Nadeem N. Haddad

Multi-institutional, prospective, observational study comparing the Gastrografin challenge versus standard treatment in adhesive small bowel obstruction

INTRODUCTION Existing trials studying the use of Gastrografin for management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO) are limited by methodological flaws and small sample sizes. We compared institutional protocols with and without Gastrografin (GG), hypothesizing that a SBO management protocol utilizing GG is associated with lesser rates of exploration, shorter length of stay, and fewer complications. METHODS A multi-institutional, prospective, observational study was performed on patients appropriate for GG with adhesive SBO. Exclusion criteria were internal/external hernia, signs of strangulation, history of abdominal/pelvic malignancy, or exploration within the past 6 weeks. Patients receiving GG were compared to patients receiving standard care without GG. RESULTS Overall, 316 patients were included (58 ± 18 years; 53% male). There were 173 (55%) patients in the GG group (of whom 118 [75%] successfully passed) and 143 patients in the non-GG group. There were no differences in duration of obstipation (1.6 vs. 1.9 days, p = 0.77) or small bowel feces sign (32.9% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.14). Fewer patients in the GG protocol cohort had mesenteric edema on CT (16.3% vs. 29.9%; p = 0.009). There was a lower rate of bowel resection (6.9% vs. 21.0%, p < 0.001) and exploration rate in the GG group (20.8% vs. 44.1%, p < 0.0001). GG patients had a shorter duration of hospital stay (4 IQR 2–7 vs. 5 days IQR 2–12; p = 0.036) and a similar rate of complications (12.5% vs. 17.9%; p = 0.20). Multivariable analysis revealed that GG was independently associated with successful nonoperative management. CONCLUSION Patients receiving Gastrografin for adhesive SBO had lower rates of exploration and shorter hospital length of stay compared to patients who did not receive GG. Adequately powered and well-designed randomized trials are required to confirm these findings and establish causality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic, level III.

Incompatible type A plasma transfusion in patients requiring massive transfusion protocol: Outcomes of an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter study

ABSTRACT With a relative shortage of type AB plasma, many centers have converted to type A plasma for resuscitation of patients whose blood type is unknown. The goal of this study is to determine outcomes for trauma patients who received incompatible plasma transfusions as part of a massive transfusion protocol (MTP). METHODS As part of an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional trial, registry and blood bank data were collected from eight trauma centers for trauma patients (age, ≥ 15 years) receiving emergency release plasma transfusions as part of MTPs from January 2012 to August 2016. Incompatible type A plasma was defined as transfusion to patient blood type B or type AB. RESULTS Of the 1,536 patients identified, 92% received compatible plasma transfusions and 8% received incompatible type A plasma. Patient characteristics were similar except for greater penetrating injuries (48% vs 36%; p = 0.01) in the incompatible group. In the incompatible group, patients were transfused more plasma units at 4 hours (median, 9 vs. 5; p < 0.001) and overall for stay (11 vs. 9; p = 0.03). No hemolytic transfusion reactions were reported. Two transfusion-related acute lung injury events were reported in the compatible group. Between incompatible and compatible groups, there was no difference in the rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (6% vs. 8%; p = 0.589), thromboembolic events (9% vs. 7%; p = 0.464), sepsis (6% vs. 8%; p = 0.589), or acute renal failure (8% vs. 8%, p = 0.860). Mortality at 6 (17% vs. 15%, p = 0.775) and 24 hours (25% vs. 23%, p = 0.544) and at 28 days or discharge (38% vs. 35%, p = 0.486) were similar between groups. Multivariate regression demonstrated that Injury Severity Score, older age and more red blood cell transfusion at 4 hours were independently associated with death at 28 days or discharge; Injury Severity Score and more red blood cell transfusion at 4 hours were predictors for morbidity. Incompatible transfusion was not an independent determinant of mortality or morbidity. CONCLUSION Transfusion of type A plasma to patients with blood groups B and AB as part of a MTP does not appear to be associated with significant increases in morbidity or mortality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic study, level IV.

