Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a French prospective single-center experience and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Benefits and cost-effectiveness of robotic approach for distal pancreatectomy (DP) remain debated. In this prospective study, we aim to compare the short-term results and real costs of robotic (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). METHODS: From 2011 until 2016, all consecutive patients underwent minimally invasive DP were included and data were prospectively collected. Patients were assigned in two groups, RDP and LDP, according to the availability of the Da Vinci® Surgical System for our Surgical Unit. RESULTS: A minimally invasive DP was performed in 38 patients with a median age of 61 years old (44-83 years old) and a BMI of 26 kg/m2 (20-31 kg/m2). RDP group (n = 15) and LDP group (n = 23) were comparable concerning demographic data, BMI, ASA score, comorbidities, malignant lesions, lesion size, and indication of spleen preservation. Median operative time was longer in RDP (207 min) compared to LDP (187 min) (p = 0.047). Conversion rate, spleen preservation failure, and perioperative transfusion rates were nil in both groups. Pancreatic fistula was diagnosed in 40 and 43% (p = 0.832) of patients and was grade A in 83 and 80% (p = 1.000) in RDP and LDP groups, respectively. Median postoperative hospital stay was similar in both groups (RDP: 8 days vs. LDP: 9 days, p = 0.310). Major complication occurred in 7% in RDP group and 13% in LDP group (p = 1.000). Ninety-days mortality was nil in both groups. No difference was found concerning R0 resection rate and median number of retrieved lymph nodes. Total cost of RDP was higher than LDP (13611 vs. 12509 €, p < 0.001). The difference between mean hospital incomes and costs was negative in RDP group contrary to LDP group (- 1269 vs. 1395 €, p = 0.040). CONCLUSION: Short-term results of RDP seem to be similar to LDP but the high cost of RDP makes this approach not cost-effective actually.

Incidence and survival of transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy from a French nationwide study of in- and out-patient databases.

BACKGROUND: Precise data about ATTR-CM incidence rates at national level are scarce. Consequently, this study aimed to estimate the annual incidence and survival of transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) in France between 2011 and 2019 using real world data. We used the French nationwide exhaustive data (SNDS database) gathering in- and out-patient claims. As there is no specific ICD-10 marker code for ATTR-CM, diagnosis required both amyloidosis (identified by E85. ICD-10 code or a tafamidis meglumine delivery) and a cardiovascular condition (identified by ICD-10 or medical procedure codes related to either heart failure, arrhythmias, conduction disorders or cardiomyopathies), not necessarily reported at the same visit. Patients with probable AL-form of amyloidosis or probable AA-form of amyloidosis were excluded. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2019, 8,950 patients with incident ATTR-CM were identified. Incidence rates increased from 0.6 / 100,000 person-years in 2011 to 3.6 / 100,000 person-years in 2019 (p < 0.001), reaching 2377 new cases in 2019. Sex ratios (M/F) increased from 1.52 in 2011 to 2.23 in 2019. In 2019, median age at diagnosis was 84.0 years (85.5 for women and 83.5 for men). Median survival after diagnosis was 41.9 months (95% CI [39.6, 44.1]). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first estimate of nationwide ATTR-CM incidence in France using comprehensive real-world databases. We observed an increased incidence over the study period, consistent with an improvement in ATTR-CM diagnosis in recent years.

STADE-HF (sST2 As a help for management of HF): a pilot study.

AIMS: Biomarkers are not recommended until now to guide the management of patients with heart failure (HF). Soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2 (sST2) appears as a promising biomarker. The current study considered pre-discharged sST2 values as a guide for medical management in patients admitted for acute HF decompensation, in an attempt to reduce hospital readmission. METHODS AND RESULTS: STADE-HF was a blinded prospective randomized controlled trial and included 123 patients admitted for acute HF. They were randomized into the usual treatment group (unknown sST2 level) or the interventional treatment group, for whom sST2 level was known and used on Day 4 of hospitalization to guide the treatment. The primary endpoint was the readmission rate for any cause at 1 month. It occurred in 10 patients (19%) in the usual group and 18 (32%) in the sST2 group without statistical difference (P = 0.11). Post hoc analysis in the whole group shows that the mean duration of hospitalization was lower in patients with low sST2 (<37 ng/mL) at admission vs. high sST2 (8.5 ± 9.5 vs. 14.8 ± 14.9 days, respectively, P = 0.003). In addition, a decrease in sST2 greater than 18% is significantly associated with a lower readmission rate. CONCLUSIONS: Soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2-guided therapy over a short period of time does not reduce readmissions. However, sST2 was clearly associated with duration of hospitalization, and the decrease in sST2 was associated with decreased rehospitalizations. Long-term outcome using sST2-guided therapy deserves further investigations.