-
World Journal of Surgery Apr 2022The optimal analgesic strategy for patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) remains unknown. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The optimal analgesic strategy for patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) remains unknown.
OBJECTIVE
The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of different analgesic modalities trialled in AP.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, SCOPUS and Web of Science conducted up until June 2021, identified all randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing analgesic modalities in AP. A pooled analysis was undertaken of the improvement in pain scores as reported on visual analogue scale (VAS) on day 0, day 1 and day 2.
RESULTS
Twelve RCTs were identified including 542 patients. Seven trial drugs were compared: opiates, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs), metamizole, local anaesthetic, epidural, paracetamol, and placebo. Across all modalities, the pooled VAS scores showed global improvement from baseline to day 2. Epidural analgesia appears to provide the greatest improvement in VAS within the first 24 h but is equivalent to opiates by 48 h. Within 24 h, NSAIDs offered similar pain-relief to opiates, while placebo also showed equivalence to other modalities but then plateaued. Local anaesthetics demonstrated least overall efficacy. VAS scores for opiate and non-opiate analgesics were comparable at baseline and day 1. The identified RCTs demonstrated significant statistical and methodological heterogeneity in pain-relief reporting.
CONCLUSIONS
There is remarkable paucity of level 1 evidence to guide pain management in AP with small datasets per study. Epidural administration appears effective within the first 24 h of AP although infrequently used and featured in only a single RCT. NSAIDs are an effective opiate sparing alternative during the first 24 h.
Topics: Analgesia; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Opiate Alkaloids; Pain; Pain Management; Pancreatitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34994837
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-021-06420-w -
The Lancet. Gastroenterology &... Sep 2016There is a lack of robust estimates of the worldwide incidence and mortality of acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic cysts, and pancreatic cancer in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is a lack of robust estimates of the worldwide incidence and mortality of acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic cysts, and pancreatic cancer in the general population. Our aim was to quantitate and compare the incidence and mortality of major pancreatic diseases in high-quality population-based cohort studies.
METHODS
Three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Scopus) were searched independently by two reviewers. Data from eligible studies were subject to meta-analysis to obtain global estimates. A number of prespecified subgroup analyses and meta-regression analyses were also done.
FINDINGS
48 population-based cohort studies (35 on pancreatic cancer, ten on acute pancreatitis, three on chronic pancreatitis, and none on pancreatic cysts) were identified, with a total study population of 296 million individuals and 119 000 patients with pancreatic diseases. Global estimates of incidence and mortality were 8·14 cases (95% CI 6·63-9·98) per 100 000 person-years and 6·92 deaths (95% CI 3·72-12·89) per 100 000 person-years for pancreatic cancer, 33·74 cases (95% CI 23·33-48·81) per 100 000 person-years and 1·60 deaths (95% CI 0·85-1·58) per 100 000 person-years for acute pancreatitis, and 9·62 cases (95% CI 7·86-11·78) per 100 000 person-years and 0·09 deaths (95% CI 0·02-0·47) per 100 000 person-years for chronic pancreatitis. Subgroup analysis based on the WHO regions showed that the incidences of both pancreatic cancer and acute pancreatitis, and mortality from pancreatic cancer, were significantly higher in the American region than in the European and Western Pacific regions, while the incidence of chronic pancreatitis was significantly higher in the European region than in the American region. Mortality from pancreatic cancer was lowest in the Southeast Asian region. The incidence of chronic pancreatitis was twice as high in men as in women, although there was no difference between sexes for pancreatic cancer or acute pancreatitis.
INTERPRETATION
Globally, acute pancreatitis is the most common pancreatic disease whilst pancreatic cancer is the most lethal. However, their burden is not equal across the globe. The epidemiological estimates reported in this study could inform future high-quality studies.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Cohort Studies; Global Health; Humans; Incidence; Pancreatic Diseases; Regression Analysis
PubMed: 28404111
DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(16)30004-8 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Aug 2019Post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is comparatively complex application. Researchers has been investigated prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis...
BACKGROUND
Post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is comparatively complex application. Researchers has been investigated prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), since it has been considered to be the most common complication of ERCP. Although ERCP can lead various complications, it can also be avoided.AIMSTo study the published evidence and systematically review the literature on the prevention and treatment for PEP.
