gastroenterology of Changhai Hospital since January 2005 to collect the medical records of patients with CP. Data collected from January 2005 to December 2013 were prospectively collected [12, 1423]. All patient information is first recorded in a paper-based case report form and then entered into an electronic document. The information collected includes basic information of patients, etiological characteristics (drinking, smoking, anatomic abnormalities, family history), natural course of CP (onset date, onset symptoms, diagnosis date, onset date of pain, pain classification, diagnosis date and treatment history of stones, diabetes mellitus, fatty diarrhea, pseudocysts, common bile duct stenosis); treatment strategy (conservative treatment, endoscopic treatment, surgical treatment).

The database system will remind researchers to notify patients for examination. Except for the examination when patients feel unwell, all patients were checked regularly (at least once a year). Ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or computed tomography (CT) examination was performed to assess the condition. Patients who did not return to our hospital were followed up by telephone and recorded in the database. The end point of the study was December 2013. In December 2013, we followed up all patients with CP in the database, with the exception of some lost visits and deaths [12]. Follow-up was defined from the onset of CP to the time of the last follow-up, death, or end of follow-up (December 2013), whichever came earliest.

The exclusion criteria for this study were as follows (Figure 1): CP patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer within 2 years of CP diagnosis [24], grooved pancreatitis (GP) [25], and autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP). Patients were assigned into pediatric group (onset before 18 years of age) and adult group (onset after 18 years of age).
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Flow diagram of patient enrolment and the study design

In the study of steatorrhea, patients with steatorrhea diagnosed before CP were excluded in both groups.

The CP database establishing was as mentioned in our previous study [12]. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Changhai Hospital. Written informed consent was obtained from all participating patients. All of the diagnostic and therapeutic modalities were carried out in accordance with the approved guidelines.

Definitions

The diagnosis of CP is based on the 2002 version of Asia Pacific consensus [26]. In the definition of etiologies, men with alcoholic intake of more than 80 g/d or women with alcoholic intake of more than 60 g/d for more than 2 years, excluding other causes, alcoholic CP could be diagnosed [27]. At least 2 first-degree relatives, or at least 3 s-degree relatives with CP and/or recurrent AP, excluding other causes, patients can be diagnosed as hereditary CP [28]. Patients with pancreatic divisum and abnormal pancreaticobiliary drainage are defined as abnormal anatomy of the pancreatic duct (although controversial) [29]. Patients with a clear history of pancreatic trauma and imaging findings suggesting secondary dilatation of the pancreatic duct may be diagnosed as traumatic CP. Hyperlipidemic CP was diagnosed in CP patients with plasma triglyceride > 1000 mg/dL [30]. When all the above causes are excluded, the patient can be diagnosed as idiopathic CP. The definition of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) was based on the 1992 version of Atlanta classification [31].

Steatorrhea was diagnosed when one of the following two conditions was met: (1) stench, oily chronic diarrhea [32]; (2) positive result in quantification of fecal fat determination (fecal fat quantitation was performed within three days; patients with stool fat excretion over 14 g/day was diagnosed as steatorrhea).

Treatment strategy

Endoscopic interventional therapy was the first choice for CP patients. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) were used to remove pancreatic duct stones and drain the main pancreatic duct successfully [15, 3336]. The indications of surgery in CP patients include: endoscopic interventional therapy can not treat symptoms, combined with CBD stenosis but endoscopic treatment failed, cannot exclude malignant lesions or malignant diagnosed through biopsy, complex conditions and so on [37]. Surgical methods include surgical drainage, pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy. In painless CP patients, endoscopic intervention or surgical treatment is indicated in patients with CBD stenosis or pancreatic portal hypertension [38]. Indications for endoscopic or surgical treatment did not include simple DM or steatorrhea. The treatment strategies of CP patients were as mentioned in our previous study [12].

Statistical analysis

In this study, continuous variables are represented in the form of mean ± standard deviation (SD) and compared with an unpaired, 2-tailed t test or the Mann-Whitney test. Categorical variables were expressed in the form of counting (percentage) and χ2 test or the Fisher exact test were used to compare. CP patients who onset before 18 years of age were assigned into pediatric group and after 18 years of age were assigned into adult groups. The cumulative rates of steatorrhea in both groups after the onset of CP were calculated by Kaplan-Meier method [39]. The statistical analysis were as mentioned in our previous study [12].

Patients who had steatorrhea at/before the diagnosis of CP in pediatric and adult groups were excluded respectively. SPSS (version 21.0) was used to calculate the significance of each variable by multivariate Cox regression analysis in both groups.

Results

General characteristics of the subjects

As shown in Figure 1, from January 2000 to December 2013, a total of 2287 CP patients were entered into the Changhai CP Database. After the exclusion of 134 patients, including 10 patients diagnosed with GP, 108 patients diagnosed with AIP, and 16 patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer within 2 years after the diagnosis of CP, a cohort of 2153 patients with CP was established. The median duration of follow-up was 7.6 years (range 0.0–52.7 years), with 10.4 years (range 0.0–52.7 years) in the pediatrics and 7.0 years (range 0.0–50.0 years) in the adults.

