Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis

BACKGROUND: Acute necrotising pancreatitis carries significant mortality, morbidity, and resource use. There is considerable uncertainty as to how people with necrotising pancreatitis should be treated. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of different interventions in people with acute necrotising pancreatitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers to April 2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCT). We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered only RCTs performed in people with necrotising pancreatitis, irrespective of aetiology, presence of infection, language, blinding, or publication status for inclusion in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Review Manager 5 based on an available-case analysis using fixed-effect and random-effects models. We planned a network meta-analysis using Bayesian methods, but due to sparse data and uncertainty about the transitivity assumption, performed only indirect comparisons and used Frequentist methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs with 311 participants in this review. After exclusion of five participants, we included 306 participants in one or more outcomes. Five trials (240 participants) investigated the three main treatments: open necrosectomy (121 participants), minimally invasive step-up approach (80 participants), and peritoneal lavage (39 participants) and were included in the network meta-analysis. Three trials (66 participants) investigated the variations in the main treatments: early open necrosectomy (25 participants), delayed open necrosectomy (11 participants), video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach (12 participants), endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach (10 participants), minimally invasive step-up approach (planned surgery) (four participants), and minimally invasive step-up approach (continued percutaneous drainage) (four participants). The trials included infected or sterile necrotising pancreatitis of varied aetiology.All the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias and the overall quality of evidence was low or very low for all the outcomes. Overall, short-term mortality was 30% and serious adverse events rate was 139 serious adverse events per 100 participants. The differences in short-term mortality and proportion of people with serious adverse events were imprecise in all the comparisons. The number of serious adverse events and adverse events were fewer in the minimally invasive step-up approach compared to open necrosectomy (serious adverse events: rate ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.68; 88 participants; 1 study; adverse events: rate ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.68; 88 participants; 1 study). The proportion of people with organ failure and the mean costs were lower in the minimally invasive step-up approach compared to open necrosectomy (organ failure: OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.60; 88 participants; 1 study; mean difference in costs: USD -11,922; P value < 0.05; 88 participants; 1 studies). There were more adverse events with video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group compared to endoscopic-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group (rate ratio 11.70, 95% CI 1.52 to 89.87; 22 participants; 1 study), but the number of interventions per participant was less with video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group compared to endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach group (difference in medians: 2 procedures; P value < 0.05; 20 participants; 1 study). The differences in any of the other comparisons for number of serious adverse events, proportion of people with organ failure, number of adverse events, length of hospital stay, and intensive therapy unit stay were either imprecise or were not consistent. None of the trials reported long-term mortality, infected pancreatic necrosis (trials that included participants with sterile necrosis), health-related quality of life at any time frame, proportion of people with adverse events, requirement for additional invasive intervention, time to return to normal activity, and time to return to work. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low to very low quality evidence suggested that the minimally invasive step-up approach resulted in fewer adverse events, serious adverse events, less organ failure, and lower costs compared to open necrosectomy. Very low quality evidence suggested that the endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach resulted in fewer adverse events than the video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach but increased the number of procedures required for treatment. There is currently no evidence to suggest that early open necrosectomy is superior or inferior to peritoneal lavage or delayed open necrosectomy. However, the CIs were wide and significant benefits or harms of different treatments cannot be ruled out. The TENSION trial currently underway in Netherlands is assessing the optimal way to perform the minimally invasive step-up approach (endoscopic drainage followed by endoscopic necrosectomy if necessary versus percutaneous drainage followed by video-assisted necrosectomy if necessary) and is assessing important clinical outcomes of interest for this review. Implications for further research on this topic will be determined after the results of this RCT are available

Use of a T cell interferon gamma release assay in the investigation for suspected active tuberculosis in a low prevalence area

