Long-term follow-up study of necrotising pancreatitis: interventions, complications and quality of life.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the long-term consequences of necrotising pancreatitis, including complications, the need for interventions and the quality of life. DESIGN: Long-term follow-up of a prospective multicentre cohort of 373 necrotising pancreatitis patients (2005-2008) was performed. Patients were prospectively evaluated and received questionnaires. Readmissions (ie, for recurrent or chronic pancreatitis), interventions, pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life were compared between initial treatment groups: conservative, endoscopic/percutaneous drainage alone and necrosectomy. Associations of patient and disease characteristics during index admission with outcomes during follow-up were assessed. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 13.5 years (range 12-15.5 years), 97/373 patients (26%) were readmitted for recurrent pancreatitis. Endoscopic or percutaneous drainage was performed in 47/373 patients (13%), of whom 21/47 patients (45%) were initially treated conservatively. Pancreatic necrosectomy or pancreatic surgery was performed in 31/373 patients (8%), without differences between treatment groups. Endocrine insufficiency (126/373 patients; 34%) and exocrine insufficiency (90/373 patients; 38%), developed less often following conservative treatment (p<0.001 and p=0.016, respectively). Quality of life scores did not differ between groups. Pancreatic gland necrosis >50% during initial admission was associated with percutaneous/endoscopic drainage (OR 4.3 (95% CI 1.5 to 12.2)), pancreatic surgery (OR 3.2 (95% CI 1.1 to 9.5) and development of endocrine insufficiency (OR13.1 (95% CI 5.3 to 32.0) and exocrine insufficiency (OR6.1 (95% CI 2.4 to 15.5) during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Acute necrotising pancreatitis carries a substantial disease burden during long-term follow-up in terms of recurrent disease, the necessity for interventions and development of pancreatic insufficiency, even when treated conservatively during the index admission. Extensive (>50%) pancreatic parenchymal necrosis seems to be an important predictor of interventions and complications during follow-up.

Long-Term Outcome of Immediate Versus Postponed Intervention in Patients With Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (POINTER): Multicenter Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term outcomes of immediate drainage versus the postponed-drainage approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. BACKGROUND: In the randomized POINTER trial, patients assigned to the postponed-drainage approach using antibiotic treatment required fewer interventions, as compared with immediate drainage, and over a third were treated without any intervention. METHODS: Clinical data of those patients alive after the initial 6-month follow-up were re-evaluated. The primary outcome was a composite of death and major complications. RESULTS: Out of 104 patients, 88 were re-evaluated with a median follow-up of 51 months. After the initial 6-month follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 7 of 47 patients (15%) in the immediate-drainage group and 7 of 41 patients (17%) in the postponed-drainage group (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.33-2.28; P =0.78). Additional drainage procedures were performed in 7 patients (15%) versus 3 patients (7%) (RR 2.03; 95% CI 0.56-7.37; P =0.34). The median number of additional interventions was 0 (IQR 0-0) in both groups ( P =0.028). In the total follow-up, the median number of interventions was higher in the immediate-drainage group than in the postponed-drainage group (4 vs. 1, P =0.001). Eventually, 14 of 15 patients (93%) in the postponed-drainage group who were successfully treated in the initial 6-month follow-up with antibiotics and without any intervention remained without intervention. At the end of follow-up, pancreatic function and quality of life were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Also, during long-term follow-up, a postponed-drainage approach using antibiotics in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis results in fewer interventions as compared with immediate drainage and should therefore be the preferred approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN33682933.

