Type 1 Autoimmune Pancreatitis in Europe: Clinical Profile and Response to Treatment.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is an immune-mediated disease of the pancreas with distinct pathophysiology and manifestations. Our aims were to characterize type 1 AIP in a large pan-European cohort and study the effectiveness of current treatment regimens. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed adults diagnosed since 2005 with type 1 or not-otherwise-specified AIP in 42 European university hospitals. Type 1 AIP was uniformly diagnosed using specific diagnostic criteria. Patients with type 2 AIP and those who had undergone pancreatic surgery were excluded. The primary end point was complete remission, defined as the absence of clinical symptoms and resolution of the index radiologic pancreatic abnormalities attributed to AIP. RESULTS: We included 735 individuals with AIP (69% male; median age, 57 years; 85% White). Steroid treatment was started in 634 patients, of whom 9 (1%) were lost to follow-up. The remaining 625 had a 79% (496/625) complete, 18% (111/625) partial, and 97% (607/625) cumulative remission rate, whereas 3% (18/625) did not achieve remission. No treatment was given in 95 patients, who had a 61% complete (58/95), 19% partial (18/95), and 80% cumulative (76/95) spontaneous remission rate. Higher (≥0.4 mg/kg/day) corticosteroid doses were no more effective than lower (<0.4 mg/kg/day) doses (odds ratio, 0.428; 95% confidence interval, 0.054-3.387) and neither was a starting dose duration >2 weeks (odds ratio, 0.908; 95% confidence interval, 0.818-1.009). Elevated IgG4 levels were independently associated with a decreased chance of complete remission (odds ratio, 0.639; 95% confidence interval, 0.427-0.955). Relapse occurred in 30% of patients. Relapses within 6 months of remission induction were independent of the steroid-tapering duration, induction treatment duration, and total cumulative dose. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with type 1 AIP and elevated IgG4 level may need closer monitoring. For remission induction, a starting dose of 0.4 mg/kg/day for 2 weeks followed by a short taper period seems effective. This study provides no evidence to support more aggressive regimens.

Single-centre review of the management of intra-thoracic oesophageal perforation in a tertiary oesophageal unit: paradigm shift, short- and long-term outcomes over 15 years.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal perforation is an uncommon surgical emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality. The timing and type of intervention is crucial and there has been a major paradigm shift towards minimal invasive management over the last 15 years. Herein, we review our management of spontaneous and iatrogenic oesophageal perforations and assess the short- and long-term outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients presenting with intra-thoracic oesophageal perforation between January 2004 and Dec 2020 in a single tertiary hospital. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were identified with oesophageal perforations: 58.1% were male; mean age of 68.28 ± 13.67 years. Aetiology was spontaneous in 42 (56.76%), iatrogenic in 29 (39.2%) and foreign body ingestion/related to trauma in 3 (4.1%). The diagnosis was delayed in 29 (39.2%) cases for longer than 24 h. There was change in the primary diagnostic modality over the period of this study with CT being used for diagnosis for 19 of 20 patients (95%). Initial management of the oesophageal perforation included a surgical intervention in 34 [45.9%; primary closure in 28 (37.8%), resection in 6 (8.1%)], endoscopic stenting in 18 (24.3%) and conservative management in 22 (29.7%) patients. On multivariate analysis, there was an effect of pathology (malignant vs. benign; p = 0.003) and surgical treatment as first line (p = 0.048) on 90-day mortality. However, at 1-year and overall follow-up, time to presentation (≤ 24 h vs. > 24 h) remained the only significant variable (p = 0.017 & p = 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSION: Oesophageal perforation remains a condition with high mortality. The paradigm shift in our tertiary unit suggests the more liberal use of CT to establish an earlier diagnosis and a higher rate of oesophageal stenting as a primary management option for iatrogenic perforations. Time to diagnosis and management continues to be the most critical variable in the overall outcome.

Safe Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) has had an enormous impact on all aspects of healthcare, but its effect on patients needing surgery and surgeons has been disproportionate. In this review, we aim to understand the impact of the pandemic on surgical patients and teams. We compiled the emerging data on pre-operative screening methods, vaccinations, safe-surgery pathways and surgical techniques and make recommendations for evidence-based safe-surgical pathways. We also present surgical outcomes for emergency, oncological and benign surgery in the context of the pandemic. Finally, we attempt to address the impact of the pandemic on patients, staff and surgical training and provide perspectives for the future. RECENT FINDINGS: Surgical teams have developed consensus guidelines and established research priorities and safety precautions for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence supports that surgery in patients with a peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection carries substantial risks, but risk mitigation strategies are effective at reducing harm to staff and patients. Surgery has increased risk for patients and staff, but this can be mitigated effectively, especially for elective surgery. Elective surgery can be safely performed during the COVID-19 pandemic employing the strategies discussed in this review.