Methods and timing of biliary drainage for acute cholangitis: Tokyo Guidelines

Biliary drainage is a radical method to relieve cholestasis, a cause of acute cholangitis, and takes a central part in the treatment of acute cholangitis. Emergent drainage is essential for severe cases, whereas patients with moderate and mild disease should also receive drainage as soon as possible if they do not respond to conservative treatment, and their condition has not improved. Biliary drainage can be achieved via three different routes/procedures: endoscopic, percutaneous transhepatic, and open methods. The clinical value of both endoscopic and percutaneous transhepatic drainage is well known. Endoscopic drainage is associated with a low morbidity rate and shorter duration of hospitalization; therefore, this approach is advocated whenever it is applicable. In endoscopic drainage, either endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) or tube stent placement can be used. There is no significant difference in the success rate, effectiveness, and morbidity between the two procedures. The decision to perform endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is made based on the patient’s condition and the number and diameter of common bile duct stones. Open drainage, on the other hand, should be applied only in patients for whom endoscopic or percutaneous transhepatic drainage is contraindicated or has not been successfully performed. Cholecystectomy is recommended in patients with gallbladder stones, following the resolution of acute cholangitis with medical treatment, unless the patient has poor operative risk factors or declines surgery

Global patient outcomes after elective surgery: prospective cohort study in 27 low-, middle- and high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: As global initiatives increase patient access to surgical treatments, there remains a need to understand the adverse effects of surgery and define appropriate levels of perioperative care. METHODS: We designed a prospective international 7-day cohort study of outcomes following elective adult inpatient surgery in 27 countries. The primary outcome was in-hospital complications. Secondary outcomes were death following a complication (failure to rescue) and death in hospital. Process measures were admission to critical care immediately after surgery or to treat a complication and duration of hospital stay. A single definition of critical care was used for all countries. RESULTS: A total of 474 hospitals in 19 high-, 7 middle- and 1 low-income country were included in the primary analysis. Data included 44 814 patients with a median hospital stay of 4 (range 2-7) days. A total of 7508 patients (16.8%) developed one or more postoperative complication and 207 died (0.5%). The overall mortality among patients who developed complications was 2.8%. Mortality following complications ranged from 2.4% for pulmonary embolism to 43.9% for cardiac arrest. A total of 4360 (9.7%) patients were admitted to a critical care unit as routine immediately after surgery, of whom 2198 (50.4%) developed a complication, with 105 (2.4%) deaths. A total of 1233 patients (16.4%) were admitted to a critical care unit to treat complications, with 119 (9.7%) deaths. Despite lower baseline risk, outcomes were similar in low- and middle-income compared with high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Poor patient outcomes are common after inpatient surgery. Global initiatives to increase access to surgical treatments should also address the need for safe perioperative care. STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN5181700

Late Cenozoic marine mollusks from tuff cones in the Galápagos Islands

Volume: 44Start Page: 269End Page: 28

Comparative Effects of Therapy With Captopril and Digoxin in Patients With Mild to Moderate Heart Failure

This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study compares the effects of captopril treatment with those of digoxin treatment during maintenance diuretic therapy in patients with mild to moderate heart failure. Compared with placebo, captopril therapy resulted in significantly improved exercise time (mean increase, 82 s vs 35 s) and improved New York Heart Association class (41% vs 22%), but digoxin therapy did not. Digoxin treatment increased ejection fraction (4.4% increase) compared with captopril therapy (1.8% increase) and placebo (0.9% increase). The number of ventricular premature beats decreased 45% in the captopril group and increased 4% in the digoxin group in patients with more than ten ventricular premature beats per hour. Treatment failures, increased requirements for diuretic therapy, and hospitalizations were significantly more frequent in patients receiving placebo compared with those receiving either active drug. Transitory hypotension occurred more frequently with administration of captopril. Captopril treatment is significantly more effective than placebo and is an alternative to digoxin therapy in patients with mild to moderate heart failure who are receiving diuretic maintenance therapy.(JAMA 1988;259:539-544