Harry van Goor

Probiotic prophylaxis in predicted severe acute pancreatitis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUNDnInfectious complications and associated mortality are a major concern in acute pancreatitis. Enteral administration of probiotics could prevent infectious complications, but convincing evidence is scarce. Our aim was to assess the effects of probiotic prophylaxis in patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis.nnnMETHODSnIn this multicentre randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 298 patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE II] score > or =8, Imrie score > or =3, or C-reactive protein >150 mg/L) were randomly assigned within 72 h of onset of symptoms to receive a multispecies probiotic preparation (n=153) or placebo (n=145), administered enterally twice daily for 28 days. The primary endpoint was the composite of infectious complications--ie, infected pancreatic necrosis, bacteraemia, pneumonia, urosepsis, or infected ascites--during admission and 90-day follow-up. Analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN38327949.nnnFINDINGSnOne person in each group was excluded from analyses because of incorrect diagnoses of pancreatitis; thus, 152 individuals in the probiotics group and 144 in the placebo group were analysed. Groups were much the same at baseline in terms of patients characteristics and disease severity. Infectious complications occurred in 46 (30%) patients in the probiotics group and 41 (28%) of those in the placebo group (relative risk 1.06, 95% CI 0.75-1.51). 24 (16%) patients in the probiotics group died, compared with nine (6%) in the placebo group (relative risk 2.53, 95% CI 1.22-5.25). Nine patients in the probiotics group developed bowel ischaemia (eight with fatal outcome), compared with none in the placebo group (p=0.004).nnnINTERPRETATIONnIn patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis, probiotic prophylaxis with this combination of probiotic strains did not reduce the risk of infectious complications and was associated with an increased risk of mortality. Probiotic prophylaxis should therefore not be administered in this category of patients.

Minimally invasive 'step-up approach' versus maximal necrosectomy in patients with acute necrotising pancreatitis (PANTER trial): design and rationale of a randomised controlled multicenter trial [ISRCTN13975868]

BackgroundThe initial treatment of acute necrotizing pancreatitis is conservative. Intervention is indicated in patients with (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis. In the Netherlands, the standard intervention is necrosectomy by laparotomy followed by continuous postoperative lavage (CPL). In recent years several minimally invasive strategies have been introduced. So far, these strategies have never been compared in a randomised controlled trial. The PANTER study (PAncreatitis, Necrosectomy versus sTEp up appRoach) was conceived to yield the evidence needed for a considered policy decision.Methods/design88 patients with (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis will be randomly allocated to either group A) minimally invasive step-up approach starting with drainage followed, if necessary, by videoscopic assisted retroperitoneal debridement (VARD) or group B) maximal necrosectomy by laparotomy. Both procedures are followed by CPL. Patients will be recruited from 20 hospitals, including all Dutch university medical centres, over a 3-year period. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients suffering from postoperative major morbidity and mortality. Secondary endpoints are complications, new onset sepsis, length of hospital and intensive care stay, quality of life and total (direct and indirect) costs. To demonstrate that the step-up approach can reduce the major morbidity and mortality rate from 45 to 16%, with 80% power at 5% alpha, a total sample size of 88 patients was calculated.DiscussionThe PANTER-study is a randomised controlled trial that will provide evidence on the merits of a minimally invasive step-up approach in patients with (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis.

Benefits and harms of adhesion barriers for abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDnFormation of adhesions after peritoneal surgery results in high morbidity. Barriers to prevent adhesion are seldom applied, despite their ability to reduce the severity of adhesion formation. We evaluated the benefits and harms of four adhesion barriers that have been approved for clinical use.nnnMETHODSnIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, CENTRAL, and Embase for randomised clinical trials assessing use of oxidised regenerated cellulose, hyaluronate carboxymethylcellulose, icodextrin, or polyethylene glycol in abdominal surgery. Two researchers independently identified reports and extracted data. We compared use of a barrier with no barrier for nine predefined outcomes, graded for clinical relevance. The primary outcome was reoperation for adhesive small bowel obstruction. We assessed systematic error, random error, and design error with the error matrix approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42012003321.nnnFINDINGSnOur search returned 1840 results, from which 28 trials (5191 patients) were included in our meta-analysis. The risks of systematic and random errors were low. No trials reported data for the effect of oxidised regenerated cellulose or polyethylene glycol on reoperations for adhesive small bowel obstruction. Oxidised regenerated cellulose reduced the incidence of adhesions (relative risk [RR] 0·51, 95% CI 0·31-0·86). Some evidence suggests that hyaluronate carboxymethylcellulose reduces the incidence of reoperations for adhesive small bowel obstruction (RR 0·49, 95% CI 0·28-0·88). For icodextrin, reoperation for adhesive small bowel obstruction did not differ significantly between groups (RR 0·33, 95% CI 0·03-3·11). No barriers were associated with an increase in serious adverse events.nnnINTERPRETATIONnOxidised regenerated cellulose and hyaluronate carboxymethylcellulose can safely reduce clinically relevant consequences of adhesions.nnnFUNDINGnNone.

