Systematic review and meta-analysis of cerebrospinal fluid drain-related mortality and morbidity after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the incidence of cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD)-related complications specifically in patients who underwent fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (F/B-EVAR). This objective was chosen considering the limitations and uncertainties surrounding its efficacy in preventing spinal cord injury. METHODS: A systematic review following Cochrane Handbook and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted (PROSPERO; #CRD42022359223). Literature searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were performed until May 1, 2023, focusing on studies published after January 1, 2000. The inclusion criteria encompassed studies reporting on F/B-EVAR, CSFD, and drain-related complications. Data extraction and quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were performed by multiple reviewers to ensure accuracy and reliability. A proportion meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the pooled rate and 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary and secondary outcomes were CSFD-related mortality and morbidity, respectively. RESULTS: Six retrospective, observational, single-center studies were included, totaling 1079 patients and 730 CSFD placements (all prophylactic except for one). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale showed a high to moderate risk of bias. The analysis revealed a CSFD-related mortality rate of 1.4% (95% CI: 0.0-4.8; I2 = 67.7%) and an overall morbidity rate of 25.6% (95% CI: 13.6-39.7; I2 = 83.2%). The overall major, moderate, and minor estimated complication rates were 6.1% (95% CI: 4.1-8.5; I2 = 0%), 4.6% (95% CI: 2.4-7.3; I2 = 33.5%), and 26.4% (95% CI: 16.5-37.7; I2 = 84.9%), respectively. Severe complications included intracranial hemorrhage (2.8%), spinal hematoma (1.4%), subarachnoid hemorrhage (1.4%), and CSFD-related neurological deficits (1.1%). A pooled estimate of 11.4% for nonfunctioning drainage was found. CONCLUSIONS: F/B-EVAR patients showed a notable incidence of CSFD-related death and substantial morbidity. This study highlights the limitations of the available data, the high prevalence of complications associated with CSFD, and the need for further research to better understand the risks and benefits of CSFD in F/B-EVAR. This calls for careful consideration regarding the routine use of prophylactic drainage due to the accumulating evidence of the risks associated with CSFD without proven benefit in this specific context.

Trends in the use of cerebrospinal drains and outcomes related to spinal cord ischemia after thoracic endovascular aortic repair and complex endovascular aortic repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative database.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is a dreaded complication of thoracic and complex endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR/cEVAR). Controversy exists surrounding cerebrospinal fluid drain (CSFD) use, especially preoperative prophylactic placement, owing to concerns regarding catheter-related complications. However, these risks are balanced by the widely accepted benefits of CSFDs during open repair to prevent and/or rescue patients with SCI. The importance of this issue is underscored by the paucity of data on CSFD practice patterns, limiting the development of practice guidelines. Therefore, the purpose of the present analysis was to evaluate the differences between patients who developed SCI despite preoperative CSFD placement and those treated with therapeutic postoperative CSFD placement. METHODS: All elective TEVAR/cEVAR procedures for degenerative aneurysm pathology in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative from 2014 to 2019 were analyzed. CSFD use over time, the factors associated with preoperative prophylactic vs postoperative therapeutic CSFD placement in patients with SCI (transient or permanent), and outcomes were evaluated. Survival differences were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 3406 TEVAR/cEVAR procedures met the inclusion criteria, with an overall SCI rate of 2.3% (n = 88). The SCI rate decreased from 4.55% in 2014 to 1.43% in 2018. Prophylactic preoperative CSFD use was similar over time (2014, 30%; vs 2018, 27%; P = .8). After further exclusions to evaluate CSFD use in those who had developed SCI, 72 patients were available for analysis, 48 with SCI and prophylactic CSFD placement and 24 with SCI and therapeutic CSFD placement. Specific to SCI, the patient demographics and comorbidities were not significantly different between the prophylactic and therapeutic groups, with the exception of previous aortic surgery, which was more common in the prophylactic CSFD cohort (46% vs 23%; P < .001). The SCI outcome was significantly worse for the therapeutic group because 79% had documented permanent paraplegia at discharge compared with 54% of the prophylactic group (P = .04). SCI patients receiving a postoperative therapeutic CSFD had had worse survival than those with a preoperative prophylactic CSFD (50% ± 10% vs 71% ± 9%; log-rank P = .1; Wilcoxon P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic CSFD use with TEVAR/cEVAR remained stable during the study period. Of the SCI patients, postoperative therapeutic CSFD placement was associated with worse sustained neurologic outcomes and overall survival compared with preoperative prophylactic CSFD placement. These findings highlight the need for a randomized clinical trial to examine prophylactic vs therapeutic CSFD placement in association with TEVAR/cEVAR.

