The Effect of Fascial Closure With Triclosan-Coated Sutures on the Incidence of Abdominal Wall Dehiscence: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: Wound closure with triclosan-coated sutures (TCS) appears to reduce the risk of surgical site infection (SSI). Because there is a strong association between postoperative SSI and the development of acute abdominal wall dehiscence (AWD) after laparotomy, we hypothesized that the use of TCS for wound closure after laparotomy may also reduce the risk of AWD. Methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched from their inception to 01 November 2022. Randomized trials that compared the use of TCS with identical but uncoated sutures for fascial closure were eligible if they could provide individual participant data (IPD) on AWD. From these trials, we only included in the analysis those subjects who underwent open abdominal surgery. The primary outcome was the incidence of AWD within 30 days postoperatively, requiring emergency reoperation. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE methodology (PROSPERO: CRD42019121173. Results: We identified twelve eligible trials. Eight studies shared IPD. The incidence of AWD within 30 days after surgery was 27/1,565 (1.7%) in the TCS group vs. 40/1,430 (2.8%) in the control group (Relative Risk: 0.70 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-1.11, I 2 = 0%, τ2 = 0.00]). The certainty of evidence was moderate after downgrading for imprecision. The incidence of incisional SSI was 163/1,576 (10.3%) vs. 198/1,439 (13.8%), RR 0.80 (95% CI 0.67-0.97). Conclusion: We found no conclusive evidence to support the use of triclosan-coated sutures for the prevention of acute abdominal wall dehiscence after laparotomy. In these selected studies, a significant reduction in incisional SSI was observed.

Combined strategy of upfront CTCA and optimal treatment for stable chest pain: rationale and design of the CLEAR-CAD trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with stable chest pain suspected of coronary artery disease (CAD) usually undergo multiple diagnostic tests to confirm or rule out obstructive CAD. Some tests may not effectively assess the presence of CAD, precluding optimal treatment. A diagnostic strategy of upfront computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) combined with optimal medical therapy (OMT) tailored to the extent of CAD may be superior to standard care in preventing major adverse cardiac events. STUDY DESIGN: The CLEAR-CAD trial is a prospective, open-label, multicentre, randomised, superiority trial of an upfront CTCA-guided strategy in 6444 patients presenting in an outpatient setting with suspected CAD compared with standard care, in approximately 30 participating centres in the Netherlands. The upfront CTCA-guided strategy consists of an initial CTCA which is assessed using the Coronary Artery Disease-Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS 2.0). In patients without CAD (CAD-RADS 0) no specific cardiac medication is mandated. Patients with non-obstructive CAD (CAD-RADS 1-2) are treated with preventive OMT. Patients with obstructive CAD (CAD-RADS ≥ 3) are treated with preventive and anti-anginal OMT; in the presence of pharmacologically refractory symptoms patients undergo selective revascularisation after non-invasive functional imaging for myocardial ischaemia (≥ 10%). Patients with significant left main or proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis on CTCA undergo direct invasive coronary angiography and subsequent revascularisation. The primary endpoint is the composite of all-cause death and myocardial infarction. CONCLUSION: The CLEAR-CAD trial is the first randomised study to investigate the efficacy of a combined upfront CTCA-guided medical and selective revascularisation strategy in an outpatient setting with suspected CAD compared with standard care.

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of optimized mercaptopurine treatment versus placebo in ulcerative colitis patients: The randomized controlled OPTIC trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We assessed the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-guided mercaptopurine treatment compared with placebo in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients failing 5-aminosalicylates. METHODS: Data were gathered alongside the randomized controlled OPTIC trial (EudraCT: 2015-005260-41). The evaluation was performed from a health care and societal perspective as cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses with a time horizon of one year. Volumes and costs of in-hospital care, out-of-hospital care, out-of-pocket expenses and productivity loss were assessed. The main outcomes were the extra costs per additional patient who achieved clinical remission and endoscopic improvement at 52 weeks (responders) and extra costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: In total, 59 patients were randomized to the intervention (n = 29) and control (n = 30) group. Non-significant differences in costs were €63 (-€1267 to €1434; P = 0.93) in favour of placebo from a health care perspective and -€742 (-€3683 to €2016; P = 0.64) in favour of mercaptopurine from a societal perspective. The higher proportion of responders and a non-significant QALY difference of 0.0475 (-0.024-0.117) (P = 0.184) favouring patients on mercaptopurine treatment resulted in €165 extra costs per additional responder and €1326 extra costs per QALY gained from a health care perspective. From a societal perspective, dominance over placebo was observed with cost savings of €1937 per additional responder and €15,621 per QALY gained. The probability of optimised mercaptopurine treatment being cost-effective was 0.80 at a willingness to pay per additional QALY of €20,000. CONCLUSIONS: TDM-based mercaptopurine treatment in UC patients failing 5-aminosalicylates is a cost-effective strategy from a societal perspective.

