Biomarkers In Prediction of Acute Mesenteric Ischaemia: a prospective multicentre study (BIPAMI study): a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Acute mesenteric ischaemia (AMI) is a life-threatening disease where early diagnosis is critical to avoid morbidity and mortality from extensive irreversible bowel necrosis. Appropriate prediction of presence of bowel necrosis is currently not available but would help to choose the optimal method of treatment. The study aims to identify combinations of biomarkers that can reliably identify AMI and distinguish between potentially reversible and irreversible bowel ischaemia. METHODS: This is a prospective multicentre study. Adult patients with clinical suspicion of AMI (n = 250) will be included. Blood will be sampled on admission, at and after interventions, or during the first 48 h of suspicion of AMI if no intervention undertaken. Samples will be collected and the following serum or plasma biomarkers measured at Tartu University Hospital laboratory: intestinal fatty acid-binding protein (I-FABP), alpha-glutathione S-transferase (Alpha- GST), interleukin 6 (IL-6), procalcitonin (PCT), ischaemia-modified albumin (IMA), D-lactate, D-dimer, signal peptide-CUB-EGF domain-containing protein 1 (SCUBE-1) and lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP). Additionally, more common laboratory markers will be measured in routine clinical practice at study sites. Diagnosis of AMI will be confirmed by computed tomography angiography, surgery, endoscopy or autopsy. Student's t or Wilcoxon rank tests will be used for comparisons between transmural vs. suspected (but not confirmed) AMI (comparison A), confirmed AMI of any stage vs suspected AMI (comparison B) and non-transmural AMI vs transmural AMI (comparison C). Optimal cut-off values for each comparison will be identified based on the AUROC analysis and likelihood ratios calculated. Positive likelihood ratio > 10 (> 5) and negative likelihood ratio < 0.1 (< 0.2) indicate high (moderate) diagnostic accuracy, respectively. All biomarkers with at least moderate accuracy will be entered as binary covariates (using the best cutoffs) into the multivariable stepwise regression analysis to identify the best combination of biomarkers for all comparisons separately. The best models for each comparison will be used to construct a practical score to distinguish between no AMI, non-transmural AMI and transmural AMI. DISCUSSION: As a result of this study, we aim to propose a score including set of biomarkers that can be used for diagnosis and decision-making in patients with suspected AMI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT06212921 (Registration Date 19-01-2024).

Spread and feasibility of non-operative management (NOM) of traumatic splenic injuries in adults: a national survey.

In hemodynamically stable adults sustaining a splenic trauma, non-operative management (NOM) represents the standard approach even in high-severity injuries. However, knowledge, structural, and logistic limitations still reduce its wider diffusion. This study aims to identify such issues to promote the safe and effective management of these injuries.A survey was developed using the SurveyMonkey® software and spread nationally in Italy. The survey was structured into: (1) Knowledge of classification systems; (2) Availability to refer patients; (3) Patients monitoring and follow-up; (4) Center-related.The survey was filled in by 327 surgeons, with a completeness rate of 63%. Three responders out of four are used to manage trauma patients. Despite most responders knowing the existing classifications, their use is still limited in daily practice. If a patient needs to be centralized, the concern about possible clinical deterioration represent the main obstacle to achieving a NOM. The lack of protocols does not allow standardization of patient surveillance according to the degree of injury. The imaging follow-up is not standardized as well, varying between computed tomography, ultrasound, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound.The classification systems need to be spread to all the trauma-dedicated physicians, to speak a common language. A more rational centralization of patients should be promoted, ideally through agreements between peripheral and reference centers, both at regional and local level. Standardized protocols need to be shared nationally, as well as the clinical and imaging follow-up criteria should be adapted to the local features.