Micro-CT Imaging of Tracheal Development in Down Syndrome and Non-Down Syndrome Fetuses

Objectives: Down syndrome (DS) is associated with airway abnormalities including a narrowed trachea. It is uncertain whether this narrowed trachea in DS is a consequence of deviant fetal development or an acquired disorder following endotracheal intubation after birth. This study aimed to compare the tracheal morphology in DS and non-DS fetuses using microfocus computed tomography (micro-CT). Methods: Twenty fetal samples were obtained from the Dutch Fetal Biobank and divided into groups based on gestational age. Micro-CT images were processed to analyze tracheal length, volume, and cross-sectional area (CSA). Results: Mean tracheal length and tracheal volume were similar in DS and non-DS fetuses for all gestational age groups. Mean, minimum, and maximal tracheal CSA were statistically significantly increased in the single DS fetus in the group of 21–24 weeks of gestation, but not in other gestational age groups. In 90% of all studied fetuses, the minimum tracheal CSA was located in the middle third of the trachea. Conclusion: Tracheal development in DS fetuses was similar to non-DS fetuses between 13 and 21 weeks of gestation. This suggests that the narrowed tracheal diameter in DS children may occur later in fetal development or results from postnatal intubation trauma. The narrowest part of the trachea is in majority of DS and non-DS fetuses the middle third. Level of Evidence: Level 3 Laryngoscope, 2024.</p

Micro-CT Imaging of Tracheal Development in Down Syndrome and Non-Down Syndrome Fetuses

Objectives: Down syndrome (DS) is associated with airway abnormalities including a narrowed trachea. It is uncertain whether this narrowed trachea in DS is a consequence of deviant fetal development or an acquired disorder following endotracheal intubation after birth. This study aimed to compare the tracheal morphology in DS and non-DS fetuses using microfocus computed tomography (micro-CT). Methods: Twenty fetal samples were obtained from the Dutch Fetal Biobank and divided into groups based on gestational age. Micro-CT images were processed to analyze tracheal length, volume, and cross-sectional area (CSA). Results: Mean tracheal length and tracheal volume were similar in DS and non-DS fetuses for all gestational age groups. Mean, minimum, and maximal tracheal CSA were statistically significantly increased in the single DS fetus in the group of 21–24 weeks of gestation, but not in other gestational age groups. In 90% of all studied fetuses, the minimum tracheal CSA was located in the middle third of the trachea. Conclusion: Tracheal development in DS fetuses was similar to non-DS fetuses between 13 and 21 weeks of gestation. This suggests that the narrowed tracheal diameter in DS children may occur later in fetal development or results from postnatal intubation trauma. The narrowest part of the trachea is in majority of DS and non-DS fetuses the middle third. Level of Evidence: Level 3 Laryngoscope, 2024.</p

Fluid hydration to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis in average- to high-risk patients receiving prophylactic rectal NSAIDs (FLUYT trial): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of ERCP and may run a severe course. Evidence suggests that vigorous periprocedural hydration can prevent PEP, but studies to date have significant methodological drawbacks. Importantly, evidence for its added value in patients already receiving prophylactic rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is lacking and the cost-effectiveness of the approach has not been investigated. We hypothesize that combination therapy of rectal NSAIDs and periprocedural hydration would significantly lower the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis compared to rectal NSAIDs alone in moderate- to high-risk patients undergoing ERCP. Methods: The FLUYT trial is a multicenter, parallel group, open label, superiority randomized controlled trial. A total of 826 moderate- to high-risk patients undergoing ERCP that receive prophylactic rectal NSAIDs will be randomized to a control group (no fluids or normal saline with a maximum of 1.5 mL/kg/h and 3 L/24 h) or intervention group (lactated Ringer's solution with 20 mL/kg over 60 min at start of ERCP, followed by 3 mL/kg/h for 8 h thereafter). The primary endpoint is the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Secondary endpoints include PEP severity, hydration-related complications, and cost-effectiveness. Discussion: The FLUYT trial design, including hydration schedule, fluid type, and sample size, maximize its power of identifying a potential difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis incidence in patients receiving prophylactic rectal NSAIDs

Long-Term Outcome of Immediate Versus Postponed" Intervention in Patients With Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis" (POINTER)" Multicenter Randomized Trial

Objective: To compare the long-term outcomes of immediate drainage versus the postponed-drainage approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Background: In the randomized POINTER trial, patients assigned to the postponed-drainage approach using antibiotic treatment required fewer interventions, as compared with immediate drainage, and over a third were treated without any intervention. Methods: Clinical data of those patients alive after the initial 6-month follow-up were re-evaluated. The primary outcome was a composite of death and major complications. Results: Out of 104 patients, 88 were re-evaluated with a median followup of 51 months. After the initial 6-month follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 7 of 47 patients (15%) in the immediate-drainage group and 7 of 41 patients (17%) in the postponed-drainage group (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.33-2.28; P=0.78). Additional drainage procedures were performed in 7 patients (15%) versus 3 patients (7%) (RR 2.03; 95% CI 0.56-7.37; P=0.34). The median number of additional interventions was 0 (IQR 0-0) in both groups (P=0.028). In the total follow-up, the median number of interventions was higher in the immediate-drainage group than in the postponed-drainage group (4 vs. 1, P=0.001). Eventually, 14 of 15 patients (93%) in the postponed-drainage group who were successfully treated in the initial 6-month follow-up with antibiotics and without any intervention remained without intervention. At the end of follow-up, pancreatic function and quality of life were similar. Conclusions: Also, during long-term follow-up, a postponed-drainage approach using antibiotics in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis results in fewer interventions as compared with immediate drainage and should therefore be the preferred approach.</p