Digital consults in heart failure care: a randomized controlled trial.

Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) has clear benefits on morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure; however, GDMT use remains low. In the multicenter, open-label, investigator-initiated ADMINISTER trial, patients (n = 150) diagnosed with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) were randomized (1:1) to receive usual care or a strategy using digital consults (DCs). DCs contained (1) digital data sharing from patient to clinician (pharmacotherapy use, home-measured vital signs and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaires); (2) patient education via a text-based e-learning; and (3) guideline recommendations to all treating clinicians. All remotely gathered information was processed into a digital summary that was available to clinicians in the electronic health record before every consult. All patient interactions were standardly conducted remotely. The primary endpoint was change in GDMT score over 12 weeks (ΔGDMT); this GDMT score directly incorporated all non-conditional class 1 indications for HFrEF therapy with equal weights. The ADMINISTER trial met its primary outcome of achieving a higher GDMT in the DC group after a follow-up of 12 weeks (ΔGDMT score in the DC group: median 1.19, interquartile range (0.25, 2.3) arbitrary units versus 0.08 (0.00, 1.00) in usual care; P < 0.001). To our knowledge, this is the first multicenter randomized controlled trial that proves a DC strategy is effective to achieve GDMT optimization. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05413447 .

Restrictive Strategy vs Usual Care for Cholecystectomy in Patients With Abdominal Pain and Gallstones: 5-Year Follow-Up of the SECURE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The 1-year results of the SECURE trial, a randomized trial comparing a restrictive strategy vs usual care for select patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis for cholecystectomy, resulted in a significantly lower operation rate after restrictive strategy. However, a restrictive strategy did not result in more pain-free patients at 1 year. Objective: To gauge pain level and determine the proportion of pain-free patients, operation rate, and biliary and surgical complications at the 5-year follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was a multicenter, parallel-arm, noninferiority, prospective study. Between February 2014 and April 2017, patients from 24 hospitals with symptomatic, uncomplicated cholelithiasis were included. Uncomplicated cholelithiasis was defined as gallstone disease without signs of complicated cholelithiasis, ie, biliary pancreatitis, cholangitis, common bile duct stones, or cholecystitis. Follow-up data for this analysis were collected by telephone from July 11, 2019, to September 23, 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive usual care or a restrictive strategy with stepwise selection for cholecystectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary, noninferiority end point was proportion of patients who were pain free as evaluated by Izbicki pain score at the 5-year follow-up. A 5% noninferiority margin was chosen. The secondary end points included cholecystectomy rates, biliary and surgical complications, and patient satisfaction. Results: Among 1067 patients, the median (IQR) age was 49.0 years (38.0-59.0 years); 786 (73.7%) were female, and 281 (26.3%) were male. At the 5-year follow-up, 228 of 363 patients (62.8%) were pain free in the usual care group, compared with 216 of 353 patients (61.2%) in restrictive strategy group (difference, 1.6%; 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit, -7.6%; noninferiority P = .18). After cholecystectomy, 187 of 294 patients (63.6%) in the usual care group and 160 of 254 patients (63.0%) in the restrictive strategy group were pain free, respectively (P = .88). The restrictive care strategy was associated with 387 of 529 cholecystectomies (73.2%) compared with 437 of 536 in the usual care group (81.5%; 8.3% difference; P = .001). No differences between groups were observed in biliary and surgical complications or in patient satisfaction. Conclusions and Relevance: In the long-term, a restrictive strategy results in a significant but small reduction in operation rate compared with usual care and is not associated with increased biliary and surgical complications. However, regardless of the strategy, only two-third of patients were pain free. Further criteria for selecting patients with uncomplicated cholelithiasis for cholecystectomy and rethinking laparoscopic cholecystectomy as treatment is needed to improve patient-reported outcomes. Trial Registration: CCMO Identifier: NTR4022.

