Correction to: Two years later: Is the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic still having an impact on emergency surgery? An international cross-sectional survey among WSES members

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is still ongoing and a major challenge for health care services worldwide. In the first WSES COVID-19 emergency surgery survey, a strong negative impact on emergency surgery (ES) had been described already early in the pandemic situation. However, the knowledge is limited about current effects of the pandemic on patient flow through emergency rooms, daily routine and decision making in ES as well as their changes over time during the last two pandemic years. This second WSES COVID-19 emergency surgery survey investigates the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on ES during the course of the pandemic. Methods: A web survey had been distributed to medical specialists in ES during a four-week period from January 2022, investigating the impact of the pandemic on patients and septic diseases both requiring ES, structural problems due to the pandemic and time-to-intervention in ES routine. Results: 367 collaborators from 59 countries responded to the survey. The majority indicated that the pandemic still significantly impacts on treatment and outcome of surgical emergency patients (83.1% and 78.5%, respectively). As reasons, the collaborators reported decreased case load in ES (44.7%), but patients presenting with more prolonged and severe diseases, especially concerning perforated appendicitis (62.1%) and diverticulitis (57.5%). Otherwise, approximately 50% of the participants still observe a delay in time-to-intervention in ES compared with the situation before the pandemic. Relevant causes leading to enlarged time-to-intervention in ES during the pandemic are persistent problems with in-hospital logistics, lacks in medical staff as well as operating room and intensive care capacities during the pandemic. This leads not only to the need for triage or transferring of ES patients to other hospitals, reported by 64.0% and 48.8% of the collaborators, respectively, but also to paradigm shifts in treatment modalities to non-operative approaches reported by 67.3% of the participants, especially in uncomplicated appendicitis, cholecystitis and multiple-recurrent diverticulitis. Conclusions: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic still significantly impacts on care and outcome of patients in ES. Well-known problems with in-hospital logistics are not sufficiently resolved by now; however, medical staff shortages and reduced capacities have been dramatically aggravated over last two pandemic years

Infected pancreatic necrosis: outcomes and clinical predictors of mortality. A post hoc analysis of the MANCTRA-1 international study

: The identification of high-risk patients in the early stages of infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) is critical, because it could help the clinicians to adopt more effective management strategies. We conducted a post hoc analysis of the MANCTRA-1 international study to assess the association between clinical risk factors and mortality among adult patients with IPN. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify prognostic factors of mortality. We identified 247 consecutive patients with IPN hospitalised between January 2019 and December 2020. History of uncontrolled arterial hypertension (p = 0.032; 95% CI 1.135-15.882; aOR 4.245), qSOFA (p = 0.005; 95% CI 1.359-5.879; aOR 2.828), renal failure (p = 0.022; 95% CI 1.138-5.442; aOR 2.489), and haemodynamic failure (p = 0.018; 95% CI 1.184-5.978; aOR 2.661), were identified as independent predictors of mortality in IPN patients. Cholangitis (p = 0.003; 95% CI 1.598-9.930; aOR 3.983), abdominal compartment syndrome (p = 0.032; 95% CI 1.090-6.967; aOR 2.735), and gastrointestinal/intra-abdominal bleeding (p = 0.009; 95% CI 1.286-5.712; aOR 2.710) were independently associated with the risk of mortality. Upfront open surgical necrosectomy was strongly associated with the risk of mortality (p < 0.001; 95% CI 1.912-7.442; aOR 3.772), whereas endoscopic drainage of pancreatic necrosis (p = 0.018; 95% CI 0.138-0.834; aOR 0.339) and enteral nutrition (p = 0.003; 95% CI 0.143-0.716; aOR 0.320) were found as protective factors. Organ failure, acute cholangitis, and upfront open surgical necrosectomy were the most significant predictors of mortality. Our study confirmed that, even in a subgroup of particularly ill patients such as those with IPN, upfront open surgery should be avoided as much as possible. Study protocol registered in ClinicalTrials.Gov (I.D. Number NCT04747990)

Acid suppression therapy, gastrointestinal bleeding and infection in acute pancreatitis - An international cohort study

BACKGROUND: Acid suppressing drugs (ASD) are generally used in acute pancreatitis (AP); however, large cohorts are not available to understand their efficiency and safety. Therefore, our aims were to evaluate the association between the administration of ASDs, the outcome of AP, the frequency of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and GI infection in patients with AP. METHODS: We initiated an international survey and performed retrospective data analysis on AP patients hospitalized between January 2013 and December 2018. RESULTS: Data of 17,422 adult patients with AP were collected from 59 centers of 23 countries. We found that 23.3% of patients received ASDs before and 86.6% during the course of AP. ASDs were prescribed to 57.6% of patients at discharge. ASD administration was associated with more severe AP and higher mortality. GI bleeding was reported in 4.7% of patients, and it was associated with pancreatitis severity, mortality and ASD therapy. Stool culture test was performed in 6.3% of the patients with 28.4% positive results. Clostridium difficile was the cause of GI infection in 60.5% of cases. Among the patients with GI infections, 28.9% received ASDs, whereas 24.1% were without any acid suppression treatment. GI infection was associated with more severe pancreatitis and higher mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Although ASD therapy is widely used, it is unlikely to have beneficial effects either on the outcome of AP or on the prevention of GI bleeding during AP. Therefore, ASD therapy should be substantially decreased in the therapeutic management of AP

Antibiotic therapy in acute pancreatitis: From global overuse to evidence based recommendations

Background & objectives: Unwarranted administration of antibiotics in acute pancreatitis presents a global challenge. The clinical reasoning behind the misuse is poorly understood. Our aim was to investigate current clinical practices and develop recommendations that guide clinicians in prescribing antibiotic treatment in acute pancreatitis. Methods Four methods were used. 1) Systematic data collection was performed to summarize current evidence; 2) a retrospective questionnaire was developed to understand the current global clinical practice; 3) five years of prospectively collected data were analysed to identify the clinical parameters used by medical teams in the decision making process, and finally; 4) the UpToDate Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was applied to provide evidence based recommendations for healthcare professionals. Results The systematic literature search revealed no consensus on the start of AB therapy in patients with no bacterial culture test. Retrospective data collection on 9728 patients from 22 countries indicated a wide range (31–82%) of antibiotic use frequency in AP. Analysis of 56 variables from 962 patients showed that clinicians initiate antibiotic therapy based on increased WBC and/or elevated CRP, lipase and amylase levels. The above mentioned four laboratory parameters showed no association with infection in the early phase of acute pancreatitis. Instead, procalcitonin levels proved to be a better biomarker of early infection. Patients with suspected infection because of fever had no benefit from antibiotic therapy. Conclusions The authors formulated four consensus statements to urge reduction of unjustified antibiotic treatment in acute pancreatitis and to use procalcitonin rather than WBC or CRP as biomarkers to guide decision-making