Pregabalin reduces pain in patients with chronic pancreatitis in a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND & AIMSnPain is a disabling symptom for patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP) and difficult to treat. Evidence from basic science and human studies indicates that pain processing by the central nervous system is abnormal and resembles that observed in patients with neuropathic pain disorders. We investigated whether agents used to treat patients with neuropathic pain are effective in CP.nnnMETHODSnWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the effects of the gabapentoid pregabalin as an adjuvant analgesic. We measured pain relief, health status, quality of life, and tolerability in 64 patients with pain from CP; they were randomly assigned to groups given increasing doses of pregabalin or placebo (control) for 3 consecutive weeks. The primary end point was pain relief, based on a visual analogue scale documented by a pain diary. Secondary end points included Patients Global Impression of Change (PGIC) score, changes in physical and functional scales, pain character, quality of life, and tolerability.nnnRESULTSnPregabalin, compared with placebo, caused more effective pain relief after 3 weeks of treatment (36% vs 24%; mean difference, 12%; 95% confidence interval, 22%-2%; P = .02). The percentage of patients with much or very much improved health status (PGIC score) at the end of the study was higher in the pregabalin than the control group (44% vs 21%; P = .048). Changes in physical and functional scales, pain character, quality of life, and number of serious adverse events were comparable between groups.nnnCONCLUSIONSnIn a placebo-controlled trial, pregabalin is an effective adjuvant therapy for pain in patients with CP.

Bologna guidelines for diagnosis and management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO): 2013 update of the evidence-based guidelines from the world society of emergency surgery ASBO working group

BackgroundIn 2013 Guidelines on diagnosis and management of ASBO have been revised and updated by the WSES Working Group on ASBO to develop current evidence-based algorithms and focus indications and safety of conservative treatment, timing of surgery and indications for laparoscopy.RecommendationsIn absence of signs of strangulation and history of persistent vomiting or combined CT-scan signs (free fluid, mesenteric edema, small-bowel feces sign, devascularization) patients with partial ASBO can be managed safely with NOM and tube decompression should be attempted. These patients are good candidates for Water-Soluble-Contrast-Medium (WSCM) with both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. The radiologic appearance of WSCM in the colon within 24 hours from administration predicts resolution. WSCM maybe administered either orally or via NGT both immediately at admission or after failed conservative treatment for 48 hours. The use of WSCM is safe and reduces need for surgery, time to resolution and hospital stay.NOM, in absence of signs of strangulation or peritonitis, can be prolonged up to 72 hours. After 72 hours of NOM without resolution, surgery is recommended.Patients treated non-operatively have shorter hospital stay, but higher recurrence rate and shorter time to re-admission, although the risk of new surgically treated episodes of ASBO is unchanged. Risk factors for recurrences are age <40 years and matted adhesions. WSCM does not decrease recurrence rates or recurrences needing surgery.Open surgery is often used for strangulating ASBO as well as after failed conservative management. In selected patients and with appropriate skills, laparoscopic approach is advisable using open access technique. Access in left upper quadrant or left flank is the safest and only completely obstructing adhesions should be identified and lysed with cold scissors. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis should be attempted preferably if first episode of SBO and/or anticipated single band. A low threshold for open conversion should be maintained.Peritoneal adhesions should be prevented. Hyaluronic acid-carboxycellulose membrane and icodextrin decrease incidence of adhesions. Icodextrin may reduce the risk of re-obstruction. HA cannot reduce need of surgery.Adhesions quantification and scoring maybe useful for achieving standardized assessment of adhesions severity and for further research in diagnosis and treatment of ASBO.