The impact on time between injury and semi-acute surgery for hand fractures after virtual fracture clinic implementation.

The aim of this before-and-after study was to evaluate the implementation of a virtual fracture clinic (VFC) on the time between injury and surgery in patients presenting with a phalangeal or metacarpal fracture and in need of semi-acute surgical treatment. Between 1 January and 30 September 2018 (pre-VFC) and in the same period in 2022 (VFC), 101 and 113 patients were included, respectively. Before VCF implementation, the time between injury and surgery was 8.9 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.1 to 9.6), while after VCF implementation it was 7.6 days (95% CI: 7.0 to 8.3). In 2018, 7% of operations were unacceptably delayed beyond 14 days from injury, which was reduced to 5% in 2022, despite patient-presentation delays of up to 10 days. VFC implementation was associated with a reduction in time until semi-acute surgery for phalangeal or metacarpal fractures and improved the quality of semi-acute surgery planning.Level of evidence: Level III.

The UPDATE trial (UVB Phototherapy in Dermatology for ATopic Eczema): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of narrowband UVB with optimal topical therapy versus optimal topical therapy in patients with atopic eczema.

BACKGROUND: Narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) phototherapy is commonly prescribed for patients with moderate-to-severe atopic eczema (AE). The efficacy of NB-UVB, however, has not yet properly been established, as current evidence is of low certainty. Our aim is to assess the short-term and long-term (cost-)effectiveness and safety of NB-UVB in adult AE patients by performing a pragmatic, multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint (PROBE) trial. This protocol outlines its methodology. METHODS: A pragmatic, multicenter, PROBE trial will be performed with 1:1 randomization of 316 adult patients with moderate-to-severe AE who have inadequate disease control with topical therapy and who are eligible for optimal topical therapy (OTT) or NB-UVB in combination with OTT as a next step. Participants in the interventional arm will receive a minimum of 3 months of OTT combined with 8 to 16 weeks of NB-UVB. The control group receives 3 months of OTT. Following the interventional phase, follow-up will continue for 9 months. Physician-reported and patient-reported outcomes (according to the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) Core Outcome Set) and adverse events are assessed at 4 weeks, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. DISCUSSION: The UPDATE trial aims to provide high-quality evidence regarding the (cost-)effectiveness and safety of NB-UVB phototherapy in moderate-to-severe AE patients. Challenges that are addressed in the protocol include the possible bias arising from applying open-label treatment and the necessity of introducing OTT into the study design to prevent a high dropout rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05704205. Registered on December 8, 2022.

Clinical trial: The effectiveness of long-acting somatostatin analogue for output reduction of high-output intestinal fistula or small bowel enterostomy. A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: High-output intestinal fistulas and small bowel enterostomies are associated with morbidity and mortality. Current standard treatment for output reduction consists of fluid and dietary restrictions and medical therapy. There is conflicting evidence regarding the use of somatostatin analogues for output reduction. AIM: The aim of this study is to investigate whether lanreotide, added to current standard treatment, further reduces intestinal output in patients with high-output fistulas and enterostomies. METHODS: This was an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Adult patients with a high-output intestinal fistula (>500 mL/24 h) or small bowel enterostomy (>1500 mL/24 h) more than 4 weeks post-surgery and receiving standard medical treatment (dietary- and fluid restriction, PPI, loperamide and codeine) for at least 2 weeks were eligible for inclusion. We randomised patients 1:1 between continuing standard treatment (control), and subcutaneous lanreotide 120 mg every 4 weeks with standard treatment. The primary outcome was the number of responders, with response defined as an output reduction of ≥25%, 8 weeks after randomisation. We also investigated the proportional change in output. RESULTS: We randomised 40 patients; 17 had a fistula and 23 a small bowel enterostomy. There were 9/20 responders in the intervention group and 2/20 in the control group (p = 0.013). The proportional output reduction was -26% (IQR -4 to -38) in the intervention group, compared to an increase of 4% (IQR 20 to -13) in the control group (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a high-output fistula or small bowel enterostomy, addition of lanreotide to current standard treatment can provide a clinically relevant output reduction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2013-003998-10.