The general characteristics of the patients with CP are presented in Table 1. The mean age at the onset and the diagnosis of CP were 11.622 and 19.727, respectively. The male-to-female ratio in pediatrics was approximately 1:1, while in adults was 3:1. Patients with smoking or drinking history were significantly less in pediatrics (both P < 0.001). DM, steatorrhea, pancreatic pseudocyst, and biliary stricture were significantly common in adults (all P < 0.05). The etiology and type of pain were also significantly different between the pediatric and the adult groups (both P < 0.001).
Table 1

General Characteristics of 2153 patients with CP

Items

Overall (n = 2153)

n (%)

Pediatrics (n = 291)

n (%)

Adults (n = 1862)

n (%)

P value

Gender (male)

1486 (69.0%)

143 (49.1%)

1343 (72.1%)

< 0.001

Age at the onset of CP, ya

38.230 ± 16.606

11.622 ± 4.652

42.388 ± 13.692

< 0.001

Age at the diagnosis of CP, ya

43.077 ± 15.548

19.727 ± 8.953

46.727 ± 12.980

< 0.001

Smoking history

723 (33.6%)

16 (5.5%)

707 (38.0%)

< 0.001

Alcohol consumption

< 0.001

 0 g/d

1426 (66.2%)

272 (93.5%)

1154 (62.0%)

 0-20 g/d

70 (3.3%)

8 (2.7%)

62 (3.3%)

 20-80 g/d

237 (11.0%)

8 (2.7%)

229 (12.3%)

  > 80 g/d

420 (19.5%)

3 (1.0%)

417 (22.4%)

Body mass indexa

20.894 ± 3.354

19.380 ± 3.362

24.696 ± 88.765

0.338

Etiology

< 0.001

 ICP

1633 (75.8%)

248 (85.2%)

1385 (74.4%)

 ACP

404 (18.8%)

2 (0.7%)

402 (21.6%)

 Abnormal anatomy of pancreatic duct

64 (3.0%)

24 (8.2%)

40 (2.1%)

 HCP

30 (1.4%)

12 (4.1%)

18 (1.0%)

 Post-traumatic CP

10 (0.5%)

3 (1.0%)

7 (0.4%)

 Hyperlipidemic CP

12 (0.6%)

2 (0.7%)

10 (0.5%)

Initial manifestations

< 0.001

 Abdominal pain

1796 (83.4%)

280 (96.2%)

1516 (81.4%)

 Endocrine/Exocrine dysfunction

218 (10.1%)

9 (3.1%)

209 (11.2%)

 Others

139 (6.5%)

2 (0.7%)

137 (7.4%)

Pancreatic stonesb

1627 (75.6%)

269 (92.4%)

1358 (72.9%)

< 0.001

 Age at pancreatic stones diagnosis

41.415 ± 15.323

20.443 ± 8.547

45.569 ± 12.746

< 0.001

 Time between onset and pancreatic stone

5.762 ± 7.144

8.829 ± 9.174

5.154 ± 6.504

< 0.001

DM

616 (28.6%)

38 (13.1%)

578 (31.0%)

< 0.001

 Age at DM diagnosisa

45.848 ± 11.812

28.578 ± 11.965

46.984 ± 10.890

< 0.001

 Time between onset and DMa

5.136 ± 7.276

16.617 ± 13.447

4.381 ± 5.964

< 0.001

Steatorrhea

493 (22.9%)

46 (15.8%)

447 (24.0%)

0.002

 Age at steatorrhea diagnosisa

42.563 ± 12.555

25.880 ± 9.358

44.279 ± 11.549

< 0.001

 Time between onset and steatorrheaa

5.245 ± 8.485

13.929 ± 10.562

4.351 ± 7.719

< 0.001

Pancreatic pseudocyst

350 (16.3%)

30 (10.3%)

320 (17.2%)

0.003

 Age at pancreatic pseudocyst diagnosisa

45.776 ± 15.077

16.232 ± 7.210

48.589 ± 12.365

< 0.001

 Time between onset and pancreatic pseudocysta

4.989 ± 6.954

5.640 ± 5.828

4.927 ± 7.058

0.605

Biliary stricture

340 (15.8%)

19 (6.5%)

321 (17.2%)

< 0.001

 Age at biliary stricture diagnosisa

51.218 ± 13.169

31.548 ± 13.686

52.382 ± 12.200

< 0.001

 Time between onset and biliary stricturea

5.592 ± 8.637

21.197 ± 17.565

4.668 ± 6.809

0.001

Pancreatic cancer

21 (1.0%)

1 (0.3%)

20 (1.1%)

0.238

Death

70 (3.3%)

2 (0.7%)

68 (3.7%)

0.008

Morphology of MPD

< 0.001

 Pancreatic stone alone

590 (27.4%)

95 (32.6%)

495 (26.6%)

 MPD stenosis alone

598 (27.8%)

57 (19.6%)

541 (29.1%)

 MPD stenosis and stone

728 (33.8%)

128 (44.0%)

600 (32.2%)

 Complex pathologic changes

237 (11.0%)

11 (3.8%)

226 (12.1%)

Type of pain

< 0.001

 Recurrent acute pancreatitis

681 (31.6%)

102 (35.1%)

579 (31.3%)

 Recurrent pain

638 (29.6%)

65 (22.3%)

573 (30.8%)

 Recurrent acute pancreatitis and pain

570 (26.5%)

106 (36.4%)

464 (24.9%)

 Chronic pain

106 (4.9%)

14 (4.8%)

92 (4.9%)

 Without pain

158 (7.3%)

4 (1.4%)

154 (8.3%)

Severe acute pancreatitis

66 (3.1%)

7 (2.4%)

59 (3.2%)

0.482

Pancreatic duct successful drainagec

1930 (89.6%)

255 (87.6%)

1675 (90.0%)

0.216

Overall treatment

< 0.001

 Endotherapy alone

1505 (69.9%)

247 (84.9%)

1258 (67.6%)

 Surgery alone

244 (11.3%)

10 (3.4%)

234 (12.6%)

 Both endotherapy and surgery

181 (8.4%)

20 (6.9%)

161 (8.6%)

 Conservative treatment

223 (10.4%)

14 (4.8%)

209 (11.2%)

DM in first−/second−/third-degree relatives

135 (6.3%)

38 (13.1%)

97 (5.2%)

< 0.001

Pancreatic diseases in first−/second−/third-degree relatives (excluding hereditary CP)

37 (1.7%)

15 (5.2%)

22 (1.2%)

< 0.001

CP chronic pancreatitis, DM diabetes mellitus, ICP idiopathic chronic pancreatitis, ACP alcoholic chronic pancreatitis, HCP hereditary chronic pancreatitis, MPD main pancreatic duct

aMean ± SD

bPancreatic calcifications were also regarded as stones that are located in branch pancreatic duct or ductulus

cPatients with successful MPD drainage are those whose CP was established after ERCP or pancreatic surgery or those who underwent successful MPD drainage during administration when CP diagnosis was established

Cumulative rates of steatorrhea

Steatorrhea was found in 22.9% (493/2153) of patients after the onset of CP. The proportions were 15.8% (46/291) in pediatric patients and 24.0% (447/1862) in adult patients. The cumulative proportions of steatorrhea in pediatric patients were 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5–3.7%), 4.1% (95% CI, 1.6–6.6%) and 7.2% (95% CI, 3.5%-10.9) at 3, 5 and 10 years after the diagnosis of CP, respectively. The cumulative proportions of steatorrhea in adult patients were 12.8% (95% CI, 11.2–14.4%), 14.6% (95% CI, 12.8–16.4%) and 18.3% (95% CI, 16.1–20.5%) at 3, 5 and 10 years after the diagnosis of CP, respectively. Pediatric and adult patients showed significant difference in the rate of steatorrhea (P = 0.002, Figure 2).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

The cumulative rates of steatorrhea after the onset of CP

Predictors for steatorrhea development in pediatric patients

After the exclusion of 35 patients diagnosed with steatorrhea before the diagnosis of CP in the pediatric patients, a total of 256 patients with CP were finally enrolled in the pediatric group. A univariate analysis for steatorrhea development among the 256 pediatric patients included in the study is shown in Table 2. Three variables showed a P value of less than 0.15: age at the onset of CP, DM, and SAP.
Table 2

Predictive factors for steatorrhea development in pediatric patients after the diagnosis of CP (256 cases)

Predictors

n (%)

Univariate Analysis

Multivariate Analysis

P

HR (95% CI)

P

HR (95% CI)

Gender (male)

124 (48.4%)

0.411

0.353 (0.029–4.233)

  

Age at the onset of CP, ya

11.573 ± 4.702

0.104

1.121 (0.977–1.286)

0.135

 

Age at the diagnosis of CP, ya

18.141 ± 6.762

0.235

0.880 (0.712–1.087)

  

Smoking history

14 (5.5%)

0.510

4.355 (0.055–346.356)

  

Alcohol consumption

 

0.899

   

 0 g/d

241 (94.1%)

Control

  

 0-20 g/d

5 (2.0%)

0.447

0.036 (0.000–2.373E3)

  

 20-80 g/d

7 (2.7%)

0.716

0.043 (0.000–1.029E6)

  

  > 80 g/d

3 (1.2%)

0.735

0.042 (0.000–3.846E6)

  

Body mass indexa

19.304 ± 3.338

0.738

0.931 (0.611–1.419)

  

Etiology

 

0.579

   

 ICP

220 (85.9%)

Control

  

 ACP

2 (0.8%)

0.710

2.081 (0.043–99.757)

  

 Abnormal anatomy of pancreatic duct

22 (8.6%)

0.690

2.271 (0.040–127.502)

  

 HCP

7 (2.7%)

