Tokyo guideline 2023 tiếng việt

J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2007 Jan; 14(1): 1–10.

Tadahiro Takada,

Abstract

There are no evidence-based-criteria for the diagnosis, severity assessment, of treatment of acute cholecysitis or acute cholangitis. For example, the full complement of symptoms and signs described as Charcot’s triad and as Reynolds’ pentad are infrequent and as such do not really assist the clinician with planning management strategies. In view of these factors, we launched a project to prepare evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis that will be useful in the clinical setting. This research has been funded by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, in cooperation with the Japanese Society for Abdominal Emergency Medicine, the Japan Biliary Association, and the Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery. A working group, consisting of 46 experts in gastroenterology, surgery, internal medicine, emergency medicine, intensive care, and clinical epidemiology, analyzed and examined the literature on patients with cholangitis and cholecystitis in order to produce evidence-based guidelines. During the investigations we found that there was a lack of high-level evidence, for treatments, and the working group formulated the guidelines by obtaining consensus, based on evidence categorized by level, according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence of May 2001 (version 1). This work required more than 20 meetings to obtain a consensus on each item from the working group. Then four forums were held to permit examination of the Guideline details in Japan, both by an external assessment committee and by the working group participants (version 2). As we knew that the diagnosis and management of acute biliary infection may differ from country to country, we appointed a publication committee and held 12 meetings to prepare draft Guidelines in English (version 3). We then had several discussions on these draft guidelines with leading experts in the field throughout the world, via e-mail, leading to version 4. Finally, an International Consensus Meeting took place in Tokyo, on 1–2 April, 2006, to obtain international agreement on diagnostic criteria, severity assessment, and management.

Key words: Cholangitis, Cholecystitis, Charcot’s triad, Reynold’s pentad, Biliary drainage

Introduction

No guidelines focusing on the management of biliary infection (cholangitis and cholecystitis) have previously been published, and no worldwide criteria exist for diagnostic and severity assessment. “Charcot’s triad”1 is still used for the diagnosis of acute cholangitis. However, these criteria were first proposed in 1877 (level 4), more than 100 years ago. Here, and throughout the series, levels of evidence are stated for referenced articles in accordance with the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence of May 2001 (see Table ​1). However only 50%–70% of cholangitis patients present clinically with Charcot’s triad.2–8 In addition, Murphy’s sign9 (level 5) is useful (sensitivity of 50%–70% and specificity of 79%–96%) in diagnosing cholecystitis, and this sign is widely used in every country. Moreover, as many of the symptoms and concepts of these diseases referred to in textbooks and reference books vary from those originally stated, the issue of worldwide criteria is problematic. In view of these unfavorable situations, we considered it necessary to clarify the definitions, concepts of disease, and treatment methods for acute cholangitis and acute cholecystitis and establish universal criteria that can be widely recognized and used.

Table 1

STARD checklist for the reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy

A working group to establish practical Guidelines for the Management of Cholangitis and Cholecystitis was organized in 2003 (chief researcher, Tadahiro Takada). This project was funded by a grant from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, and was supported by the Japanese Society for Abdominal Emergency Medicine, the Japan Biliary Association, and the Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery. The working group consisted of physicians engaged in gastroenterology, internal medicine, surgery, emergency medicine, intensive care, and clinical epidemiology as the main members, and they started the work to prepare the Guidelines.

As the research progressed, the group was faced with the serious problem that high-level evidence regarding the treatment of acute biliary infection is poor. Therefore, an exective committee meeting was convened, and the committee came to the following decision: the Guidelines would be evidence-based in general, but areas without evidence or with poor evidence (such as diagnosis and severity assessment) should be completed by obtaining high-level consensus among experts worldwide.

We established a publication committee and held 12 meetings to prepare draft Guidelines in English (version 3). Then we had several discussions on these draft Guidelines with leading experts in the field throughout the world, via e-mail, leading to version 4. Finally, an International Consensus Meeting took place in Tokyo, on 1–2 April, 2006, to obtain international agreement on diagnostic criteria, severity assessment, and management.

We now publish the “Tokyo Guidelines for the Management of Cholangitis and cholecystitis”. These Guidelines consist of 13 articles, including “Discussion” sections containing comments of attendees at the consensus conference and analyses of audience voting at the meeting.

We hope that these Guidelines will help their users to give optimal treatment according to their own specialty and capability, and thus provide their patients with the best medical treatment.

Background of Tokyo Guidelines

Biliary infections (acute cholangitis and cholecystitis) require appropriate management in the acute phase. Serious acute cholangitis may be lethal unless it is appropriately managed in the acute phase. On the other hand, although various diagnostic and treatment methodologies have been developed in recent years, they have not been assessed objectively and none of them has been established as a standard method for the management of these diseases. We carried out an extensive review of the English-language literature and found that there was little high-level evidence in this field, and no systematically described practical manual for the field. Most importantly, there are no standardized diagnostic criteria and severity assessments for acute cholangitis and cholecystitis, therefore, we would like to establish standards for these items. The Tokyo Guidelines include evidence-based medicine and reflect the international consensus obtained through earnest discussions among professionals in the field on 1–2 April, 2006, at the Keio Plaza Hotel, Tokyo, Japan. Concerning the definitions in the practice guidelines, we have applied to the Japanese Institute of Medicine: Committee to Advise the Public Health Service on Clinical Practice Guidelines, to approve the systematically developed Guidelines to assist practioner and patient decisions about appropriate healthcare for specific clinical circumstances.