Cost-effectiveness of temperature monitoring to help prevent foot ulcer recurrence in people with diabetes: A multicenter randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: Diabetes-related foot ulcers are common, costly, and frequently recur. Multiple interventions help prevent these ulcers. However, none of these have been prospectively investigated for cost-effectiveness. Our aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of at-home skin temperature monitoring to help prevent diabetes-related foot ulcer recurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multicenter randomized controlled trial. We randomized 304 persons at high diabetes-related foot ulcer risk to either usual foot care plus daily at-home foot skin temperature monitoring (intervention) or usual care alone (control). Primary outcome was cost-effectiveness based on foot care costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) during 18 months follow-up. Foot care costs included costs for ulcer prevention (e.g., footwear, podiatry) and for ulcer treatment when required (e.g., consultation, hospitalisation, amputation). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for intervention versus usual care using probabilistic sensitivity analysis for willingness-to-pay/accept levels up to €100,000. RESULTS: The intervention had a 45% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-accept of €50,000 per QALY lost. This resulted from (non-significantly) lower foot care costs in the intervention group (€6067 vs. €7376; p = 0.45) because of (significantly) fewer participants with ulcer recurrence(s) in 18 months (36% vs. 47%; p = 0.045); however, QALYs were (non-significantly) lower in the intervention group (1.09 vs. 1.12; p = 0.35), especially in those without foot ulcer recurrence (1.09 vs. 1.17; p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: At-home skin temperature monitoring for diabetes-related foot ulcer prevention compared with usual care is at best equally cost-effective. The intervention resulted in cost-savings due to preventing foot ulcer recurrence and related costs, but this came at the expense of QALY loss, potentially from self-monitoring burdens.

Impact of a Chronic Total Coronary Occlusion on the Incidence of Appropriate Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Shocks and Mortality: A Substudy of the Dutch Outcome in ICD Therapy (DO-IT)) Registry.

BACKGROUND: Chronic total coronary occlusions (CTO) substantially increase the risk for sudden cardiac death. Among patients with chronic ischemic heart disease at risk for sudden cardiac death, an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is the favored therapy for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. This study sought to investigate the impact of CTOs on the risk for appropriate ICD shocks and mortality within a nationwide prospective cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a subanalysis of the nationwide Dutch-Outcome in ICD Therapy (DO-IT) registry of primary prevention ICD recipients in The Netherlands between September 2014 and June 2016 (n=1442). We identified patients with chronic ischemic heart disease (n=663) and assessed available coronary angiograms for CTO presence (n=415). Patients with revascularized CTOs were excluded (n=79). The primary end point was the composite of all-cause mortality and appropriate ICD shocks. Clinical follow-up was conducted for at least 2 years. A total of 336 patients were included, with an average age of 67±9 years, and 20.5% was female (n=69). An unrevascularized CTO was identified in 110 patients (32.7%). During a median follow-up period of 27 months (interquartile range, 24-32), the primary end point occurred in 21.1% of patients with CTO (n=23) compared with 11.9% in patients without CTO (n=27; P=0.034). Corrected for baseline characteristics including left ventricular ejection fraction, and the presence of a CTO was an independent predictor for the primary end point (hazard ratio, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.03-3.22]; P=0.038). CONCLUSIONS: Within this nationwide prospective registry of primary prevention ICD recipients, the presence of an unrevascularized CTO was an independent predictor for the composite outcome of all-cause mortality and appropriate ICD shocks.

