DIRECT trial. Diverticulitis recurrences or continuing symptoms: Operative versus conservative Treatment. A MULTICENTER RANDOMISED CLINICAL TRIAL

Background: Persisting abdominal complaints are common after an episode of diverticulitis treated conservatively. Furthermore, some patients develop frequent recurrences. These two groups of patients suffer greatly from their disease, as shown by impaired health related quality of life and increased costs due to multiple specialist consultations, pain medication and productivity losses. Both conservative and operative management of patients with persisting abdominal complaints after an episode of diverticulitis and/or frequently recurring diverticulitis are applied. However, direct comparison by a randomised controlled trial is necessary to determine which is superior in relieving symptoms, optimising health related quality of life, minimising costs and preventing diverticulitis recurrences against acceptable morbidity and mortality associated with surgery or the occurrence of a complicated recurrence after conservative management. We, therefore, constructed a randomised clinical trial comparing these two treatment strategies. Methods/design: The DIRECT trial is a multicenter randomised clinical trial. Patients (18-75 years) presenting themselves with persisting abdominal complaints after an episode of diverticulitis and/or three or more recurrences within 2 years will be included and randomised. Patients randomised for conservative treatment are treated according to the current daily practice (antibiotics, analgetics and/or expectant management). Patients randomised for elective resection will undergo an elective resection of the affected colon segment. Preferably, a laparoscopic approach is used. The primary outcome is health related quality of life measured by the Gastro-intestinal Quality of Life Index, Short-Form 36, EQ-5D and a visual analogue scale for pain quantification. Secondary endpoints are morbidity, mortality and total costs. The total follow-u

Laparoscopic ileocolic resection versus infliximab treatment of distal ileitis in Crohn's disease: a randomized multicenter trial (LIR!C-trial)

Contains fulltext : 69534.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: With the availability of infliximab, nowadays recurrent Crohn's disease, defined as disease refractory to immunomodulatory agents that has been treated with steroids, is generally treated with infliximab. Infliximab is an effective but expensive treatment and once started it is unclear when therapy can be discontinued. Surgical resection has been the golden standard in recurrent Crohn's disease. Laparoscopic ileocolic resection proved to be safe and is characterized by a quick symptom reduction.The objective of this study is to compare infliximab treatment with laparoscopic ileocolic resection in patients with recurrent Crohn's disease of the distal ileum with respect to quality of life and costs. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is designed as a multicenter randomized clinical trial including patients with Crohn's disease located in the terminal ileum that require infliximab treatment following recent consensus statements on inflammatory bowel disease treatment: moderate to severe disease activity in patients that fail to respond to steroid therapy or immunomodulatory therapy. Patients will be randomized to receive either infliximab or undergo a laparoscopic ileocolic resection. Primary outcomes are quality of life and costs. Secondary outcomes are hospital stay, early and late morbidity, sick leave and surgical recurrence. In order to detect an effect size of 0.5 on the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire at a 5% two sided significance level with a power of 80%, a sample size of 65 patients per treatment group can be calculated. An economic evaluation will be performed by assessing the marginal direct medical, non-medical and time costs and the costs per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) will be calculated. For both treatment strategies a cost-utility ratio will be calculated. Patients will be included from December 2007. DISCUSSION: The LIR!C-trial is a randomized multicenter trial that will provide evidence whether infliximab treatment or surgery is the best treatment for recurrent distal ileitis in Crohn's disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands Trial Register NTR1150

The ladies trial: laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or resection for purulent peritonitisA and Hartmann's procedure or resection with primary anastomosis for purulent or faecal peritonitisB in perforated diverticulitis (NTR2037)

Background: Recently, excellent results are reported on laparoscopic lavage in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis as an alternative for sigmoidectomy and ostomy. The objective of this study is to determine whether LaparOscopic LAvage and drainage is a safe and effective treatment for patients with purulent peritonitis (LOLA-arm) and to determine the optimal resectional strategy in patients with a purulent or faecal peritonitis (DIVA-arm: perforated DIVerticulitis: sigmoidresection with or without Anastomosis). Methods/Design: In this multicentre randomised trial all patients with perforated diverticulitis are included. Upon laparoscopy, patients with purulent peritonitis are treated with laparoscopic lavage and drainage, Hartmann's procedure or sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis in a ratio of 2:1:1 (LOLA-arm). Patients with faecal peritonitis will be randomised 1:1 between Hartmann's procedure and resection with primary anastomosis (DIVA-arm). The primary combined endpoint of the LOLA-arm is major morbidity and mortality. A sample size of 132:66:66 patients will be able to detect a difference in the primary endpoint from 25% in resectional groups compared to 10% in the laparoscopic lavage group (two sided alpha = 5%, power = 90%). Endpoint of the DIVA-arm is stoma free survival one year after initial surgery. In this arm 212 patients are needed to significantly demonstrate a difference of 30% (log rank test two sided alpha = 5% and powe

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus percutaneous catheter drainage for acute cholecystitis in high risk patients (CHOCOLATE): Multicentre randomised clinical trial