METHODS
A systematic literature review on the prevention of PEP was conducted using the electronic databases of ISI Web of Science, PubMed and Cochrane Library for relevant articles. The electronic search for the review was performed by using the search terms "Post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis" AND "prevention" through different criteria. The search was restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed between January 2009 and February 2019. Duplicate studies were detected by using EndNote and deleted by the author. PRISMA checklist and flow diagram were adopted for evaluation and reporting. The reference lists of the selected papers were also scanned to find other relevant studies.
RESULTS
726 studies meeting the search criteria and 4 relevant articles found in the edited books about ERCP were identified. Duplicates and irrelevant studies were excluded by screening titles and abstracts and assessing full texts. 54 studies were evaluated for full text review. Prevention methods were categorized into three groups as (1) assessment of patient related factors; (2) pharmacoprevention; and (3) procedural techniques for prevention. Most of studies in the literature showed that young age, female gender, absence of chronic pancreatitis, suspected Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, recurrent pancreatitis and history of previous PEP played a crucial role in posing high risks for PEP. 37 studies designed to assess the impact of 24 different pharmacologic agents to reduce the development of PEP delivered through various administration methods were reviewed. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are widely used to reduce risks for PEP. Rectal administration of indomethacin immediately prior to or after ERCP in all patients is recommended by European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines to prevent the development of PEP. The majority of the studies reviewed revealed that rectally administered indomethacin had efficacy to prevent PEP. Results of the other studies on the other pharmacological interventions had both controversial and promising results. Thirteen studies conducted to evaluate the efficacy of 4 distinct procedural techniques to prevent the development of PEP were reviewed. Pancreatic Stent Placement has been frequently used in this sense and has potent and promising benefits in the prevention of PEP. Studies on the other procedural techniques have had inconsistent results.
CONCLUSION
Prevention of PEP involves multifactorial aspects, including assessment of patients with high risk factors for alternative therapeutic and diagnostic techniques, administration of pharmacological agents and procedural techniques with highly precise results in the literature.
Topics: Administration, Rectal; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Biliary Tract Diseases; Catheterization; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Drainage; Humans; Pancreas; Pancreatitis; Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors; Postoperative Complications; Preoperative Care; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Somatostatin; Sphincter of Oddi; Stents
PubMed: 31413535
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i29.4019 -
Gut Aug 2017The benefits of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) in chronic pancreatitis (CP) are inadequately defined. We have undertaken a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The benefits of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) in chronic pancreatitis (CP) are inadequately defined. We have undertaken a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of PERT to determine the efficacy of PERT in exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) from CP.
DESIGN
Major databases were searched from 1966 to 2015 inclusive. The primary outcome was coefficient of fat absorption (CFA). Effects of PERT versus baseline and versus placebo, and of different doses, formulations and schedules were determined.
RESULTS
A total of 17 studies (511 patients with CP) were included and assessed qualitatively (Jadad score). Quantitative data were synthesised from 14 studies. PERT improved CFA compared with baseline (83.7±6.0 vs 63.1±15.0, p<0.00001; I=89%) and placebo (83.2±5.5 vs 67.4±7.0, p=0.0001; I=86%). PERT improved coefficient of nitrogen absorption, reduced faecal fat excretion, faecal nitrogen excretion, faecal weight and abdominal pain, without significant adverse events. Follow-up studies demonstrated that PERT increased serum nutritional parameters, improved GI symptoms and quality of life without significant adverse events. High-dose or enteric-coated enzymes showed a trend to greater effectiveness than low-dose or non-coated comparisons, respectively. Subgroup, sensitive and meta-regression analyses revealed that sample size, CP diagnostic criteria, study design and enzyme dose contributed to heterogeneity; data on health inequalities were lacking.
CONCLUSIONS
PERT is indicated to correct EPI and malnutrition in CP and may be improved by higher doses, enteric coating, administration during food and acid suppression. Further studies are required to determine optimal regimens, the impact of health inequalities and long-term effects on nutrition.