Transbronchial cryobiopsy followed by as-needed surgical lung biopsy versus immediate surgical lung biopsy for diagnosing interstitial lung disease (the COLD study): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: An adequate diagnosis for interstitial lung disease (ILD) is important for clinical decision making and prognosis. In most patients with ILD, an accurate diagnosis can be made by clinical and radiological data assessment, but in a considerable proportion of patients, a lung biopsy is required. Surgical lung biopsy (SLB) is the most common method to obtain tissue, but it is associated with high morbidity and even mortality. More recently, transbronchial cryobiopsy has been introduced, with fewer adverse events but a lower diagnostic yield than SLB. The aim of this study is to compare two diagnostic strategies: a step-up strategy (transbronchial cryobiopsy, followed by SLB if the cryobiopsy is insufficiently informative) versus immediate SLB. METHODS: The COLD study was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in six hospitals across the Netherlands. We included patients with ILD with an indication for lung biopsy as assessed by a multidisciplinary team discussion. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the step-up or immediate SLB strategy, with follow-up for 12 weeks from the initial procedure. Patients, clinicians, and pathologists were not masked to the study treatment. The primary endpoint was unexpected chest tube drainage, defined as requiring any chest tube after transbronchial cryobiopsy, or prolonged (>24 h) chest tube drainage after SLB. Secondary endpoints were diagnostic yield, in-hospital stay, pain, and serious adverse events. A modified intention-to-treat analysis was performed. This trial is registered with the Dutch Trial Register, NL7634, and is now closed. FINDINGS: Between April 8, 2019, and Oct 24, 2021, 122 patients with ILD were assessed for study participation; and 55 patients were randomly assigned to the step-up strategy (n=28) or immediate SLB (n=27); three patients from the immediate SLB group were excluded. Unexpected chest tube drainage occurred in three of 28 patients (11%; 95% CI 4-27%) in the step-up group, and the number of patients for whom the chest tube could not be removed within 24 h was 11 of 24 patients (46%; 95% CI 2-65%) in the SLB group, with an absolute risk reduction of 35% (11-56%; p=0·0058). In the step-up strategy, the multidisciplinary team diagnostic yield after transbronchial cryobiopsy alone was 82% (64-92%), which increased to 89% (73-96%) when subsequent SLB was performed after inconclusive transbronchial cryobiopsy. In the immediate surgery strategy, the multidisciplinary team diagnostic yield was 88% (69-97%). Total in-hospital stay was 1 day (IQR 1-1) in the step-up group versus 5 days (IQR 4-6) in the SLB group. One (4%) serious adverse event occurred in step-up strategy versus 12 (50%) in the immediate SLB strategy. INTERPRETATION: In ILD diagnosis, if lung tissue assessment is required, a diagnostic strategy starting with transbronchial cryobiopsy, followed by SLB when transbronchial cryobiopsy is inconclusive, appears to result in a significant reduction of patient burden and in-hospital stay with a similar diagnostic yield versus immediate SLB. FUNDING: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW) and Amsterdam University Medical Centers.