Risk factors for spinal cord injury and complications of cerebrospinal fluid drainage in patients undergoing fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord injury (SCI) is one of the most devastating complications of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair. Cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) is routinely used to prevent and to treat SCI during open TAAA repair. However, the risks and benefits of CSFD during fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR) are unclear. This study aimed to determine the risk of SCI after F/B-EVAR and to assess the risks and benefits of CSFD. METHODS: We analyzed 106 consecutive patients with TAAAs treated with F/B-EVAR from 2014 to 2019 in a prospective physician-sponsored investigational device exemption study (G130193). Data were collected prospectively and audited by an independent external monitor. All patients were treated with Cook manufactured patient-specific F/B-EVAR devices or the Cook t-Branch devices (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind). CSFD was used at the discretion of the principal investigator. Risk factors for SCI were identified, and CSFD complications were assessed. RESULTS: Prophylactic CSFD was used in 78 patients (73.6%), and 28 patients (26.4%) underwent F/B-EVAR without CSFD. Four patients (3.8%) with prophylactic CSFD developed SCI, including two patients (1.9%) with permanent paraplegia (Tarlov grade 1-2) and two patients (1.9%) with paraparesis (Tarlov grade 3). Multivariate analysis revealed that greater extent of thoracic aortic coverage (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.11; P = .02) and intraoperative blood loss (odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.002; P = .04) were the significant risk factors for SCI. Six patients (7.6% [6/78]) experienced major CSFD-related complications, including subarachnoid hemorrhage in 2.6% (2), spinal hematoma in 2.6% (2), cerebellar hemorrhage in 1.3% (1), and spinal drain fracture requiring surgical laminectomy in 1.3% (1). Minor CSFD-related complications occurred in 20 patients (25.6% [20/78]), including paresthesia during CSFD insertion (10), minimal bloody cerebrospinal fluid (7), drain malfunction (2), and reflex hypotension (1). Technical difficulties during CSFD catheter placement were noted in seven patients (9.0%). Excluding four patients with SCI, intensive care unit stay was 3.3 ± 4.0 days in the CSFD group vs 1.2 ± 0.9 days in the no-CSFD group (P = .007). Total hospital length of stay was 6.0 ± 4.9 days in the CSFD group vs 3.5 ± 1.9 days in the no-CSFD group (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of SCI after F/B-EVAR with selective CSFD was low, and risk factors for SCI were greater with extent of thoracic aortic coverage and intraoperative blood loss. However, the incidence of major CSFD-related complications exceeded the incidence of SCI, and CSFD significantly increased both intensive care unit and total hospital length of stay. Therefore, routine prophylactic CSFD may not be justified, and a prospective randomized trial of CSFD in patients undergoing F/B-EVAR seems appropriate.

Protocolized Based Management of Cerebrospinal Fluid Drains in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) resulting in paraplegia is a devastating complication associated with thoracic endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (TEVAR) whose incidence has significantly declined over time. In this review, we present our experience with a multidisciplinary clinical protocol for cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drain management in patients undergoing TEVAR. Furthermore, we aimed to characterize complications of CSF drain placement in a large, single center experience of patients who underwent TEVAR. METHODS: This retrospective review is of patients undergoing TEVAR with and without CSF drain placement between January 2014 and December 2019 at a single institution. Patient demographics, hospital course, and drain-related complications were analyzed to assess the incidence of CSF drain-related complications. RESULTS: A total of 235 patients were included in this study, of which 85 received CSF drains. Eighty patients (94.1%) were placed by anesthesiologists, while 5 (5.9%) were placed under fluoroscopic guidance by interventional neurosurgery. The most common level of placement was L3-L4 in 38 (44.7%) cases followed by L4-L5 in 36 (42.4%) cases. The mean duration of CSF drain was 1.9 ± 1.4 days. Complications due to CSF drainage occurred in 5 (5.9%) patients and included partial retainment of catheter, subdural edema, epidural hematoma, headache, and bleeding near the drain site. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 5.5% and did not differ between those who received a CSF drain and those who did not (P = 0.856). The overall incidence of SCI resulting in paraplegia was 1.7% in the studied patients. CONCLUSIONS: A protocol-based CSF drainage program for spinal cord protection involves a multifaceted approach in identification and selection of patients meeting criteria for prophylactic drain placement, direct closed loop communication, and perioperative management by an experienced team. Despite the inherent advantages of CSF drain placement, it is not without complications, thus risk and benefit need to be weighed in context of the procedure and the patient with close communication and team approach.

