Probioticaprofylaxe bij voorspeld ernstige acute pancreatitis : een gerandomiseerde, dubbelblinde, placebogecontroleerde trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether enteral prophylaxis with probiotics in patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis prevents infectious complications. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. METHOD: A total of 296 patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis (APACHE II score > or = 8, Imrie score > or = 3 or C-reactive protein concentration > 150 mg/l) were included and randomised to one of two groups. Within 72 hours after symptom onset, patients received a multispecies preparation of probiotics or placebo given twice daily via a jejunal catheter for 28 days. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of one of the following infections during admission and go-day follow-up: infected pancreatic necrosis, bacteraemia, pneumonia, urosepsis or infected ascites. Secondary endpoints were mortality and adverse reactions. The study registration number is ISRCTN38327949. RESULTS: Treatment groups were similar at baseline with regard to patient characteristics and disease severity. Infections occurred in 30% of patients in the probiotics group (46 of 152 patients) and 28% of those in the placebo group (41 of 144 patients; relative risk (RR): 1.1; 95% CI: 0.8-1.5). The mortality rate was 16% in the probiotics group (24 of 152 patients) and 6% (9 of 144 patients) in the placebo group (RR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.2-5.3). In the probiotics group, 9 patients developed bowel ischaemia (of whom 8 patients died), compared with none in the placebo group (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: In patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis, use of this combination of probiotic strains did not reduce the risk of infections. Probiotic prophylaxis was associated with a more than two-fold increase in mortality and should therefore not be administered in this category of patients.

Guest-Dependence on Spin Crossover and Thermal Expansion in Nanoporous Coordination Framework Materials

Coordination framework materials have attracted much interest in modern chemistry due to the plethora of properties that they may possess. The frameworks described in this thesis demonstrate the properties of spin crossover, anomalous thermal expansion, and nanoporosity, which enables guest-dependent studies into the material behaviour. The first frameworks described are the [Fe(bpac)M(CN)4]•x(bpac){guest} (M = Ni, Pd, Pt; bpac = 1,4-bis(4′-pyridyl)acetylene) family. The properties of the alcohol-solvated [Fe(bpac)Pd(CN)4]•x(bpac) (x = 0.4, 0.5) frameworks were studied, and the major guest influence on the resulting spin crossover behaviour was determined to be due to an internal pressure effect produced by the kinetic volume and compressibility of the guest. By obtaining a variety of EtOH adsorption isotherms and isobars, a Temperature-Pressure phase diagram of SCO was produced for the [Fe(bpac)Pd(CN)4]•0.4(bpac){EtOH} material. In addition to these frameworks, the behaviour of the [Fe(bpac)(Au(CN)2)2)]•{guest} framework material was also investigated. This framework demonstrated unprecedented multifunctional behaviour, with a synergistic interplay between the spin crossover, lattice structure and host–guest properties. The framework lattice was exceptionally flexible, and displayed a facile ‘scissor-type’ motion of the {Fe(Au(CN)2)2} (4,4) grids. Due to the extreme conformational flexibility of the {Fe(Au(CN)2)2} (4,4)-grids of this material, the [Fe(bpac)(Au(CN)2)2)]•{EtOH} sample displayed colossal uniaxial thermal expansion behaviour. Below the spin transition, the a parameter displayed a maximum thermal expansion coefficient of −1070 × 10−6 K−1, which is an order of magnitude greater than any yet reported for this quantity. Guest-dependent studies on this framework demonstrate the strong effect of guest properties on the conformation of the framework lattice and the spin transition behaviour

Pancreatitis of biliary origin, optimal timing of cholecystectomy (PONCHO trial):Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: After an initial attack of biliary pancreatitis, cholecystectomy minimizes the risk of recurrent biliary pancreatitis and other gallstone-related complications. Guidelines advocate performing cholecystectomy within 2 to 4 weeks after discharge for mild biliary pancreatitis. During this waiting period, the patient is at risk of recurrent biliary events. In current clinical practice, surgeons usually postpone cholecystectomy for 6 weeks due to a perceived risk of a more difficult dissection in the early days following pancreatitis and for logistical reasons. We hypothesize that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy minimizes the risk of recurrent biliary pancreatitis or other complications of gallstone disease in patients with mild biliary pancreatitis without increasing the difficulty of dissection and the surgical complication rate compared with interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Methods/Design: PONCHO is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, assessor-blinded, superiority multicenter trial. Patients are randomly allocated to undergo early laparoscopic cholecystectomy, within 72 hours after randomization, or interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 25 to 30 days after randomization. During a 30-month period, 266 patients will be enrolled from 18 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint of mortality and acute re-admissions for biliary events (that is, recurrent biliary pancreatitis, acute cholecystitis, symptomatic/obstructive choledocholithiasis requiring endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography including cholangitis (with/without endoscopic sphincterotomy), and uncomplicated biliary colics) occurring within 6 months following randomization. Secondary endpoints include the individual endpoints of the composite endpoint, surgical and other complications, technical difficulty of cholecystectomy and costs.Discussion: The PONCHO trial is designed to show that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (within 72 hours) reduces the combined endpoint of mortality and re-admissions for biliary events as compared with interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy (between 25 and 30 days) after recovery of a first episode of mild biliary pancreatitis.</p