Poor Prognostic Factors in Long-Term Survivors of Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: An International, Multicenter Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the rate of LTS in resected PDAC and determine the association between predictors of OS and LTS. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Long-term survival (>5 y, LTS) remains rare in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Multiple predictors of overall survival (OS) are known but their association with LTS remains unclear. METHODS: An international, multicenter retrospective study was conducted. Included were patients from 2012-2019 with resected PDAC. Excluded were those with metastases at diagnosis or resection, R2 resections, and 90-day mortality. Predictors of OS were identified using multivariable Cox regression and their prevalence in patients with LTS assessed. LTS was calculated by excluding patients with shorter follow-up and predictors of LTS were identified using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: 3,003 patients were included (27.4% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy). Elevated baseline CA19-9, high tumor grade, nodal disease, and perineural and lymphovascular invasion were negative independent predictors of OS, while receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy predicted improved OS (all P<0.05). LTS was observed in 220/2,436 patients (9.0%), of whom 198 (90%) harbored poor prognostic factors: elevated baseline CA19-9 (58.1%), poor tumor differentiation (51.0%), nodal disease (46.8%), and perineural invasion (76.0%). Of those without any of these four features, 50.0% achieved LTS as compared to 21.3%, 13.3%, 5.2%, and 3.5% in those with 1, 2, 3, or 4 features. CONCLUSIONS: This bi-national cohort demonstrates a true LTS rate of 9.0% in resected PDAC. Clinicians should remain aware that presence of poor prognostic factors does not preclude LTS.

Immediate versus Postponed Intervention for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Infected necrotizing pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that is treated with the use of a step-up approach, with catheter drainage often delayed until the infected necrosis is encapsulated. Whether outcomes could be improved by earlier catheter drainage is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized superiority trial involving patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, in which we compared immediate drainage within 24 hours after randomization once infected necrosis was diagnosed with drainage that was postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis was reached. The primary end point was the score on the Comprehensive Complication Index, which incorporates all complications over the course of 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were randomly assigned to immediate drainage (55 patients) or postponed drainage (49 patients). The mean score on the Comprehensive Complication Index (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe complications) was 57 in the immediate-drainage group and 58 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, -1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12 to 10; P = 0.90). Mortality was 13% in the immediate-drainage group and 10% in the postponed-drainage group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.42 to 3.68). The mean number of interventions (catheter drainage and necrosectomy) was 4.4 in the immediate-drainage group and 2.6 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.0). In the postponed-drainage group, 19 patients (39%) were treated conservatively with antibiotics and did not require drainage; 17 of these patients survived. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This trial did not show the superiority of immediate drainage over postponed drainage with regard to complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Patients randomly assigned to the postponed-drainage strategy received fewer invasive interventions. (Funded by Fonds NutsOhra and Amsterdam UMC; POINTER ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN33682933.).

Nutritional support in pancreatic cancer patients and its effect on nutritional status: an observational regional HPB network study investigating current practice.

PURPOSE: Preoperative malnutrition is associated with poor postoperative outcomes in patients with pancreatic cancer. This study evaluated the effectiveness of current practice in nutritional support for patients with pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Observational multicenter HPB network study conducted at the Isala Clinics Zwolle, Medical Spectrum Twente, Medical Center Leeuwarden, and University Medical Center Groningen between October 2021 and May 2023. Patients with a suspected pancreatic malignancy scheduled for surgery were screened for malnutrition using the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) questionnaire and referred to a dedicated dietician for nutritional support comprising pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, dietary advice, and nutritional supplements to achieve adequate caloric and protein intake. At baseline, 1 day preoperatively, and 3 months postoperatively, the nutritional status and muscle thickness were evaluated. RESULTS: The study included 30 patients, of whom 12 (40%) classified as malnourished (PG-SGA ≥ 4) at baseline. Compared to well-nourished patients, malnourished patients were younger, were predominantly female, and had a higher body mass index, despite having lost more body weight in the past 6 months. All malnourished patients and 78% of the well-nourished patients received nutritional support. Consequently, a preoperative increase in caloric and protein intake and body weight were observed. Postoperatively, despite a further increase in caloric intake, a considerable decrease in protein intake, body weight, and muscle thickness was observed. CONCLUSION: Malnutrition is prevalent in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. Nutritional support by a dedicated dietician is effective in enhancing patients' preoperative nutritional status. However, postoperative monitoring of adequate nutritional intake in patients could be improved.