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In settings with low background prevalence of tuberculosis (TB) infection, interferon-γ release assays (IGRA) could be useful for diagnosing active TB. This study aims to evaluate the performance of QuantiFERON^®-TB Gold (QFT-G) in the investigation for suspected active TB, with particular attention to patients originating in high-incidence countries. Furthermore, factors associated with QFT-G results in patients with active TB were assessed.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>From patients investigated for clinically suspected active TB, blood was obtained for QFT-G testing, in addition to routine investigations. Positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values for QFT-G were calculated, comparing patients with confirmed TB and those with other final diagnoses. QFT-G results in TB patients originating from countries with intermediate or high TB incidence were compared with QFT-G results from a control group of recently arrived asymptomatic immigrants from high-incidence countries. Factors associated with QFT-G outcome in patients with confirmed TB were assessed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Among 141 patients, 41/70 (58.6%) with confirmed TB had a positive QFT-G test, compared to 16/71 (22.6%) patients with other final diagnoses, resulting in overall PPV of 71.9% and NPV of 67.6%. For patients with pulmonary disease, PPV and NPV were 61.1% and 67.7%, respectively, and 90.5% and 66.7% for subjects with extrapulmonary manifestations. Comparing patients from high-incidence countries with controls yielded a PPV for active TB of 76.7%, and a NPV of 82.7%. Patients with confirmed TB and positive QFT-G results were characterized by a lower median peripheral white blood cell count (5.9 × 10⁹/L vs. 8.8 × 10⁹/L; <it>P </it>< 0.001) and a higher median body mass index (22.7 vs. 20.7; <it>P </it>= 0.043) as compared to QFT-G-negative TB patients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The overall PPV and NPV of QFT-G for identifying active TB were unsatisfactory, especially for pulmonary disease. Thus, the usefulness of QFT-G for this purpose is questionable. However, a high PPV was observed for extrapulmonary TB and QFT-G might be considered in the diagnostic process in this situation. The PPV and NPV for identifying active TB among persons originating from regions with high-and intermediate TB incidence was similar to that observed in subjects originating in the low-incidence region.</p

PANC Study (Pancreatitis: A National Cohort Study): national cohort study examining the first 30 days from presentation of acute pancreatitis in the UK

Background: Acute pancreatitis is a common, yet complex, emergency surgical presentation. Multiple guidelines exist and management can vary significantly. The aim of this first UK, multicentre, prospective cohort study was to assess the variation in management of acute pancreatitis to guide resource planning and optimize treatment. Methods: All patients aged greater than or equal to 18 years presenting with acute pancreatitis, as per the Atlanta criteria, from March to April 2021 were eligible for inclusion and followed up for 30 days. Anonymized data were uploaded to a secure electronic database in line with local governance approvals. Results: A total of 113 hospitals contributed data on 2580 patients, with an equal sex distribution and a mean age of 57 years. The aetiology was gallstones in 50.6 per cent, with idiopathic the next most common (22.4 per cent). In addition to the 7.6 per cent with a diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis, 20.1 per cent of patients had a previous episode of acute pancreatitis. One in 20 patients were classed as having severe pancreatitis, as per the Atlanta criteria. The overall mortality rate was 2.3 per cent at 30 days, but rose to one in three in the severe group. Predictors of death included male sex, increased age, and frailty; previous acute pancreatitis and gallstones as aetiologies were protective. Smoking status and body mass index did not affect death. Conclusion: Most patients presenting with acute pancreatitis have a mild, self-limiting disease. Rates of patients with idiopathic pancreatitis are high. Recurrent attacks of pancreatitis are common, but are likely to have reduced risk of death on subsequent admissions

SARS-CoV-2 infection in acute pancreatitis increases disease severity and 30-day mortality: COVID PAN collaborative study