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Observational cohort studies have suggested that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with better short-term outcomes compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), such as less intraoperative blood loss, lower morbidity, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced total costs. Confounding by indication has probably influenced these findings, given that case-matched studies failed to confirm the superiority of MIDP. This accentuates the need for multicenter randomized controlled trials, which are currently lacking. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIDP compared with ODP even in an enhanced recovery setting. Methods: LEOPARD is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, superiority trial in all 17 centers of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. A total of 102 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant or malignant disease will be randomly allocated to undergo MIDP or ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. The primary outcome is time (days) to functional recovery, defined as all of the following: independently mobile at the preoperative level, sufficient pain control with oral medication alone, ability to maintain sufficient (i.e. >50%) daily required caloric intake, no intravenous fluid administration and no signs of infection. Secondary outcomes are operative and postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant complications, mortality, quality of life and costs. Discussion: The LEOPARD trial is designed to investigate whether MIDP reduces the time to functional recovery compared with ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register, NTR5188. Registered on 9 April 201

Venous wedge and segment resection during pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer: impact on short- and long-term outcomes in a nationwide cohort analysis

Background Venous resection of the superior mesenteric or portal vein is increasingly performed in pancreatic cancer surgery, whereas results of studies on short- and long-term outcomes are contradictory. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the type of venous resection in pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer on postoperative morbidity and overall survival. Methods This nationwide retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer in 18 centres (2013-2017). Results A total of 1311 patients were included, of whom 17 per cent underwent wedge resection and 10 per cent segmental resection. Patients with segmental resection had higher rates of major morbidity (39 versus 20 versus 23 per cent, respectively; P < 0.001) and portal or superior mesenteric vein thrombosis (18 versus 5 versus 1 per cent, respectively; P < 0.001) and worse overall survival (median 12 versus 16 versus 20 months, respectively; P < 0.001), compared to patients with wedge resection and those without venous resection. Multivariable analysis showed patients with segmental resection, but not those who had wedge resection, had higher rates of major morbidity (odds ratio = 1.93, 95 per cent c.i. 1.20 to 3.11) and worse overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.40, 95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 1.78), compared to patients without venous resection. Among patients who received neoadjuvant therapy, there was no difference in overall survival among patients with segmental and wedge resection and those without venous resection (median 32 versus 25 versus 33 months, respectively; P = 0.470), although there was a difference in major morbidity rates (52 versus 19 versus 21 per cent, respectively; P = 0.012). Conclusion In pancreatic surgery, the short- and long-term outcomes are worse in patients with venous segmental resection, compared to patients with wedge resection and those without venous resection.Of 1311 patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy, 17 per cent underwent venous wedge resection and 10 per cent underwent venous segmental resection. Venous segmental, but not venous wedge, resection was associated with higher major morbidity rates (odds ratio = 1.93, 95 per cent c.i. 1.20 to 3.11) and worse overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.40, 95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 1.78), compared to no venous resection. This nationwide study found worse short- and long-term outcomes in patients who had venous segmental resection. The results of this study urge the need for improving outcomes in patients who require venous segmental resection.Surgical oncolog

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 followup 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.Cellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog

Diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic duct disruption or disconnection: an international expert survey and case vignette study

Background: Pancreatic duct disruption or disconnection is a potentially severe complication of necrotizing pancreatitis. With no existing treatment guidelines, it is unclear whether there is any consensus among experts in clinical practice. We evaluated current expert opinion regarding the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic duct disruption and disconnection in an international case vignette study. Methods: An online case vignette survey was sent to 110 international expert pancreatologists. Expert selection was based on publications in the last 5 years and/or participation in development of IAP/APA and ESGE guidelines on acute pancreatitis. Consensus was defined as agreement by at least 75% of the experts. Results: The response rate was 51% (n = 56). Forty-four experts (79%) obtained a MRI/MRCP and 52 experts (93%) measured amylase levels in percutaneous drain fluid to evaluate pancreatic duct integrity. The majority of experts favored endoscopic transluminal drainage for infected (peri)pancreatic necrosis and pancreatic duct disruption (84%, n = 45) or disconnection (88%, n = 43). Consensus was lacking regarding the treatment of patients with persistent percutaneous drain production, and with persistent sterile necrosis. Conclusion: This international survey of experts demonstrates that there are many areas for which no consensus existed, providing clear focus for future investigation

Colorectal liver metastases: Surgery versus thermal ablation (COLLISION) - a phase III single-blind prospective randomized controlled trial

Background: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) are widely accepted techniques to eliminate small unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Although previous studies labelled thermal ablation inferior to surgical resection, the apparent selection bias when comparing patients with unresectable disease to surgical candidates, the superior safety profile, and the competitive overall survival results for the more recent reports mandate the setup of a randomized controlled trial. The objective of the COLLISION trial is to prove non-inferiority of thermal ablation compared to hepatic resection in patients with at least one resectable and ablatable CRLM and no extrahepatic disease. Methods: In this two-arm, single-blind multi-center phase-III clinical trial, six hundred and eighteen patients with at least one CRLM (≤3cm) will be included to undergo either surgical resection or thermal ablation of appointed target lesion(s) (≤3cm). Primary endpoint is OS (overall survival, intention-to-treat analysis). Main secondary endpoints are overall disease-free survival (DFS), time to progression (TTP), time to local progression (TTLP), primary and assisted technique efficacy (PTE, ATE), procedural morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay, assessment of pain and quality of life (QoL), cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Discussion: If thermal ablation proves to be non-inferior in treating lesions ≤3cm, a switch in treatment-method may lead to a reduction of the post-procedural morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay and incremental costs without compromising oncological outcome for patients with CRLM. Trial registration:NCT03088150 , January 11th 2017