Trends and overall survival after combined liver resection and thermal ablation of colorectal liver metastases: a nationwide population-based propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: In colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) patients, combination of liver resection and ablation permit a more parenchymal-sparing approach. This study assessed trends in use of combined resection and ablation, outcomes, and overall survival (OS). METHODS: This population-based study included all CRLM patients who underwent liver resection between 2014 and 2022. To assess OS, data was linked to two databases containing date of death for patients treated between 2014 and 2018. Hospital variation in the use of combined minor liver resection and ablation versus major liver resection alone in patients with 2-3 CRLM and ≤3 cm was assessed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to evaluate outcomes. RESULTS: This study included 3593 patients, of whom 1336 (37.2%) underwent combined resection and ablation. Combined resection increased from 31.7% in 2014 to 47.9% in 2022. Significant hospital variation (range 5.9-53.8%) was observed in the use of combined minor liver resection and ablation. PSM resulted in 1005 patients in each group. Major morbidity was not different (11.6% vs. 5%, P = 1.00). Liver failure occurred less often after combined resection and ablation (1.9% vs. 0.6%, P = 0.017). Five-year OS rates were not different (39.3% vs. 33.9%, P = 0.145). CONCLUSION: Combined resection and ablation should be available and considered as an alternative to resection alone in any patient with multiple metastases.

Hospital variation and outcomes after repeat hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases: a nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 70% of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) experiences intrahepatic recurrence after initial liver resection. This study assessed outcomes and hospital variation in repeat liver resections (R-LR). METHODS: This population-based study included all patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM between 2014 and 2022 in the Netherlands. Overall survival (OS) was collected for patients operated on between 2014 and 2018 by linkage to the insurance database. RESULTS: Data of 7479 liver resections (1391 (18.6%) repeat and 6088 (81.4%) primary) were analysed. Major morbidity and mortality were not different. Factors associated with major morbidity included ASA 3+, major liver resection, extrahepatic disease, and open surgery. Five-year OS after repeat versus primary liver resection was 42.3% versus 44.8%, P = 0.37. Factors associated with worse OS included largest CRLM >5 cm (aHR 1.58, 95% CI: 1.07-2.34, P = 0.023), >3 CRLM (aHR 1.33, 95% CI: 1.00-1.75, P = 0.046), extrahepatic disease (aHR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.25-2.04, P = 0.001), positive tumour margins (aHR 1.42, 95% CI: 1.09-1.85, P = 0.009). Significant hospital variation in performance of R-LR was observed, median 18.9% (8.2% to 33.3%). CONCLUSION: Significant hospital variation was observed in performance of R-LR in the Netherlands reflecting different treatment decisions upon recurrence. On a population-based level R-LR leads to satisfactory survival.

Nationwide Outcome after Pancreatoduodenectomy in Patients at very High Risk (ISGPS-D) for Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula.

OBJECTIVE: To assess nationwide surgical outcome after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in patients at very high risk for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), categorized as ISGPS-D. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Morbidity and mortality after ISGPS-D PD is perceived so high that a recent randomized trial advocated prophylactic total pancreatectomy (TP) as alternative aiming to lower this risk. However, current outcomes of ISGPS-D PD remain unknown as large nationwide series are lacking. METHODS: Nationwide retrospective analysis including consecutive patients undergoing ISGPS-D PD (i.e., soft texture and pancreatic duct ≤3 mm), using the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014-2021). Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and secondary outcomes included major morbidity (i.e., Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa) and POPF (ISGPS grade B/C). The use of prophylactic TP to avoid POPF during the study period was assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 1402 patients were included. In-hospital mortality was 4.1% (n=57), which decreased to 3.7% (n=20/536) in the last 2 years. Major morbidity occurred in 642 patients (45.9%) and POPF in 410 (30.0%), which corresponded with failure to rescue in 8.9% (n=57/642). Patients with POPF had increased rates of major morbidity (88.0% vs. 28.3%; P<0.001) and mortality (6.3% vs. 3.5%; P=0.016), compared to patients without POPF. Among 190 patients undergoing TP, prophylactic TP to prevent POPF was performed in 4 (2.1%). CONCLUSION: This nationwide series found a 4.1% in-hospital mortality after ISGPS-D PD with 45.9% major morbidity, leaving little room for improvement through prophylactic TP. Nevertheless, given the outcomes in 30% of patients who develop POPF, future randomized trials should aim to prevent and mitigate POPF in this high-risk category.