Biologic grafts for ventral hernia repair: a systematic review

BACKGROUNDnBiologic grafts hold promise of a durable repair for ventral hernias with the potential for fewer complications than synthetic mesh. This systematic review was performed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of biologic grafts for ventral hernia repair.nnnMETHODSnMEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies on biologic grafts for the repair of ventral hernias. Outcomes are presented as weighted pooled proportions.nnnRESULTSnTwenty-five retrospective studies were included. Recurrence depended on wound class, with an overall rate of 13.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.6-21.3). The recurrence rate in contaminated/dirty repairs was 23.1% (95% CI, 11.3-37.6). Abdominal wall laxity occurred in 10.5% (95% CI, 3.7-20.3) of patients. The surgical morbidity rate was 46.3% (95% CI, 33.3-59.6). Infection occurred in 15.9% (95% CI, 9.8-23.2) of patients but only led to graft removal in 4.9% of cases.nnnCONCLUSIONSnNo randomized trials are available to properly evaluate biologic grafts for ventral hernia repair. The current evidence suggests that biologic grafts perform similarly to other surgical options. Biologic grafts are associated with a high salvage rate when faced with infection.

Bologna Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction (ASBO): 2010 Evidence-Based Guidelines of the World Society of Emergency Surgery

BackgroundThere is no consensus on diagnosis and management of ASBO. Initial conservative management is usually safe, however proper timing for discontinuing non operative treatment is still controversial. Open surgery or laparoscopy are used without standardized indications.MethodsA panel of 13 international experts with interest and background in ASBO and peritoneal diseases, participated in a consensus conference during the 1st International Congress of the World Society of Emergency Surgery and 9th Peritoneum and Surgery Society meeting, in Bologna, July 1-3, 2010, for developing evidence-based recommendations for diagnosis and management of ASBO. Whenever was a lack of high-level evidence, the working group formulated guidelines by obtaining consensus.RecommendationsIn absence of signs of strangulation and history of persistent vomiting or combined CT scan signs (free fluid, mesenteric oedema, small bowel faeces sign, devascularized bowel) patients with partial ASBO can be managed safely with NOM and tube decompression (either with long or NG) should be attempted. These patients are good candidates for Water Soluble Contrast Medium (WSCM) with both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. The appearance of water-soluble contrast in the colon on X-ray within 24 hours from administration predicts resolution. WSCM may be administered either orally or via NGT (50-150 ml) both immediately at admission or after an initial attempt of conservative treatment of 48 hours. The use of WSCM for ASBO is safe and reduces need for surgery, time to resolution and hospital stay.NOM, in absence of signs of strangulation or peritonitis, can be prolonged up to 72 hours. After 72 hours of NOM without resolution surgery is recommended.Patients treated non-operatively have shorter hospital stay, but higher recurrence rate and shorter time to re-admission, although the risk of new surgically treated episodes of ASBO is unchanged. Risk factors for recurrences are age <40 years and matted adhesions. WSCM does not affect recurrence rates or recurrences needing surgery when compared to traditional conservative treatment.Open surgery is the preferred method for surgical treatment of strangulating ASBO as well as after failed conservative management. In selected patients and with appropriate skills, laparoscopic approach can be attempted using open access technique. Access in the left upper quadrant should be safe. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis should be attempted preferably in case of first episode of SBO and/or anticipated single band. A low threshold for open conversion should be maintained.Peritoneal adhesions should be prevented. Hyaluronic acid-carboxycellulose membrane and icodextrin can reduce incidence of adhesions. Icodextrin may reduce the risk of re-obstruction. HA cannot reduce need of surgery.

Extrapancreatic necrosis without pancreatic parenchymal necrosis: a separate entity in necrotising pancreatitis?