Objective: There is emerging evidence that the pancreas may be a target organ of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) and coexistent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design: A prospective international multicentre cohort study including consecutive patients admitted with AP during the current pandemic was undertaken. Primary outcome measure was severity of AP. Secondary outcome measures were aetiology of AP, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, length of hospital stay, local complications, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), persistent organ failure and 30-day mortality. Multilevel logistic regression was used to compare the two groups. Results: 1777 patients with AP were included during the study period from 1 March to 23 July 2020. 149 patients (8.3%) had concomitant SARS-CoV-2 infection. Overall, SARS-CoV-2-positive patients were older male patients and more likely to develop severe AP and ARDS (p&lt;0.001). Unadjusted analysis showed that SARS-CoV-2-positive patients with AP were more likely to require ICU admission (OR 5.21, p&lt;0.001), local complications (OR 2.91, p&lt;0.001), persistent organ failure (OR 7.32, p&lt;0.001), prolonged hospital stay (OR 1.89, p&lt;0.001) and a higher 30-day mortality (OR 6.56, p&lt;0.001). Adjusted analysis showed length of stay (OR 1.32, p&lt;0.001), persistent organ failure (OR 2.77, p&lt;0.003) and 30-day mortality (OR 2.41, p&lt;0.04) were significantly higher in SARS-CoV-2 co-infection. Conclusion: Patients with AP and coexistent SARS-CoV-2 infection are at increased risk of severe AP, worse clinical outcomes, prolonged length of hospital stay and high 30-day mortality

Medium-term mortality after hip fractures and COVID-19: A prospective multi-centre UK study

Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic has caused 1.4 million deaths globally and is associated with a 3–4 times increase in 30-day mortality after a fragility hip fracture with concurrent COVID-19 infection. Typically, death from COVID-19 infection occurs between 15 and 22 days after the onset of symptoms, but this period can extend up to 8 weeks. This study aimed to assess the impact of concurrent COVID-19 infection on 120-day mortality after a fragility hip fracture. Methods A multi-centre prospective study across 10 hospitals treating 8% of the annual burden of hip fractures in England between 1st March and 30th April, 2020 was performed. Patients whose surgical treatment was payable through the National Health Service Best Practice Tariff mechanism for “fragility hip fractures” were included in the study. Patients’ 120-day mortality was assessed relative to their peri-operative COVID-19 status. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 27. Results A total of 746 patients were included in this study, of which 87 (11.7%) were COVID-19 positive. Mortality rates at 30- and 120-day were significantly higher for COVID-19 positive patients relative to COVID-19 negative patients (p < 0.001). However, mortality rates between 31 and 120-day were not significantly different (p = 0.107), 16.1% and 9.4% respectively for COVID-19 positive and negative patients, odds ratio 1.855 (95% CI 0.865–3.978). Conclusion Hip fracture patients with concurrent COVID-19 infection, provided that they are alive at day-31 after injury, have no significant difference in 120-day mortality. Despite the growing awareness and concern of “long-COVID” and its widespread prevalence, this does not appear to increase medium-term mortality rates after a hip fracture

Circulating levels of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) correlate with disease status in leprosy

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Caused by <it>Mycobacterium leprae </it>(ML), leprosy presents a strong immune-inflammatory component, whose status dictates both the clinical form of the disease and the occurrence of reactional episodes. Evidence has shown that, during the immune-inflammatory response to infection, the growth hormone/insulin-like growth factor-I (GH/IGF-I) plays a prominent regulatory role. However, in leprosy, little, if anything, is known about the interaction between the immune and neuroendocrine systems.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In the present retrospective study, we measured the serum levels of IGF-I and IGBP-3, its major binding protein. These measurements were taken at diagnosis in nonreactional borderline tuberculoid (NR BT), borderline lepromatous (NR BL), and lepromatous (NR LL) leprosy patients in addition to healthy controls (HC). LL and BL patients who developed reaction during the course of the disease were also included in the study. The serum levels of IGF-I, IGFBP-3 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) were evaluated at diagnosis and during development of reversal (RR) or erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL) reaction by the solid phase, enzyme-labeled, chemiluminescent-immunometric method.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The circulating IGF-I/IGFBP-3 levels showed significant differences according to disease status and occurrence of reactional episodes. At the time of leprosy diagnosis, significantly lower levels of circulating IGF-I/IGFBP-3 were found in NR BL and NR LL patients in contrast to NR BT patients and HCs. However, after treatment, serum IGF-I levels in BL/LL patients returned to normal. Notably, the levels of circulating IGF-I at diagnosis were low in 75% of patients who did not undergo ENL during treatment (NR LL patients) in opposition to the normal levels observed in those who suffered ENL during treatment (R LL patients). Nonetheless, during ENL episodes, the levels observed in RLL sera tended to decrease, attaining similar levels to those found in NR LL patients. Interestingly, IGF-I behaved contrary to what was observed during RR episodes in R BL patients.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our data revealed important alterations in the IGF system in relation to the status of the host immune-inflammatory response to ML while at the same time pointing to the circulating IGF-I/IGFBP-3 levels as possible predictive biomarkers for ENL in LL patients at diagnosis.</p

