Jordy J. S. Kiewiet

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of Imaging in Acute Cholecystitis

PURPOSE To update previously summarized estimates of diagnostic accuracy for acute cholecystitis and to obtain summary estimates for more recently introduced modalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases up to March 2011 to identify studies about evaluation of imaging modalities in patients who were suspected of having acute cholecystitis. Inclusion criteria were explicit criteria for a positive test result, surgery and/or follow-up as the reference standard, and sufficient data to construct a 2 × 2 table. Studies about evaluation of predominantly acalculous cholecystitis in intensive care unit patients were excluded. Bivariate random-effects modeling was used to obtain summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS Fifty-seven studies were included, with evaluation of 5859 patients. Sensitivity of cholescintigraphy (96%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 94%, 97%) was significantly higher than sensitivity of ultrasonography (US) (81%; 95% CI: 75%, 87%) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (85%; 95% CI: 66%, 95%). There were no significant differences in specificity among cholescintigraphy (90%; 95% CI: 86%, 93%), US (83%; 95% CI: 74%, 89%) and MR imaging (81%; 95% CI: 69%, 90%). Only one study about evaluation of computed tomography (CT) met the inclusion criteria; the reported sensitivity was 94% (95% CI: 73%, 99%) at a specificity of 59% (95% CI: 42%, 74%). CONCLUSION Cholescintigraphy has the highest diagnostic accuracy of all imaging modalities in detection of acute cholecystitis. The diagnostic accuracy of US has a substantial margin of error, comparable to that of MR imaging, while CT is still underevaluated.

Failure of available scoring systems to predict ongoing infection in patients with abdominal sepsis after their initial emergency laparotomy

BackgroundTo examine commonly used scoring systems, designed to predict overall outcome in critically ill patients, for their ability to select patients with an abdominal sepsis that have ongoing infection needing relaparotomy.MethodsData from a RCT comparing two surgical strategies was used. The study population consisted of 221 patients at risk for ongoing abdominal infection. The following scoring systems were evaluated with logistic regression analysis for their ability to select patients requiring a relaparotomy: APACHE-II score, SAPS-II, Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI), MODS, SOFA score, and the acute part of the APACHE-II score (APS).ResultsThe proportion of patients requiring a relaparotomy was 32% (71/221). Only 2 scores had a discriminatory ability in identifying patients with ongoing infection needing relaparotomy above chance: the APS on day 1 (AUC 0.61; 95%CI 0.52-0.69) and the SOFA score on day 2 (AUC 0.60; 95%CI 0.52-0.69). However, to correctly identify 90% of all patients needing a relaparotomy would require such a low cut-off value that around 80% of all patients identified by these scoring systems would have negative findings at relaparotomy.ConclusionsNone of the widely-used scoring systems to predict overall outcome in critically ill patients are of clinical value for the identification of patients with ongoing infection needing relaparotomy. There is a need to develop more specific tools to assist physicians in their daily monitoring and selection of these patients after the initial emergency laparotomy.Trial registration numberISRCTN: ISRCTN 51729393

A decision rule to aid selection of patients with abdominal sepsis requiring a relaparotomy.

BackgroundAccurate and timely identification of patients in need of a relaparotomy is challenging since there are no readily available strongholds. The aim of this study is to develop a prediction model to aid the decision-making process in whom to perform a relaparotomy.MethodsData from a randomized trial comparing surgical strategies for relaparotomy were used. Variables were selected based on previous reports and common clinical sense and screened in a univariable regression analysis to identify those associated with the need for relaparotomy. Variables with the strongest association were considered for the prediction model which was constructed after backward elimination in a multivariable regression analysis. The discriminatory capacity of the model was expressed with the area under the curve (AUC). A cut-off analysis was performed to illustrate the consequences in clinical practice.ResultsOne hundred and eighty-two patients were included; 46 were considered cases requiring a relaparotomy. A prediction model was build containing 6 variables. This final model had an AUC of 0.80 indicating good discriminatory capacity. However, acceptable sensitivity would require a low threshold for relaparotomy leading to an unacceptable rate of negative relaparotomies (63%). Therefore, the prediction model was incorporated in a decision rule were the interval until re-assessment and the use of Computed Tomography are related to the outcome of the model.ConclusionsTo construct a prediction model that will provide a definite answer whether or not to perform a relaparotomy seems a utopia. However, our prediction model can be used to stratify patients on their underlying risk and could guide further monitoring of patients with abdominal sepsis in order to identify patients with suspected ongoing peritonitis in a timely fashion.

Initial microbial spectrum in severe secondary peritonitis and relevance for treatment

This study aims to determine whether abdominal microbial profiles in early severe secondary peritonitis are associated with ongoing infection or death. The study is performed within a randomized study comparing two surgical treatment strategies in patients with severe secondary peritonitis (n = 229). The microbial profiles of cultures retrieved from initial emergency laparotomy were tested with logistic regression analysis for association with ‘ongoing infection needing relaparotomy’ and in-hospital death. No microbial profile or the presence of yeast or Pseudomonas spp. was related to the risk of ongoing infection needing relaparotomy. Resistance to empiric therapy for gram positive cocci and coliforms was moderately associated with ongoing abdominal infection (OR 3.43 95%CI 0.95–12.38 and OR 7.61, 95%CI 0.75–76.94). Presence of only gram positive cocci, predominantly Enterococcus spp, was borderline independently associated with in-hospital death (OR 3.69, 95%CI 0.99–13.80). In secondary peritonitis microbial profiles do not predict ongoing abdominal infection after initial emergency laparotomy. However, the moderate association of ongoing infection with resistance to the empiric therapy compels to more attention for resistance when selecting empiric antibiotic coverage.

