Minimally invasive and endoscopic versus open necrosectomy for necrotising pancreatitis: a pooled analysis of individual data for 1980 patients

Minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy and endoscopic necrosectomy, compared with open necrosectomy, might improve outcomes in necrotising pancreatitis, especially in critically ill patients. Evidence from large comparative studies is lacking. We combined original and newly collected data from 15 published and unpublished patient cohorts (51 hospitals; 8 countries) on pancreatic necrosectomy for necrotising pancreatitis. Death rates were compared in patients undergoing open necrosectomy versus minimally invasive surgical or endoscopic necrosectomy. To adjust for confounding and to study effect modification by clinical severity, we performed two types of analyses: logistic multivariable regression and propensity score matching with stratification according to predicted risk of death at baseline (low: <5%; intermediate: ≥5% to <15%; high: ≥15% to  <35%; and very high: ≥35%). Among 1980 patients with necrotising pancreatitis, 1167 underwent open necrosectomy and 813 underwent minimally invasive surgical (n=467) or endoscopic (n=346) necrosectomy. There was a lower risk of death for minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy (OR, 0.53; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.84; p=0.006) and endoscopic necrosectomy (OR, 0.20; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.63; p=0.006). After propensity score matching with risk stratification, minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy remained associated with a lower risk of death than open necrosectomy in the very high-risk group (42/111 vs 59/111; risk ratio, 0.70; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.95; p=0.02). Endoscopic necrosectomy was associated with a lower risk of death than open necrosectomy in the high-risk group (3/40 vs 12/40; risk ratio, 0.27; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.88; p=0.03) and in the very high-risk group (12/57 vs 28/57; risk ratio, 0.43; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.77; p=0.005). In high-risk patients with necrotising pancreatitis, minimally invasive surgical and endoscopic necrosectomy are associated with reduced death rates compared with open necrosectom

Population level determinants of acute mountain sickness among young men: a retrospective study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many visitors, including military troops, who enter highland regions from low altitude areas may suffer from acute mountain sickness (AMS), which negatively impacts workable man-hours and increases healthcare costs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the population level risk factors and build a multivariate model, which might be applicable to reduce the effects of AMS on Chinese young men traveling to this region.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Chinese highland military medical records were used to obtain data of young men (n = 3727) who entered the Tibet plateau between the years of 2006-2009. The relationship between AMS and travel profile, demographic characteristics, and health behaviors were evaluated by logistic regression. Univariate logistic models estimated the crude odds ratio. The variables that showed significance in the univariate model were included in a multivariate model to derive adjusted odds ratios and build the final model. Data corresponding to odd and even years (2 subsets) were analyzed separately and used in a simple cross-validation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Univariate analysis indicated that travel profile, prophylactic use, ethnicity, and province of birth were all associated with AMS in both subsets. In multivariate analysis, young men who traveled from lower altitude (600-800 m <it>vs</it>. 1300-1500 m, adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.32-1.44) to higher altitudes (4100-4300 m <it>vs</it>. 2900-3100 m, AOR = 3.94-4.12; 3600-3700 m <it>vs</it>. 2900-3100 m, AOR = 2.71-2.74) by air or rapid land transport for emergency mission deployment (emergency land deployment <it>vs</it>. normal land deployment, AOR = 2.08-2.11; normal air deployment <it>vs</it>. normal land deployment, AOR = 2.00-2.20; emergency air deployment <it>vs</it>. normal land deployment, AOR = 2.40-3.34) during the cold season (cold <it>vs</it>. warm, AOR = 1.25-1.28) are at great risk for developing AMS. Non-Tibetan male soldiers (Tibetan <it>vs</it>. Han, AOR = 0.03-0.08), born and raised in lower provinces (eastern <it>vs</it>. northwestern, AOR = 1.32-1.39), and deployed without prophylaxis (prophylactic drug <it>vs</it>. none, AOR = 0.75-0.76), also represented a population at significantly increased risk for AMS. The predicted model was built; the area under receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.703.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Before a group of young men first enter a high altitude area, it is important that a health service plan should be made referring to the group's travel profile and with respect to young men's ethnicity and province of birth. Low-cost Chinese traditional prophylactic drugs might have some effect on decreasing the risk of AMS, although this needs further verification.</p

Diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis: an international expert survey and case vignette study