0.912

1.375 (0.005–401.007)

  

 Post-traumatic CP

3 (1.2%)

1.000

1.008 (0.000–2.361E5)

  

 Hyperlipidemic CP

2 (0.8%)

0.065

208.297 (0.719–6.036E4)

  

Initial manifestations

 

0.859

   

 Abdominal pain

249 (97.3%)

0.978

1.392E3 (0.000–9.416E228)

  

 Endocrine dysfunction

5 (2.0%)

0.972

1.175E4 (0.000–8.352E229)

  

 Others

2 (0.8%)

   

Pancreatic stonesbc

170 (66.4%)

0.582

1.540 (0.331–7.173)

  

Biliary strictureb

9 (3.5%)

0.678

0.045 (0.000–1.013E5)

  

DMb

8 (3.1%)

0.015

51.140 (2.172–1.203E3)

0.806

 

Pancreatic pseudocystb

26 (10.2%)

0.762

1.389 (0.165–11.705)

  

Morphology of MPD

 

0.633

   

 Pancreatic stone alone

82 (32.0%)

0.329

0.082 (0.001–12.473)

  

 MPD stenosis alone

52 (20.3%)

0.350

0.060 (0.000–21.656)

  

 MPD stenosis and stone

113 (44.1%)

0.584

0.229 (0.001–44.967)

  

 Complex pathologic changes

9 (3.5%)

Control

  

Type of painb

 

0.845

   

 Recurrent acute pancreatitis

93 (36.3%)

0.571

0.218 (0.001–42.016)

  

 Recurrent pain

48 (18.8%)

0.950

1.167 (0.009–147.028)

  

 Recurrent acute pancreatitis and pain

92 (35.9%)

0.854

0.637 (0.005–78.045)

  

 Chronic pain

10 (3.9%)

0.670

0.123 (0.000–1.907E3)

  

 Without pain

13 (5.1%)

Control

  

Severe acute pancreatitisb

7 (2.7%)

0.023

13.946 (1.442–134.909)

0.023

13.946 (1.442–134.909)

Pancreatic duct successful drainagebd

29 (11.3%)

0.904

0.774 (0.012–50.413)

  

Treatment strategy

 

0.873

   

 Endotherapy alone

44 (17.2%)

0.876

0.739 (0.017–32.985)

  

 Surgery alone

11 (4.3%)

0.621

0.231 (0.001–76.658)

  

 Both endotherapy and surgery

0

0.904

0.774 (0.012–51.413)

  

 Conservative treatment

201 (78.5%)

Control

  

DM in first−/second−/third-degree relatives

29 (11.3%)

0.489

0.042 (0.000–327.986)

  

Pancreatic diseases in first−/second−/third-degree relatives (excluding hereditary CP)

12 (4.7%)

0.572

0.278 (0.003–23.531)

  

CP chronic pancreatitis, DM diabetes mellitus, ICP idiopathic chronic pancreatitis, ACP alcoholic chronic pancreatitis, HCP hereditary chronic pancreatitis, MPD main pancreatic duct, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval

aMean ± SD

bBefore or at the diagnosis of CP

cPancreatic calcifications were also regarded as stones that are located in branch pancreatic duct or ductulus

dPatients with successful MPD drainage are those whose CP was established after ERCP or pancreatic surgery or those who underwent successful MPD drainage during administration when CP diagnosis was established

For the multivariate analysis, the 3 predictors above were included in the Cox proportional hazards regression model. Finally, 1 predictor for steatorrhea development in pediatric patients was identified. The risk of developing steatorrhea was significantly higher in pediatric patients with a history of SAP before the diagnosis of CP (Hazard ratio [HR], 13.946, 95% CI, 1.442–134.909).

Predictors for steatorrhea development in adult patients

After the exclusion of 262 patients diagnosed with steatorrhea before the diagnosis of CP in the adult patients, a total of 1600 patients with CP were finally enrolled in the adult group. A univariate analysis for steatorrhea development among the 1600 adult patients included in the study is shown in Table 3. Five variables showed a P value of less than 0.05: gender, age at the diagnosis of CP, etiology, initial manifestations, and DM.
Table 3

Predictive factors for steatorrhea development in adult patients after the diagnosis of CP (1600 cases)

Predictors

n (%)

Univariate Analysis

Multivariate Analysis

P

HR (95%CI)

P

HR (95%CI)

Gender (male)

1161 (72.6%)

< 0.001

2.502 (1.639–3.820)

< 0.001

2.694 (1.756–4.133)

Age at the onset of CP, ya

42.777 ± 13.997

0.429

0.996 (0.984–1.007)

  

Age at the diagnosis of CP, ya

46.798 ± 13.333

< 0.001

0.972 (0.961–0.984)

< 0.001

0.966 (0.953–0.978)

Smoking history

608 (38.0%)

0.188

1.222 (0.907–1.645)

  

Alcohol consumption

 

0.098

   

 0 g/d

1000 (62.5%)

Control

  

 0-20 g/d

49 (3.1%)