Long-Term Follow-Up of the LEAP Study: Early Versus Delayed Levodopa in Early Parkinson's Disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Levodopa in EArly Parkinson's disease study showed no effect of earlier versus later levodopa initiation on Parkinson's disease (PD) progression over 80 weeks. We now report the effects over 5 years. METHODS: The Levodopa in EArly Parkinson's disease study randomly assigned patients to levodopa/carbidopa 300/75 mg daily for 80 weeks (early start) or to placebo for 40 weeks followed by levodopa/carbidopa 300/75 mg daily for 40 weeks (delayed start). Follow-up visits were performed 3 and 5 years after baseline. We assessed the between-group differences in terms of square root transformed total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale score at 3 and 5 years with linear regression. We compared the prevalence of dyskinesia, prevalence of wearing off, and the levodopa equivalent daily dose. RESULTS: A total of 321 patients completed the 5-year visit. The adjusted square root transformed total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale did not differ between treatment groups at 3 (estimated difference, 0.17; standard error, 0.13; P = 0.18) and 5 years (estimated difference, 0.24; standard error, 0.13; P = 0.07). At 5 years, 46 of 160 patients in the early-start group and 62 of 161 patients in the delayed-start group experienced dyskinesia (P = 0.06). The prevalence of wearing off and the levodopa equivalent daily dose were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find a difference in disease progression or in prevalence of motor complications between patients with early PD starting treatment with a low dose of levodopa 40 weeks earlier versus 40 weeks later over the subsequent 5 years. © 2024 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Clinical statistical analysis plan for the ACCURE trial: the effect of appendectomy on the clinical course of ulcerative colitis, a randomised international multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: The primary treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) is medical therapy using a standard step-up approach. An appendectomy might modulate the clinical course of UC, decreasing the incidence of relapses and reducing need for medication. The objective of the ACCURE trial is to assess the efficacy of laparoscopic appendectomy in addition to standard medical treatment in maintaining remission in UC patients. This article presents the statistical analysis plan to evaluate the outcomes of the ACCURE trial. DESIGN AND METHODS: The ACCURE trial was designed as a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. UC patients with a new diagnosis or a disease relapse within the past 12 months, treated with 5-ASA, corticosteroids, or immunomodulators until complete clinical and endoscopic remission (defined as total Mayo score < 3 with endoscopic subscore of 0 or 1), were counselled for inclusion. Also, patients previously treated with biologicals who had a washout period of at least 3 months were considered for inclusion. Patients were randomised (1:1) to laparoscopic appendectomy plus maintenance treatment or a control group (maintenance therapy only). The primary outcome is the 1-year UC relapse rate (defined as a total Mayo-score ≥ 5 with endoscopic subscore of 2 or 3, or clinically as an exacerbation of symptoms and rectal bleeding or FCP > 150 or intensified medical therapy other than 5-ASA therapy). Secondary outcomes include number of relapses per patient, time to first relapse, disease activity, number of colectomies, medication usage, and health-related quality of life. DISCUSSION: The ACCURE trial will provide comprehensive evidence whether adding an appendectomy to maintenance treatment is superior to maintenance treatment only in maintaining remission in UC patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register (NTR) NTR2883 . Registered May 3, 2011. ISRCTN, ISRCTN60945764 . Registered August 12, 2019.

Development and Validation of the Scoring System of Appendicitis Severity 2.0.

Importance: When considering nonoperative treatment in a patient with acute appendicitis, it is crucial to accurately rule out complicated appendicitis. The Atema score, also referred to as the Scoring System of Appendicitis Severity (SAS), has been designed to differentiate between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis but has not been prospectively externally validated. Objective: To externally validate the SAS and, in case of failure, to develop an improved SAS (2.0) for estimating the probability of complicated appendicitis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective study included adult patients who underwent operations for suspected acute appendicitis at 11 hospitals in the Netherlands between January 2020 and August 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Appendicitis severity was predicted according to the SAS in 795 patients and its sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) for complicated appendicitis were calculated. Since the predefined targets of 95% for both were not met, the SAS 2.0 was developed using the same cohort. This clinical prediction model was developed with multivariable regression using clinical, biochemical, and imaging findings. The SAS 2.0 was externally validated in a temporal validation cohort consisting of 565 patients. Results: In total, 1360 patients were included, 463 of whom (34.5%) had complicated appendicitis. Validation of the SAS resulted in a sensitivity of 83.6% (95% CI, 78.8-87.6) and an NPV of 85.0% (95% CI, 80.6-88.8), meaning that the predefined targets were not achieved. Therefore, the SAS 2.0 was developed, internally validated (C statistic, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.89), and subsequently externally validated (C statistic, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.89). The SAS 2.0 was designed to calculate a patient's individual probability of having complicated appendicitis along with a 95% CI. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, external validation of the SAS fell short in accurately distinguishing complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis. The newly developed and externally validated SAS 2.0 was able to assess an individual patient's probability of having complicated appendicitis with high accuracy in patients with acute appendicitis. Use of this patient-specific risk assessment tool can be helpful when considering and discussing nonoperative treatment of acute appendicitis with patients.

Long-Term Outcome of Immediate Versus Postponed Intervention in Patients With Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (POINTER): Multicenter Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term outcomes of immediate drainage versus the postponed-drainage approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. BACKGROUND: In the randomized POINTER trial, patients assigned to the postponed-drainage approach using antibiotic treatment required fewer interventions, as compared with immediate drainage, and over a third were treated without any intervention. METHODS: Clinical data of those patients alive after the initial 6-month follow-up were re-evaluated. The primary outcome was a composite of death and major complications. RESULTS: Out of 104 patients, 88 were re-evaluated with a median follow-up of 51 months. After the initial 6-month follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 7 of 47 patients (15%) in the immediate-drainage group and 7 of 41 patients (17%) in the postponed-drainage group (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.33-2.28; P =0.78). Additional drainage procedures were performed in 7 patients (15%) versus 3 patients (7%) (RR 2.03; 95% CI 0.56-7.37; P =0.34). The median number of additional interventions was 0 (IQR 0-0) in both groups ( P =0.028). In the total follow-up, the median number of interventions was higher in the immediate-drainage group than in the postponed-drainage group (4 vs. 1, P =0.001). Eventually, 14 of 15 patients (93%) in the postponed-drainage group who were successfully treated in the initial 6-month follow-up with antibiotics and without any intervention remained without intervention. At the end of follow-up, pancreatic function and quality of life were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Also, during long-term follow-up, a postponed-drainage approach using antibiotics in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis results in fewer interventions as compared with immediate drainage and should therefore be the preferred approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN33682933.

Adjuvant Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced Colon Cancer (COLOPEC): 5-Year Results of a Randomized Multicenter Trial.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Whether adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) might prevent peritoneal metastases after curative surgery for high-risk colon cancer is an ongoing debate. This study aimed to determine 5-year oncologic outcomes of the randomized multicenter COLOPEC trial, which included patients with clinical or pathologic T4N0-2M0 or perforated colon cancer and randomly assigned (1:1) to either adjuvant systemic chemotherapy and HIPEC (n = 100) or adjuvant systemic chemotherapy alone (n = 102). HIPEC was performed using a one-time administration of oxaliplatin (460 mg/m2, 30 minutes, 42°C, concurrent fluorouracil/leucovorin intravenously), either simultaneously (9%) or within 5-8 weeks (91%) after primary tumor resection. Outcomes were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Long-term data were available of all 202 patients included in the COLOPEC trial, with a median follow-up of 59 months (IQR, 54.5-64.5). No significant difference was found in 5-year overall survival rate between patients assigned to adjuvant HIPEC followed by systemic chemotherapy or only adjuvant systemic chemotherapy (69.6% v 70.9%, log-rank; P = .692). Five-year peritoneal metastases rates were 63.9% and 63.2% (P = .907) and 5-year disease-free survival was 55.7% and 52.3% (log-rank; P = .875), respectively. No differences in quality-of-life outcomes were found. Our findings implicate that adjuvant HIPEC should still be performed in trial setting only.

MRI in addition to CT in patients scheduled for local therapy of colorectal liver metastases (CAMINO): an international, multicentre, prospective, diagnostic accuracy trial.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines are inconclusive on whether contrast-enhanced MRI using gadoxetic acid and diffusion-weighted imaging should be added routinely to CT in the investigation of patients with colorectal liver metastases who are scheduled for curative liver resection or thermal ablation, or both. Although contrast-enhanced MRI is reportedly superior than contrast-enhanced CT in the detection and characterisation of colorectal liver metastases, its effect on clinical patient management is unknown. We aimed to assess the clinical effect of an additional liver contrast-enhanced MRI on local treatment plan in patients with colorectal liver metastases amenable to local treatment, based on contrast-enhanced CT. METHODS: We did an international, multicentre, prospective, incremental diagnostic accuracy trial in 14 liver surgery centres in the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, and Italy. Participants were aged 18 years or older with histological proof of colorectal cancer, a WHO performance status score of 0-4, and primary or recurrent colorectal liver metastases, who were scheduled for local therapy based on contrast-enhanced CT. All patients had contrast-enhanced CT and liver contrast-enhanced MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging and gadoxetic acid as a contrast agent before undergoing local therapy. The primary outcome was change in the local clinical treatment plan (decided by the individual clinics) on the basis of liver contrast-enhanced MRI findings, analysed in the intention-to-image population. The minimal clinically important difference in the proportion of patients who would have change in their local treatment plan due to an additional liver contrast-enhanced MRI was 10%. This study is closed and registered in the Netherlands Trial Register, NL8039. FINDINGS: Between Dec 17, 2019, and July 31, 2021, 325 patients with colorectal liver metastases were assessed for eligibility. 298 patients were enrolled and included in the intention-to-treat population, including 177 males (59%) and 121 females (41%) with planned local therapy based on contrast-enhanced CT. A change in the local treatment plan based on liver contrast-enhanced MRI findings was observed in 92 (31%; 95% CI 26-36) of 298 patients. Changes were made for 40 patients (13%) requiring more extensive local therapy, 11 patients (4%) requiring less extensive local therapy, and 34 patients (11%) in whom the indication for curative-intent local therapy was revoked, including 26 patients (9%) with too extensive disease and eight patients (3%) with benign lesions on liver contrast-enhanced MRI (confirmed by a median follow-up of 21·0 months [IQR 17·5-24·0]). INTERPRETATION: Liver contrast-enhanced MRI should be considered in all patients scheduled for local treatment for colorectal liver metastases on the basis of contrast-enhanced CT imaging. FUNDING: The Dutch Cancer Society and Bayer AG - Pharmaceuticals.