Objective To assess whether laparoscopic cholecystectomy is superior to percutaneous catheter drainage in high risk patients with acute calculous cholecystitis. Design Multicentre, randomised controlled, superiority trial. Setting 11 hospitals in the Netherlands, February 2011 to January 2016. Participants 142 high risk patients with acute calculous cholecystitis were randomly allocated to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n=66) or to percutaneous catheter drainage (n=68). High risk was defined as an acute physiological assessment and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score of 7 or more. Main outcome measures The primary endpoints were death within one year and the occurrence of major complications, defined as infectious and cardiopulmonary complications within one month, need for reintervention (surgical, radiological, or endoscopic that had to be related to acute cholecystitis) within one year, or recurrent biliary disease within one year. Results The trial was concluded early after a planned interim analysis. The rate of death did not differ between the laparoscopic cholecystectomy and percutaneous catheter drainage group (3% v 9%, P=0.27), but major complications occurred in eight of 66 patients (12%) assigned to cholecystectomy and in 44 of 68 patients (65%) assigned to percutaneous drainage (risk ratio 0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 0.37; P<0.001). In the drainage group 45 patients (66%) required a reintervention compared with eight patients (12%) in the cholecystectomy group (P<0.001). Recurrent biliary disease occurred more often in the percutaneous drainage group (53% v 5%, P<0.001), and the median length of hospital stay was longer (9 days v 5 days, P<0.001). Conclusion Laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared with percutaneous catheter drainage reduced the rate of major complications in high risk patients with acute cholecystitis. Trial registration Dutch Trial Register NTR2666

DIRECT trial. Diverticulitis recurrences or continuing symptoms: Operative versus conservative Treatment. <it>A MULTICENTER RANDOMISED CLINICAL TRIAL</it>

Abstract Background Persisting abdominal complaints are common after an episode of diverticulitis treated conservatively. Furthermore, some patients develop frequent recurrences. These two groups of patients suffer greatly from their disease, as shown by impaired health related quality of life and increased costs due to multiple specialist consultations, pain medication and productivity losses. Both conservative and operative management of patients with persisting abdominal complaints after an episode of diverticulitis and/or frequently recurring diverticulitis are applied. However, direct comparison by a randomised controlled trial is necessary to determine which is superior in relieving symptoms, optimising health related quality of life, minimising costs and preventing diverticulitis recurrences against acceptable morbidity and mortality associated with surgery or the occurrence of a complicated recurrence after conservative management. We, therefore, constructed a randomised clinical trial comparing these two treatment strategies. Methods/design The DIRECT trial is a multicenter randomised clinical trial. Patients (18-75 years) presenting themselves with persisting abdominal complaints after an episode of diverticulitis and/or three or more recurrences within 2 years will be included and randomised. Patients randomised for conservative treatment are treated according to the current daily practice (antibiotics, analgetics and/or expectant management). Patients randomised for elective resection will undergo an elective resection of the affected colon segment. Preferably, a laparoscopic approach is used. The primary outcome is health related quality of life measured by the Gastro-intestinal Quality of Life Index, Short-Form 36, EQ-5D and a visual analogue scale for pain quantification. Secondary endpoints are morbidity, mortality and total costs. The total follow-up will be three years. Discussion Considering the high incidence and the multicenter design of this study, it may be assumed that the number of patients needed for this study (n = 214), may be gathered within one and a half year. Depending on the expertise and available equipment, we prefer to perform a laparoscopic resection on patients randomised for elective surgery. Should this be impossible, an open technique may be used as this also reflects the current situation. Trial Registration (Trial register number: NTR1478)</p

Hartmann's procedure versus sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis (LADIES): a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label, superiority trial

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis is superior to Hartmann's procedure. The likelihood of stoma reversal after primary anastomosis has been reported to be higher and reversal seems to be associated with lower morbidity and mortality. Although promising, results from these previous studies remain uncertain because of potential selection bias. Therefore, this study aimed to assess outcomes after Hartmann's procedure versus sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis, with or without defunctioning ileostomy, for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis (Hinchey III or IV disease) in a randomised trial. METHODS: A multicentre, randomised, open-label, superiority trial was done in eight academic hospitals and 34 teaching hospitals in Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands. Patients aged between 18 and 85 years who presented with clinical signs of general peritonitis and suspected perforated diverticulitis were eligible for inclusion if plain abdominal radiography or CT scan showed diffuse free air or fluid. Patients with Hinchey I or II diverticulitis were not eligible for inclusion. Patients were allocated (1:1) to Hartmann's procedure or sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis, with or without defunctioning ileostomy. Patients were enrolled by the surgeon or surgical resident involved, and secure online randomisation software was used in the operating room or by the trial coordinator on the phone. Random and concealed block sizes of two, four, or six were used, and randomisation was stratified by age (<60 and ≥60 years). The primary endpoint was 12-month stoma-free survival. Patients were analysed according to a modified intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR2037, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01317485. FINDINGS: Between July 1, 2010, and Feb 22, 2013, and June 9, 2013, and trial termination on June 3, 2016, 133 patients (93 with Hinchey III disease and 40 with Hinchey IV disease) were randomly assigned to Hartmann's procedure (68 patients) or primary anastomosis (65 patients). Two patients in the Hartmann's group were excluded, as was one in the primary anastomosis group; the modified intention-to-treat population therefore consisted of 66 patients in the Hartmann's procedure group (46 with Hinchey III disease, 20 with Hinchey IV disease) and 64 in the primary anastomosis group (46 with Hinchey III disease, 18 with Hinchey IV disease). In 17 (27%) of 64 patients assigned to primary anastomosis, no stoma was constructed. 12-month stoma-free survival was significantly better for patients undergoing primary anastomosis compared with Hartmann's procedure (94·6% [95% CI 88·7-100] vs 71·7% [95% CI 60·1-83·3], hazard ratio 2·79 [95% CI 1·86-4·18]; log-rank p<0·0001). There were no significant differences in short-term morbidity and mortality after the index procedure for Hartmann's procedure compared with primary anastomosis (morbidity: 29 [44%] of 66 patients vs 25 [39%] of 64, p=0·60; mortality: two [3%] vs four [6%], p=0·44). INTERPRETATION: In haemodynamically stable, immunocompetent patients younger than 85 years, primary anastomosis is preferable to Hartmann's procedure as a treatment for perforated diverticulitis (Hinchey III or Hinchey IV disease). FUNDING: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.status: publishe