Nonoperative Treatment of Diverticulitis and Appendicitis: Which Antibiotic Regimen Fails?

INTRODUCTION: Diverticulitis and appendicitis are common emergency general surgical conditions. Both can be treated with antibiotics alone; however, no antibiotic regimen has been identified as superior to others. In this study, we review different antibiotic regimens and their rates of failure. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients treated empirically with antibiotics for diverticulitis or appendicitis from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020, at an independent academic hospital in the Midwest. RESULTS: A total of 587 (appendicitis, n = 43; diverticulitis, n = 544) patients were included in the cohort. They were equally male (49%) and female (51%) with a median age of 59 y. Three major antibiotic classes were compared: cephalosporin + metronidazole (C + M), penicillins, and quinolone + metronidazole. Appendicitis patients were more likely to receive C + M for empiric treatment (73%, P < 0.001), while diverticulitis patients were more likely to receive quinolone + metronidazole (45%, P < 0.001). Patients empirically treated with antibiotics for appendicitis were more likely than those treated for diverticulitis to require additional antibiotics or procedure within 90 d (33% versus 13%, respectively; P = 0.005). Empiric treatment with C + M for diverticulitis was more likely to be associated with the need for additional antibiotics or procedures within 90 d than treatment with other regimens (P = 0.003). Choice of antibiotic for empiric treatment did not correlate with death at 90 d for appendicitis or diverticulitis. Diverticulitis patients who were initially treated as inpatients and were prescribed C + M at hospital discharge had a higher rate of death than those who were prescribed the other antibiotics (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Empiric antibiotic treatment of appendicitis is more likely to be associated with additional antibiotics or procedure when compared with diverticulitis; however, antibiotic choice did not correlate with any of the other outcomes. Empiric treatment with a C + M for diverticulitis was more likely to be correlated with the need for additional antibiotics or procedure within 90 d.

Long-Term Management of Vascular Access Ports in Nonhuman Primates Used in Preclinical Efficacy and Tolerability Studies.

Vascular access ports (VAPs) are an essential tool for long-term vascular access in preclinical studies and disease modeling in non-human primates (NHPs). We retrospectively reviewed central (inferior vena cava, IVC) and portal VAP implantation with the maintenance at our center from 15 January 2010 to 31 January 2018. In total, 209 VAPs were implanted for long-term drug administration and sampling. Patency was >95% at 6 months and >80% at 1 year for IVC VAPs and >90% at 6 months and >85% at 1 year for portal VAPs. The majority of animals had no complications and access was generally durable with device use ranging up to 7 years. In IVC, VAPs loss of patency occurred in 13% (0.035/100 d), surgical site infection in 2.9% (0.097/100 d), port pocket infection in 2.2% (0.004/100 d), erosion in 2.9%, 0.008/100 d), and mechanical failure in 4.3% (0.012/100 d). In portal, VAPs loss of patency occurred in 11.3% (0.028/100 d) and port pocket infection in 1.4% (0.003/100 d). About 12% of VAPs were removed as a result of complications.This study confirms VAP implant and maintenance is a beneficial and safe practice in NHPs resulting in favorable outcomes. High patency rates and low complication rates are comparable to the clinical setting. In addition to enabling comprehensive data collection, VAPs increase satisfaction and well-being by minimizing interference with daily routines and fostering cooperation. VAP implantation, together with an effective maintenance regimen and co-operative handling, is a reliable and convenient refined method for drug administration and blood sampling.Keywords: Vascular access port; nonhuman primates; refinement; central vascular access; portal vascular access; surgical technique; experimental surgery; animal model.

Single-stage management of choledocholithiasis: intraoperative ERCP versus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the criterion standard for treating patients with symptomatic gallstone disease; however, the optimal technique for extracting common bile duct stones remains unclear. Recent studies have noted improved outcomes with single-stage techniques, such as intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (iERCP) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE); however only few studies have directly compared those two single-stage techniques. OBJECTIVES: Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database, we retrospectively analyzed the postoperative outcomes of all patients who underwent single-stage LC for choledocholithiasis from 2005 to 2017. Using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, as well as International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes, we stratified patients into two cohorts: those who underwent iERCP and LCBDE. Applying univariate techniques, we evaluated baseline characteristics and postoperative outcomes for both cohorts. Our primary outcomes of interest were 30-day morbidity and 30-day mortality; our secondary outcomes included rates of reoperation, readmission, operative time, and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: Of the 1814 single-stage LC patients during our 13-year study period, 1185 (65.3%) underwent LCBDE; 629 (34.6%) underwent iERCP. Our univariate analysis showed that the two cohorts were homogeneous in terms of baseline characteristics, including demographics, preoperative comorbidities, laboratory values, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores. 30-day postoperative morbidity (including infectious and noninfectious complications) and overall mortality between groups were low and comparable. The mean operative time was slightly longer with LCBDE (125.1 ± 62.0 min) than iERCP (113.5 ± 65.2 min; P < 0.001), however the mean hospital length of stay, readmission rate, and reoperation rate were similar. CONCLUSION: We found that both iERCP and LCBDE resulted in low, comparable rates of morbidity and mortality. Centers with readily available endoscopic expertise might favor iERCP for its ease of access and shorter operative time. However, LCBDE remains an appropriate technique for patients with choledocholithiasis, especially when immediate endoscopic intervention is unavailable.