Current practice in the removal of benign endometrial polyps: a Dutch survey

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the current practice of Dutch gynecologists in the removal of benign endometrial polyps and compare these results with the results of a previous study from 2003. In 2009 Dutch gynecologists were surveyed by a mailed questionnaire about polypectomy. Gynecologists answered questions about their individual performance of polypectomy: setting, form of anesthesia, method, and instrument use. The results were compared with the results from the previous survey. The response rate was 70% (585 of 837 gynecologists). Among the respondents, 455 (78%) stated to remove endometrial polyps themselves. Polyps were mostly removed in an inpatient setting (337; 74%) under general or regional anesthesia (247; 54%) and under direct hysteroscopic vision (411; 91%). Gynecologists working in a teaching hospital removed polyps more often in an outpatient setting compared with gynecologists working in a nonteaching hospital [118 (43%) vs. 35 (19%) p < 0.001]. These results are in accordance with the results from 2003. Compared to 2003 there was an increase in the number of gynecologists performing polypectomies with local or no anesthesia [211 (46%) vs. 98 (22%), p < 0.001]. An increase was also noted in the number of gynecologists using direct hysteroscopic vision [411 (91%) vs. 290 (64%), p < 0.001] and 5 Fr electrosurgical instruments [181 (44%) vs. 56 (19%), p < 0.001]. Compared to the situation in 2003, there is an increase in removal under direct hysteroscopic vision, with 5 Fr electrosurgical instruments, using local or no anesthesia. This implies there is progress in outpatient hysteroscopic polypectomy in the Netherlands

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

Long-Term Mental Health Problems after Delirium in the ICU

Objectives: To determine whether delirium during ICU stay is associated with long-term mental health problems defined as symptoms of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.  Design: Prospective cohort study.  Setting: Survey study, 1 year after discharge from a medical-surgical ICU in the Netherlands.  Patients: One-year ICU survivors of an ICU admission lasting more than 48 hours, without a neurologic disorder or other condition that would impede delirium assessment during ICU stay.  Interventions: None.  Measurements and Main Results: One year after discharge, ICU survivors received a survey containing the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale with a subscale for symptoms of depression and a subscale for symptoms of anxiety, and the Impact of Event Scale 15 item measuring symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. Participants were classified as having experienced no delirium (n = 270; 48%), a single day of delirium (n = 86; 15%), or multiple days of delirium (n = 211; 37%) during ICU stay. Log-binomial regression was used to assess the association between delirium and symptoms of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder. The study population consisted of 567 subjects; of whom 246 subjects (43%) reported symptoms of anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale with a subscale for anxiety, ≥ 8), and 254 (45%) symptoms of depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale with a subscale for depression, ≥ 8). In 220 patients (39%), the Impact of Event Scale 15 item was greater than or equal to 35, indicating a high probability of posttraumatic stress disorder. There was substantial overlap between these mental health problems - 63% of the subjects who scored positive for the presence of any three of the mental health problems, scored positive for all three. No association was observed between either a single day or multiple days of delirium and symptoms of anxiety, depression, or posttraumatic stress disorder.  Conclusions: Although symptoms of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder were found to be common 1 year after critical illness, the occurrence of delirium during ICU stay did not increase the risk of these long-term mental health problems

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. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: In the randomized POINTER trial, patients assigned to the postponed-drainage approach using antibiotic treatment required fewer interventions, as compared to 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. Primary outcome was a composite of death and major complications. RESULTS: Out of 104 patients, 88 were re-evaluated with a median follow-up 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 to immediate drainage, and should therefore be the preferred approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN33682933

Comparison of lumen-apposing metal stents versus double-pigtail plastic stents for infected necrotising pancreatitis

