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)

Emergency surgery admissions and the {COVID}-19 pandemic: did the first wave really change our practice? Results of an {ACOI}/{WSES} international retrospective cohort audit on 6263 patients

The COVID-19 pandemic is having a deep impact on emergency surgical services, with a significant reduction of patients admitted into emergency surgical units world widely. Reliable figures of this reduction have not been produced yet. Our international audit aimed at giving a precise snapshot of the absolute and relative changes of emergency surgical admissions at the outbreak of the pandemic.Datasets of patients admitted as general surgical emergencies into 45 internationally distributed emergency surgical units during the months of March and April 2020 (Covid-19 pandemic outbreak) were collected and compared with those of patients admitted into the same units during the months of March and April 2019 (pre-Covid-19). Primary endpoint was to evaluate the relative variation of the presentation symptoms and discharge diagnoses between the two study periods. Secondary endpoint was to identify the possible change of therapeutic strategy during the same two periods.Forty-five centres participated sent their anonymised data to the study hub, for a total of 6263 patients. Of these, 3810 were admitted in the pre-Covid period and 2453 in the Covid period, for a 35.6% absolute reduction. The most common presentation was abdominal pain, whose incidence did not change between the two periods, but in the Covid period patients presented less frequently with anal pain, hernias, anaemia and weight loss. ASA 1 and low frailty patients were admitted less frequently, while ASA>1 and frail patients showed a relative increase. The type of surgical access did not change significantly, but lap-to-open conversion rate halved between the two study periods. Discharge diagnoses of appendicitis and diverticulitis reduced significantly, while bowel ischaemia and perianal ailments had a significant relative increase.Our audit demonstrates a significant overall reduction of emergency surgery admissions at the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic with a minimal change of the proportions of single presentations, diagnoses and treatments. These findings may open the door to new ways of managing surgical emergencies without engulfing the already busy hospitals

Emergency surgery admissions and the COVID-19 pandemic: did the first wave really change our practice? Results of an ACOI/WSES international retrospective cohort audit on 6263 patients

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic is having a deep impact on emergency surgical services, with a significant reduction of patients admitted into emergency surgical units world widely. Reliable figures of this reduction have not been produced yet. Our international audit aimed at giving a precise snapshot of the absolute and relative changes of emergency surgical admissions at the outbreak of the pandemic. Materials and methods: Datasets of patients admitted as general surgical emergencies into 45 internationally distributed emergency surgical units during the months of March and April 2020 (Covid-19 pandemic outbreak) were collected and compared with those of patients admitted into the same units during the months of March and April 2019 (pre-Covid-19). Primary endpoint was to evaluate the relative variation of the presentation symptoms and discharge diagnoses between the two study periods. Secondary endpoint was to identify the possible change of therapeutic strategy during the same two periods. Results: Forty-five centres participated sent their anonymised data to the study hub, for a total of 6263 patients. Of these, 3810 were admitted in the pre-Covid period and 2453 in the Covid period, for a 35.6% absolute reduction. The most common presentation was abdominal pain, whose incidence did not change between the two periods, but in the Covid period patients presented less frequently with anal pain, hernias, anaemia and weight loss. ASA 1 and low frailty patients were admitted less frequently, while ASA>1 and frail patients showed a relative increase. The type of surgical access did not change significantly, but lap-to-open conversion rate halved between the two study periods. Discharge diagnoses of appendicitis and diverticulitis reduced significantly, while bowel ischaemia and perianal ailments had a significant relative increase. Conclusions: Our audit demonstrates a significant overall reduction of emergency surgery admissions at the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic with a minimal change of the proportions of single presentations, diagnoses and treatments. These findings may open the door to new ways of managing surgical emergencies without engulfing the already busy hospitals

Emergency surgery admissions and the COVID-19 pandemic: did the first wave really change our practice? Results of an ACOI/WSES international retrospective cohort audit on 6263 patients

Abstract Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic is having a deep impact on emergency surgical services, with a significant reduction of patients admitted into emergency surgical units world widely. Reliable figures of this reduction have not been produced yet. Our international audit aimed at giving a precise snapshot of the absolute and relative changes of emergency surgical admissions at the outbreak of the pandemic. Materials and methods Datasets of patients admitted as general surgical emergencies into 45 internationally distributed emergency surgical units during the months of March and April 2020 (Covid-19 pandemic outbreak) were collected and compared with those of patients admitted into the same units during the months of March and April 2019 (pre-Covid-19). Primary endpoint was to evaluate the relative variation of the presentation symptoms and discharge diagnoses between the two study periods. Secondary endpoint was to identify the possible change of therapeutic strategy during the same two periods. Results Forty-five centres participated sent their anonymised data to the study hub, for a total of 6263 patients. Of these, 3810 were admitted in the pre-Covid period and 2453 in the Covid period, for a 35.6% absolute reduction. The most common presentation was abdominal pain, whose incidence did not change between the two periods, but in the Covid period patients presented less frequently with anal pain, hernias, anaemia and weight loss. ASA 1 and low frailty patients were admitted less frequently, while ASA&gt;1 and frail patients showed a relative increase. The type of surgical access did not change significantly, but lap-to-open conversion rate halved between the two study periods. Discharge diagnoses of appendicitis and diverticulitis reduced significantly, while bowel ischaemia and perianal ailments had a significant relative increase. Conclusions Our audit demonstrates a significant overall reduction of emergency surgery admissions at the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic with a minimal change of the proportions of single presentations, diagnoses and treatments. These findings may open the door to new ways of managing surgical emergencies without engulfing the already busy hospitals. </jats:sec

