Goodbye Hartmann trial: a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study on the current use of a surgical procedure developed a century ago

Background: Literature suggests colonic resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) instead of Hartmann's procedure (HP) for the treatment of left-sided colonic emergencies. We aim to evaluate the surgical options globally used to treat patients with acute left-sided colonic emergencies and the factors that leading to the choice of treatment, comparing HP and RPA. Methods: This is a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. A total 1215 patients with left-sided colonic emergencies who required surgery were included from 204 centers during the period of March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020. with a 1-year follow-up. Results: 564 patients (43.1%) were females. The mean age was 65.9 ± 15.6 years. HP was performed in 697 (57.3%) patients and RPA in 384 (31.6%) cases. Complicated acute diverticulitis was the most common cause of left-sided colonic emergencies (40.2%), followed by colorectal malignancy (36.6%). Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3b) were higher in the HP group (P < 0.001). 30-day mortality was higher in HP patients (13.7%), especially in case of bowel perforation and diffused peritonitis. 1-year follow-up showed no differences on ostomy reversal rate between HP and RPA. (P = 0.127). A backward likelihood logistic regression model showed that RPA was preferred in younger patients, having low ASA score (≤ 3), in case of large bowel obstruction, absence of colonic ischemia, longer time from admission to surgery, operating early at the day working hours, by a surgeon who performed more than 50 colorectal resections. Conclusions: After 100 years since the first Hartmann's procedure, HP remains the most common treatment for left-sided colorectal emergencies. Treatment's choice depends on patient characteristics, the time of surgery and the experience of the surgeon. RPA should be considered as the gold standard for surgery, with HP being an exception

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)

Timing of Cholecystectomy After Moderate and Severe Acute Biliary Pancreatitis

IMPORTANCE Considering the lack of equipoise regarding the timing of cholecystectomy in patients with moderately severe and severe acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP), it is critical to assess this issue.OBJECTIVE To assess the outcomes of early cholecystectomy (EC) in patients with moderately severe and severe ABP.DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study retrospectively analyzed real-life data from the MANCTRA-1 (Compliance With Evidence-Based Clinical Guidelines in the Management of Acute Biliary Pancreatitis) data set, assessing 5304 consecutive patients hospitalized between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020, for ABP from 42 countries. A total of 3696 patients who were hospitalized for ABP and underwent cholecystectomy were included in the analysis; of these, 1202 underwent EC, defined as a cholecystectomy performed within 14 days of admission. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify prognostic factors of mortality and morbidity. Data analysis was performed from January to February 2023.MAIN OUTCOMES Mortality and morbidity after EC.RESULTS Of the 3696 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [17.8] years; 1907 [51.5%] female) included in the analysis, 1202 (32.5%) underwent EC and 2494 (67.5%) underwent delayed cholecystectomy (DC). Overall, EC presented an increased risk of postoperative mortality (1.4% vs 0.1%, P <.001) and morbidity (7.7% vs 3.7%, P < .001) compared with DC. On the multivariable analysis, moderately severe and severe ABP were associated with increased mortality (odds ratio [OR], 361.46; 95% CI, 2.28-57 212.31; P = .02) and morbidity (OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.35-5.19; P = .005). In patients with moderately severe and severe ABP (n = 108), EC was associated with an increased risk of mortality (16 [15.6%] vs 0 [0%], P < .001), morbidity (30 [30.3%] vs 57 [5.5%], P < .001), bile leakage (2 [2.4%] vs 4 [0.4%], P = .02), and infections (12 [14.6%] vs 4 [0.4%], P < .001) compared with patients with mild ABP who underwent EC. In patients with moderately severe and severe ABP (n = 108), EC was associated with higher mortality (16 [15.6%] vs 2 [1.2%], P < .001), morbidity (30 [30.3%] vs 17 [10.3%], P < .001), and infections (12 [14.6%] vs 2 [1.3%], P < .001) compared with patients with moderately severe and severe ABP who underwent DC. On the multivariable analysis, the patient's age (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02-1.36; P = .03) and American Society of Anesthesiologists score (OR, 5.91; 95% CI, 1.06-32.78; P = .04) were associated with mortality; severe complications of ABP were associated with increased mortality (OR, 50.04; 95% CI, 2.37-1058.01; P = .01) and morbidity (OR, 33.64; 95% CI, 3.19-354.73; P = .003).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This cohort study's findings suggest that EC should be considered carefully in patients with moderately severe and severe ABP, as it was associated with increased postoperative mortality and morbidity. However, older and more fragile patients manifesting severe complications related to ABP should most likely not be considered for EC