Objective Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are believed to clinically improve endoscopic transluminal drainage of infected necrosis when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents. However, comparative data from prospective studies are very limited. Design Patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, who underwent an endoscopic step-up approach with LAMS within a multicentre prospective cohort study were compared with the data of 51 patients in the randomised TENSION trial who had been assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach with double-pigtail plastic stents. The clinical study protocol was otherwise identical for both groups. Primary end point was the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. Secondary end points included mortality, major complications, hospital stay and healthcare costs. Results A total of 53 patients were treated with LAMS in 16 hospitals during 27 months. The need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy was 64% (n=34) and was not different from the previous trial using plastic stents (53%, n=27)), also after correction for baseline characteristics (OR 1.21 (95% CI 0.45 to 3.23)). Secondary end points did not differ between groups either, which also included bleeding requiring intervention-5 patients (9%) after LAMS placement vs 11 patients (22%) after placement of plastic stents (relative risk 0.44; 95% CI 0.16 to 1.17). Total healthcare costs were also comparable (mean difference -euro6348, bias-corrected and accelerated 95% CI -euro26 386 to euro10 121). Conclusion Our comparison of two patient groups from two multicentre prospective studies with a similar design suggests that LAMS do not reduce the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis. Also, the rate of bleeding complications was comparable

Impact of the lockdown on acute stroke treatments during the first surge of the COVID-19 outbreak in the Netherlands

Introduction: We investigated the impact of the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the resulting lockdown on reperfusion treatments and door-to-treatment times during the first surge in Dutch comprehensive stroke centers. Furthermore, we studied the association between COVID-19-status and treatment times. Methods: We included all patients receiving reperfusion treatment in 17 Dutch stroke centers from May 11th, 2017, until May 11th, 2020. We collected baseline characteristics, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) at admission, onset-to-door time (ODT), door-to-needle time (DNT), door-to-groin time (DGT) and COVID-19-status at admission. Parameters during the lockdown (March 15th, 2020 until May 11th, 2020) were compared with those in the same period in 2019, and between groups stratified by COVID-19-status. We used nationwide data and extrapolated our findings to the increasing trend of EVT numbers since May 2017. Results: A decline of 14% was seen in reperfusion treatments during lockdown, with a decline in both IVT and EVT delivery. DGT increased by 12 min (50 to 62 min, p-value of < 0.001). Furthermore, median NIHSS-scores were higher in COVID-19 - suspected or positive patients (7 to 11, p-value of 0.004), door-to-treatment times did not differ significantly when stratified for COVID-19-status. Conclusions: During the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic, a decline in acute reperfusion treatments and a delay in DGT was seen, which indicates a target for attention. It also appeared that COVID-19-positive or -suspected patients had more severe neurologic symptoms, whereas their EVT-workflow was not affected

PanCareLIFE: The scientific basis for a European project to improve long-term care regarding fertility, ototoxicity and health-related quality of life after cancer occurring among children and adolescents

Aims: Survival after cancer diagnosed during childhood or adolescence continues to improve with new treatments and supportive therapies. Optimal long-term care requires that risks to vulnerable organs are clearly defined and translated into guidelines that are implemented into practice. PanCareLIFE is a pan-European consortium that addresses survivorship issues comprising fertility, hearing impairment and quality of life. This article describes the scientific basis of PanCareLIFE's studies. Methods: PanCareLIFE involves 17 partner institutions from eight European countries, with additional 11 data providers from five other countries. Study designs and methods include molecular genetic, cohort and case-control studies, a longitudinal study and an intervention study. Ethics and data protection issues have been taken into account from the beginning. Results: PanCareLIFE will investigate the way that treatment impairs female fertility, by evaluating anti-Müllerian hormone levels and the underlying genetic susceptibility to loss of fertility. For our fertility studies, more than 6000 survivors have completed questionnaires, more than 1500 provided serum samples and more than 400 case-control triads have been identified. Fertility preservation guidelines for boys and girls will be developed. More than 2000 survivors have contributed audiograms for the ototoxicity study. Almost 1000 samples were sent for genetic analysis related to ototoxicity and gonadal reserve. The SF-36 questionnaire will measure quality of life in more than 10,000 survivors. Conclusions: The large number of subjects enrolled in PanCareLIFE and the detailed information accumulated will allow in-depth evaluation of important outcomes. Fertility preservation guidelines will help patients and their families make informed decisions and contribute to their long-term well-being