Global overview of the management of acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic (CHOLECOVID study)

Background: This study provides a global overview of the management of patients with acute cholecystitis during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: CHOLECOVID is an international, multicentre, observational comparative study of patients admitted to hospital with acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data on management were collected for a 2-month study interval coincident with the WHO declaration of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and compared with an equivalent pre-pandemic time interval. Mediation analysis examined the influence of SARS-COV-2 infection on 30-day mortality. Results: This study collected data on 9783 patients with acute cholecystitis admitted to 247 hospitals across the world. The pandemic was associated with reduced availability of surgical workforce and operating facilities globally, a significant shift to worse severity of disease, and increased use of conservative management. There was a reduction (both absolute and proportionate) in the number of patients undergoing cholecystectomy from 3095 patients (56.2 per cent) pre-pandemic to 1998 patients (46.2 per cent) during the pandemic but there was no difference in 30-day all-cause mortality after cholecystectomy comparing the pre-pandemic interval with the pandemic (13 patients (0.4 per cent) pre-pandemic to 13 patients (0.6 per cent) pandemic; P = 0.355). In mediation analysis, an admission with acute cholecystitis during the pandemic was associated with a non-significant increased risk of death (OR 1.29, 95 per cent c.i. 0.93 to 1.79, P = 0.121). Conclusion: CHOLECOVID provides a unique overview of the treatment of patients with cholecystitis across the globe during the first months of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The study highlights the need for system resilience in retention of elective surgical activity. Cholecystectomy was associated with a low risk of mortality and deferral of treatment results in an increase in avoidable morbidity that represents the non-COVID cost of this pandemic

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative sars-cov-2 infection: An international cohort study

Background The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (740%) had emergency surgery and 280 (248%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (261%) patients. 30-day mortality was 238% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (512%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 380% (219 of 577), accounting for 817% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 175 [95% CI 128-240], p&lt;00001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (230 [165-322], p&lt;00001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3-5 versus grades 1-2 (235 [157-353], p&lt;00001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (155 [101-239], p=0046), emergency versus elective surgery (167 [106-263], p=0026), and major versus minor surgery (152 [101-231], p=0047). Interpretation Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Prognostic model to predict postoperative acute kidney injury in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery based on a national prospective observational cohort study.

Background: Acute illness, existing co-morbidities and surgical stress response can all contribute to postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery. The aim of this study was prospectively to develop a pragmatic prognostic model to stratify patients according to risk of developing AKI after major gastrointestinal surgery. Methods: This prospective multicentre cohort study included consecutive adults undergoing elective or emergency gastrointestinal resection, liver resection or stoma reversal in 2-week blocks over a continuous 3-month period. The primary outcome was the rate of AKI within 7 days of surgery. Bootstrap stability was used to select clinically plausible risk factors into the model. Internal model validation was carried out by bootstrap validation. Results: A total of 4544 patients were included across 173 centres in the UK and Ireland. The overall rate of AKI was 14·2 per cent (646 of 4544) and the 30-day mortality rate was 1·8 per cent (84 of 4544). Stage 1 AKI was significantly associated with 30-day mortality (unadjusted odds ratio 7·61, 95 per cent c.i. 4·49 to 12·90; P < 0·001), with increasing odds of death with each AKI stage. Six variables were selected for inclusion in the prognostic model: age, sex, ASA grade, preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate, planned open surgery and preoperative use of either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker. Internal validation demonstrated good model discrimination (c-statistic 0·65). Discussion: Following major gastrointestinal surgery, AKI occurred in one in seven patients. This preoperative prognostic model identified patients at high risk of postoperative AKI. Validation in an independent data set is required to ensure generalizability