Drain placement confers no benefit after carotid endarterectomy in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Whereas bleeding complications requiring a return to the operating room (OR) after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are infrequent (1%), they are associated with an increased 30-day combined postoperative stroke or death rate. Drain placement after CEA varies among vascular surgeons, and there are limited data to support the practice. The goal of this study was to evaluate factors leading to drain placement and the effect of drains on postoperative outcomes including return to OR for bleeding, stroke, and death. METHODS: There were 47,752 patients identified undergoing CEA using the Vascular Quality Initiative registry from 2011 to 2015. Demographic, preoperative, and intraoperative factors between patients who underwent CEA with (n = 19,425) and without (n = 28,327) drain placement were compared. End points included return to the OR for bleeding, stroke, death, postoperative wound infection, and hospital length of stay. We then compared postoperative outcomes between groups using mixed effect logistic regression models to control for correlation within center. Similar methods were used to show relationship between return to OR for bleeding and other variables. Subgroup analysis of patients with drain placement was compared among centers with high (>66.7% of cases), medium (33.3%-66.7%), and low (<33.3%) use. RESULTS: Patients with drain placement were more likely to be taking a preoperative P2Y12 antagonist (P < .001), to have prior CEA or carotid artery stenting (P < .001), to use dextran (P < .001), and to have a concomitant procedure or coronary artery bypass graft (P < .001) and less likely to use protamine (P < .001) compared with those without drain placement. Drain placement did not prevent return to the OR for bleeding (P < .22). Re-exploration of the carotid artery after closure in the OR (P < .001), preoperative P2Y12 antagonist use (P < .001), and no protamine use (P < .001) were predictors for return to the OR for bleeding among those with drain placement. Of patients requiring return to the OR for bleeding, drain placement did not influence 30-day stroke (P = .82), 30-day mortality (P = .43), or 30-day combined stroke/mortality (P = .42) compared with those without drain placement. Drain placement did not influence postoperative wound infection (P < .3). Hospital length of stay was increased in patients with drain placement (P < .001). Return to the OR for bleeding (P = .24), wound infection (P = .16), and length of stay (P = .94) did not differ between the groups of high, medium, and low drain use. CONCLUSIONS: Drain placement after CEA does not reduce return to the OR for bleeding, nor does it reduce perioperative stroke or death. Drain placement is associated with increased length of stay.

No Advantage of Expanded Polytetrafluoroethylene and Fluorinated Ethylene Propylene-Covered Stents over Uncovered Nitinol Stents for Percutaneous Palliation of Malignant Infrahilar Biliary Obstruction: Results of a Single-Center Prospective Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: To prove that covered stents are more efficacious than uncovered stents regarding patency, safety, enabling of chemotherapy, and survival in percutaneous palliation of malignant infrahilar biliary obstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After failed endoscopic treatment, 154 patients with obstructive jaundice caused by unresectable infrahilar malignancy were randomly allocated to receive an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene and fluorinated ethylene propylene-covered or an uncovered nitinol stent. Occlusion rate, patency, and survival were assessed. Safety and clinical success in terms of chemotherapy were compared. RESULTS: Three patients were excluded post hoc. Fifteen patients died within 7 d and were excluded from patency analysis. Occlusion rates were 32% (21 of 66) for covered and 29% (20 of 70) for uncovered stents (P = .7). Estimated median patency durations were 308 d (95% confidence interval [CI], 178-438 d) for covered and 442 d (95% CI, 172-712 d) for uncovered stents (P = .1). Serious adverse events (P = 1.0) and 30-day mortality (P = .5) were equivalent between groups. At hospital discharge, median bilirubin reduction of 8 mg/dL was found in both groups (P < .001). In the covered stent group, 35 patients (48%) received palliative chemotherapy, vs 29 (37%) in the uncovered stent group (P = .2). Estimated median survival times were 96 days (95% CI, 68-124 d) with covered stents and 75 days (95% CI, 42-108 d) with uncovered stents (P = .6). CONCLUSIONS: In malignant infrahilar biliary obstruction not amenable to endoscopy, no improvement in patency or survival with percutaneously placed covered stents could be confirmed. Covered and uncovered stent types exhibit similar safety profiles and clinical success rates.

Risk Factors, Management, and Outcomes of Pyogenic Liver Abscess in a US Safety Net Hospital.