Topics: Dietary Fats; Enzyme Therapy; Enzymes; Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency; Feces; Humans; Nutritional Status; Pancreas; Pancreatitis, Chronic; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27941156
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312529 -
PloS One 2020A current assessment of case reports of possible drug-induced pancreatitis is needed. We systematically reviewed the case report literature to identify drugs with...
OBJECTIVE
A current assessment of case reports of possible drug-induced pancreatitis is needed. We systematically reviewed the case report literature to identify drugs with potential associations with acute pancreatitis and the burden of evidence supporting these associations.
METHODS
A protocol was developed a priori (PROSPERO CRD42017060473). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and additional sources to identify cases of drug-induced pancreatitis that met accepted diagnostic criteria of acute pancreatitis. Cases caused by multiple drugs or combination therapy were excluded. Established systematic review methods were used for screening and data extraction. A classification system for associated drugs was developed a priori based upon the number of cases, re-challenge, exclusion of non-drug causes of acute pancreatitis, and consistency of latency.
RESULTS
Seven-hundred and thirteen cases of potential drug-induced pancreatitis were identified, implicating 213 unique drugs. The evidence base was poor: exclusion of non-drug causes of acute pancreatitis was incomplete or poorly reported in all cases, 47% had at least one underlying condition predisposing to acute pancreatitis, and causality assessment was not conducted in 81%. Forty-five drugs (21%) were classified as having the highest level of evidence regarding their association with acute pancreatitis; causality was deemed to be probable or definite for 19 of these drugs (42%). Fifty-seven drugs (27%) had the lowest level of evidence regarding an association with acute pancreatitis, being implicated in single case reports, without exclusion of other causes of acute pancreatitis.
DISCUSSION
Much of the case report evidence upon which drug-induced pancreatitis associations are based is tenuous. A greater emphasis on exclusion of all non-drug causes of acute pancreatitis and on quality reporting would improve the evidence base. It should be recognized that reviews of case reports, are valuable scoping tools but have limited strength to establish drug-induced pancreatitis associations.
REGISTRATION
CRD42017060473.
Topics: Acute Disease; Databases, Factual; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Pancreatitis; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 32302358
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231883 -
Critical Care (London, England) Mar 2023Current practice guidelines for optimal infusion rates during early intravenous hydration in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) remain inconsistent. This systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Current practice guidelines for optimal infusion rates during early intravenous hydration in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) remain inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare treatment outcomes between aggressive and non-aggressive intravenous hydration in severe and non-severe AP.
METHODS
This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on November 23, 2022, and hand-searched the reference lists of included RCTs, relevant review articles and clinical guidelines. We included RCTs that compared clinical outcomes from aggressive and non-aggressive intravenous hydration in AP. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model for participants with severe AP and non-severe AP. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and several secondary outcomes included fluid-related complications, clinical improvement and APACHE II scores within 48 h.
RESULTS
We included a total of 9 RCTs with 953 participants. The meta-analysis indicated that, compared to non-aggressive intravenous hydration, aggressive intravenous hydration significantly increased mortality risk in severe AP (pooled RR: 2.45, 95% CI: 1.37, 4.40), while the result in non-severe AP was inconclusive (pooled RR: 2.26, 95% CI: 0.54, 9.44). However, aggressive intravenous hydration significantly increased fluid-related complication risk in both severe (pooled RR: 2.22, 95% CI 1.36, 3.63) and non-severe AP (pooled RR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.53, 6.93). The meta-analysis indicated worse APACHE II scores (pooled mean difference: 3.31, 95% CI: 1.79, 4.84) in severe AP, and no increased likelihood of clinical improvement (pooled RR:1.20, 95% CI: 0.63, 2.29) in non-severe AP. Sensitivity analyses including only RCTs with goal-directed fluid therapy after initial fluid resuscitation therapy yielded consistent results.