Digital consults to optimize guideline-directed therapy: design of a pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: Many heart failure (HF) patients do not receive optimal guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) despite clear benefit on morbidity and mortality outcomes. Digital consults (DCs) have the potential to improve efficiency on GDMT optimization to serve the growing HF population. The investigator-initiated ADMINISTER trial was designed as a pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled open-label trial to evaluate efficacy and safety of DC in patients on HF treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (n = 150) diagnosed with HF with a reduced ejection fraction will be randomized to DC or standard care (1:1). The intervention group receives multifaceted DCs including (i) digital data sharing (e.g. exchange of pharmacotherapy use and home-measured vital signs), (ii) patient education via an e-learning, and (iii) digital guideline recommendations to treating clinicians. The consults are performed remotely unless there is an indication to perform the consult physically. The primary outcome is the GDMT prescription rate score, and secondary outcomes include time till full GDMT optimization, patient and clinician satisfaction, time spent on healthcare, and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. Results will be reported in accordance to the CONSORT statement. CONCLUSIONS: The ADMINISTER trial will offer the first randomized controlled data on GDMT prescription rates, time till full GDMT optimization, time spent on healthcare, quality of life, and patient and clinician satisfaction of the multifaceted patient- and clinician-targeted DC for GDMT optimization.

Pain management after pneumothorax surgery: intercostal nerve block or thoracic epidural analgesia.

OBJECTIVES: In patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for pneumothorax, the benefits and risks of single-shot intercostal nerve block as loco-regional analgesia are not well known. We retrospectively compared the effectiveness of intercostal nerve blocks as a viable alternative to thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) regarding pain control and enhanced recovery. METHODS: A retrospective multicentre analysis with single-centre propensity score matching was performed in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for pneumothorax receiving either TEA or intercostal nerve block. The primary outcome was a proportion of pain scores ≥4 (scale 0-10) until postoperative day (POD) 3. Secondary outcomes included variation in pain over time, additional opioid use, length of stay, mobility, complications and recurrence rate. RESULTS: In 218 patients, TEA was compared to intercostal nerve block and showed no difference in the proportion of pain scores ≥4 {14.3% [interquartile range (IQR) 0.0-33.3] vs 11.1% (IQR 0.0-27.3) respectively, P = 0.24}, more frequently needed additional opioids on the day of surgery (18% vs 48%) and first POD (20% vs 42%), had a shorter length of stay (4.0 days [IQR 3.0-7.0] vs 3.0 days [IQR 2.8-4.0]) and were significantly more mobile until POD 3, while having similar recurrences. Intercostal nerve block had higher pain scores early in the course whereas TEA had higher late (rebound) pain scores. CONCLUSIONS: In a multimodal analgesic setting with additional opioids, intercostal nerve block shows comparable moments of unacceptable pain from POD 0-3 compared to TEA and is linked to improved mobility. Results require randomized confirmation.