Immediate versus postponed intervention for infected necrotizing pancreatitis

BACKGROUND Infected necrotizing pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that is treated with the use of a step-up approach, with catheter drainage often delayed until the infected necrosis is encapsulated. Whether outcomes could be improved by earlier catheter drainage is unknown. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, randomized superiority trial involving patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, in which we compared immediate drainage within 24 hours after randomization once infected necrosis was diagnosed with drainage that was postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis was reached. The primary end point was the score on the Comprehensive Complication Index, which incorporates all complications over the course of 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS A total of 104 patients were randomly assigned to immediate drainage (55 patients) or postponed drainage (49 patients). The mean score on the Comprehensive Complication Index (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe complications) was 57 in the immediate-drainage group and 58 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, −1; 95% confidence interval [CI], −12 to 10; P=0.90). Mortality was 13% in the immediate-drainage group and 10% in the postponed-drainage group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.42 to 3.68). The mean number of interventions (catheter drainage and necrosectomy) was 4.4 in the immediate-drainage group and 2.6 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.0). In the postponed-drainage group, 19 patients (39%) were treated conservatively with antibiotics and did not require drainage; 17 of these patients survived. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS This trial did not show the superiority of immediate drainage over postponed drainage with regard to complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Patients randomly assigned to the postponed-drainage strategy received fewer invasive interventions

Endoscopic Versus Surgical Step-Up Approach for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (ExTENSION):Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Trial

Background & Aims: Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years. Methods: In this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life. Results: After a mean follow-up period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08–0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09–0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups. Conclusions: At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up. Netherlands Trial Register no: NL8571

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus endoscopic mucosal resection for large rectal adenomas (TREND-study)

Background: Recent non-randomized studies suggest that extended endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is equally effective in removing large rectal adenomas as transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). If equally effective, EMR might be a more cost-effective approach as this strategy does not require expensive equipment, general anesthesia and hospital admission. Furthermore, EMR appears to be associated with fewer complications. The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of TEM and EMR for the resection of large rectal adenomas. Methods/design. Multicenter randomized trial among 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with a rectal adenoma 3 cm, located between 115 cm ab ano, will be randomized to a TEM- or EMR-treatment strategy. For TEM, patients will be treated under general anesthesia, adenomas will be dissected en-bloc by a full-thickness excision, and patients will be admitted to the hospital. For EMR, no or conscious sedation is used, lesions will be resected through the submucosal plane i

Postponed or immediate drainage of infected necrotizing pancreatitis (POINTER trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background Infected necrosis complicates 10% of all acute pancreatitis episodes and is associated with 15–20% mortality. The current standard treatment for infected necrotizing pancreatitis is the step-up approach (catheter drainage, followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive necrosectomy). Catheter drainage is preferably postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis, which usually takes 4 weeks. This delay stems from the time when open necrosectomy was the standard. It is unclear whether such delay is needed for catheter drainage or whether earlier intervention could actually be beneficial in the current step-up approach. The POINTER trial investigates if immediate catheter drainage in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis is superior to the current practice of postponed intervention. Methods POINTER is a randomized controlled multicenter superiority trial. All patients with necrotizing pancreatitis are screened for eligibility. In total, 104 adult patients with (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis will be randomized to immediate (within 24 h) catheter drainage or current standard care involving postponed catheter drainage. Necrosectomy, if necessary, is preferably postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis, in both treatment arms. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI), which covers all complications between randomization and 6-month follow up. Secondary outcomes include mortality, complications, number of (repeat) interventions, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and direct and indirect costs. Standard follow-up is at 3 and 6 months after randomization. Discussion The POINTER trial investigates if immediate catheter drainage in infected necrotizing pancreatitis reduces the composite endpoint of complications, as compared with the current standard treatment strategy involving delay of intervention until the stage of walled-off necrosis

Tracheal anomalies associated with Down syndrome: A systematic review

Introduction: Airway anomalies are accountable for a substantial part of morbidity and mortality in children with Down syndrome (DS). Although tracheal anomalies occur more often in DS children, a structured overview on the topic is lacking. We systematically reviewed the characteristics of tracheal anomalies in DS children. Methods: A MEDLINE and EMBASE search for DS and tracheal anomalies was performed. Tracheal anomalies included tracheal stenosis, complete tracheal ring deformity (CTRD), tracheal bronchus, tracheomalacia, tracheal web, tracheal agenesis or atresia, laryngotracheoesophageal cleft type 3 or 4, trachea sleeve, and absent tracheal rings. Results: Fifty-nine articles were included. The trachea of DS children is significantly smaller than non-DS children. Tracheomalacia and tracheal bronchus are seen significantly more often in DS children. Furthermore, tracheal stenosis, CTRD, and tracheal compression by vascular structures are seen regularly in children with DS. These findings are reflected by the significantly higher frequency of tracheostomy and tracheoplasty performed in DS children. Conclusion: In children with DS, tracheal anomalies occur more frequently and tracheal surgery is performed more frequently than in non-DS children. When complaints indicative of tracheal airway obstruction like biphasic stridor, dyspnea, or wheezing are present in children with DS, diagnostic rigid laryngotracheobronchoscopy with special attention to the trachea is indicated. Furthermore, imaging studies (computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound) play an important role in the workup of DS children with airway symptoms. Management depends on the type, number, and extent of tracheal anomalies. Surgical treatment seems to be the mainstay in severe cases