Practice variation and outcomes of minimally invasive minor liver resections in patients with colorectal liver metastases: a population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: In 2017, the Southampton guideline stated that minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) should considered standard practice for minor liver resections. This study aimed to assess recent implementation rates of minor MILR, factors associated with performing MILR, hospital variation, and outcomes in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). METHODS: This population-based study included all patients who underwent minor liver resection for CRLM in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2021. Factors associated with MILR and nationwide hospital variation were assessed using multilevel multivariable logistic regression. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was applied to compare outcomes between minor MILR and minor open liver resections. Overall survival (OS) was assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis on patients operated until 2018. RESULTS: Of 4,488 patients included, 1,695 (37.8%) underwent MILR. PSM resulted in 1,338 patients in each group. Implementation of MILR increased to 51.2% in 2021. Factors associated with not performing MILR included treatment with preoperative chemotherapy (aOR 0.61 CI:0.50-0.75, p < 0.001), treatment in a tertiary referral hospital (aOR 0.57 CI:0.50-0.67, p < 0.001), and larger diameter and number of CRLM. Significant hospital variation was observed in use of MILR (7.5% to 93.0%). After case-mix correction, six hospitals performed fewer, and six hospitals performed more MILRs than expected. In the PSM cohort, MILR was associated with a decrease in blood loss (aOR 0.99 CI:0.99-0.99, p < 0.01), cardiac complications (aOR 0.29, CI:0.10-0.70, p = 0.009), IC admissions (aOR 0.66, CI:0.50-0.89, p = 0.005), and shorter hospital stay (aOR CI:0.94-0.99, p < 0.01). Five-year OS rates for MILR and OLR were 53.7% versus 48.6%, p = 0.21. CONCLUSION: Although uptake of MILR is increasing in the Netherlands, significant hospital variation remains. MILR benefits short-term outcomes, while overall survival is comparable to open liver surgery.

Superiority of Step-up Approach vs Open Necrosectomy in Long-term Follow-up of Patients With Necrotizing Pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In a 2010 randomized trial (the PANTER trial), a surgical step-up approach for infected necrotizing pancreatitis was found to reduce the composite endpoint of death or major complications compared with open necrosectomy; 35% of patients were successfully treated with simple catheter drainage only. There is concern, however, that minimally invasive treatment increases the need for reinterventions for residual peripancreatic necrotic collections and other complications during the long term. We therefore performed a long-term follow-up study. METHODS: We reevaluated all the 73 patients (of the 88 patients randomly assigned to groups) who were still alive after the index admission, at a mean 86 months (±11 months) of follow-up. We collected data on all clinical and health care resource utilization endpoints through this follow-up period. The primary endpoint was death or major complications (the same as for the PANTER trial). We also measured exocrine insufficiency, quality of life (using the Short Form-36 and EuroQol 5 dimensions forms), and Izbicki pain scores. RESULTS: From index admission to long-term follow-up, 19 patients (44%) died or had major complications in the step-up group compared with 33 patients (73%) in the open-necrosectomy group (P = .005). Significantly lower proportions of patients in the step-up group had incisional hernias (23% vs 53%; P = .004), pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (29% vs 56%; P = .03), or endocrine insufficiency (40% vs 64%; P = .05). There were no significant differences between groups in proportions of patients requiring additional drainage procedures (11% vs 13%; P = .99) or pancreatic surgery (11% vs 5%; P = .43), or in recurrent acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, Izbicki pain scores, or medical costs. Quality of life increased during follow-up without a significant difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of long-term outcomes of trial participants, we found the step-up approach for necrotizing pancreatitis to be superior to open necrosectomy, without increased risk of reinterventions.