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 &lt;.001) and morbidity (7.7% vs 3.7%, P &lt; .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 &lt; .001), morbidity (30 [30.3%] vs 57 [5.5%], P &lt; .001), bile leakage (2 [2.4%] vs 4 [0.4%], P = .02), and infections (12 [14.6%] vs 4 [0.4%], P &lt; .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 &lt; .001), morbidity (30 [30.3%] vs 17 [10.3%], P &lt; .001), and infections (12 [14.6%] vs 2 [1.3%], P &lt; .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

Infected pancreatic necrosis: outcomes and clinical predictors of mortality. A post hoc analysis of the MANCTRA-1 international study

Abstract 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 &lt; 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). Graphical abstract </jats:p

SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and venous thromboembolism after surgery: an international prospective cohort study

SARS-CoV-2 has been associated with an increased rate of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. Since surgical patients are already at higher risk of venous thromboembolism than general populations, this study aimed to determine if patients with peri-operative or prior SARS-CoV-2 were at further increased risk of venous thromboembolism. We conducted a planned sub-study and analysis from an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of elective and emergency patients undergoing surgery during October 2020. Patients from all surgical specialties were included. The primary outcome measure was venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) within 30 days of surgery. SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was defined as peri-operative (7 days before to 30 days after surgery); recent (1-6 weeks before surgery); previous (&gt;= 7 weeks before surgery); or none. Information on prophylaxis regimens or pre-operative anti-coagulation for baseline comorbidities was not available. Postoperative venous thromboembolism rate was 0.5% (666/123,591) in patients without SARS-CoV-2; 2.2% (50/2317) in patients with peri-operative SARS-CoV-2; 1.6% (15/953) in patients with recent SARS-CoV-2; and 1.0% (11/1148) in patients with previous SARS-CoV-2. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with peri-operative (adjusted odds ratio 1.5 (95%CI 1.1-2.0)) and recent SARS-CoV-2 (1.9 (95%CI 1.2-3.3)) remained at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, with a borderline finding in previous SARS-CoV-2 (1.7 (95%CI 0.9-3.0)). Overall, venous thromboembolism was independently associated with 30-day mortality (5.4 (95%CI 4.3-6.7)). In patients with SARS-CoV-2, mortality without venous thromboembolism was 7.4% (319/4342) and with venous thromboembolism was 40.8% (31/76). Patients undergoing surgery with peri-operative or recent SARS-CoV-2 appear to be at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism compared with patients with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment are unknown in this cohort of patients, and these data should be interpreted accordingly

Global Incidence and Risk Factors Associated With Postoperative Urinary Retention Following Elective Inguinal Hernia Repair

Importance Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) is a well-recognized complication of inguinal hernia repair (IHR). A variable incidence of POUR has previously been reported in this context, and contradictory evidence surrounds potential risk factors.Objective To ascertain the incidence of, explore risk factors for, and determine the health service outcomes of POUR following elective IHR.Design, Setting, and Participants The Retention of Urine After Inguinal Hernia Elective Repair (RETAINER I) study, an international, prospective cohort study, recruited participants between March 1 and October 31, 2021. This study was conducted across 209 centers in 32 countries in a consecutive sample of adult patients undergoing elective IHR.Exposure Open or minimally invasive IHR by any surgical technique, under local, neuraxial regional, or general anesthesia.Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the incidence of POUR following elective IHR. Secondary outcomes were perioperative risk factors, management, clinical consequences, and health service outcomes of POUR. A preoperative International Prostate Symptom Score was measured in male patients.Results In total, 4151 patients (3882 male and 269 female; median [IQR] age, 56 [43-68] years) were studied. Inguinal hernia repair was commenced via an open surgical approach in 82.2% of patients (n = 3414) and minimally invasive surgery in 17.8% (n = 737). The primary form of anesthesia was general in 40.9% of patients (n = 1696), neuraxial regional in 45.8% (n = 1902), and local in 10.7% (n = 446). Postoperative urinary retention occurred in 5.8% of male patients (n = 224), 2.97% of female patients (n = 8), and 9.5% (119 of 1252) of male patients aged 65 years or older. Risk factors for POUR after adjusted analyses included increasing age, anticholinergic medication, history of urinary retention, constipation, out-of-hours surgery, involvement of urinary bladder within the hernia, temporary intraoperative urethral catheterization, and increasing operative duration. Postoperative urinary retention was the primary reason for 27.8% of unplanned day-case surgery admissions (n = 74) and 51.8% of 30-day readmissions (n = 72).Conclusions The findings of this cohort study suggest that 1 in 17 male patients, 1 in 11 male patients aged 65 years or older, and 1 in 34 female patients may develop POUR following IHR. These findings could inform preoperative patient counseling. In addition, awareness of modifiable risk factors may help to identify patients at increased risk of POUR who may benefit from perioperative risk mitigation strategies