The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Severity Grade is valid and generalizable in adhesive small bowel obstruction

BACKGROUND The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) anatomic severity grading system for adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) was validated at a single institution. We aimed to externally validate the AAST ASBO grading system using the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional small bowel obstruction prospective observational study. METHODS Adults (age ≥ 18) with (ASBO) were included. Baseline demographics, physiologic parameters (heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate), laboratory tests (lactate, hemoglobin, creatinine, leukocytosis), imaging findings, operative details, length of stay, and Clavien-Dindo complications were collected. The AAST ASBO grades were assigned by two independent reviewers based on imaging findings. Kappa statistic, univariate, and multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS There were 635 patients with a mean (±SD) age of 61 ± 17.8 years, 51% female, and mean body mass index was 27.5 ± 8.1. The AAST ASBO grades were: grade I (n = 386, 60.5%), grade II (n = 135, 21.2%), grade III (n = 59, 9.2%), grade IV (n = 55, 8.6%). Initial management included: nonoperative (n = 385; 61%), laparotomy (n = 200, 31.3%), laparoscopy (n = 13, 2.0%), and laparoscopy converted to laparotomy (n = 37, 5.8%). An increased median [IQR] AAST ASBO grade was associated with need for conversion to an open procedure (2 [1–3] vs. 3 [2–4], p = 0.008), small bowel resection (2 [2–2] vs. 3 [2–4], p < 0.0001), postoperative temporary abdominal closure (2 [2–3] vs. 3 [3–4], p < 0.0001), and stoma creation (2 [2–3] vs. 3 [2–4], p < 0.0001). Increasing AAST grade was associated with increased anatomic severity noted on imaging findings, longer duration of stay, need for intensive care, increased rate of complication, and higher Clavien-Dindo complication grade. CONCLUSION The AAST ASBO severity grading system has predictive validity for important clinical outcomes and allows for standardization across institutions, providers, and future research focused on optimizing preoperative diagnosis and management algorithms. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic, level III.

Perioperative Use of Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and the Risk of Anastomotic Failure in Emergency General Surgery

BACKGROUND Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used analgesic and anti-inflammatory adjuncts. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration may potentially increase the risk of postoperative gastrointestinal anastomotic failure (AF). We aim to determine if perioperative NSAID utilization influences gastrointestinal AF in emergency general surgery (EGS) patients undergoing gastrointestinal resection and anastomosis. METHODS Post hoc analysis of a multi-institutional prospectively collected database was performed. Anastomotic failure was defined as the occurrence of a dehiscence/leak, fistula, or abscess. Patients using NSAIDs were compared with those without. Summary, univariate, and multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS Five hundred thirty-three patients met inclusion criteria with a mean (±SD) age of 60 ± 17.5 years, 53% men. Forty-six percent (n = 244) of the patients were using perioperative NSAIDs. Gastrointestinal AF rate between NSAID and no NSAID was 13.9% versus 10.7% (p = 0.26). No differences existed between groups with respect to perioperative steroid use (16.8% vs. 13.8%; p = 0.34) or mortality (7.39% vs. 6.92%, p = 0.84). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that perioperative corticosteroid (odds ratio, 2.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.04–4.81) use and the presence of a colocolonic or colorectal anastomoses were independently associated with AF. A subset analysis of the NSAIDs cohort demonstrated an increased AF rate in colocolonic or colorectal anastomosis compared with enteroenteric or enterocolonic anastomoses (30.0% vs. 13.0%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION Perioperative NSAID utilization appears to be safe in EGS patients undergoing small-bowel resection and anastomosis. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration should be used cautiously in EGS patients with colon or rectal anastomoses. Future randomized trials should validate the effects of perioperative NSAIDs use on AF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic study, level III.BACKGROUND Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used analgesic and anti-inflammatory adjuncts. NSAID administration may potentially increase the risk of postoperative gastrointestinal anastomotic failure (AF). We aim to determine if perioperative NSAID utilization influences gastrointestinal anastomotic failure in emergency general surgery (EGS) patients undergoing gastrointestinal resection and anastomosis. METHODS Post hoc analysis of a multi-institutional prospectively collected database was performed. Anastomotic failure was defined as the occurrence of a dehiscence/leak, fistula or abscess. Patients utilizing NSAIDS were compared to those without. Summary, univariate and multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS 533 patients met inclusion criteria with a mean (±SD) age of 60 ±17.5years, 53% male. There were 46% (n=244) patients utilizing perioperative NSAIDs. Gastrointestinal anastomotic failure (AF) rate between NSAID and no NSAID was (13.9% vs 10.7%, p=0.26). No differences existed between groups with respect to perioperative steroid use (16.8% vs 13.8%, p=0.34), or mortality (7.39 vs 6.92%, p=0.84). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that perioperative corticosteroid (OR 2.28, CI 1.04-4.81) use and the presence of a colocolonic or colorectal anastomoses were independently associated with anastomotic failure. A subset analysis of the NSAIDs cohort demonstrated an increased AF rate in colocolonic or colorectal anastomosis compared to enteroenteric or enterocolonic anastomoses (30.0% vs 13.0%, p=0.03). CONCLUSION Perioperative NSAID utilization appears to be safe in emergency general surgery patients undergoing small bowel resection and anastomosis. NSAIDs administration should be used cautiously in EGS patients with colon or rectal anastomoses. Future randomized trials should validate the effects of perioperative NSAIDs use on AF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic study, level III.