BACKGROUND: The causes and management of pyogenic liver abscess (PLA) have undergone multiple changes over the past decades. It is a relatively rare disease in the USA, and its incidence rate in the USA is increasing. The last US community hospital experience of PLA was published in 2005. We performed a retrospective study of patients admitted with PLA to an urban safety net hospital. AIMS: To ascertain risk factors, management approaches, and outcomes of PLA. METHODS: Electronic medical record was queried for diagnosis codes related to PLA during the years 2009-2018. Clinical information was compiled in an electronic database which was later analyzed. Main study outcomes were in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmission rate, and intensive care utilization rate. RESULTS: A total of 77 patients with PLA were admitted in the study period. Most common risk factors were diabetes mellitus (23.4%), previous liver surgery (20.7%), and hepatic malignancy (16.9%). 89% of patients were treated with percutaneous drainage or aspiration, and surgical drainage was reserved for other with other indications for laparotomy. In-hospital mortality, 30-day readmission, and intensive care utilization rates were 2.6%, 7% and 22%, respectively. Median length of stay was 11 days (inter-quartile range 7). Rate of antimicrobial resistance in abscess fluid cultures was 40%; 13 cases of Klebsiella pneumoniae liver abscess were noted in our cohort, most of whom were Hispanic or Asian. CONCLUSIONS: PLA was principally managed by percutaneous drainage or aspiration with good outcomes. Further studies investigating the racial predilection of K. pneumoniae liver abscesses could reveal clues to its pathogenesis.

Association of preoperative spinal drain placement with spinal cord ischemia among patients undergoing thoracic and thoracoabdominal endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is among the most devastating complications of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Spinal fluid drainage has been proposed as a viable means to reduce SCI, but few data exist to support its routine use. This study investigated the association of preoperative spinal fluid drainage with the risk of SCI after TEVAR. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative TEVAR module was queried for adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing TEVAR (coverage of zones 0-5) between September 2014 and March 2018 (inclusive). Patients with preoperative spinal malperfusion, aortic rupture on presentation, and connective tissue disorders were excluded. One-to-one propensity matching was used to balance patients on 44 separate dimensions by the nearest neighbor principle to compare those with vs those without preoperative spinal drainage. The primary end point was SCI still present at the time of discharge. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality and prolonged intensive care unit stay (>7 days). RESULTS: Among 4287 patients who underwent TEVAR (mean age, 67.1 [standard deviation, 13.7] years; 1665 [38.8%] women and 2622 [61.2%] men), 2076 had a spinal drain placed. Propensity matching yielded 1292 pairs with adequate covariate balance (all 44 absolute standardized differences <0.1). In the 2584 propensity-matched patients, spinal drain placement was associated with a reduced risk of SCI (1.5% vs 2.5%; risk-adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.89; P = .02). The rates of 30-day mortality (4.5% vs 5.0%; risk-adjusted OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.44-1.01; P = .05) and prolonged intensive care unit stay (7.0% vs 5.7%; risk-adjusted OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.84-1.45; P = .48) did not differ on the basis of spinal drain placement. The crossover rate was 10% (127/1292), and those with postoperative drain placement had a 20% (26/127) SCI rate on discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing thoracic and thoracoabdominal endovascular aortic repair, preoperative placement of a spinal drain, compared with no drain, was associated with reduced risk of SCI. Cerebrospinal fluid drainage as a rescue measure does not provide the same protection offered by routine preoperative placement. Further investigation, including randomized controlled trials, is needed to more definitively determine the role for spinal drainage in TEVAR.

The use of intra-abdominal drain in minimally invasive right colectomy: a propensity score matched analysis on postoperative outcomes.

PURPOSE: No evidences supporting or not the use of intra-abdominal drain (AD) in minimally invasive right colectomies have been published. This study aims to assess the outcomes on its use after robotic or laparoscopic right colectomies. METHODS: This is a multicenter propensity score matched study including patients who underwent minimally invasive right colectomy with (AD group) or without (no-AD group) the use of AD between February 1, 2007, and January 31, 2018. AD patients were matched to no-AD patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were postoperative morbidity and mortality and anastomotic leak. RESULTS: A total of 653 patients were included. Of 149 (22.8%) no-AD patients, 124 could be matched. The rate of postoperative complications (AD n = 26, 21% vs. no-AD n = 26, 21%; p = 1.000), mortality (AD n = 2, 1.6% vs. no-AD n = 1, 0.8%; p = 1.000), anastomotic leak (AD n = 2, 1.6% vs. no-AD n = 5, 4.0%; p = 0.453), and wound infection (AD n = 9, 7.3% vs. no-AD n = 6, 4.8%; p = 0.581) did not significantly differ between the groups. Time to oral feeding was significantly shorter in the no-AD group [2 (1-3) vs. 3 (2-3), p = 0.0001]. The median length of hospital stay was 8 (IQR 7-9) in the AD group while it was 6 (IQR 5-9) in the no-AD group (p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the use of AD after minimally invasive right colectomies has no influence on postoperative morbidity and mortality rates.