0.481

0.661 (0.209–2.089)

  

 20-80 g/d

202 (12.6%)

0.129

1.386 (0.909–2.144)

  

  > 80 g/d

349 (21.8%)

0.036

1.437 (1.024–2.016)

  

Body mass indexa

25.316 ± 96.332

0.882

0.996 (0.942–1.052)

  

Etiology

 

0.018

 

0.143

 

 ICP

1207 (75.4%)

Control

Control

 ACP

338 (21.1%)

0.037

1.414 (1.021–1.956)

0.219

 

 Abnormal anatomy of pancreatic duct

30 (1.9%)

0.373

0.530 (0.131–2.146)

0.658

 

 HCP

11 (0.7%)

0.962

0.000 (0.000–3.933E182)

0.345

 

 Post-traumatic CP

7 (0.4%)

0.003

8.514 (2.088–34.720)

0.041

 

 Hyperlipidemic CP

7 (0.4%)

0.952

0.000 (0.000–1.191E142)

0.178

 

Initial manifestations

 

< 0.001

 

< 0.001

 

 Abdominal pain

1371 (85.7%)

< 0.001

0.401 (0.253–0.636)

< 0.001

0.308 (0.192–0.494)

 Endocrine dysfunction

104 (6.5%)

0.130

0.604 (0.315–1.160)

0.059

0.491 (0.235–1.027)

 Others

125 (7.8%)

Control

Control

Pancreatic stonesbc

1114 (69.6%)

0.830

0.966 (0.701–1.330)

  

Biliary strictureb

124 (7.8%)

0.097

1.512 (0.928–2.463)

  

DMb

265 (16.6%)

0.031

1.450 (1.034–2.035)

0.029

1.558 (1.047–2.319)

Pancreatic pseudocystb

123 (7.7%)

0.355

1.284 (0.756–2.180)

  

Morphology of MPD

 

0.063

   

 Pancreatic stone alone

394 (24.6%)

0.047

1.837 (1.009–3.343)

  

 MPD stenosis alone

495 (30.9%)

0.016

2.033 (1.144–3.613)

  

 MPD stenosis and stone

506 (31.6%)

0.194

1.483 (0.818–2.687)

  

 Complex pathologic changes

205 (12.8%)

Control

  

Type of painb

 

0.086

   

 Recurrent acute pancreatitis

472 (29.5%)

0.007

0.534 (0.339–0.843)

  

 Recurrent pain

438 (27.4%)

0.048

0.636 (0.406–0.996)

  

 Recurrent acute pancreatitis and pain

388 (24.3%)

0.021

0.578 (0.364–0.919)

  

 Chronic pain

62 (3.9%)

0.206

0.543 (0.211–1.398)

  

 Without pain

240 (15.0%)

Control

  

Severe acute pancreatitisb

50 (3.1%)

0.061

0.153 (0.021–1.091)

  

Pancreatic duct successful drainagebd

223 (13.9%)

0.987

1.004 (0.648–1.555)

  

Treatment strategy

 

0.698

   

 Endotherapy alone

120 (7.5%)

0.657

0.871 (0.472–1.607)

  

 Surgery alone

87 (5.4%)

0.282

1.400 (0.758–2.585)

  

 Both endotherapy and surgery

14 (0.9%)

0.951

0.000 (0.000–3.013E148)

  

 Conservative treatment

1379 (86.2%)

Control

  

DM in first−/second−/third-degree relatives

76 (4.8%)

0.241

0.587 (0.241–1.429)

  

Pancreatic diseases in first−/second−/third-degree relatives (excluding hereditary CP)

16 (1.0%)

0.691

0.671 (0.094–4.793)

  

CP chronic pancreatitis, DM diabetes mellitus, ICP idiopathic chronic pancreatitis, ACP alcoholic chronic pancreatitis, HCP hereditary chronic pancreatitis, MPD main pancreatic duct, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval

aMean ± SD

bBefore or at the diagnosis of CP

cPancreatic calcifications were also regarded as stones that are located in branch pancreatic duct or ductulus

dPatients with successful MPD drainage are those whose CP was established after ERCP or pancreatic surgery or those who underwent successful MPD drainage during administration when CP diagnosis was established

For the multivariate analysis, the 5 predictors above were included in the Cox proportional hazards regression model. Finally, 4 predictors for steatorrhea development in adult patients were identified. The risk of developing steatorrhea was significantly higher in male patients (HR, 2.694, 95% CI, 1.756–4.133) and patients with a history of DM before the diagnosis of CP (HR, 1.558, 95% CI, 1.047–2.319). Adult patients with an older age at the diagnosis of CP (HR, 0.966, 95% CI, 0.953–0.978) were associated with decreased risk of developing steatorrhea. Initial manifestations were also identified risk factors for steatorrhea development in adult patients.

Discussion

We focused on CP in pediatrics in the present study. Presence of steatorrhea was set as the sign of severe PEI. To our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze the risk factors of steatorrhea in pediatric patients with CP.