Validation of the AAST EGS acute cholecystitis grade and comparison with the Tokyo guidelines

Background. Acute cholecystitis presents with heterogeneous severity. The Tokyo Guidelines 2013 is a validated method to assess cholecystitis severity, but the variables are multifactorial. The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) developed an anatomically based severity grading system for surgical diseases, including cholecystitis. Because the Tokyo Guidelines represent the gold standard to estimate acute cholecystitis severity, we wished to validate the AAST emergency general surgery scoring system and compare the performance of both systems for several patient outcomes. Methods. Adults (≥18 years) with acute cholecystitis during 2013–2016 were identified. Baseline demographic characteristics, comorbidity severity as defined by Charlson Comorbidity Index score, procedure types, and AAST and Tokyo Guidelines 2013 grades were abstracted. Outcomes included duration of stay, 30‐day mortality, and complications. Comparison of the Tokyo Guidelines and AAST grading system was performed using receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve C statistics. Results. There were 443 patients, with a mean (±standard deviation) age of 64.8 (±18) years, 59% male. The median (interquartile ratio) Charlson Comorbidity score was 3 (0–6). Management included laparoscopic (n = 307, 69.3%), open (n = 26, 6%), laparoscopy converted to laparotomy (n = 53, 12%), and cholecystostomy (n = 57, 12.7%). Comparison of AAST with Tokyo Guidelines AUROC C statistics indicated (P < .05) mortality (0.86 vs 0.73), complication (0.76 vs 0.63), and cholecystostomy tube utilization (0.80 vs 0.68). Conclusion. Emergency general surgery grading systems improve disease severity assessment, may improve documentation, and guide management. Discrimination of disease severity using the AAST grading system outperforms the Tokyo Guidelines for key clinical outcomes. The AAST grading system requires prospective validation and further comparison.

RESHAPES: Increasing AAST EGS grade is associated with anastomosis type

INTRODUCTION Threatened, perforated, and infarcted bowel is managed with conventional resection and anastomosis (hand sewn [HS] or stapled [ST]). The SHAPES analysis demonstrated equivalence between HS and ST techniques, yet surgeons appeared to prefer HS for the critically ill. We hypothesized that HS is more frequent in patients with higher disease severity as measured by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Emergency General Surgery (AAST EGS) grading system. METHODS We performed a post hoc analysis of the SHAPES database. Operative reports were submitted by volunteering SHAPES centers. Final AAST grade was compared with various outcomes including duration of stay, physiologic/laboratory data, anastomosis type, anastomosis failure (dehiscence, abscess, or fistula), and mortality. RESULTS A total of 391 patients were reviewed, with a mean age (±SD) of 61.2 ± 16.8 years, 47% women. Disease severity distribution was as follows: grade I (n = 0, 0%), grade II (n = 106, 27%), grade III (n = 113, 29%), grade IV (n = 123, 31%), and grade V (n = 49, 13%). Increasing AAST grade was associated with acidosis and hypothermia. There was an association between higher AAST grade and likelihood of HS anastomosis. On regression, factors associated with mortality included development of anastomosis complication and vasopressor use but not increasing AAST EGS grade or anastomotic technique. CONCLUSION This is the first study to use standardized anatomic injury grades for patients undergoing urgent/emergent bowel resection in EGS. Higher AAST severity scores are associated with key clinical outcomes in EGS diseases requiring bowel resection and anastomosis. Anastomotic-specific complications were not associated with higher AAST grade; however, mortality was influenced by anastomosis complication and vasopressor use. Future EGS studies should routinely include AAST grading as a method for reliable comparison of injury between groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic, level III.