Lower incidence of late tamponade after cardiac surgery by extended chest tube drainage.

OBJECTIVES: To ascertain whether extended chest tube drainage decreases the occurrence of late tamponade after cardiac surgery. DESIGN: All patients undergoing cardiac surgery at the Tampere University Heart Hospital, Tampere, Finland, between the 23rd of October 2015 and the 17th of August 2016 were included. The first 260 consecutive patients were treated according to a short drainage protocol, in which the mediastinal chest tubes were removed during the first postoperative day unless producing >50ml/h, and the following 224 consecutive patients by an extended drainage protocol, in which the mediastinal chest tubes were kept at least until the second postoperative day, and thereafter if producing >50ml/4h. The incidence of late tamponade and the length and course of postoperative hospitalization, including the development of complications, were compared. RESULTS: The occurrence of late cardiac tamponade was 8.8% following the short drainage protocol and 3.6% after the extended drainage protocol, p = .018. There were no statistically significant differences in the demographics, medical history, or the procedures performed between the study groups. The in-hospital mortality rate was 3.5%, the stroke rate was 2.1%, and the deep sternal wound infection rate was 1.7%, with no statistically significant differences between the groups. There were no differences in the need for reoperations for bleeding, infection rate, need for pleurocentesis, occurrence of atrial fibrillation, or the length of hospitalization between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Longer mediastinal chest tube drainage after cardiac surgery is associated with a significantly lower incidence of late cardiac tamponade.

Endoscopic biliary drainage in unresectable biliary obstruction: the role of endoscopic ultrasound-guidance in a cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: the use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has increased in cases of failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and there are some concerns. The main aim of the study was to determine the role of EUS-BD in a palliative case cohort. The secondary aim was to compare the efficacy, safety and survival of EUS-BD and ERCP procedures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: this was an observational study at a single tertiary institution, with a consecutive inclusion from January 2015 to December 2016. The inclusion criteria were unresectable tumors of the biliopancreatic region with an indication of BD. Statistical comparison analysis was performed between the ERCP and EUS-BD groups. The incidence between groups was compared using the Chi-square and Fisher exact tests. The log rank test was used to compare the risk of death. RESULTS: fifty-two cases with an indication of palliative BD were included in the study. Transpapillary drainage via ERCP was possible in 44 procedures and EUS-BD was required in eight cases; 15.4% of the cohort and seven using lumen apposing metal stent (LAMS). The technical and clinical success of global endoscopic BD was 100% and 88.5% (ERCP: 84.6% and 78.9%; EUS-BD: 100% and 62.5%, respectively). Pancreatitis was the most frequent adverse event (AE) in the ERCP group (9.62%) and bleeding in the EUS-BD (25%). There were fatal AEs in ERCP (1.9%) and EUS-BD (25%) cases. Patient survival was higher with ERCP transpapillary stents compared to EUS-guided stents, which was statistically significant (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: the requirement of EUS-BD in palliative biliopancreatic pathology is not marginal. EUS-BD is associated with a lower survival rate and a higher rate of fatal AE, which argues against its use as a first choice procedure.

The effect of technical details of percutaneous catheter drainage on the clinical outcomes of infected necrotizing pancreatitis patients

Background/aim: This study aimed to investigate the effect of technical details of percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) on the clinical outcomes of patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP). Materials and methods: A total of 44 INP patients treated in our hospital from October 2013 to October 2015 were included. The correlations of the first PCD treatment data and the clinical outcomes were analyzed. Results: The number of catheters was positively correlated with hospital readmission (r = 0.335, P = 0.032). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that patients with ≥ 3 catheters were more likely to have hospital readmission. Patients with pleural effusion undergoing thoracentesis were more likely to have new intensive care unit admission (P = 0.025) and bleeding in need of intervention (P = 0.032). Patients with more effusion regions had higher incidences of mortality (P = 0.012) and new intensive care unit admissions (2.44 ± 1.03 vs. 1.88 ± 0.80; P = 0.059). Patients with PCD only were less likely to have new intensive care unit admissions (22.22% vs. 54.55%; P = 0.038) than those with PCD + small incision or/and videoscopic assisted retroperitoneal debridement. Conclusion: Number of catheters greater than three was associated with unfavorable outcomes of PCD treatment in INP patients. Patients that received PCD treatment only had better outcomes.