AbstractBackgroundThe optimal diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis is subject to debate. We performed a survey on these topics amongst a group of international expert pancreatologists.MethodsAn online survey including case vignettes was sent to 118 international pancreatologists. We evaluated the use and timing of fine needle aspiration (FNA), antibiotics, catheter drainage and (minimally invasive) necrosectomy.ResultsThe response rate was 74% (N = 87). None of the respondents use FNA routinely, 85% selectively and 15% never. Most respondents (87%) use a step-up approach in patients with infected necrosis. Walled-off necrosis (WON) is considered a prerequisite for endoscopic drainage and percutaneous drainage by 66% and 12%, respectively. After diagnosing infected necrosis, 55% routinely postpone invasive interventions, whereas 45% proceed immediately to intervention. Lack of consensus about timing of intervention was apparent on day 14 with proven infected necrosis (58% intervention vs. 42% non-invasive) as well as on day 20 with only clinically suspected infected necrosis (59% intervention vs. 41% non-invasive).DiscussionThe step-up approach is the preferred treatment strategy in infected necrotizing pancreatitis amongst expert pancreatologists. There is no uniformity regarding the use of FNA and timing of intervention in the first 2–3 weeks of infected necrotizing pancreatitis

Diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic duct disruption or disconnection: an international expert survey and case vignette study

Background: Pancreatic duct disruption or disconnection is a potentially severe complication of necrotizing pancreatitis. With no existing treatment guidelines, it is unclear whether there is any consensus among experts in clinical practice. We evaluated current expert opinion regarding the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic duct disruption and disconnection in an international case vignette study. Methods: An online case vignette survey was sent to 110 international expert pancreatologists. Expert selection was based on publications in the last 5 years and/or participation in development of IAP/APA and ESGE guidelines on acute pancreatitis. Consensus was defined as agreement by at least 75% of the experts. Results: The response rate was 51% (n = 56). Forty-four experts (79%) obtained a MRI/MRCP and 52 experts (93%) measured amylase levels in percutaneous drain fluid to evaluate pancreatic duct integrity. The majority of experts favored endoscopic transluminal drainage for infected (peri)pancreatic necrosis and pancreatic duct disruption (84%, n = 45) or disconnection (88%, n = 43). Consensus was lacking regarding the treatment of patients with persistent percutaneous drain production, and with persistent sterile necrosis. Conclusion: This international survey of experts demonstrates that there are many areas for which no consensus existed, providing clear focus for future investigation

Real-time sample entropy predicts life-saving interventions after the Boston Marathon bombing

Identifying patients in need of a life-saving intervention (LSI) during a mass casualty event is a priority. We hypothesized that real-time, instantaneous sample entropy (SampEn) could predict the need for LSI in the Boston Marathon bombing victims. Severely injured Boston Marathon bombing victims (n = 10) had sample entropy (SampEn) recorded upon presentation using a continuous 200-beat rolling average in real time. Treating clinicians were blinded to real-time results. The correlation between SampEn, injury severity, number, and type of LSI was examined. Victims were males (60%) with a mean age of 39.1 years. Injuries involved lower extremities (50.0%), head and neck (24.2%), or upper extremities (9.7%). Sample entropy negatively correlated with Injury Severity Score (r = −0.70; P = .023), number of injuries (r = −0.70; P = .026), and the number and need for LSI (r = −0.82; P = .004). Sample entropy was reduced under a variety of conditions.SampEn (mean ± SD)PAmputation, n = 50.7 ± 0.3No amputation, n = 51.9 ± 0.8.027Transfusion, n = 50.7 ± 0.3No transfusion, n = 51.9 ± 0.8.027Intubation, n = 60.8 ± 0.3No intubation, n = 42.1 ± 0.7.027Vasopressors, n = 70.8 ± 0.3No vasopressors, n = 32.4 ± 0.3.004 Sample entropy strongly correlates with injury severity and predicts LSI after blast injuries sustained in the Boston Marathon bombings. Sample entropy may be a useful triage tool after blast injury

Delayed laparotomy after selective non-operative management of penetrating abdominal injuries

Main concern during the practice of selective non-operative management (SNOM) for abdominal stab wounds (SW) and gunshot wounds (GSW) is the potential for harm in patients who fail SNOM and receive a delayed laparotomy (DL). The aim of this study is to determine whether such patients suffer adverse sequelae because of delays in diagnosis and treatment when managed under a structured SNOM protocol. 190 patients underwent laparotomy after an abdominal GSW or SW (5/04-10/12). Patients taken to operation within 120 min of admission were included in the early laparotomy (EL) group (n =153, 80.5 %) and the remaining in the DL group (n =37, 19.5 %). Outcomes included mortality, hospital stay, and postoperative complications. The median time from hospital arrival to operation was 43 min (range: 17-119) for EL patients and 249 min (range: 122-1,545) for DL patients. The average number and type of injuries were similar among the groups. Mortality and negative laparotomy were observed only in the EL group. There was no significant difference in the hospital stay between the groups. The overall complications were higher in the EL group (44.4 vs. 24.3 %, p =0.026). DL was independently associated with a lower likelihood for complications (OR 0.39, 95 % CI 0.16-0.98, p =0.045). Individual review of all DL patients did not reveal an incident in which complications could be directly attributed to the delay. In a structured protocol, patients who fail SNOM and require an operation are recognized and treated promptly. The delay in operation does not cause unnecessary morbidity or mortality