To Drain or Not: Drainage Procedures Remain a Central Tenet of Management of Infected Collections in Acute Pancreatitis.

Recent literature advocates for delayed or avoidance of catheter drainage of infected peri-pancreatic collections (IPCs) in acute pancreatitis (AP). This may not be realistic for patients at academic centers, many of whom are critically ill. We retrospectively reviewed 72 patients admitted to our institution from 2016-2021 with AP and IPCs. 34.7% had a Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis (BISAP) score ≥3, and 56.9% had a Balthazar score of E. 65.3% were admitted to the ICU, 51.4% experienced respiratory failure, and 47.2% had acute renal failure. In-hospital mortality was 9.7%. Catheter-based drainage alone was the most frequent intervention. Only 8 individuals did not undergo any drainage. Individuals with severe AP complicated by IPCs are critically ill. Avoidance or delay of source control could lead to significant morbidity. Until further research is done on this population, drainage should remain a central tenet of management of IPCs.

Warfarin, not direct oral anticoagulants or antiplatelet therapy, is associated with increased bleeding risk in emergency general surgery patients: Implications in this new era of novel anticoagulants: An EAST multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to assess perioperative bleeding complications and in-hospital mortality in patients requiring emergency general surgery presenting with a history of antiplatelet (AP) versus direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) versus warfarin use. METHODS: A prospective observational study across 21 centers between 2019 and 2022 was conducted. Inclusion criteria were age 18 years or older, and DOAC, warfarin, or AP use within 24 hours of an emergency general surgery procedure. Outcomes included perioperative bleeding and in-hospital mortality. The study was conducted using analysis of variance, χ 2 , and multivariable regression models. RESULTS: Of the 413 patients, 221 (53.5%) reported AP use, 152 (36.8%) DOAC use, and 40 (9.7%) warfarin use. The most common indications for surgery were obstruction (23% [AP], 45% [DOAC], and 28% [warfarin]), intestinal ischemia (13%, 17%, and 23%), and diverticulitis/peptic ulcers (7%, 7%, and 15%). Compared with DOAC use, warfarin use was associated with significantly higher perioperative bleeding complication (odds ratio [OR], 4.4 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.0-9.9]). There was no significant difference in perioperative bleeding complication between DOAC and AP use (OR, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.4-1.1]). Compared with DOAC use, there was no significant difference in mortality between warfarin use (OR, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.2-2.5]) or AP use (OR, 0.5 [95% CI, 0.2-1.2]). After adjusting for confounders, warfarin use (OR, 6.3 [95% CI, 2.8-13.9]), medical history, and operative indication were associated with an increase in perioperative bleeding complications. However, warfarin was not independently associated with risk of mortality (OR, 1.3 [95% CI, 0.39-4.7]), whereas intraoperative vasopressor use (OR, 4.7 [95% CI, 1.7-12.8]), medical history, and postoperative bleeding (OR, 5.5 [95% CI, 2.4-12.8]) were. CONCLUSION: Despite ongoing concerns about the increase in DOAC use and lack of readily available reversal agents, this study suggests that warfarin, rather than DOACs, is associated with higher perioperative bleeding complications. However, that risk does not result in an increase in mortality, suggesting that perioperative decisions should be dictated by patient disease and comorbidities rather than type of AP or anticoagulant use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

The impact of post-operative enteral nutrition on duodenal injury outcomes: A post hoc analysis of an EAST multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Leak following surgical repair of traumatic duodenal injuries results in prolonged hospitalization and oftentimes nil per os(NPO) treatment. Parenteral nutrition(PN) has known morbidity; however, duodenal leak(DL) patients often have complex injuries and hospital courses resulting in barriers to enteral nutrition(EN). We hypothesized EN alone would be associated with 1)shorter duration until leak closure and 2)less infectious complications and shorter hospital length of stay(HLOS) compared to PN. METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of a retrospective, multicenter study from 35 Level-1 trauma centers, including patients >14 years-old who underwent surgery for duodenal injuries(1/2010-12/2020) and endured post-operative DL. The study compared nutrition strategies: EN vs PN vs EN + PN using Chi-Square and Kruskal-Wallis tests; if significance was found pairwise comparison or Dunn's test were performed. RESULTS: There were 113 patients with DL: 43 EN, 22 PN, and 48 EN + PN. Patients were young(median age 28 years-old) males(83.2%) with penetrating injuries(81.4%). There was no difference in injury severity or critical illness among the groups, however there were more pancreatic injuries among PN groups. EN patients had less days NPO compared to both PN groups(12 days[IQR23] vs 40[54] vs 33[32],p = <0.001). Time until leak closure was less in EN patients when comparing the three groups(7 days[IQR14.5] vs 15[20.5] vs 25.5[55.8],p = 0.008). EN patients had less intra-abdominal abscesses, bacteremia, and days with drains than the PN groups(all p < 0.05). HLOS was shorter among EN patients vs both PN groups(27 days[24] vs 44[62] vs 45[31],p = 0.001). When controlling for predictors of leak, regression analysis demonstrated EN was associated with shorter HLOS(ß -24.9, 95%CI -39.0 to -10.7,p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: EN was associated with a shorter duration until leak closure, less infectious complications, and shorter length of stay. Contrary to some conventional thought, PN was not associated with decreased time until leak closure. We therefore suggest EN should be the preferred choice of nutrition in patients with duodenal leaks whenever feasible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.