Comparison of treatment of hepatic hydrothorax with catheter drainage versus serial thoracentesis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hepatic hydrothorax is a nonmalignant pleural effusion associated with portal hypertension that may cause increased morbidity or mortality in cirrhotic patients. For patients who are refractory to salt restriction and diuretics, thoracentesis and catheter drainage are necessary for symptomatic relief. This review aimed to identify the best drainage method in patients with hepatic hydrothorax. RECENT FINDINGS: Chest tube placement is discouraged in cases of hepatic hydrothorax due to high complication and mortality rates. Although the complication rate associated with smaller caliber catheter drainage appears lower than with chest tube drainage, patients treated with catheter drainage still had a higher 30-day mortality compared with patients treated by thoracentesis. Catheter drainage was an independent risk factor for 30-day mortality in cirrhotic patients with pleural effusion after adjusting for age, hepatic dysfunction, and other comorbidities. Treating the underlying disorder with liver transplantation can dramatically improve survival in these patients. SUMMARY: The recent evidence supports series thoracentesis as the first-line drainage method in cases of hepatic hydrothorax compared with catheter drainage. Further prospective, randomized, controlled trials are necessary to further evaluate the mortality and complication rates of catheter drainage compared with thoracentesis in cirrhotic patients.

Oncologic effects of preoperative biliary drainage in resectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma: Percutaneous biliary drainage has no adverse effects on survival.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of the current study was to define long-term survival of patients with resectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA) after preoperative percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) versus endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD). METHODS: Between 2000 and 2014, 240 patients who underwent curative-intent resection for HCCA were identified at 10 major hepatobiliary centers. Postoperative morbidity and mortality, as well as disease-specific survival (DSS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were analyzed among patients. RESULTS: The median decrease in total bilirubin levels after biliary drainage was similar comparing PTBD (n = 104) versus EBD (n = 92) (mg/dL, 4.9 vs 4.9, P = 0.589) before surgery. There was no difference in baseline demographic characteristics, type of surgical procedure performed, final AJCC tumor stage or postoperative morbidity among patients who underwent EBD only versus PTBD (all P > 0.05). Patients who underwent PTBD versus EBD had a comparable long-term DSS (median, 43.7 vs 36.9 months, P = 0.802) and RFS (median, 26.7 vs 24.0 months, P = 0.571). The overall pattern of recurrence relative to regional or distant disease was also the same among patients undergoing PTBD and EBD (P = 0.669) CONCLUSIONS: Oncologic outcomes including DSS and RFS were similar among patients who underwent PTBD versus EBD with no difference in tumor recurrence location.

No Association of Timing of Endoscopic Biliary Drainage with Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Non-severe Acute Cholangitis.

