Assessing Criteria for a Safe Early Discharge After Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery.

Importance: Early discharge after colorectal surgery has been advocated. However, there is little research evaluating clinical and/or laboratory criteria to determine who can be safely discharged early. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of a C-reactive protein (CRP) level combined with 4 clinical criteria in ruling out an anastomotic leak and therefore allowing an early discharge on postoperative day 2 or 3. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, single-center cohort study was performed between February 2012 and July 2017. All consecutive adult patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were included. All patients were followed up for 30 days postoperatively. Data analysis was performed in May 2021. Exposures: Whether the 5 discharge criteria were fulfilled on postoperative day 3 (or day 2 for patients discharged on day 2). Fulfillment was defined as a CRP level less than 150 mg/dL on the day of discharge, a return of bowel function, tolerance of a diet, pain less than 5 of 10 on a visual analog scale, and being afebrile during the entire stay. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measurement was the diagnostic performance of the 5 discharge criteria in anticipating anastomotic leak development. The diagnostic performance of CRP level alone and 4 clinical criteria alone was also evaluated. Secondary measures were anastomotic leaks and mortality rates up to postoperative day 30. A discharge was successful if the patient left the hospital on postoperative day 2 or 3 without any complications or readmissions. Results: A total of 287 patients were included (median [IQR] age, 58 [20] years; 141 men [49%] and 146 women [51%]). Mortality was 0%. There were 17 anastomotic leaks, of which 2 were on day 1 and were excluded. A total of 128 patients fulfilled all criteria, and 125 did not, including 34 for whom data were missing. Two leaks occurred in patients who had fulfilled all criteria vs 13 leaks in patients who did not (hazard ratio, 0.15 [95% CI, 0.03-0.69]; P = .01). Seventy-six of 128 patients (59.4%) were discharged successfully by postoperative day 3. The negative predictive value in ruling out an anastomotic leak was at least 96.9% for CRP alone (96.9% [95% CI, 93.3%-98.8%]), the 4 clinical criteria (98.4% [95% CI, 95.3%-99.7%]), and all 5 criteria combined (98.4% [95% CI, 94.5%-99.8%]). False-negative rates were 40% (95% CI, 16.3%-67.7%) for CRP level alone, 20% (95% CI, 4.3%-48.1%) for the other 4 criteria, and 13.3% (95% CI, 0%-40.5%) for all 5 criteria. Conclusions and Relevance: These 5 criteria have a high negative predictive value and the lowest false-negative rate, indicating they have the potential to allow for safe early discharge after laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

PIPAC versus HIPEC: cisplatin spatial distribution and diffusion in a swine model.

Purpose: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a novel approach for delivering intraperitoneal chemotherapy and offers perspective in the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Concept is based on a 12 mmHg capnoperitoneum loaded with drug changed in microdoplets. It was postulated to guarantee a more homogeneous drug distribution and tissular uptake than hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). The aim of this study was to compare cisplatin peritoneal distribution and pharmacokinetic between HIPEC and PIPAC procedures in a healthy swine model.Methods: Two groups of eight pigs underwent either HIPEC with cisplatin (70 mg/m2) at 43 °C for 60 min, or PIPAC with cisplatin (7.5 mg/m2) for 30 min. Postoperatively, peritoneal areas were biopsied allowing peritoneal cavity cartography. Tissular and plasmatic cisplatin concentrations were analyzed.Results: Cisplatin distribution was heterogeneous in both the groups with higher concentrations obtained closed to the delivery sites. Median total platinum peritoneal concentration by pig was higher in the HIPEC group than in the PIPAC group (18.0 µg/g versus 4.3 µg/g, p < .001) but the yield was 2.2 times better with PIPAC. Platinum concentrations were higher in the HIPEC group in all stations. At each time-point, cisplatin plasmatic concentrations were higher in the HIPEC group (p < .001) but beneath the toxicity threshold.Conclusions: With doses used in clinical practice, HIPEC guaranteed a higher cisplatin peritoneal uptake than PIPAC in this swine model. Spatial drug distribution was heterogeneous with both technics, with hotspots closed to the drug delivery sites. Nevertheless, considering the dose ratio, IP drug uptake yield was better with PIPAC.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) might increase the risk of anastomotic leakage compared to HIPEC: an experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are technics proposed to treat patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis, in different settings. There is some concern about an over-risk of anastomotic leakage (AL) with PIPAC jeopardizing a combination with cytoreductive surgery. This study used a healthy swine model to compare the postoperative AL rate between PIPAC and HIPEC with digestive resection and to analyze macrocirculation and microcirculation parameters. METHODS: Segmental colonic resection with a handsewn anastomosis was performed on 16 healthy pigs; 8 pigs had a PIPAC procedure with 7.5 mg/m2 cisplatin (PIPAC group), and 8 pigs had a closed HIPEC procedure with 70 mg/m2 cisplatin and 42 °C as the target intraperitoneal temperature (HIPEC group). Pigs were kept alive for 8 days, then sacrificed and autopsied to look for AL, which was defined as local abscess or digestive fluid leakage when pressure was applied to the anastomosis. Food intake, weight, and core temperature were monitored postoperatively. Macrocirculation (heart rate, systolic blood pressure) and microcirculation parameters (percentage of perfused vessels, perfused vessels density, DeBacker score) were evaluated intraoperatively at five timepoints. Results were compared between pigs with AL and those without. RESULTS: The HIPEC group had no AL, but 3 of 8 pigs (37.5%) had AL in the PIPAC group (p = 0.20). Heart rate and core temperature showed perioperative increases in the HIPEC group. Intraoperatively, heart rate was higher in the HIPEC group at the two last timepoints (123 vs. 93 bpm, p = 0.031, and 110 vs. 85 bpm, p = 0.010, at timepoints 3 and 4, respectively). Other macrocirculatory and microcirculatory parameters showed no significant differences. CONCLUSION: In this healthy swine model, PIPAC might have increased AL incidence compared to HIPEC. This potential over-risk did not seem to be related to changes in the microcirculation. PIPAC should probably not be used with digestive resection and should be avoided in cases of perioperative serosal injury.