In the present study, 15.8% (46/291) of pediatric patients with CP developed steatorrhea, and 24.0% (447/1862) of adult patients developed steatorrhea. A previous study showed that exocrine and endocrine insufficiency developed more slowly in early-onset CP than in late-onset CP [40]. This could be due to a better preservation of pancreatic function and better repair capacity after injury in pediatric CP patients. However, after a long term of follow-up for more than 30 years, the cumulative rate of steatorrhea in pediatrics was similar or even higher than in adults (Figure 2). Therefore, pediatric CP patients had a reduced risk of steatorrhea compared to adult CP patients in the early period of CP course, but the risk increased with longer-term of follow-up.

In the risk factor analysis, a history of SAP before the diagnosis of CP was identified significantly associated with steatorrhea development in pediatric CP patients. It is not exactly the same as risk factors in adult patients. In adult CP patients, genders, age at the diagnosis of CP, initial manifestations, and DM before the diagnosis of CP were identified risk factors for steatorrhea development. In the previous study, male gender, adults, DM, alcohol abuse and pancreaticoduodenectomy were identified risk factors for steatorrhea development in the general population [12], which are similar with the adult group in the present study.

The risk factor analysis of steatorrhea may help in the early diagnosis of PEI in pediatric patients. Pediatric CP patients with PEI suffer from decreased dietary intake and malabsorption. The malnutrition caused by PEI may retard their growth and development, even result in failure to thrive in these children. This may cause incredible suffering for the children and families who live with them [41]. However, steatorrhea and associated symptoms are not evident until duodenal lipase falls below 5–10% of normal postprandial levels [42]. Thus, PEI may have occurred even the children have no symptoms of steatorrhea. This study provided a relatively accurate risk factor analysis. Age at the onset of CP, DM and SAP were identified the risk factors for steatorrhea in pediatric CP patients. Therefore, these pediatric patient groups were suggested to be closely monitored.

These high-risk populations in pediatric CP patients may benefit from a full adequate PERT. Although PERT was recommended in all pediatric CP patients [13], closely follow-up and dosage adjustment was quite important for these high-risk populations. It can deliver sufficient enzymatic activity into the duodenal lumen simultaneously with the meal, in order to optimize digestion and absorption of nutrients. The PERT will improve the nutritional status for these children and help with their growth and development. This may help in the early treatment of PEI in pediatric patients and reduce the adverse events caused by PEI.

Our study has some limitations. First, clinical steatorrhea was a sign of severe PEI, regardless of dietary habits and steatorrhea associated with abdominal diseases. Second, data was retrospectively collected from 2000 to 2004, which may introduce a recall bias. However, statistical analysis showed that there was no significant difference in clinical characteristics between patients before and after January 2005. In this sense, the recall bias has the least impact on the results. Third, risk factors analysis did not include all potential factors associated with the development of steatorrhea. Fourth, 603 patients with CP were followed up for less than 2 years, which may introduce a misdiagnosis bias between CP and pancreatic cancer.

Conclusions

In conclusion, steatorrhea is extremely harmful for children. Age at the onset of CP. DM and SAP were identified risk factors for the development of steatorrhea in pediatric CP patients. Therefore, it is suggested that pediatric patients in these high-risk groups be closely followed and examined. They may benefit from adequate PERT.

Notes

Abbreviations

AIP: 

Autoimmune pancreatitis

CI: 

Confidence interval

CP: 

Chronic pancreatitis

CT: 

Computed tomography

DM: 

Diabetes mellitus

ERCP: 

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

ESWL: 

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy

GP: 

Groove pancreatitis

HR: 

Hazard ratio

MRI: 

Magnetic resonance imaging

PEI: 

Pancreatic enzyme insufficiency

PERT: 

Pancreatic exocrine replacement therapy

SAP: 

Severe acute pancreatitis

SD: 

Standard deviation

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Authors’ contributors

L Hao, TW and L He participated in the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data, as well as in the manuscript drafting. YWB, DZ, XPZ, LX, JP, DW, JTJ, TTD, JHL, LSW, WBZ, HC, TX, HLG, BRL and ZL participated in data acquisition and manuscript drafting. LHH, ZSL and ZLX contributed to the conception, design, and data interpretation, as well as revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. BRL, LHH, LX, and LSW provided the funding to this study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. All authors have read and approved the manuscript, and ensure that this is the case.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant Nos. 81500490 (BRL), 81770635 (LHH), 81470883 (LHH) and 81770632(LX)] and Three engineering training funds in Shenzhen [Grant No. SYJY201713(LSW)] in data acquisition and manuscript drafting, Shanghai Rising-Star Program [Grant No. 17QA1405500 (LHH)], Shanghai Outstanding Youth Doctor Training Program [Grant No. AB83030002015034 (LHH)], and Shanghai Youth Top-notch Talent Program [Grant No. HZW2016FZ67 (LHH)], in conception design, data interpretation, and manuscript revise.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Changhai Hospital. Written informed consent was obtained from all participating patients. Consent to participate for patients under 16 years old was provided by a parent or legal guardian.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Gastroenterology, Hainan Branch of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Hainan, China
(2)
Department of Gastroenterology, Gongli Hospital, The Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
(3)
Department of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, The Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
(4)
Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Clinical Medical College (Shenzhen People’s Hospital), Jinan University, Guangdong, China
(5)
Department of Gastroenterology, Zhongda Hospital, Southeast University, Nanjing, China
(6)
Department of Gastroenterology, Air Force General Hospital, Beijing, China