Occurrence and preventability of adverse drug events in surgical patients: a systematic review of literature.

BackgroundAdverse drug events (ADEs) are a considerable cause of inhospital morbidity and mortality. Patient flow differs substantially for surgical and nonsurgical patients: surgical patients are subjected to multiple medication changes related to surgical intervention or postoperative care. The objective of this study is to systematically review the occurrence and nature of ADEs in surgical patients. Also, a comparison with nonsurgical patients was made.MethodsA search was conducted in Embase and Medline identifying studies that reported observational data on the occurrence and nature of ADEs in surgical hospitalised adult patients. If sufficient data were available, the occurrence of (preventable) ADEs was compared between surgical and nonsurgical patients.ResultsSix studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The occurrence of ADEs in surgical patients ranged from 2.0 to 27.7 per 100 admissions, from 4.7 to 8.9 per 1,000 patient days, or involved 8.9% of the patients. Proportions of preventable ADEs in surgical patients were 18% and 54%, described in two studies. A head-to-head comparison of surgical patients and nonsurgical patients was possible for five of six studies. The occurrence of ADEs in nonsurgical patients was significantly higher than in surgical patients in three studies.ConclusionsADEs are a relevant problem in surgical patients and nonsurgical patients, with a high proportion of preventable ADEs. The occurrence of ADEs appears to be higher in nonsurgical patients than in surgical patients. However, studies lack details on the differences in nature of ADEs between hospital populations. To improve medication safety this knowledge is essential.

Cost-effectiveness of ward-based pharmacy care in surgical patients: protocol of the SUREPILL (Surgery & Pharmacy In Liaison) study

BackgroundPreventable adverse drug events (pADEs) are widely known to be a health care issue for hospitalized patients. Surgical patients are especially at risk, but prevention of pADEs in this population is not demonstrated before. Ward-based pharmacy interventions seem effective in reducing pADEs in medical patients. The cost-effectiveness of these preventive efforts still needs to be assessed in a comparative study of high methodological standard and also in the surgical population. For these aims the SUREPILL (Surgery & Pharmacy in Liaison) study is initiated.Methods/DesignA multi-centre controlled trial, with randomisation at ward-level and preceding baseline assessments is designed. Patients admitted to the surgical study wards for elective surgery with an expected length of stay of more than 48 hours will be included. Patients admitted to the intervention ward, will receive ward-based pharmacy care from the clinical pharmacy team, i.e. pharmacy practitioners and hospital pharmacists. This ward-based pharmacy intervention includes medication reconciliation in consultation with the patient at admission, daily medication review with face-to-face contact with the ward doctor, and patient counselling at discharge. Patients admitted in the control ward, will receive standard pharmaceutical care.The primary clinical outcome measure is the number of pADEs per 100 elective admissions. These pADEs will be measured by systematic patient record evaluation using a trigger tool. Patient records positive for a trigger will be evaluated on causality, severity and preventability by an independent expert panel. In addition, an economic evaluation will be performed from a societal perspective with the costs per preventable ADE as the primary economic outcome. Other outcomes of this study are: severity of pADEs, number of patients with pADEs per total number of admissions, direct (non-)medical costs and indirect non-medical costs, extra costs per prevented ADE, number and type of pharmacy interventions, length of hospital stay, complications registered in a national complication registration system for surgery, number of readmissions within three months after initial admission (follow-up), quality of life and number of non-institutionalized days during follow-up.DiscussionThis study will assess the cost-effectiveness of ward-based pharmacy care on preventable adverse drug events in surgical patients from a societal perspective, using a comparative study design.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR2258

External validation of two tools for the clinical diagnosis of acute diverticulitis without imaging

AIM External validation and comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of two predictive tools, the emergency department triad and the clinical scoring tool in diagnosing acute diverticulitis. METHODS Two derivation datasets were used crosswise for external validation. In addition, both tools were validated in a third independent cohort. Predictive values were reassessed and the Area Under the Curve expressed discriminatory capacity. Performance was compared by calculating positive predictive values of the emergency department triad in the validation cohorts and with a cut-off analysis for the clinical scoring tool at a positive predictive value of 90%. RESULTS Predictive value of the emergency department triad was comparable to the clinical scoring tool. The positive predictive value of the emergency department triad (97%) decreased in the clinical scoring tool cohort (81%) and was excellent in the independent cohort (100%), identifying 24%, 20% and 14% of the patients. A smaller proportion of patients with diverticulitis could be identified with the clinical scoring tool (6%, 19% and 9%). CONCLUSION The emergency department triad as well as the clinical scoring tool have significant predictive value in external cohorts of patients suspected of diverticulitis. These tools can be used to select patients in whom additional imaging to diagnose acute diverticulitis may be omitted.