Notes on the use of the Guidelines

The Guidelines are evidence-based, with the grade of recommendation also based on the evidence. The Guidelines also present the diagnostic criteria for and severity assessment of acute biliary infection. As the Guidelines address so many different subjects, indices are included at the end for the convenience of readers.

The practice Guidelines promulgated in this work do not represent a standard of practice. They are suggested plans of care, based on best available evidence and the consensus of experts, but they do not exclude other approaches as being within the standard of practice. For example, they should not be used to compel adherence to a given method of medical management, which method should be finally determined after taking account of the conditions at the relevant medical institution (staff levels, experience, equipment, etc.) and the characteristics of the individual patient. However, responsibility for the results of treatment rests with those who are directly engaged therein, and not with the consensus group. The doses of medicines described in the text of the Guidelines are for adult patients.

Methods of formulating the guidelines

With evidence-based medicine (EBM) as a core concept, the Guidelines were prepared by the Research Group on the Preparation and Diffusion of Guidelines for the Management of Acute Cholangitis and Acute Cholecystitis (chief researcher, Tadahiro Takada), under the auspices of the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, and the Working Group for Guideline Preparation, whose members were selected from experts in abdominal emergency medicine and epidemiology by the Japanese Society for Abdominal Emergency Medicine, the Japan Biliary Association, and the Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery.

In principle, the preparation of the Guidelines progressed with the systematic search, collection, and assessment of references for the objective extraction of evidence. Next, the External Assessment Committee examined the Guidelines. Then we posted the draft guidelines on our website and had four open symposia, bginning in September 2004, to gain feedback for further review. Subsequently, a Publication Committee was set up, and this committee had 12 meetings to prepare draft Guidelines.

Re-examination of the draft Guidelines was then performed, via e-mail, with experts on cholangitis and cholecystitis throughout the world. After final agreement was reached at the International Consensus Meeting, held in Tokyo in April 2006, “the Tokyo Guidelines for the Management of Acute Cholangitis and Cholecystitis” were completed.

The process of extending the literature search

The literature was selected as follows: Using “cholangitis” and “cholecystitis” as the medical subject heading (MeSH; explode) or the key search words, approximately 17 200 items were selected from Medline (Ovid; 1966 to June 2003). These articles were subjected to a further screening with “human” as the “limiting word”. This screening provided 9618 items in English and in Japanese. A further 7093 literature publications were obtained from the Japana Centra Revuo Medicina (inter net version), using “cholangitis”, “cholecystitis”, and “biliary infection” as the key words, with further screening with “human” as the “limiting word”. This process provided 6141 items. After the titles and abstracts of a total of 15 759 works were examined by two committee members, 2494 were selected for a careful examination of their full texts.

Other literature quoted in these selected works, together with works suggested by the specialist committee members, were included in the examination.

To evaluate each article, a STARD (standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy) checklist (Table ​1)12 was considered important. The purpose of this checklist is to evaluate the format and study process, in order to improve the accuracy and completeness of the reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy.

However, the STARD checklist is not suitable for classifying various categories (e.g., therapy, prevention, etiology, harm, prognosis, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, economic and decision analysis) and levels of evidence. Therefore, in the Guidelines, the science-based classification used by the Cochrane Library (Table ​2) was adopted.

Table 2

Categories of evidence (refer to levels of evidence and grades of recommendations on the homepage of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine)

The science-based classification used by the Cochrane Library: Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence (May 2001) (http://www.cebm.net/levels_of_evidence.asp#levels)13 was used as a basis to evaluate evidence presented in each article; the quality of evidence for each parameter associated with the diagnosis and treatment of acute cholangitis and acute cholecystitis was determined

The evidence obtained from each item of reference was evaluated in accordance with the science-based classification used by the Cochrane Library (Table ​2), and the quality of evidence for each parameter associated with the diagnosis and treatment of acute biliary infection was determined. As stated above, the level of evidence presented by each article was determined in accordance with the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence (May 2001), prepared by Phillips et al.13 (Table ​2). The terms used in the categories are explained in the footnote to Table ​2.

Categories of evidence and grading of recommendations

Based on the results obtained from these procedures, grades of recommendation were determined, according to the system for ranking recommendations in clinical guidelines14–16 shown in Table ​3, and mentioned, as required, in the text of the Guidelines. The grades of recommendation in the Guidelines are based on the Kish14 method of classification and others.15,16 Recommendations graded “A” (that is, “do it”) and “B” (that is, “probably do it”), are based on a high level of evidence, whereas those graded “D” (that is, “probably don’t do it”) or “E” (that is, “don’t do it”) reflect a low level of evidence.

