Analysis of Outcomes After Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Patients With Abnormal Findings on the First Postoperative Computed Tomography Angiography

PURPOSE: Lifelong follow-up after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is recommended due to a continued risk of complications, especially if the first postoperative imaging shows abnormal findings. We studied the long-term outcomes in patients with abnormalities on the first postoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) following EVAR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study of all consecutive patients who underwent elective EVAR for nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) between January 2007 and January 2012 in 16 Dutch hospitals with follow-up until December 2018. Patients were included if the first postoperative CTA showed one of the following abnormal findings: endoleak type I–IV, endograft kinking, infection, or limb occlusion. AAA diameter, complications, and secondary interventions during follow-up were registered. Primary endpoint was overall survival, and other endpoints were secondary interventions and intervention-free survival. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate overall and intervention-free survival. Cox regression analyses were used to identify the association of independent determinants with survival and secondary interventions. RESULTS: A total of 502 patients had abnormal findings on the first postoperative CTA after EVAR and had a median follow-up (interquartile range IQR) of 83.0 months (59.0). The estimated overall survival rate at 1, 5, and 10 years was 84.7%, 51.0%, and 30.8%, respectively. Age [hazard ratio (HR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.10] and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification (ASA IV HR 3.20, 95% CI 1.99 to 5.15) were significantly associated with all-cause mortality. Overall, 167 of the 502 patients (33.3%) underwent 238 secondary interventions in total. Fifty-eight patients (12%) underwent an intervention based on a finding on the first postoperative CTA. Overall survival was 38.4% for patients with secondary interventions and 44.5% for patients without (log rank; p=0.166). The intervention-free survival rate at 1, 5, and 10 years was 82.9%, 61.3%, and 45.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with abnormalities on the first postoperative CTA after elective EVAR for infrarenal AAA cannot be discharged from regular imaging follow-up due to a high risk of secondary interventions. Patients who had a secondary intervention had similar overall survival as those without secondary interventions

Randomised Clinical Trial of Supervised Exercise Therapy vs. Endovascular Revascularisation for Intermittent Claudication Caused by Iliac Artery Obstruction:The SUPER study

OBJECTIVE: International guidelines recommend supervised exercise therapy (SET) as primary treatment for all patients with intermittent claudication (IC), yet primary endovascular revascularisation (ER) might be more effective in patients with iliac artery obstruction. METHODS: This was a multicentre RCT including patients with IC caused by iliac artery stenosis or occlusion (NCT01385774). Patients were allocated randomly to SET or ER stratified for maximum walking distance (MWD) and concomitant SFA disease. Primary endpoints were MWD on a treadmill (3.2 km/h, 10% incline) and disease specific quality of life (VascuQol) after one year. Additional interventions during a mean follow up of 5.5 years were recorded. RESULTS: Between November 2010 and May 2015, 114 patients were allocated to SET, and 126 to ER. The trial was terminated prematurely after 240 patients were included. Compliance with SET was 57/114 (50%) after six months. Ten patients allocated to ER (8%) did not receive this intervention. One year follow up was complete for 90/114 (79%) SET patients and for 104/126 (83%) ER patients. The mean MWD improved from 187 to 561 m in SET patients and from 196 to 574 m in ER patients (p = .69). VascuQol sumscore improved from 4.24 to 5.58 in SET patients, and from 4.28 to 5.88 in ER patients (p = .048). Some 33/114 (29%) SET patients had an ER within one year, and 2/114 (2%) surgical revascularisation (SR). Some 10/126 (8%) ER patients had additional ER within one year and 10/126 (8%) SR. After a mean of 5.5 years, 49% of SET patients and 27% of ER patients underwent an additional intervention for IC. CONCLUSION: Taking into account the many limitations of the SUPER study, both a strategy of primary SET and primary ER improve MWD on a treadmill and disease specific Qol of patients with IC caused by an iliac artery obstruction. It seems reasonable to start with SET in these patients and accept a 30% failure rate, which, of course, must be discussed with the patient. Patients continue to have interventions beyond one year

