Computerized Medical Evidence-Based Decision Assistance System "MEBDAS®" improves in-hospital outcome after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Indication for pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer can be challenging. Wrong decisions in indication processes lead to significant health impairments. Computerized decision support systems can take over parts of decision-making processes, making them more accurate. MEBDAS® is a decision-supporting software that predicts outcomes of proposed treatments. AIM: to determine the decision concordance between MEBDAS® and multidisciplinary tumour board (MTB) and the impact of MEBDAS® on in-hospital outcome at different indication thresholds. METHODS: 126 patients with pancreatoduodenectomy from a high-volume university hospital were included. Outcome indicators were in-hospital mortality, Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®), therapy-related loss of "Quality-Adjusted-Life-Day" (QALD-loss) and prognostic gain of treatment-related "Quality-Adjusted-Life-Year" (QALY-gain). RESULTS: The concordance of decisions was 94.4% at the indication threshold of 0. By raising the indication threshold to 1 year, the concordance decreased to 0%, the in-hospital-mortality dropped from 2.52% to 0%, the CCI® decreased from 26.47 to 13.90, the therapy-related QALD-loss declined from 21.53 to 16.22 days and the prognostic QALY-gain increased from 0.374 to 0.906 years. At IT = 0.250 years, the concordance was 61.11% and differences between MTB and MEBDAS®-group were highly significant (p < 0.001) for all outcome parameters: mortality (3.97% vs. 1.30%), CCI® (28.96 vs. 18.29), therapy-related QALD-loss (24.41 vs. 15.19 days) and QALY-gain (0.351 vs. 0.501 years). CONCLUSION: MEBDAS® decisions are superior to those of MTB in terms of in-hospital-outcome. The inclusion of MEBDAS® in decision procedure makes the indication more accurate and reduces morbidity and mortality. In addition, MEBDAS® can increase patients' competence by involving them in decision-making process.

Comparison of conservative versus surgical therapy for acute appendicitis with abscess in five German hospitals.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of initially conservative therapy compared to immediate appendectomy for acute appendicitis with abscess in terms of medical and economic outcomes. METHODS: Of all the patients treated for appendicitis from January 2009 to December 2017 in five German hospitals, 240 were included in the study. Fifty-three patients received conservative (CON) and 195 patients received surgical (SUR) therapy as initial treatment. RESULTS: Length of stay was similar (12.5 days in CON vs. 13.3 days in SUR, p = 0.530). Readmission rate was higher in the conservative group (54.7% vs. 6.2%, p < 0.001). The majority (53.7%) of the 41 operations in CON group were appendectomies (22 procedures), 1 (4.5%) of them was in the first hospital stay because of persisting symptoms, 21 (95.5%) after a recovery interval. Seven (33.3%) of the recovery appendectomies were performed due to persisting or recurrent symptoms and 14 (66.7%) due to the request of patient. Twenty-one patients (39.6%) in the CON group did not need surgery. The rates of complication-related operations per patient (0.04 versus 0.58, p < 0.001), conversions of surgical technique (1.9% vs. 34.9%, p = 0.0287), and extended resections (1.9% vs. 31.3%, p < 0.001) were higher in SUR group. Furthermore, morbidity, hospital costs, and loss in quality of life were significantly higher in the surgical group (17.0% vs. 66.2%, p < 0.001; € 5044 vs. € 8457, p < 0.001, and 4.3 days vs. 7.5 days, p < 0.001, CON vs. SUR). CONCLUSION: Initially, conservative treatment for acute appendicitis with abscess is preferable to immediate surgical treatment in reduction of morbidity, hospital costs, and loss in quality of life.