CONCLUSIONS
Aggressive intravenous hydration increased the mortality risk in severe AP, and fluid-related complication risk in both severe and non-severe AP. More conservative intravenous fluid resuscitation protocols for AP are suggested.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatitis; Administration, Intravenous; Treatment Outcome; Resuscitation; Fluid Therapy
PubMed: 36949459
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-023-04401-0 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Oct 2021Nutritional support is very important in the treatment of severe acute pancreatitis, this study aimed to investigate the effect of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Nutritional support is very important in the treatment of severe acute pancreatitis, this study aimed to investigate the effect of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and enteral nutrition (TEN) on the prognosis of patients with acute pancreatitis.
METHODS
The databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Ovid were searched using the keywords acute pancreatitis, enteral nutrition, and parenteral nutrition to obtain the reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published after 2000. After screening the articles according to the inclusion criteria, risk of bias of the included literatures was evaluated using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. The software RevMan 5.3.5 was used for analysis and the creation of a forest plot and funnel plot.
RESULTS
A total of 488 literatures were preliminarily searched in this study, from which 10 articles were included into the final quantitative analysis, involving a total of 699 participants. A total of 6 literatures (n=329 participants) reported the infection rate indicators. The obtained statistic value [odds ratio (OR) =0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.10 to 0.62] showed TEN had less infection rate that TPN (P=0.003). A total of 8 studies (654 participants) reported the incidence rate indicators of multiple organ failure rate indicator, the obtained statistic value (OR =0.50, 95% CI: 0.24 to 1.08) showed no statistical difference between TEN and TPN (P>0.05). A total of 7 studies (550 participants) reported the mortality indicators. The obtained statistic value (OR =0.59, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.94) showed TEN had less mortality than TPN (P=0.03). A total of 3 studies reported the length of hospital stay indicators. The obtained statistic value [mean difference (MD) -4.18, 95% CI: -5.07 to -3.30] showed the length of hospital stay for TEN was shorter that TPN (P<0.001).
DISCUSSION
Compared with TPN, TEN can reduce the incidence of infection, reduce the development of multiple organ failure, reduce mortality, and shorten the length of hospital stay in patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). However, attention should be paid to prevent the occurrence of complications during the implementation of nutritional intervention.
Topics: Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Pancreatitis; Parenteral Nutrition; Parenteral Nutrition, Total; Prognosis
PubMed: 34763439
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-2469 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the available data from clinical trials and assess the safety issues of tirzepatide (pancreatitis and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the available data from clinical trials and assess the safety issues of tirzepatide (pancreatitis and gallbladder or biliary disease) in type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in three electronic databases, namely Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library, up until March 1, 2023, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tirzepatide to either placebo or active hypoglycemic drugs in individuals with T2D and obesity. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 value and Cochran's Q test, and a fixed effects model was employed to estimate the safety profile of tirzepatide. The safety outcomes of interest, including pancreatitis, the composite of gallbladder or biliary diseases, cholecystitis, and cholelithiasis and biliary diseases, were evaluated. (The composite of gallbladder or biliary diseases incorporated cholelithiasis, cholecystitis, other gallbladder disorders, and biliary diseases.).
RESULTS
A total of nine trials with 9871 participants (6828 in the tirzepatide group and 3043 in the control group) that met the pre-specified criteria were included. When compared to all control groups consisting of basal insulin (glargine or degludec), selective GLP1-RA (dulaglutide or semaglutide once weekly), and placebo, an increased risk of pancreatitis was not found to be significantly associated with tirzepatide (RR 1.46, [95% CI] 0.59 to 3.61; I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.436). For gallbladder or biliary disease, the composite of gallbladder or biliary disease was significantly associated with tirzepatide compared with placebo or basal insulin (RR 1.97, [95% CI] 1.14 to 3.42; I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.558), but not with the risk of cholelithiasis, cholecystitis or biliary diseases.
CONCLUSION
Based on the currently available data, tirzepatide appears to be safe regarding the risk of pancreatitis. However, the increased risk of the composite outcome of gallbladder or biliary diseases observed in RCTs warrants further attention from physicians in clinical practice.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42023412400.