Objective In the revised Atlanta classification of acute pancreatitis, the term necrotising pancreatitis also refers to patients with only extrapancreatic fat necrosis without pancreatic parenchymal necrosis (EXPN), as determined on contrast-enhanced CT (CECT). Patients with EXPN are thought to have a better clinical outcome, although robust data are lacking. Methods A post hoc analysis was performed of a prospective multicentre database including 639 patients with necrotising pancreatitis on contrast-enhanced CT. All CECT scans were reviewed by a single radiologist blinded to the clinical outcome. Patients with EXPN were compared with patients with pancreatic parenchymal necrosis (with or without extrapancreatic necrosis). Outcomes were persistent organ failure, need for intervention and mortality. A predefined subgroup analysis was performed on patients who developed infected necrosis. Results 315 patients with EXPN were compared with 324 patients with pancreatic parenchymal necrosis. Patients with EXPN less often suffered from complications: persistent organ failure (21% vs 45%, p<0.001), persistent multiple organ failure (15% vs 36%, p<0.001), infected necrosis (16% vs 47%, p<0.001), intervention (18% vs 57%, p<0.001) and mortality (9% vs 20%, p<0.001). When infection of extrapancreatic necrosis developed, outcomes between groups were equal (mortality with infected necrosis: EXPN 28% vs pancreatic necrosis 18%, p=0.16). Conclusion EXPN causes fewer complications than pancreatic parenchymal necrosis. It should therefore be considered a separate entity in acute pancreatitis. Outcome in cases of infected necrosis is similar.

Transluminal endoscopic step-up approach versus minimally invasive surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis (TENSION trial): design and rationale of a randomised controlled multicenter trial [ISRCTN09186711]

BackgroundInfected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that nearly always requires intervention. Traditionally, primary open necrosectomy has been the treatment of choice. In recent years, the surgical step-up approach, consisting of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by (minimally invasive) surgical necrosectomy has become the standard of care. A promising minimally invasive alternative is the endoscopic transluminal step-up approach. This approach consists of endoscopic transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. We hypothesise that the less invasive endoscopic step-up approach is superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes.Methods/DesignThe TENSION trial is a randomised controlled, parallel-group superiority multicenter trial. Patients with (suspected) infected necrotising pancreatitis with an indication for intervention and in whom both treatment modalities are deemed possible, will be randomised to either an endoscopic transluminal or a surgical step-up approach. During a 4xa0year study period, 98 patients will be enrolled from 24 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. The primary endpoint is a composite of death and major complications within 6xa0months following randomisation. Secondary endpoints include complications such as pancreaticocutaneous fistula, exocrine or endocrine pancreatic insufficiency, need for additional radiological, endoscopic or surgical intervention, the need for necrosectomy after drainage, the number of (re-)interventions, quality of life, and total direct and indirect costs.DiscussionThe TENSION trial will answer the question whether an endoscopic step-up approach reduces the combined primary endpoint of death and major complications, as well as hospital stay and related costs compared with a surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis.

Quantitative Sensory Testing Predicts Pregabalin Efficacy in Painful Chronic Pancreatitis

Background A major problem in pain medicine is the lack of knowledge about which treatment suits a specific patient. We tested the ability of quantitative sensory testing to predict the analgesic effect of pregabalin and placebo in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Methods Sixty-four patients with painful chronic pancreatitis received pregabalin (150–300 mg BID) or matching placebo for three consecutive weeks. Analgesic effect was documented in a pain diary based on a visual analogue scale. Responders were defined as patients with a reduction in clinical pain score of 30% or more after three weeks of study treatment compared to baseline recordings. Prior to study medication, pain thresholds to electric skin and pressure stimulation were measured in dermatomes T10 (pancreatic area) and C5 (control area). To eliminate inter-subject differences in absolute pain thresholds an index of sensitivity between stimulation areas was determined (ratio of pain detection thresholds in pancreatic versus control area, ePDT ratio). Pain modulation was recorded by a conditioned pain modulation paradigm. A support vector machine was used to screen sensory parameters for their predictive power of pregabalin efficacy. Results The pregabalin responders group was hypersensitive to electric tetanic stimulation of the pancreatic area (ePDT ratio 1.2 (0.9–1.3)) compared to non-responders group (ePDT ratio: 1.6 (1.5–2.0)) (Pu200a=u200a0.001). The electrical pain detection ratio was predictive for pregabalin effect with a classification accuracy of 83.9% (Pu200a=u200a0.007). The corresponding sensitivity was 87.5% and specificity was 80.0%. No other parameters were predictive of pregabalin or placebo efficacy. Conclusions The present study provides first evidence that quantitative sensory testing predicts the analgesic effect of pregabalin in patients with painful chronic pancreatitis. The method can be used to tailor pain medication based on patient’s individual sensory profile and thus comprises a significant step towards personalized pain medicine.