Identifying Women at High Risk of 90 Day Death after Elective Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair:A Multicentre Case Control Study

Objective: The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for 90 day death after elective open surgical repair (OSR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in women.Methods: This was a multicentre case control study. The nationwide Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit registry (2013–2019) was solely used to identify women who underwent elective OSR as eligible patients. Data for this study were subsequently collected from the patients’ medical files. Women with AAA were included and those who died (cases) were compared with those who survived (controls) 90 days after surgery. Inflammatory, mycotic, or symptomatic or ruptured AAA were excluded. The association between pre- and peri-operative risk factors and death was assessed by logistic regression analysis in the whole sample and after matching cases to controls of the same age at the time of repair. Mesenteric artery patency was also assessed on pre-operative computed tomography and used in the analysis.Results: In total, 266 patients (30 cases and 236 controls) from 21 hospitals were included. Cases were older (median [interquartile range; IQR] 75 years [71, 78.3] vs. 71 years [66, 77]; p =.002) and more often had symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (PAD) (14/29 [48%] vs. 49/227 [22%]; p =.002). Intra-operative blood loss (median [IQR] 1.6 L [1.1, 3.0] vs. 1.2 L [0.7, 1.8]), acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (10/30 [33%] vs. 8/236 [3%]), renal failure (17/30 [57%] vs. 33/236 [14%]), and bowel ischaemia (BI) (17/29 [59%] vs. 12/236 [5%]) were more prevalent among cases. Older age (odds ratio [OR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03–1.19) and PAD (OR 3.91, 95% CI 1.57–9.74) were associated with death. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that, after adjustment for age, AMI (OR 9.34, 95% CI 1.66–52.4) and BI (OR 35.6, 95% CI 3.41–370) were associated with death. Superior mesenteric artery stenosis of &gt;70% had a clinically relevant association with BI (OR 5.23, 95% CI 1.43–19.13; p =.012).Conclusion: Age, symptomatic PAD, AMI, and BI were risk factors for death after elective OSR in women. The association between a &gt;70% SMA stenosis and BI may call for action in selected cases.</p

Intensive endoscopic therapy for untreated cervical anastomotic strictures after esophagectomy: a pilot study

Background Cervical anastomotic strictures after esophagectomy cause significant disease burden. We aimed to study the technical feasibility and safety of intensive endoscopic therapy. Methods In this pilot study, we included 15 patients with an untreated benign cervical anastomotic stricture after esophagectomy. Intensive endoscopic therapy comprised three endoscopic modalities: in- and excision using a needle-knife, intralesional steroid injections and bougie dilation. In two endoscopic procedures, the stricture was dilated up to a luminal diameter of 18 mm. Patients were followed up to 6 months. Results A luminal diameter of 18 mm was achieved in 13 of 15 patients (87%) after two endoscopic procedures. No major adverse events related to the investigational treatment occurred. Median dysphagia scores significantly improved from 2 (IQR, interquartile range, 2-3) at baseline to 0 (IQR 0-1) after 14 days (p < 0.001). Eleven (73%) patients developed recurrent symptoms of dysphagia requiring a median of 1 (IQR 0-3) additional endoscopic dilation procedure. Conclusions Achieving a luminal diameter of 18 mm in two procedures with intensive endoscopic therapy was technically feasible and effective in reducing dysphagia rapidly in patients with a cervical anastomotic stricture after esophagectomy. No major adverse events related to the investigational treatment were observed.Cellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog

Early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy:nationwide propensity-score-matched analysis