Early versus on-demand nasoenteric tube feeding in acute pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Early enteral feeding through a nasoenteric feeding tube is often used in patients with severe acute pancreatitis to prevent gut-derived infections, but evidence to support this strategy is limited. We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing early nasoenteric tube feeding with an oral diet at 72 hours after presentation to the emergency department in patients with acute pancreatitis. METHODS: We enrolled patients with acute pancreatitis who were at high risk for complications on the basis of an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 8 or higher (on a scale of 0 to 71, with higher scores indicating more severe disease), an Imrie or modified Glasgow score of 3 or higher (on a scale of 0 to 8, with higher scores indicating more severe disease), or a serum C-reactive protein level of more than 150 mg per liter. Patients were randomly assigned to nasoenteric tube feeding within 24 hours after randomization (early group) or to an oral diet initiated 72 hours after presentation (on-demand group), with tube feeding provided if the oral diet was not tolerated. The primary end point was a composite of major infection (infected pancreatic necrosis, bacteremia, or pneumonia) or death during 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 208 patients were enrolled at 19 Dutch hospitals. The primary end point occurred in 30 of 101 patients (30%) in the early group and in 28 of 104 (27%) in the on-demand group (risk ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.44; P=0.76). There were no significant differences between the early group and the on-demand group in the rate of major infection (25% and 26%, respectively; P=0.87) or death (11% and 7%, respectively; P=0.33). In the on-demand group, 72 patients (69%) tolerated an oral diet and did not require tube feeding. CONCLUSIONS: This trial did not show the superiority of early nasoenteric tube feeding, as compared with an oral diet after 72 hours, in reducing the rate of infection or death in patients with acute pancreatitis at high risk for complications. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and others; PYTHON Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN18170985.).

The Influence of Hospital Volume on Circumferential Resection Margin Involvement: Results of the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit.

UNLABELLED: This population-based study evaluates the association between hospital volume and CRM (circumferential resection margin) involvement, adjusted for other confounders, in rectal cancer surgery. A low hospital volume (<20 cases/year) was independently associated with a higher risk of CRM involvement (odds ratio=1.54; 95% CI: 1.12-2.11). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between hospital volume and CRM (circumferential resection margin) involvement in rectal cancer surgery. BACKGROUND: To guarantee the quality of surgical treatment of rectal cancer, the Association of Surgeons of the Netherlands has stated a minimal annual volume standard of 20 procedures per hospital. The influence of hospital volume has been examined for different outcome variables in rectal cancer surgery. Its influence on the pathological outcome (CRM) however remains unclear. As long-term outcomes are best predicted by the CRM status, this parameter is of essential importance in the debate on the justification of minimal volume standards in rectal cancer surgery. METHODS: Data from the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit (2011-2012) were used. Hospital volume was divided into 3 groups, and baseline characteristics were described. The influence of hospital volume on CRM involvement was analyzed, in a multivariate model, between low- and high-volume hospitals, according to the minimal volume standards. RESULTS: This study included 5161 patients. CRM was recorded in 86% of patients. CRM involvement was 11% in low-volume group versus 7.7% and 7.9% in the medium- and high-volume group (P≤0.001). After adjustment for relevant confounders, the influence of hospital volume on CRM involvement was still significant odds ratio (OR) = 1.54; 95% CI: 1.12-2.11). CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of this pooled analysis support minimal volume standards in rectal cancer surgery. Low hospital volume was independently associated with a higher risk of CRM involvement (OR = 1.54; 95% CI: 1.12-2.11).