References

  1. Yadav D, Timmons L, Benson JT, Dierkhising RA, Chari ST. Incidence, prevalence, and survival of chronic pancreatitis: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:2192–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Spanier B, Bruno MJ, Dijkgraaf MG. Incidence and mortality of acute and chronic pancreatitis in the Netherlands: a nationwide record-linked cohort study for the years 1995-2005. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:3018–26.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Hirota M, Shimosegawa T, Masamune A, Kikuta K, Kume K, Hamada S, Kihara Y, Satoh A, Kimura K, Tsuji I, Kuriyama S. The sixth nationwide epidemiological survey of chronic pancreatitis in Japan. Pancreatology. 2012;12:79–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Braganza JM, Lee SH, McCloy RF, McMahon MJ. Chronic pancreatitis. Lancet. 2011;377:1184–97.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dominguez-Munoz JE, Iglesias-Garcia J, Vilarino-Insua M, Iglesias-Rey M. 13C-mixed triglyceride breath test to assess oral enzyme substitution therapy in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;5:484–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dominguez-Munoz JE, Iglesias-Garcia J. Oral pancreatic enzyme substitution therapy in chronic pancreatitis: is clinical response an appropriate marker for evaluation of therapeutic efficacy? JOP. 2010;11:158–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Pongprasobchai S. Maldigestion from pancreatic exocrine insufficiency. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;28(Suppl 4):99–102.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Montalto G, Soresi M, Carroccio A, Scafidi E, Barbagallo CM, Ippolito S, Notarbartolo A. Lipoproteins and chronic pancreatitis. Pancreas. 1994;9:137–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Tignor AS, Wu BU, Whitlock TL, Lopez R, Repas K, Banks PA, Conwell D. High prevalence of low-trauma fracture in chronic pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:2680–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Wang D, Bi Y-W, Ji J-T, Xin L, Pan J, Liao Z, Du T-T, Lin J-H, Zhang D, Zeng X-P, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is safe and effective for pediatric patients with chronic pancreatitis. Endoscopy. 2017;49:447–55.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Schwarzenberg SJ, Bellin M, Husain SZ, Ahuja M, Barth B, Davis H, Durie PR, Fishman DS, Freedman SD, Gariepy CE, et al. Pediatric chronic pancreatitis is associated with genetic risk factors and substantial disease burden. J Pediatr. 2015;166:890–6 e891.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Li BR, Pan J, Du TT, Liao Z, Ye B, Zou WB, Chen H, Ji JT, Zheng ZH, Wang D, et al. Risk factors for steatorrhea in chronic pancreatitis: a cohort of 2,153 patients. Sci Rep. 2016;6:21381.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Toouli J, Biankin AV, Oliver MR, Pearce CB, Wilson JS, Wray NH, Australasian Pancreatic C. Management of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency: Australasian pancreatic Club recommendations. Med J Aust. 2010;193:461–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Wang W, Liao Z, Li ZS, Shi XG, Wang LW, Liu F, Wu RP, Zheng JM. Chronic pancreatitis in Chinese children: etiology, clinical presentation and imaging diagnosis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;24:1862–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Li ZS, Wang W, Liao Z, Zou DW, Jin ZD, Chen J, Wu RP, Liu F, Wang LW, Shi XG, et al. A long-term follow-up study on endoscopic management of children and adolescents with chronic pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1884–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Wang W, Liao Z, Li G, Li ZS, Chen J, Zhan XB, Wang LW, Liu F, Hu LH, Guo Y, et al. Incidence of pancreatic cancer in chinese patients with chronic pancreatitis. Pancreatology. 2011;11:16–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Wang W, Guo Y, Liao Z, Zou DW, Jin ZD, Zou DJ, Jin G, Hu XG, Li ZS. Occurrence of and risk factors for diabetes mellitus in Chinese patients with chronic pancreatitis. Pancreas. 2011;40:206–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Xin L, He YX, Zhu XF, Zhang QH, Hu LH, Zou DW, Jin ZD, Chang XJ, Zheng JM, Zuo CJ, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of autoimmune pancreatitis: experience with 100 patients. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2014;13:642–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Pan J, Xin L, Wang D, Liao Z, Lin JH, Li BR, Du TT, Ye B, Zou WB, Chen H, et al. Risk factors for diabetes mellitus in chronic pancreatitis: a cohort of 2011 patients. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e3251.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Yang YG, Hu LH, Chen H, Li B, Fan XH, Li JB, Wang JF, Deng XM. Target-controlled infusion of remifentanil with or without flurbiprofen axetil in sedation for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of pancreatic stones: a prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2015;15:161.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Hao L, Pan J, Wang D, Bi YW, Ji JT, Xin L, Liao Z, Du TT, Lin JH, Zhang D, et al. Risk factors and nomogram for pancreatic pseudocysts in chronic pancreatitis: a cohort of 1998 patients. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;32:1403–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hao L, Bi YW, Zhang D, Zeng XP, Xin L, Pan J, Wang D, Ji JT, Du TT,Lin JH, et al. Risk factors and nomogram for common bile duct stricture inchronic pancreatitis: a cohort of 2153 patients. J ClinGastroenterol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000000930.
