Percutaneous drainage versus emergency cholecystectomy for the treatment of acute cholecystitis in critically ill patients: does it matter?

BACKGROUND: The aim if this study was to compare percutaneous drainage (PD) of the gallbladder to emergency cholecystectomy (EC) in a well-defined patient group with sepsis related to acute calculous/acalculous cholecystitis (ACC/AAC). METHODS: Between 2001 and 2007, all consecutive patients of our ICU treated by either PD or EC were retrospectively analyzed. Cases were collected from a prospective database. Percutaneous drainage was performed by a transhepatic route and EC by open or laparoscopic approach. Patients' general condition and organ dysfunction were assessed by two validated scoring systems (SAPS II and SOFA, respectively). Morbidity, mortality, and long-term outcome were systematically reviewed and analyzed in both groups. RESULTS: Forty-two patients [median age = 65.5 years (range = 32-94)] were included; 45% underwent EC (ten laparoscopic, nine open) and 55% PD (n = 23). Both patient groups had similar preoperative characteristics. Percutaneous drainage and EC were successful in 91 and 100% of patients, respectively. Organ dysfunctions were similarly improved by the third postoperative/postdrainage days. Despite undergoing PD, two patients required EC due to gangrenous cholecystitis. The conversion rate after laparoscopy was 20%. Overall morbidity was 8.7% after PD and 47% after EC (P = 0.011). Major morbidity was 0% after PD and 21% after EC (P = 0.034). The mortality rate was not different (13% after PD and 16% after EC, P = 1.0) and the deaths were all related to the patients' preexisting disease. Hospital and ICU stays were not different. Recurrent symptoms (17%) occurred only after ACC in the PD group. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients, PD and EC are both efficient in the resolution of acute cholecystitis sepsis. However, EC is associated with a higher procedure-related morbidity and the laparoscopic approach is not always possible. Percutaneous drainage represents a valuable intervention, but secondary cholecystectomy is mandatory in cases of acute calculous cholecystitis.

Biological impact of an enhanced recovery after surgery programme in liver surgery.

BACKGROUND: The clinical and economic impacts of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes have been demonstrated extensively. Whether ERAS protocols also have a biological effect remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the biological impact of an ERAS programme in patients undergoing liver surgery. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing liver surgery (2010-2018) was undertaken. Patients operated before and after ERAS implementation in 2013 were compared. Surrogate markers of surgical stress were monitored: white blood cell count (WBC), C-reactive protein (CRP) level, albumin concentration, and haematocrit. Their perioperative fluctuations were defined as Δvalues, calculated on postoperative day (POD) 0 for Δalbumin and Δhaematocrit and POD 2 for ΔWBC and ΔCRP. RESULTS: A total of 541 patients were included, with 223 and 318 patients in non-ERAS and ERAS groups respectively. Groups were comparable, except for higher rates of laparoscopy (24.8 versus 11.2 per cent; P < 0.001) and major resection (47.5 versus 38.1 per cent; P = 0.035) in the ERAS group. Patients in the ERAS group showed attenuated ΔWBC (2.00 versus 2.75 g/l; P = 0.013), ΔCRP (60 versus 101 mg/l; P <0.001) and Δalbumin (12 versus 16 g/l; P < 0.001) compared with those in the no-ERAS group. Subgroup analysis of open resection showed similar results. Multivariable analysis identified ERAS as the only independent factor associated with high ΔWBC (odds ratio (OR) 0.65, 95 per cent c.i. 0.43 to 0.98; P = 0.038), ΔCRP (OR 0.41, 0.23 to 0.73; P = 0.003) and Δalbumin (OR 0.40, 95 per cent c.i. 0.22 to 0.72; P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional management, implementation of ERAS was associated with an attenuated stress response in patients undergoing liver surgery.