Table 3

Grading system for ranking recommendations in clinical guidelines14–16

Discussion at the Tokyo International Consensus Meeting

Tadahiro Takada (Japan): “Dr. Strasberg, please explain the difference between a ‘Guidelines’ and ‘Standards’ in your mind?”

Steven Strasberg (USA): “To me, ‘guidelines’ represent a suggested course of action based on available evidence. They do not imply that other courses of action are below an acceptable level of care. Practice ‘standards’ are different, in that they imply that actions other than those listed as acceptable practice standards are below the level of acceptable care. It is particularly true that, in an area in which high levels of evidence are not available, that guidelines are not construed to be standards. Reliance on expert opinion to form guidelines may be useful, but even a consensus of experts may not be correct. For this reason a statement of the following type should be inserted in the introduction. ‘The practice guidelines promulgated in this work do not represent a standard of practice. They are a suggested plan of care based on best available evidence and a consensus of experts, but they do not exclude other approaches as being within the standard of practice’.”

The Members of Organizing Committee and Contributors for Tokyo Guidelines

Members of the Organizing Committee of Tokyo Guidelines for the Management of Acute Cholangitis and Cholecystitis

Advisors and International Members of Tokyo Guidelines for the Management of Acute Cholangitis and Cholecystitis

Working group of the Guidelines for the Management of Acute Cholangitis and Cholecystitis

Members of the External Evaluation Committee

Acknowledgment

We would like to express our deep gratitude to the Japanese Society for Abdominal Emergency Medicine, the Japan Biliary Association, and the Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, who provided us with great support and guidance in the preparation of the Guidelines. This process was conducted as part of the project for the Preparation and Diffusion of Guidelines for the Management of Acute Cholangitis (H-15-Medicine-30), with a research subsidy for fiscal 2003 and 2004 (Integrated Research Project for Assessing Medical Technology) sponsored by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare.

We also truly appreciate the panelists who cooperated with and contributed significantly to the International Consensus Meeting held in Tokyo on April 1 and 2, 2006.

References

1. Charcot M. Lecons sur les maladies du foie des voies biliares et des reins. Pairs: Bourneville et Sevestre; 1877. De la fievre hepatique symptomatique. Comparaison avec la fievre uroseptique; pp. 176–85. [Google Scholar]

3. O’Connor MJ, Schwartz ML, McQuarrie DG, Sumer HW. Acute bacterial cholangitis: an analysis of clinical manifestation. Arch Surg. 1982;117:437–41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Lai EC, Tam PC, Paterson IA, Ng MM, Fan ST, Choi TK, et al. Emergency surgery for severe acute cholangitis. The high-risk patients. Ann Surg. 1990;211:55–9. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199001000-00009. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

5. Haupert AP, Carey LC, Evans WE, Ellison EH. Acute suppurative cholangitis. Experience with 15 consecutive cases. Arch Surg. 1967;94:460–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Csendes A, Diaz JC, Burdiles P, Maluenda F, Morales E. Risk factors and classification of acute suppurative cholangitis. Br J Surg. 1992;79:655–8. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800790720. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

7. Welch JP, Donaldson GA. The urgency of diagnosis and surgical treatment of acute suppurative cholangitis. Am J Surg. 1976;131:527–32. doi: 10.1016/0002-9610(76)90003-9. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

8. Chijiiwa K, Kozaki N, Naito T, Kameoka N, Tanaka M. Treatment of choice for choledocholithiasis in patients with acute obstructive suppurative cholangitis and liver cirrhosis. Am J Surg. 1995;170:356–60. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9610(99)80303-1. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

9. Murphy JB. The diagnosis of gall-stones. Am Med News 82:825-3

10. Eskelinen M, Ikonen J, Lipponen P. Diagnostic approaches in acute cholecystitis; a prospective study of 1333 patients with acute abdominal pain. Theor Surg. 1993;8:15–20. [Google Scholar]

11. Trowbridge RL, NRutkowski K, Shojania KG. Does this patient have acute cholecystitis? JAMA 289:80–6 (level 3b) [PubMed]

12. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Glaziou CA, Irwig LM, Lijmer JG, et al. for the STARD Group; STARD checklist for the reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy. Ann Int Med. 2003;138:40-E-45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Phillips B, et al., Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations on the homepage of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (http://cebm.jr2.ox.ac.uk/docs/levels.html) 2001 revised version

14. Kish MA, Infectious Diseases Society of America Guide to development of practice guidelines. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;32:851–4. doi: 10.1086/319366. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

15. Mayumi T, Ura H, Arata S, Kitamura N, Kiriyama I, Shibuya K, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for acute pancreatitis: proposals. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2002;9:413–22. doi: 10.1007/s005340200051. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

16. Takada T, Hirata K, Mayumi T, Yoshida M, Sekimoto M, Hirota M, et al. JPN Guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis: the cutting edge. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2006;13:2–6. doi: 10.1007/s00534-005-1045-5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery are provided here courtesy of Springer