BACKGROUND: Biliary drainage via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the first-line treatment for acute cholangitis. Despite the established effectiveness of urgent biliary drainage in patients with severe acute cholangitis, the indication of this procedure for non-severe acute cholangitis is controversial. AIMS: To assess the safety of elective drainage (≥ 12 h of admission) for non-severe acute cholangitis. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 461 patients with non-severe acute cholangitis who underwent endoscopic biliary drainage. Using linear regression models with adjustment for a variety of potential confounders, we compared elective versus urgent biliary drainage (< 12 h of admission) in terms of clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was the length of stay. RESULTS: There were 98 and 201 patients who underwent elective and urgent biliary drainage, respectively. The median length of stay was 11 days in both groups (P = 0.52). The timing of ERCP was not associated with length of stay in the multivariable model (P = 0.52). Secondary outcomes including in-hospital mortality and recurrence of cholangitis were not different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Elective biliary drainage was not associated with worse clinical outcomes of non-severe acute cholangitis as compared to urgent drainage. Further investigation is warranted to justify the elective drainage for non-severe cholangitis.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after pancreatic surgery, compare the effects of different types of surgical drains, and evaluate the optimal time for drain removal. SEARCH METHODS: For the last version of this review, we searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 8), and MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) to 28 August 2016). For this updated review, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and CBM from 2016 to 15 November 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included randomized controlled studies that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified six studies (1384 participants). Two review authors independently identified the studies for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we used the random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Drain use versus no drain useWe included four studies with 1110 participants, who were randomized to the drainage group (N = 560) and the no drainage group (N = 550) after pancreatic surgery. There was little or no difference in mortality at 30 days between groups (1.5% with drains versus 2.3% with no drains; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; four studies, 1055 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Drain use probably slightly reduced mortality at 90 days (0.8% versus 4.2%; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.90; two studies, 478 participants; moderate-quality evidence). We were uncertain whether drain use reduced intra-abdominal infection (7.9% versus 8.2%; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80; four studies, 1055 participants; very low-quality evidence), or additional radiological interventions for postoperative complications (10.9% versus 12.1%; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; three studies, 660 participants; very low-quality evidence). Drain use may lead to similar amount of wound infection (9.8% versus 9.9%; RR 0.98 , 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41; four studies, 1055 participants; low-quality evidence), and additional open procedures for postoperative complications (9.4% versus 7.1%; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; four studies, 1055 participants; low-quality evidence) when compared with no drain use. There was little or no difference in morbidity (61.7% versus 59.7%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13; four studies, 1055 participants; moderate-quality evidence), or length of hospital stay (MD -0.66 days, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.29; three studies, 711 participants; moderate-quality evidence) between groups. There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.2%). Health-related quality of life was measured with the pancreas-specific quality-of-life questionnaire (FACT-PA; a scale of 0 to 144 with higher values indicating a better quality of life). Drain use may lead to similar quality of life scores, measured at 30 days after pancreatic surgery, when compared with no drain use (105 points versus 104 points; one study, 399 participants; low-quality evidence). Hospital costs and pain were not reported in any of the studies.Type of drainWe included one trial involving 160 participants, who were randomized to the active drain group (N = 82) and the passive drain group (N = 78) after pancreatic surgery. An active drain may lead to similar mortality at 30 days (1.2% with active drain versus 0% with passive drain; low-quality evidence), and morbidity (22.0% versus 32.1%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.15; low-quality evidence) when compared with a passive drain. We were uncertain whether an active drain decreased intra-abdominal infection (0% versus 2.6%; very low-quality evidence), wound infection (6.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.05; very low-quality evidence), or the number of additional open procedures for postoperative complications (1.2% versus 7.7%; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29; very low-quality evidence). Active drain may reduce length of hospital stay slightly (MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.67 to -0.13; one study; low-quality evidence; 14.1% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay). Additional radiological interventions, pain, and quality of life were not reported in the study.Early versus late drain removalWe included one trial involving 114 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, who were randomized to the early drain removal group (N = 57) and the late drain removal group (N = 57) after pancreatic surgery. There was no mortality in either group. Early drain removal may slightly reduce morbidity (38.6% with early drain removal versus 61.4% with late drain removal; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93; low-quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -2.10 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -0.03; low-quality evidence; 21.5% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay), and hospital costs (MD -EUR 2069.00, 95% CI -3872.26 to -265.74; low-quality evidence; 17.0% decrease of 'average' hospital costs). We were uncertain whether early drain removal reduced additional open procedures for postoperative complications (0% versus 1.8%; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01; one study; very low-quality evidence). Intra-abdominal infection, wound infection, additional radiological interventions, pain, and quality of life were not reported in the study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It was unclear whether routine abdominal drainage had any effect on the reduction of mortality at 30 days, or postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. Moderate-quality evidence suggested that routine abdominal drainage probably slightly reduced mortality at 90 days. Low-quality evidence suggested that use of an active drain compared to the use of a passive drain may slightly reduce the length of hospital stay after pancreatic surgery, and early removal may be superior to late removal for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Clinical update on management of pancreatic trauma.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic injury is rare and optimal diagnosis and management is still debated. The aim of this study was to review the existing data and consensus on management of pancreatic trauma. METHODS: Systematic literature review until May 2018. RESULTS: Pancreas injury is reported in 0.2-0.3% of all trauma patients. Severity is scored by the organ injury scale (OIS), with new scores including physiology needing validation. Diagnosis is difficult, clinical signs subtle, and imaging by ultrasound (US) and computed tomography (CT) non-specific with <60% sensitivity for pancreatic duct injury. MRCP and ERCP have superior sensitivity (90-100%) for detecting ductal disruption. Early ERCP with stent is a feasible approach for initial management of all branch-duct and most main-duct injuries. Distal pancreatectomy (±splenectomy) may be required for a transected gland distal to the major vessels. Early peripancreatic fluid collections are common in ductal injuries and one-fifth may develop pseudocysts, of which two-thirds can be managed conservatively. Non-operative management has a high success rate (50-75%), even in high-grade injuries, but associated with morbidity. Mortality is related to associated injuries. CONCLUSION: Pancreatic injuries are rare and can often be managed non-operatively, supported by percutaneous drainage and ductal stenting. Distal pancreatectomy is the most common operative procedure.

Preoperative surveillance rectal swab is associated with an increased risk of infectious complications in pancreaticoduodenectomy and directs antimicrobial prophylaxis: an antibiotic stewardship strategy?

BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in the perioperative care, the morbidity rate after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is still higher than 50%. The aim of this study was twofold: first, to assess the correlation between preoperative rectal swab (RS) and intraoperative bile cultures; to examine the impact of RS isolates on postoperative course after PD. METHODS: An observational study was conducted analyzing all consecutive PD performed from January 2015 to July 2016. Based on the positivity/negativity of preoperative RS for multi-drug resistant bacteria, two groups of patients were identified (RS+ vs. RS-) and then compared. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-eight patients were considered for the analysis. RS culture showed a perfect correlation (species and phenotypic antibiotic susceptibility pattern) with bile culture in 157 patients (86.7%). Fifty patients (14.8%) had a RS+. Preoperative biliary drain (PBD) was the single independent preoperative risk factor associated to RS+ (p = 0.021, OR = 2.6, 95% CI = 1.5-11.7). Infective complications (IC) and mortality were independently correlated to RS+ (p = 0.013, OR = 2.9, 95% CI = 1.3-6.7; p = 0.009 OR = 3.4, 95% CI = 1.8-14.9, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative surveillance RS-culture's positivity correlates to biliary colonization that occurs after PBD. IC and mortality after PD are associated with RS+. Preoperative RS can direct antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce morbidity and mortality after PD.

Risk factors and outcomes of pyogenic liver abscess in adult liver recipients: a matched case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Adult liver recipients (ALR) differ from the general population with pyogenic liver abscess (PLA) as they exhibit: reconstructed biliary anatomy, recurrent hospitalizations, poor clinical condition and are subjected to immunosuppression. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors associated with PLA in ALR and to analyze the management experience of these patients. METHODS: Between 1996 and 2016, 879 adult patients underwent liver transplantation (LT), 26 of whom developed PLA. Patients and controls were matched according to the time from transplant to abscess in a 1 to 5 relation. A logistic regression model was performed to establish PLA risk factors considering clusters for matched cases and controls. Risk factors were identified and a multivariate regression analysis performed. RESULTS: Patients with post-LT PLA were more likely to have lower BMI (p = 0.006), renal failure (p = 0.031) and to have undergone retransplantation (p = 0.002). A history of hepatic artery thrombosis (p = 0.010), the presence of Roux en-Y hepatojejunostomy (p < 0.001) and longer organ ischemia time (p = 0.009) were independent predictors for the development of post-LT PLA. Five-year survival was 49% (95%CI 28-67%) and 89% (95%CI 78%-94%) for post-LT PLA and no post-LT PLA, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: history of hepatic artery thrombosis, the presence of hepatojejunostomy and a longer ischemia time represent independent predictors for the development of post-LT PLA. There was a significantly poorer survival in patients who developed post-LT PLA compared with those who did not.

Automated pressure-controlled cerebrospinal fluid drainage during open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Perioperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage is a well-established technique for spinal cord protection during thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) open repair and is usually performed using dripping chamber-based systems. A new automated device for controlled and continuous CSF drainage, designed to maintain CSF pressure around the desired set values, thus avoiding unnecessary drainage, is currently available. The aim of our study was to determine whether the use of the new LiquoGuard automated device (Möller Medical GmbH, Fulda, Germany) during TAAA open repair was safe and effective in maintaining the desired CSF pressure values and whether the incidence of complications was reduced compared with a standard catheter connected to a dripping chamber. METHODS: Data of patients who underwent surgical TAAA open repair using perioperative CSF drainage at our institution between October 2012 and October 2014 were recorded. The difference in CSF pressure values between patients who underwent CSF drainage with a conventional dripping chamber-based system (manual group) and patients who underwent CSF drainage with the LiquoGuard (automated group) was measured at the beginning of the intervention (T1), 15 minutes after aortic cross-clamping (T2), just before unclamping (T3), at the end of surgery (T4), and 4 hours after the end of surgery (T5). The choice of the draining systems was randomly alternated with one-to-one rate until the last six patients consecutively treated with LiquoGuard were enrolled. Primary outcomes were occurrence of spinal cord ischemia, intracranial hemorrhage, postdural puncture headache, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: The study included 152 patients who underwent open surgical TAAA repair during the study period: 73 patients underwent CSF drainage with the traditional system and 79 with LiquoGuard. The CSF pressure values at T1 and T5 were not considerably different in the two groups. By repeated-measures analysis of variance, a significant upward trend of perioperative CSF pressure was observed in the automated group at T2, T3, and T4 (group × time interaction = F3,66; P < .001). No difference was reported in the occurrence of spinal cord ischemia, intracranial hemorrhage, or mortality. The LiquoGuard group reported significantly reduced postdural puncture headache (3.3% vs 16.9%; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative use of LiquoGuard during TAAA open repair was safe and effective. Despite slightly higher intraoperative CSF pressures, the rate of spinal cord ischemia did not increase in the LiquoGuard group, and postdural puncture headache significantly decreased.