  23. Hao L, Zeng XP, Xin L, Wang D, Pan J, Bi YW, Ji JT, Du TT, Lin JH, Zhang D, et al. Incidence of and risk factors for pancreatic cancer in chronic pancreatitis: a cohort of 1656 patients. Dig Liver Dis. 2017;49(11):1249–56.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Li BR, Hu LH, Li ZS. Chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterology. 2014;147:541–2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Malde DJ, Oliveira-Cunha M, Smith AM. Pancreatic carcinoma masquerading as groove pancreatitis: case report and review of literature. Jop. 2011;12:598–602.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Tandon RK, Sato N, Garg PK. Chronic pancreatitis: Asia-Pacific consensus report. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2002;17:508–18.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Witt H, Sahin-Toth M, Landt O, Chen JM, Kahne T, Drenth JP, Kukor Z, Szepessy E, Halangk W, Dahm S, et al. A degradation-sensitive anionic trypsinogen (PRSS2) variant protects against chronic pancreatitis. Nat Genet. 2006;38:668–73.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Howes N, Lerch MM, Greenhalf W, Stocken DD, Ellis I, Simon P, Truninger K, Ammann R, Cavallini G, Charnley RM, et al. Clinical and genetic characteristics of hereditary pancreatitis in Europe. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2:252–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lu WF. ERCP and CT diagnosis of pancreas divisum and its relation to etiology of chronic pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol. 1998;4:150–2.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Yadav D, Pitchumoni CS. Issues in hyperlipidemic pancreatitis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2003;36:54–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Bradley EL, 3rd: A clinically based classification system for acute pancreatitis. Summary of the international symposium on acute pancreatitis, Atlanta, Ga, September 11 through 13, 1992. Arch Surg 1993, 128:586–590.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Affronti J. Chronic pancreatitis and exocrine insufficiency. Prim Care. 2011;38:515–37 ix.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Li BR, Liao Z, Du TT, Ye B, Zou WB, Chen H, Ji JT, Zheng ZH, Hao JF, Jiang YY, et al. Risk factors for complications of pancreatic extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Endoscopy. 2014;46:1092–100.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Sun XT, Hu LH, Xia T, Shi LL, Sun C, Du YQ, Wang W, Chen JM, Liao Z, Li ZS. Clinical features and endoscopic treatment of Chinese patients with hereditary pancreatitis. Pancreas. 2015;44:59–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Dumonceau JM, Delhaye M, Tringali A, Dominguez-Munoz JE, Poley JW, Arvanitaki M, Costamagna G, Costea F, Deviere J, Eisendrath P, et al. Endoscopic treatment of chronic pancreatitis: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) clinical guideline. Endoscopy. 2012;44:784–800.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Li BR, Liao Z, Du TT, Ye B, Chen H, Ji JT, Zheng ZH, Hao JF, Ning SB, Wang D, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is a safe and effective treatment for pancreatic stones coexisting with pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;84:69–78.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Schreyer AG, Jung M, Riemann JF, Niessen C, Pregler B, Grenacher L, Hoffmeister A. S3 guideline for chronic pancreatitis - diagnosis, classification and therapy for the radiologist. Rofo. 2014;186:1002–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Ito T, Ishiguro H, Ohara H, Kamisawa T, Sakagami J, Sata N, Takeyama Y, Hirota M, Miyakawa H, Igarashi H, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for chronic pancreatitis 2015. J Gastroenterol. 2016;51:85–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Ma Y, Zhou W, He S, Xu W, Xiao J. Tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib therapy is effective in the treatment of bone metastasis from cancer of unknown primary: identification of clinical and immunohistochemical biomarkers predicting survival. Int J Cancer. 2016;139:1423–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Layer P, Yamamoto H, Kalthoff L, Clain JE, Bakken LJ, DiMagno EP. The different courses of early- and late-onset idiopathic and alcoholic chronic pancreatitis. Gastroenterology. 1994;107:1481–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Perito ER, Rhee S. Relief for young children with severe chronic pancreatitis. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2017;64:338–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith RC, Smith SF, Wilson J, Pearce C, Wray N, Vo R, Chen J, Ooi CY, Oliver M, Katz T, et al. Summary and recommendations from the Australasian guidelines for the management of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency. Pancreatology. 2016;16:164–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement