Accuracy of citrulline, I-FABP and d-lactate in the diagnosis of acute mesenteric ischemia

Data availability: Research data are not shared.Supplementary Information oi available online at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98012-w#Sec14 .Early diagnosis of acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) remains a clinical challenge, and no biomarker has been consistently validated. We aimed to assess the accuracy of three promising circulating biomarkers for diagnosing AMI—citrulline, intestinal fatty acid-binding protein (I-FABP), and D-lactate. A cross-sectional diagnostic study enrolled AMI patients admitted to the intestinal stroke center and controls with acute abdominal pain of another origin. We included 129 patients—50 AMI and 79 controls. Plasma citrulline concentrations were significantly lower in AMI patients compared to the controls [15.3 μmol/L (12.0–26.0) vs. 23.3 μmol/L (18.3–29.8), p = 0.001]. However, the area under the receiver operating curves (AUROC) for the diagnosis of AMI by Citrulline was low: 0.68 (95% confidence interval = 0.58–0.78). No statistical difference was found in plasma I-FABP and plasma D-lactate concentrations between the AMI and control groups, with an AUROC of 0.44, and 0.40, respectively. In this large cross-sectional study, citrulline, I-FABP, and D-lactate failed to differentiate patients with AMI from patients with acute abdominal pain of another origin. Further research should focus on the discovery of new biomarkers.Grants from MSD-Avenir and APHP funded the SURVIBIO study; Alexandre Nuzzo received Ph.D. Grants from “Fondation de l'Avenir” and the French Gastroenterology Society (SNFGE)

Risk of Perforated Colonic Diverticulitis in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease Requiring Sodium Polystyrene Sulfonate

International audienc

Benchmark performance of laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy and right hepatectomy in expert centers

Background & Aims: Herein, we aimed to establish benchmark values – based on a composite indicator of healthcare quality – for the performance of laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) and laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) using data from expert centers. Methods: Data from a nationwide multicenter survey including all patients undergoing LLLS and LRH between 2000 and 2017 were analyzed. Textbook outcome (TO) completion was considered in patients fulfilling all 6 of the following characteristics: negative margins, no transfusion, no complication, no prolonged hospital stay, no readmission and no mortality. For each procedure, a cut-off laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) volume by center was associated with TO on multivariable analysis. These cut-offs defined the expert centers. The benchmark values were set at the 75th percentile of median outcomes among these expert centers. Results: Among 4,400 LLRs performed in 29 centers, 855 patients who underwent LLLS and 488 who underwent LRH were identified. The overall incidences of TO after LLLS and LRH were 43.7% and 23.8%, respectively. LLR volume cut-offs of 25 LLR/year (odds ratio [OR] 2.45; bootstrap 95% CI 1.65–3.69; p = 0.001) and 35 LLR/year (OR 2.55; bootstrap 95% CI 1.34–5.63; p = 0.003) were independently associated with completion of TO after LLLS and LRH, respectively. Eight centers for LLLS and 6 centers for LRH, including 516 and 346 patients undergoing LLLS/LRH respectively, reached these cut-offs and were identified as expert centers. After LLLS, benchmark values of severe complication, mortality and TO completion were defined as ≤5.3%, ≤1.2% and ≥46.6%, respectively. After LRH, benchmark values of severe complication, mortality and TO completion were ≤20.4%, ≤2.8% and ≥24.2%, respectively. Conclusions: This study provides an up-to-date reference on the benchmark performance of LLLS and LRH in expert centers. Lay summary: In a nationwide French survey of laparoscopic liver resection, expert centers were defined according to the completion of a textbook outcome, which is a composite indicator of healthcare quality. Benchmark values regarding intra-operative details and outcomes were established using data from 516 patients with laparoscopic left lateral sectionectiomy and 346 patients with laparoscopic right hepatectomy from expert centers. These values should be used as a reference point to improve the quality of laparoscopic resections

Impact of cirrhosis in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection in a nationwide multicentre survey

BACKGROUND: The aim was to analyse the impact of cirrhosis on short-term outcomes after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in a multicentre national cohort study. METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients undergoing LLR in 27 centres between 2000 and 2017. Cirrhosis was defined as F4 fibrosis on pathological examination. Short-term outcomes of patients with and without liver cirrhosis were compared after propensity score matching by centre volume, demographic and tumour characteristics, and extent of resection. RESULTS: Among 3150 patients included, LLR was performed in 774 patients with (24·6 per cent) and 2376 (75·4 per cent) without cirrhosis. Severe complication and mortality rates in patients with cirrhosis were 10·6 and 2·6 per cent respectively. Posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) developed in 3·6 per cent of patients with cirrhosis and was the major cause of death (11 of 20 patients). After matching, patients with cirrhosis tended to have higher rates of severe complications (odds ratio (OR) 1·74, 95 per cent c.i. 0·92 to 3·41; P = 0·096) and PHLF (OR 7·13, 0·91 to 323·10; P = 0·068) than those without cirrhosis. They also had a higher risk of death (OR 5·13, 1·08 to 48·61; P = 0·039). Rates of cardiorespiratory complications (P = 0·338), bile leakage (P = 0·286) and reoperation (P = 0·352) were similar in the two groups. Patients with cirrhosis had a longer hospital stay than those without (11 versus 8 days; P = 0·018). Centre expertise was an independent protective factor against PHLF in patients with cirrhosis (OR 0·33, 0·14 to 0·76; P = 0·010). CONCLUSION: Underlying cirrhosis remains an independent risk factor for impaired outcomes in patients undergoing LLR, even in expert centres