Topics: Humans; Cholecystitis; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Insulin Glargine; Obesity; Pancreatitis; Cholelithiasis
PubMed: 37908750
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1214334 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Nutrition is an important aspect of management in severe acute pancreatitis. Enteral nutrition has advantages over parenteral nutrition and is the preferred method of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Nutrition is an important aspect of management in severe acute pancreatitis. Enteral nutrition has advantages over parenteral nutrition and is the preferred method of feeding. Enteral feeding via nasojejunal tube is often recommended, but its benefits over nasogastric feeding are unclear. The placement of a nasogastric tube is technically simpler than the placement of a nasojejunal tube.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the mortality, morbidity, and nutritional status outcomes of people with severe acute pancreatitis fed via nasogastric tube versus nasojejunal tube.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS on 17 October 2019 without using any language restrictions. We also searched reference lists and conference proceedings for relevant studies and clinical trial registries for ongoing trials. We contacted authors for additional information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing enteral feeding by nasogastric and nasojejunal tubes in participants with severe acute pancreatitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias of the included studies, and extracted data. This information was independently verified by the other review authors. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane to assess the risk of bias and perform data synthesis. We rated the certainty of evidence according to GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs that randomised a total of 220 adult participants from India, Scotland, and the USA. Two of the trial reports were available only as abstracts. The trials differed in the criteria used to rate the severity of acute pancreatitis, and three trials excluded those who presented in severe shock. The duration of onset of symptoms before presentation in the trials ranged from within one week to four weeks. The trials also differed in the methods used to confirm the placement of the tubes and in what was considered to be nasojejunal placement. We assessed none of the trials as at high risk of bias, though reporting of methods in four trials was insufficient to judge the risk of bias for one or more of the domains assessed. There was no evdence of effect with nasogastric or nasojejunal placement on the primary outcome of mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.17; I = 0%; 5 trials, 220 participants; very low-certainty evidence due to indirectness and imprecision). Similarly, there was no evidence of effect on the secondary outcomes for which data were available. These included organ failure (3 trials, 145 participants), rate of infection (2 trials, 108 participants), success rate (3 trials, 159 participants), complications associated with the procedure (2 trials, 80 participants), need for surgical intervention (3 trials, 145 participants), requirement of parenteral nutrition (2 trials, 80 participants), complications associated with feeds (4 trials, 195 participants), and exacerbation of pain (4 trials, 195 participants). However, the certainty of the evidence for these secondary outcomes was also very low due to indirectness and imprecision. Three trials (117 participants) reported on length of hospital stay, but the data were not suitable for meta-analysis. None of the trials reported data suitable for meta-analysis for the other secondary outcomes of this review, which included days taken to achieve full nutrition requirement, duration of tube feeding, and duration of analgesic requirement after feeding tube placement.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to conclude that there is superiority, inferiority, or equivalence between the nasogastric and nasojejunal mode of enteral tube feeding in people with severe acute pancreatitis.
Topics: Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Length of Stay; Nutritional Status; Pancreatitis; Parenteral Nutrition; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32216139
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010582.pub2 -
JGH Open : An Open Access Journal of... Apr 2022We aimed to systematically review the relationship between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and acute pancreatitis (AP). The global... (Review)
Review
We aimed to systematically review the relationship between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and acute pancreatitis (AP). The global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection causes respiratory symptoms and notably also affects the gastrointestinal (GI) system. A systematic review of the available literature on the topic was performed with a search key using the terms "SARS COV 2," "Pancreatitis," "COVID-19" and synonyms. The search was conducted on 27 December 2020 using PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus. A meta-analysis was not conducted due to the low quality and poor comparability of the studies. We reviewed 66 studies that reported data on patients with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and AP using the Atlanta Criteria. Our evaluation revealed a wide age range and diverse clinical presentation of COVID-19 with or without symptoms of AP, some of which preceded typical COVID-19 symptoms. We observed a myriad of complications and one study revealed that patients with both conditions were more likely to require mechanical ventilation and had longer lengths of hospital stay compared with patients with AP without COVID-19. Treatment for AP was mostly supportive, with varied therapies employed for COVID-19. Most cases were considered idiopathic and presumed to be SARS-CoV-2-induced as established etiological factors were not reported. AP should be considered in COVID-19 patients, especially in those exhibiting GI symptoms. Evidence to establish a causal relationship between SARS-CoV-2 infection and AP is currently lacking.
PubMed: 35475200
DOI: 10.1002/jgh3.12729