Same-admission versus interval cholecystectomy for mild gallstone pancreatitis (PONCHO): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis, cholecystectomy during the same hospital admission might reduce the risk of recurrent gallstone-related complications, compared with the more commonly used strategy of interval cholecystectomy. However, evidence to support same-admission cholecystectomy is poor, and concerns exist about an increased risk of cholecystectomy-related complications with this approach. In this study, we aimed to compare same-admission and interval cholecystectomy, with the hypothesis that same-admission cholecystectomy would reduce the risk of recurrent gallstone-related complications without increasing the difficulty of surgery. METHODS: For this multicentre, parallel-group, assessor-masked, randomised controlled superiority trial, inpatients recovering from mild gallstone pancreatitis at 23 hospitals in the Netherlands (with hospital discharge foreseen within 48 h) were assessed for eligibility. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were eligible for randomisation if they had a serum C-reactive protein concentration less than 100 mg/L, no need for opioid analgesics, and could tolerate a normal oral diet. Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class III physical status who were older than 75 years of age, all ASA class IV patients, those with chronic pancreatitis, and those with ongoing alcohol misuse were excluded. A central study coordinator randomly assigned eligible patients (1:1) by computer-based randomisation, with varying block sizes of two and four patients, to cholecystectomy within 3 days of randomisation (same-admission cholecystectomy) or to discharge and cholecystectomy 25-30 days after randomisation (interval cholecystectomy). Randomisation was stratified by centre and by whether or not endoscopic sphincterotomy had been done. Neither investigators nor participants were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was a composite of readmission for recurrent gallstone-related complications (pancreatitis, cholangitis, cholecystitis, choledocholithiasis needing endoscopic intervention, or gallstone colic) or mortality within 6 months after randomisation, analysed by intention to treat. The trial was designed to reduce the incidence of the primary endpoint from 8% in the interval group to 1% in the same-admission group. Safety endpoints included bile duct leakage and other complications necessitating re-intervention. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN72764151, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Dec 22, 2010, and Aug 19, 2013, 266 inpatients from 23 hospitals in the Netherlands were randomly assigned to interval cholecystectomy (n=137) or same-admission cholecystectomy (n=129). One patient from each group was excluded from the final analyses, because of an incorrect diagnosis of pancreatitis in one patient (in the interval group) and discontinued follow-up in the other (in the same-admission group). The primary endpoint occurred in 23 (17%) of 136 patients in the interval group and in six (5%) of 128 patients in the same-admission group (risk ratio 0·28, 95% CI 0·12-0·66; p=0·002). Safety endpoints occurred in four patients: one case of bile duct leakage and one case of postoperative bleeding in each group. All of these were serious adverse events and were judged to be treatment related, but none led to death. INTERPRETATION: Compared with interval cholecystectomy, same-admission cholecystectomy reduced the rate of recurrent gallstone-related complications in patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis, with a very low risk of cholecystectomy-related complications. FUNDING: Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation.

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) for non-trauma patients in an urban hospital: a series of two cases.

Background: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is increasingly being used for temporary bleeding control in patients with trauma with non-compressible truncal hemorrhage (NCTH). In recent years, the technique is gaining popularity in postpartum hemorrhage and non-traumatic cardiac arrest, although still underutilized. In other surgical fields, however, there is not yet much awareness for the possible advantages of this technique. Consequently, for non-trauma indications, limited data are available. Methods: Description of the use of REBOA in two patients with hemorrhagic shock due to exsanguinating non-traumatic NCTH. Results: In the first case, REBOA was deployed at the emergency department in a patient in their 80s presenting with hemorrhagic shock due to a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Hemodynamic stability was obtained and a CT scan was subsequently performed for planning of endovascular aneurysm repair. After successful placement of the endograft, the REBOA catheter was deflated and removed. In the second case, REBOA was performed in a patient with shock due to iatrogenic epigastric artery bleeding after an umbilical hernia repair to prevent hemodynamic collapse and facilitate induction of anesthesia for definitive surgery. During laparotomy, blood pressure-guided intermittent aortic balloon occlusion was used to preserve perfusion of the abdominal organs. Patient made a full recovery. Conclusion: REBOA deployment was successful in achieving temporary hemorrhage control and hemodynamic stability in patients with non-traumatic NCTH. REBOA facilitated diagnostic work-up, transportation to the operating room and prevented hemodynamic collapse during definitive surgical repair. In the right patient and skilled hands, this relatively simple endovascular procedure could buy precious time and prove lifesaving in a variety of non-compressible hemorrhage.

Outcomes of liver surgery: A decade of mandatory nationwide auditing in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the nationwide Dutch Hepato Biliary Audit (DHBA) was initiated. The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in indications for and outcomes of liver surgery in the last decade. METHODS: This nationwide study included all patients who underwent liver surgery for four indications, including colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and intrahepatic- and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA - pCCA) between 2014 and 2022. Trends in postoperative outcomes were evaluated separately for each indication using multilevel multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: This study included 8057 procedures for CRLM, 838 for HCC, 290 for iCCA, and 300 for pCCA. Over time, these patients had higher risk profiles (more ASA-III patients and more comorbidities). Adjusted mortality decreased over time for CRLM, HCC and iCCA, respectively aOR 0.83, 95%CI 0.75-0.92, P < 0.001; aOR 0.86, 95%CI 0.75-0.99, P = 0.045; aOR 0.40, 95%CI 0.20-0.73, P < 0.001. Failure to rescue (FTR) also decreased for these groups, respectively aOR 0.84, 95%CI 0.76-0.93, P = 0.001; aOR 0.81, 95%CI 0.68-0.97, P = 0.024; aOR 0.29, 95%CI 0.08-0.84, P = 0.021). For iCCA severe complications (aOR 0.65 95%CI 0.43-0.99, P = 0.043) also decreased. No significant outcome differences were observed in pCCA. The number of centres performing liver resections decreased from 26 to 22 between 2014 and 2022, while median annual volumes did not change (40-49, P = 0.66). CONCLUSION: Over time, postoperative mortality and FTR decreased after liver surgery, despite treating higher-risk patients. The DHBA continues its focus on providing feedback and benchmark results to further enhance outcomes.

A step-up approach or open necrosectomy for necrotizing pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Necrotizing pancreatitis with infected necrotic tissue is associated with a high rate of complications and death. Standard treatment is open necrosectomy. The outcome may be improved by a minimally invasive step-up approach. METHODS: In this multicenter study, we randomly assigned 88 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis and suspected or confirmed infected necrotic tissue to undergo primary open necrosectomy or a step-up approach to treatment. The step-up approach consisted of percutaneous drainage followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive retroperitoneal necrosectomy. The primary end point was a composite of major complications (new-onset multiple-organ failure or multiple systemic complications, perforation of a visceral organ or enterocutaneous fistula, or bleeding) or death. RESULTS: The primary end point occurred in 31 of 45 patients (69%) assigned to open necrosectomy and in 17 of 43 patients (40%) assigned to the step-up approach (risk ratio with the step-up approach, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.87; P=0.006). Of the patients assigned to the step-up approach, 35% were treated with percutaneous drainage only. New-onset multiple-organ failure occurred less often in patients assigned to the step-up approach than in those assigned to open necrosectomy (12% vs. 40%, P=0.002). The rate of death did not differ significantly between groups (19% vs. 16%, P=0.70). Patients assigned to the step-up approach had a lower rate of incisional hernias (7% vs. 24%, P=0.03) and new-onset diabetes (16% vs. 38%, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: A minimally invasive step-up approach, as compared with open necrosectomy, reduced the rate of the composite end point of major complications or death among patients with necrotizing pancreatitis and infected necrotic tissue. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN13975868.)

Transluminal endoscopic step-up approach versus minimally invasive surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis (TENSION trial): design and rationale of a randomised controlled multicenter trial [ISRCTN09186711].

BACKGROUND: Infected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that nearly always requires intervention. Traditionally, primary open necrosectomy has been the treatment of choice. In recent years, the surgical step-up approach, consisting of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by (minimally invasive) surgical necrosectomy has become the standard of care. A promising minimally invasive alternative is the endoscopic transluminal step-up approach. This approach consists of endoscopic transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. We hypothesise that the less invasive endoscopic step-up approach is superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: The TENSION trial is a randomised controlled, parallel-group superiority multicenter trial. Patients with (suspected) infected necrotising pancreatitis with an indication for intervention and in whom both treatment modalities are deemed possible, will be randomised to either an endoscopic transluminal or a surgical step-up approach. During a 4 year study period, 98 patients will be enrolled from 24 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. The primary endpoint is a composite of death and major complications within 6 months following randomisation. Secondary endpoints include complications such as pancreaticocutaneous fistula, exocrine or endocrine pancreatic insufficiency, need for additional radiological, endoscopic or surgical intervention, the need for necrosectomy after drainage, the number of (re-)interventions, quality of life, and total direct and indirect costs. DISCUSSION: The TENSION trial will answer the question whether an endoscopic step-up approach reduces the combined primary endpoint of death and major complications, as well as hospital stay and related costs compared with a surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis.

A conservative and minimally invasive approach to necrotizing pancreatitis improves outcome.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Treatment of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis has become more conservative and less invasive, but there are few data from prospective studies to support the efficacy of this change. We performed a prospective multicenter study of treatment outcomes among patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. METHODS: We collected data from 639 consecutive patients with necrotizing pancreatitis, from 2004 to 2008, treated at 21 Dutch hospitals. Data were analyzed for disease severity, interventions (radiologic, endoscopic, surgical), and outcome. RESULTS: Overall mortality was 15% (n=93). Organ failure occurred in 240 patients (38%), with 35% mortality. Treatment was conservative in 397 patients (62%), with 7% mortality. An intervention was performed in 242 patients (38%), with 27% mortality; this included early emergency laparotomy in 32 patients (5%), with 78% mortality. Patients with longer times between admission and intervention had lower mortality: 0 to 14 days, 56%; 14 to 29 days, 26%; and >29 days, 15% (P<.001). A total of 208 patients (33%) received interventions for infected necrosis, with 19% mortality. Catheter drainage was most often performed as the first intervention (63% of cases), without additional necrosectomy in 35% of patients. Primary catheter drainage had fewer complications than primary necrosectomy (42% vs 64%, P=.003). Patients with pancreatic parenchymal necrosis (n=324), compared with patients with only peripancreatic necrosis (n=315), had a higher risk of organ failure (50% vs 24%, P<.001) and mortality (20% vs 9%, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 62% of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis can be treated without an intervention and with low mortality. In patients with infected necrosis, delayed intervention and catheter drainage as first treatment improves outcome.

The CARTS study: Chemoradiation therapy for rectal cancer in the distal rectum followed by organ-sparing transanal endoscopic microsurgery.

BACKGROUND: The CARTS study is a multicenter feasibility study, investigating the role of rectum saving surgery for distal rectal cancer. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients with a clinical T1-3 N0 M0 rectal adenocarcinoma below 10 cm from the anal verge will receive neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (25 fractions of 2 Gy with concurrent capecitabine). Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) will be performed 8 - 10 weeks after the end of the preoperative treatment depending on the clinical response.Primary objective is to determine the number of patients with a (near) complete pathological response after chemoradiation therapy and TEM. Secondary objectives are the local recurrence rate and quality of life after this combined therapeutic modality. A three-step analysis will be performed after 20, 33 and 55 patients to ensure the feasibility of this treatment protocol. DISCUSSION: The CARTS-study is one of the first prospective multicentre trials to investigate the role of a rectum saving treatment modality using chemoradiation therapy and local excision. The CARTS study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01273051).

Resectability and Ablatability Criteria for the Treatment of Liver Only Colorectal Metastases: Multidisciplinary Consensus Document from the COLLISION Trial Group.

The guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer crudely state that the best local treatment should be selected from a 'toolbox' of techniques according to patient- and treatment-related factors. We created an interdisciplinary, consensus-based algorithm with specific resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). To pursue consensus, members of the multidisciplinary COLLISION and COLDFIRE trial expert panel employed the RAND appropriateness method (RAM). Statements regarding patient, disease, tumor and treatment characteristics were categorized as appropriate, equipoise or inappropriate. Patients with ECOG≤2, ASA≤3 and Charlson comorbidity index ≤8 should be considered fit for curative-intent local therapy. When easily resectable and/or ablatable (stage IVa), (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy is not indicated. When requiring major hepatectomy (stage IVb), neo-adjuvant systemic therapy is appropriate for early metachronous disease and to reduce procedural risk. To downstage patients (stage IVc), downsizing induction systemic therapy and/or future remnant augmentation is advised. Disease can only be deemed permanently unsuitable for local therapy if downstaging failed (stage IVd). Liver resection remains the gold standard. Thermal ablation is reserved for unresectable CRLM, deep-seated resectable CRLM and can be considered when patients are in poor health. Irreversible electroporation and stereotactic body radiotherapy can be considered for unresectable perihilar and perivascular CRLM 0-5cm. This consensus document provides per-patient and per-tumor resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of CRLM. These criteria are intended to aid tumor board discussions, improve consistency when designing prospective trials and advance intersociety communications. Areas where consensus is lacking warrant future comparative studies.