Background: Although robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has shown promising outcomes in experienced high-volume centres, it is unclear whether implementation on a nationwide scale is safe and beneficial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in the Netherlands. Methods: This was a nationwide retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy or open pancreatoduodenectomy who were registered in the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (18 centres, 2014-2021), starting from the first robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedure per centre. The main endpoints were major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade greater than or equal to III) and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Propensity-score matching (1 : 1) was used to minimize selection bias. Results: Overall, 701 patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and 4447 patients who underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy were included. Among the eight centres that performed robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, the median robotic pancreatoduodenectomy experience was 86 (range 48-149), with a 7.3% conversion rate. After matching (698 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy patients versus 698 open pancreatoduodenectomy control patients), no significant differences were found in major complications (40.3% versus 36.2% respectively; P = 0.186), in-hospital/30-day mortality (4.0% versus 3.1% respectively; P = 0.326), and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.9% versus 23.5% respectively; P = 0.578). Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a longer operating time (359 min versus 301 min; P &lt; 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 ml versus 500 ml; P &lt; 0.001), fewer wound infections (7.4% versus 12.2%; P = 0.008), and a shorter hospital stay (11 days versus 12 days; P &lt; 0.001). Centres performing greater than or equal to 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had a lower mortality rate (2.9% versus 7.3%; P = 0.009) and a lower conversion rate (6.3% versus 11.2%; P = 0.032). Conclusion: This study indicates that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was safely implemented nationwide, without significant differences in major morbidity and mortality compared with matched open pancreatoduodenectomy patients. Randomized trials should be carried out to verify these findings and confirm the observed benefits of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy.</p

Early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy:nationwide propensity-score-matched analysis

Background: Although robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has shown promising outcomes in experienced high-volume centres, it is unclear whether implementation on a nationwide scale is safe and beneficial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in the Netherlands. Methods: This was a nationwide retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy or open pancreatoduodenectomy who were registered in the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (18 centres, 2014-2021), starting from the first robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedure per centre. The main endpoints were major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade greater than or equal to III) and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Propensity-score matching (1 : 1) was used to minimize selection bias. Results: Overall, 701 patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and 4447 patients who underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy were included. Among the eight centres that performed robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, the median robotic pancreatoduodenectomy experience was 86 (range 48-149), with a 7.3% conversion rate. After matching (698 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy patients versus 698 open pancreatoduodenectomy control patients), no significant differences were found in major complications (40.3% versus 36.2% respectively; P = 0.186), in-hospital/30-day mortality (4.0% versus 3.1% respectively; P = 0.326), and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.9% versus 23.5% respectively; P = 0.578). Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a longer operating time (359 min versus 301 min; P &lt; 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 ml versus 500 ml; P &lt; 0.001), fewer wound infections (7.4% versus 12.2%; P = 0.008), and a shorter hospital stay (11 days versus 12 days; P &lt; 0.001). Centres performing greater than or equal to 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had a lower mortality rate (2.9% versus 7.3%; P = 0.009) and a lower conversion rate (6.3% versus 11.2%; P = 0.032). Conclusion: This study indicates that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was safely implemented nationwide, without significant differences in major morbidity and mortality compared with matched open pancreatoduodenectomy patients. Randomized trials should be carried out to verify these findings and confirm the observed benefits of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy.</p

Author Correction: Neoadjuvant atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: the phase 2 PANDA trial

Cellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog

Impact of nationwide enhanced implementation of best practices in pancreatic cancer care (PACAP-1):a multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial

Background: Pancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis. Best practices for the use of chemotherapy, enzyme replacement therapy, and biliary drainage have been identified but their implementation in daily clinical practice is often suboptimal. We hypothesized that a nationwide program to enhance implementation of these best practices in pancreatic cancer care would improve survival and quality of life. Methods/design: PACAP-1 is a nationwide multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled superiority trial. In a per-center stepwise and randomized manner, best practices in pancreatic cancer care regarding the use of (neo)adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, and metal biliary stents are implemented in all 17 Dutch pancreatic centers and their regional referral networks during a 6-week initiation period. Per pancreatic center, one multidisciplinary team functions as reference for the other centers in the network. Key best practices were identified from the literature, 3 years of data from existing nationwide registries within the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project (PACAP), and national expert meetings. The best practices follow the Dutch guideline on pancreatic cancer and the current state of the literature, and can be executed within daily clinical practice. The implementation process includes monitoring, return visits, and provider feedback in combination with education and reminders. Patient outcomes and compliance are monitored within the PACAP registries. Primary outcome is 1-year overall survival (for all disease stages). Secondary outcomes include quality of life, 3- and 5-year overall survival, and guideline compliance. An improvement of 10% in 1-year overall survival is considered clinically relevant. A 25-month study duration was chosen, which provides 80% statistical power for a mortality reduction of 10.0% in the 17 pancreatic cancer centers, with a required sample size of 2142 patients, corresponding to a 6.6% mortality reduction and 4769 patients nationwide. Discussion: The PACAP-1 trial is designed to evaluate whether a nationwide program for enhanced implementation of best practices in pancreatic cancer care can improve 1-year overall survival and quality of life. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03513705. Trial opened for accrual on 22th May 2018

Definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer: A Delphi consensus study in Europe.

Local treatment improves the outcomes for oligometastatic disease (OMD, i.e. an intermediate state between locoregional and widespread disseminated disease). However, consensus about the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer. In total, 65 specialists in the multidisciplinary treatment for oesophagogastric cancer from 49 expert centres across 16 European countries were requested to participate in this Delphi study. The consensus finding process consisted of a starting meeting, 2 online Delphi questionnaire rounds and an online consensus meeting. Input for Delphi questionnaires consisted of (1) a systematic review on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer and (2) a discussion of real-life clinical cases by multidisciplinary teams. Experts were asked to score each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The agreement was scored to be either absent/poor (&lt;50%), fair (50%-75%) or consensus (≥75%). A total of 48 experts participated in the starting meeting, both Delphi rounds, and the consensus meeting (overall response rate: 71%). OMD was considered in patients with metastatic oesophagogastric cancer limited to 1 organ with ≤3 metastases or 1 extra-regional lymph node station (consensus). In addition, OMD was considered in patients without progression at restaging after systemic therapy (consensus). For patients with synchronous or metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval ≤2 years, systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment was considered as treatment (consensus). For metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval &gt;2 years, either upfront local treatment or systemic treatment followed by restaging was considered as treatment (fair agreement). The OMEC project has resulted in a multidisciplinary European consensus statement for the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma and squamous cell cancer. This can be used to standardise inclusion criteria for future clinical trials

Early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: nationwide propensity-score-matched analysis

Background: Although robotic pancreatoduodenectomy has shown promising outcomes in experienced high-volume centres, it is unclear whether implementation on a nationwide scale is safe and beneficial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the early experience with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in the Netherlands. Methods: This was a nationwide retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy or open pancreatoduodenectomy who were registered in the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (18 centres, 2014-2021), starting from the first robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedure per centre. The main endpoints were major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade greater than or equal to III) and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Propensity-score matching (1 : 1) was used to minimize selection bias. Results: Overall, 701 patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenectomy and 4447 patients who underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy were included. Among the eight centres that performed robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, the median robotic pancreatoduodenectomy experience was 86 (range 48-149), with a 7.3% conversion rate. After matching (698 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy patients versus 698 open pancreatoduodenectomy control patients), no significant differences were found in major complications (40.3% versus 36.2% respectively; P = 0.186), in-hospital/30-day mortality (4.0% versus 3.1% respectively; P = 0.326), and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.9% versus 23.5% respectively; P = 0.578). Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a longer operating time (359 min versus 301 min; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 ml versus 500 ml; P < 0.001), fewer wound infections (7.4% versus 12.2%; P = 0.008), and a shorter hospital stay (11 days versus 12 days; P < 0.001). Centres performing greater than or equal to 20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had a lower mortality rate (2.9% versus 7.3%; P = 0.009) and a lower conversion rate (6.3% versus 11.2%; P = 0.032). Conclusion: This study indicates that robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was safely implemented nationwide, without significant differences in major morbidity and mortality compared with matched open pancreatoduodenectomy patients. Randomized trials should be carried out to verify these findings and confirm the observed benefits of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy