Search

Context: In patients with severe secondary peritonitis, there are 2 surgical treatment strategies following an initial emergency laparotomy: planned relaparotomy and relaparotomy only when the patient's condition demands it ("on-demand"). The on-demand strategy may reduce mortality, morbidity, health care utilization, and costs. However, randomized trials have not been performed.Objective: To compare patient outcome, health care utilization, and costs of on-demand and planned relaparotomy.Design, Setting, and Patients: Randomized, nonblinded clinical trial at 2 academic and 5 regional teaching hospitals in the Netherlands from November 2001 through February 2005. Patients had severe secondary peritonitis and an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE-II) score of 11 or greater.Intervention: Random allocation to on-demand or planned relaparotomy strategy.Main Outcome Measures: The primary end point was death and/or peritonitis-related morbidity within a 12-month follow-up period. Secondary end points included health care utilization and costs.Results: A total of 232 patients (116 on-demand and 116 planned) were randomized. One patient in the on-demand group was excluded due to an operative diagnosis of pancreatitis and 3 in each group withdrew or were lost to follow-up. There was no significant difference in primary end point (57% on-demand [n = 64] vs 65% planned [n = 73]; P = .25) or in mortality alone (29% on-demand [n = 32] vs 36% planned [n = 41]; P = .22) or morbidity alone (40% on-demand [n = 32] vs 44% planned [n = 32]; P = .58). A total of 42% of the on-demand patients had a relaparotomy vs 94% of the planned relaparotomy group. A total of 31% of first relaparotomies were negative in the on-demand group vs 66% in the planned group (P <.001). Patients in the on-demand group had shorter median intensive care unit stays (7 vs 11 days; P = .001) and shorter median hospital stays (27 vs 35 days; P = .008). Direct medical costs per patient were reduced by 23% using the on-demand strategy.Conclusion: Patients in the on-demand relaparotomy group did not have a significantly lower rate of death or major peritonitis-related morbidity compared with the planned relaparotomy group but did have a substantial reduction in relaparotomies, health care utilization, and medical costs.Trial Registration: http://isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN51729393. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient safety requires mindful routines in the operating room. Usually, time pressure is presented as an unavoidable constraint to mindful routines and a consequence of workload imposed on teams. We aim to understand time pressure and how it interacts with developing mindful routines., Methods: This naturalistic case study was conducted with a surgical team in a Dutch academic hospital using ethnographic methods including participant observation, interviews, and fieldnotes. The researcher observed the team for 103 h. Our analysis integrates habit theory and mindful organising principles., Results: Team culture reflected deference to speed, preoccupation with productivity, conflict avoidance, and value on affective relationships. Conflicting priorities arose from differences in safety norms, worries about time, and beliefs about what saves time. Addressing these conflicting priorities, however, was rare. Creating shared Situational Awareness (SA) helped prevent or mitigate time pressure, though it was not a consistently embedded routine. New routines were often compromised under time pressure, while established habits showed resilience to time constraints., Conclusions: Rather than being workload-driven, time pressure emerged as a co-constructed outcome of conflicting priorities and the preservation of affective relationships. The imperative to save time motivated shared situational awareness and the formation of new mindful routines. We recommend enhancing mindful routines by refining current practices in mortality and morbidity meetings, expanding stakeholder involvement, and addressing prevailing concerns., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objective: To develop a prioritisation framework to support priority setting for elective surgeries after COVID-19 based on the impact on patient well-being and cost., Design: We developed decision analytical models to estimate the consequences of delayed elective surgical procedures (eg, total hip replacement, bariatric surgery or septoplasty)., Setting: The framework was applied to a large hospital in the Netherlands., Outcome Measures: Quality measures impacts on quality of life and costs were taken into account and combined to calculate net monetary losses per week delay, which quantifies the total loss for society expressed in monetary terms. Net monetary losses were weighted by operating times., Results: We studied 13 common elective procedures from four specialties. Highest loss in quality of life due to delayed surgery was found for total hip replacement (utility loss of 0.27, ie, 99 days lost in perfect health); the lowest for arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (utility loss of 0.05, ie, 18 days lost in perfect health). Costs of surgical delay per patient were highest for bariatric surgery (€31/pp per week) and lowest for arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (-€2/pp per week). Weighted by operating room (OR) time bariatric surgery provides most value (€1.19/pp per OR minute) and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy provides the least value (€0.34/pp per OR minute). In a large hospital the net monetary loss due to prolonged waiting times was €700 840 after the first COVID-19 wave, an increase of 506% compared with the year before., Conclusions: This surgical prioritisation framework can be tailored to specific centres and countries to support priority setting for delayed elective operations during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, both in and between surgical disciplines. In the long-term, the framework can contribute to the efficient distribution of OR time and will therefore add to the discussion on appropriate use of healthcare budgets. The online framework can be accessed via: https://stanwijn.shinyapps.io/priORitize/., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MMR had financial support by means of a VICI grant from NWO (Dutch Research Council) for the submitted work, the other authors had no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Several studies have reported on the negative impact of interruptions and distractions on anaesthetic, surgical and team performance in the operating theatre. This study aimed to gain a deeper understanding of these events and why they remain part of everyday clinical practice. We used a mixed methods observational study design. We scored each distractor and interruption according to an established scheme during induction of anaesthesia and the surgical procedure for 58 general surgical cases requiring general anaesthesia. We made field notes of observations, small conversations and meetings. We observed 64 members of staff for 148 hours and recorded 4594 events, giving a mean (SD) event rate of 32.8 (16.3) h -1 . The most frequent events observed during induction of anaesthesia were door movements, which accounted for 869 (63%) events, giving a mean (SD) event rate of 28.1 (14.5) h -1 . These, however, had little impact. The most common events observed during surgery were case-irrelevant verbal communication and smartphone usage, which accounted for 1020 (32%) events, giving a mean (SD) event rate of 9.0 (4.2) h -1 . These occurred mostly in periods of low work-load in a sub-team. Participants ranged from experiencing these events as severe disruption through to a welcome distraction that served to keep healthcare professionals active during low work-load, as well as reinforcing the social connections between colleagues. Mostly, team members showed no awareness of the need for silence among other sub-teams and did not vocalise the need for silence to others. Case-irrelevant verbal communication and smartphone usage may serve a physical and psychological need. The extent to which healthcare professionals may feel disrupted depends on the situation and context. When a team member was disrupted, a resilient team response often lacked. Reducing disruptive social activity might be a powerful strategy to develop a habit of cross-monitoring and mutual help across surgical and anaesthetic sub-teams. Further research is needed on how to bridge cultural borders and develop resilient interprofessional behaviours., (© 2020 The Authors. Anaesthesia published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association of Anaesthetists.)

Background: Cholecystectomy after gallstone pancreatitis may be technically demanding. The aim of this study was to investigate risk factors for a difficult cholecystectomy after mild pancreatitis., Methods: This was a prospective study within a randomized controlled trial on the timing of cholecystectomy after mild gallstone pancreatitis. Difficulty of cholecystectomy was scored on a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS) by the senior attending surgeon. The primary outcome 'difficult cholecystectomy' was defined by presence of one or more of the following features: a VAS score ≥ 8, duration of surgery > 75 minutes, conversion or subtotal cholecystectomy., Results: 249 patients were included in the primary analysis. A difficult cholecystectomy occurred in 82 patients (33%). In the 'same-admission cholecystectomy' group 29 of 112 cholecystectomies were difficult (26%) versus 49 of 127 patients (39%) who underwent surgery after 2 weeks (p = 0.037). After multivariable analysis, male sex (OR 1.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-3.13; p = 0.037), prior sphincterotomy (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.01-3.16; p = 0.046), and delaying cholecystectomy for at least two weeks (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.04-3.16; p = 0.036) were independent predictors of a difficult cholecystectomy., Conclusion: Surgeons should anticipate a difficult cholecystectomy after mild gallstone pancreatitis in case of male sex, prior sphincterotomy and delayed cholecystectomy., (Copyright © 2018 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: In patients with pancreatitis, early persisting organ failure is believed to be the most important cause of mortality. This study investigates the relation between the timing (onset and duration) of organ failure and mortality and its association with infected pancreatic necrosis in patients with necrotising pancreatitis., Design: We performed a post hoc analysis of a prospective database of 639 patients with necrotising pancreatitis from 21 hospitals. We evaluated the onset, duration and type of organ failure (ie, respiratory, cardiovascular and renal failure) and its association with mortality and infected pancreatic necrosis., Results: In total, 240 of 639 (38%) patients with necrotising pancreatitis developed organ failure. Persistent organ failure (ie, any type or combination) started in the first week in 51% of patients with 42% mortality, in 13% during the second week with 46% mortality and in 36% after the second week with 29% mortality. Mortality in patients with persistent multiple organ failure lasting <1 week, 1-2 weeks, 2-3 weeks or longer than 3 weeks was 43%, 38%, 46% and 52%, respectively (p=0.68). Mortality was higher in patients with organ failure alone than in patients with organ failure and infected pancreatic necrosis (44% vs 29%, p=0.04). However, when excluding patients with very early mortality (within 10 days of admission), patients with organ failure with or without infected pancreatic necrosis had similar mortality rates (28% vs 34%, p=0.33)., Conclusion: In patients with necrotising pancreatitis, early persistent organ failure is not associated with increased mortality when compared with persistent organ failure which develops further on during the disease course. Furthermore, no association was found between the duration of organ failure and mortality., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2019. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: To illustrate how decision modeling may identify relevant uncertainty and can preclude or identify areas of future research in surgery., Summary Background Data: To optimize use of research resources, a tool is needed that assists in identifying relevant uncertainties and the added value of reducing these uncertainties., Methods: The clinical pathway for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) versus open (ODP) for nonmalignant lesions was modeled in a decision tree. Cost-effectiveness based on complications, hospital stay, costs, quality of life, and survival was analyzed. The effect of existing uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness was addressed, as well as the expected value of eliminating uncertainties., Results: Based on 29 nonrandomized studies (3.701 patients) the model shows that LDP is more cost-effective compared with ODP. Scenarios in which LDP does not outperform ODP for cost-effectiveness seem unrealistic, e.g., a 30-day mortality rate of 1.79 times higher after LDP as compared with ODP, conversion in 62.2%, surgically repair of incisional hernias in 21% after LDP, or an average 2.3 days longer hospital stay after LDP than after ODP. Taking all uncertainty into account, LDP remained more cost-effective. Minimizing these uncertainties did not change the outcome., Conclusions: The results show how decision analytical modeling can help to identify relevant uncertainty and guide decisions for future research in surgery. Based on the current available evidence, a randomized clinical trial on complications, hospital stay, costs, quality of life, and survival is highly unlikely to change the conclusion that LDP is more cost-effective than ODP.

Background & Aims: In a 2010 randomized trial (the PANTER trial), a surgical step-up approach for infected necrotizing pancreatitis was found to reduce the composite endpoint of death or major complications compared with open necrosectomy; 35% of patients were successfully treated with simple catheter drainage only. There is concern, however, that minimally invasive treatment increases the need for reinterventions for residual peripancreatic necrotic collections and other complications during the long term. We therefore performed a long-term follow-up study., Methods: We reevaluated all the 73 patients (of the 88 patients randomly assigned to groups) who were still alive after the index admission, at a mean 86 months (±11 months) of follow-up. We collected data on all clinical and health care resource utilization endpoints through this follow-up period. The primary endpoint was death or major complications (the same as for the PANTER trial). We also measured exocrine insufficiency, quality of life (using the Short Form-36 and EuroQol 5 dimensions forms), and Izbicki pain scores., Results: From index admission to long-term follow-up, 19 patients (44%) died or had major complications in the step-up group compared with 33 patients (73%) in the open-necrosectomy group (P = .005). Significantly lower proportions of patients in the step-up group had incisional hernias (23% vs 53%; P = .004), pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (29% vs 56%; P = .03), or endocrine insufficiency (40% vs 64%; P = .05). There were no significant differences between groups in proportions of patients requiring additional drainage procedures (11% vs 13%; P = .99) or pancreatic surgery (11% vs 5%; P = .43), or in recurrent acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, Izbicki pain scores, or medical costs. Quality of life increased during follow-up without a significant difference between groups., Conclusions: In an analysis of long-term outcomes of trial participants, we found the step-up approach for necrotizing pancreatitis to be superior to open necrosectomy, without increased risk of reinterventions., (Copyright © 2019 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Same-admission cholecystectomy is advised after gallstone pancreatitis to prevent recurrent pancreatitis, colicky pain and other complications, but data on the incidence of symptoms and complications after cholecystectomy are lacking., Methods: This was a prospective cohort study during the previously published randomized controlled PONCHO trial on timing of cholecystectomy after mild gallstone pancreatitis. Data on healthcare consumption and questionnaires focusing on colicky pain and biliary complications were obtained during 6 months after cholecystectomy. Main outcomes were (i) postoperative colicky pain as reported in questionnaires and (ii) medical treatment for postoperative symptoms and gallstone related complications., Results: Among 262 patients who underwent cholecystectomy after mild gallstone pancreatitis, 28 of 191 patients (14.7%) reported postoperative colicky pain. The majority of these were reported within 2 months after surgery and were single events. Overall, 25 patients (9.5%) required medical treatment for symptoms or gallstone related complications. Acute readmission was required in seven patients (2.7%). No predictors for the development of postoperative colicky pain were identified., Discussion: Some 15% of patients experienced colicky pain after cholecystectomy for mild gallstone pancreatitis, which were mostly single events and rarely required readmission. These data may be used to better inform patients undergoing cholecystectomy for mild gallstone pancreatitis., (Copyright © 2018 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy and endoscopic necrosectomy, compared with open necrosectomy, might improve outcomes in necrotising pancreatitis, especially in critically ill patients. Evidence from large comparative studies is lacking., Design: We combined original and newly collected data from 15 published and unpublished patient cohorts (51 hospitals; 8 countries) on pancreatic necrosectomy for necrotising pancreatitis. Death rates were compared in patients undergoing open necrosectomy versus minimally invasive surgical or endoscopic necrosectomy. To adjust for confounding and to study effect modification by clinical severity, we performed two types of analyses: logistic multivariable regression and propensity score matching with stratification according to predicted risk of death at baseline (low: <5%; intermediate: ≥5% to <15%; high: ≥15% to <35%; and very high: ≥35%)., Results: Among 1980 patients with necrotising pancreatitis, 1167 underwent open necrosectomy and 813 underwent minimally invasive surgical (n=467) or endoscopic (n=346) necrosectomy. There was a lower risk of death for minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy (OR, 0.53; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.84; p=0.006) and endoscopic necrosectomy (OR, 0.20; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.63; p=0.006). After propensity score matching with risk stratification, minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy remained associated with a lower risk of death than open necrosectomy in the very high-risk group (42/111 vs 59/111; risk ratio, 0.70; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.95; p=0.02). Endoscopic necrosectomy was associated with a lower risk of death than open necrosectomy in the high-risk group (3/40 vs 12/40; risk ratio, 0.27; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.88; p=0.03) and in the very high-risk group (12/57 vs 28/57; risk ratio, 0.43; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.77; p=0.005)., Conclusion: In high-risk patients with necrotising pancreatitis, minimally invasive surgical and endoscopic necrosectomy are associated with reduced death rates compared with open necrosectomy., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors declare no support from any organisation for the submitted work, no financial relationships with any organisation that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years, and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Infected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease and an indication for invasive intervention. The surgical step-up approach is the standard treatment. A promising alternative is the endoscopic step-up approach. We compared both approaches to see whether the endoscopic step-up approach was superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes., Methods: In this multicentre, randomised, superiority trial, we recruited adult patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis and an indication for invasive intervention from 19 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned to either the endoscopic or the surgical step-up approach. The endoscopic approach consisted of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic necrosectomy. The surgical approach consisted of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or death during 6-month follow-up. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN09186711., Findings: Between Sept 20, 2011, and Jan 29, 2015, we screened 418 patients with pancreatic or extrapancreatic necrosis, of which 98 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach (n=51) or the surgical step-up approach (n=47). The primary endpoint occurred in 22 (43%) of 51 patients in the endoscopy group and in 21 (45%) of 47 patients in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·62-1·51; p=0·88). Mortality did not differ between groups (nine [18%] patients in the endoscopy group vs six [13%] patients in the surgery group; RR 1·38, 95% CI 0·53-3·59, p=0·50), nor did any of the major complications included in the primary endpoint., Interpretation: In patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing major complications or death. The rate of pancreatic fistulas and length of hospital stay were lower in the endoscopy group. The outcome of this trial will probably result in a shift to the endoscopic step-up approach as treatment preference., Funding: The Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation, Fonds NutsOhra, and the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The journal impact factor (IF) is often used as a surrogate marker for methodological quality. The objective of this study is to evaluate the relation between the journal IF and methodological quality of surgical randomized controlled trials (RCTs)., Methods: Surgical RCTs published in PubMed in 1999 and 2009 were identified. According to IF, RCTs were divided into groups of low (<2), median (2-3) and high IF (>3), as well as into top-10 vs all other journals. Methodological quality characteristics and factors concerning funding, ethical approval and statistical significance of outcomes were extracted and compared between the IF groups. Additionally, a multivariate regression was performed., Results: The median IF was 2.2 (IQR 2.37). The percentage of 'low-risk of bias' RCTs was 13% for top-10 journals vs 4% for other journals in 1999 (P < 0.02), and 30 vs 12% in 2009 (P < 0.02). Similar results were observed for high vs low IF groups. The presence of sample-size calculation, adequate generation of allocation and intention-to-treat analysis were independently associated with publication in higher IF journals; as were multicentre trials and multiple authors., Conclusion: Publication of RCTs in high IF journals is associated with moderate improvement in methodological quality compared to RCTs published in lower IF journals. RCTs with adequate sample-size calculation, generation of allocation or intention-to-treat analysis were associated with publication in a high IF journal. On the other hand, reporting a statistically significant outcome and being industry funded were not independently associated with publication in a higher IF journal.

Objectives: Severe acute pancreatitis is associated with peripancreatic morphologic changes as seen on imaging. Uniform communication regarding these morphologic findings is crucial for accurate diagnosis and treatment. For the original 1992 Atlanta classification, interobserver agreement is poor. We hypothesized that for the revised Atlanta classification, interobserver agreement will be better., Methods: An international, interobserver agreement study was performed among expert and nonexpert radiologists (n = 14), surgeons (n = 15), and gastroenterologists (n = 8). Representative computed tomographies of all stages of acute pancreatitis were selected from 55 patients and were assessed according to the revised Atlanta classification. The interobserver agreement was calculated among all reviewers and subgroups, that is, expert and nonexpert reviewers; interobserver agreement was defined as poor (≤0.20), fair (0.21-0.40), moderate (0.41-0.60), good (0.61-0.80), or very good (0.81-1.00)., Results: Interobserver agreement among all reviewers was good (0.75 [standard deviation, 0.21]) for describing the type of acute pancreatitis and good (0.62 [standard deviation, 0.19]) for the type of peripancreatic collection. Expert radiologists showed the best and nonexpert clinicians the lowest interobserver agreement., Conclusions: Interobserver agreement was good for the revised Atlanta classification, supporting the importance for widespread adaption of this revised classification for clinical and research communications.

Objective: To analyze long-term outcome of a randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) and conventional Nissen fundoplication (CNF) for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)., Background: LNF has replaced CNF, based on positive short and mid-term outcome. Studies with a follow-up of over 15 years are scarce, but are desperately needed for patient counselling., Methods: Between 1997 and 1999, 177 patients with proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-refractory GERD were randomized to CNF or LNF. Data regarding the presence of reflux symptoms, dysphagia, general health, PPI use, and need for surgical reintervention at 17 years are reported., Results: A total of 111 patients (60 LNF, 51 CNF) were included. Seventeen years after LNF and CNF, 90% and 95% of the patients reported symptom relief, with no differences in GERD symptoms or dysphagia. Forty-three and 49% of the patients used PPIs (NS). Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in general health (77% vs 71%; NS) and quality of life (75.3 vs 74.7; NS). Surgical reinterventions were more frequent after CNF (18% vs 45%; P = 0.002), mainly due to incisional hernia corrections (3% vs 14%; P = 0.047)., Conclusions: The effects of LNF and CNF on symptomatic outcome and general state of health remain for up to 17 years after surgery, with no differences between the 2 procedures. CNF carries a higher risk of surgical reintervention, mainly due to incisional hernia corrections. Patients should be informed that 17 years after Nissen fundoplication, 60% of the patients are off PPIs, and 16% require reoperation for recurrent GERD and/or dysphagia.

Background: Same-admission cholecystectomy is indicated after gallstone pancreatitis to reduce the risk of recurrent disease or other gallstone-related complications, but its impact on overall costs is unclear. This study analysed the cost-effectiveness of same-admission versus interval cholecystectomy after mild gallstone pancreatitis., Methods: In a multicentre RCT (Pancreatitis of biliary Origin: optimal timiNg of CHOlecystectomy; PONCHO) patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis were randomized before discharge to either cholecystectomy within 72 h (same-admission cholecystectomy) or cholecystectomy after 25-30 days (interval cholecystectomy). Healthcare use of all patients was recorded prospectively using clinical report forms. Unit costs of resources used were determined, and patients completed multiple Health and Labour Questionnaires to record pancreatitis-related absence from work. Cost-effectiveness analyses were performed from societal and healthcare perspectives, with the costs per readmission prevented as primary outcome with a time horizon of 6 months., Results: All 264 trial participants were included in the present analysis, 128 randomized to same-admission cholecystectomy and 136 to interval cholecystectomy. Same-admission cholecystectomy reduced the risk of acute readmission for recurrent gallstone-related complications from 16·9 to 4·7 per cent (P = 0·002). Mean total costs from a societal perspective were €234 (95 per cent c.i. -1249 to 738) less per patient in the same-admission cholecystectomy group. Same-admission cholecystectomy was superior to interval cholecystectomy, with a societal incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -€1918 to prevent one readmission for gallstone-related complications., Conclusion: In mild biliary pancreatitis, same-admission cholecystectomy was more effective and less costly than interval cholecystectomy., (© 2016 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background & Aims: Patients with a first episode of acute pancreatitis can develop recurrent or chronic pancreatitis (CP). However, little is known about the incidence or risk factors for these events., Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study of 669 patients with a first episode of acute pancreatitis admitted to 15 Dutch hospitals from December 2003 through March 2007. We collected information on disease course, outpatient visits, and hospital readmissions, as well as results from imaging, laboratory, and histology studies. Standardized follow-up questionnaires were sent to all available patients to collect information on hospitalizations and interventions for pancreatic disease, abdominal pain, steatorrhea, diabetes mellitus, medications, and alcohol and tobacco use. Patients were followed up for a median time period of 57 months. Primary end points were recurrent pancreatitis and CP. Risk factors were evaluated using regression analysis. The cumulative risk was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis., Results: Recurrent pancreatitis developed in 117 patients (17%), and CP occurred in 51 patients (7.6%). Recurrent pancreatitis developed in 12% of patients with biliary disease, 24% of patients with alcoholic etiology, and 25% of patients with disease of idiopathic or other etiologies; CP occurred in 3%, 16%, and 10% of these patients, respectively. Etiology, smoking, and necrotizing pancreatitis were independent risk factors for recurrent pancreatitis and CP. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores at admission also were associated independently with recurrent pancreatitis. The cumulative risk for recurrent pancreatitis over 5 years was highest among smokers at 40% (compared with 13% for nonsmokers). For alcohol abusers and current smokers, the cumulative risks for CP were similar-approximately 18%. In contrast, the cumulative risk of CP increased to 30% in patients who smoked and abused alcohol., Conclusions: Based on a retrospective analysis of patients admitted to Dutch hospitals, a first episode of acute pancreatitis leads to recurrent pancreatitis in 17% of patients, and almost 8% of patients progress to CP within 5 years. Progression was associated independently with alcoholic etiology, smoking, and a history of pancreatic necrosis. Smoking is the predominant risk factor for recurrent disease, whereas the combination of alcohol abuse and smoking produces the highest cumulative risk for chronic pancreatitis., (Copyright © 2016 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: At least 30% of patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis are successfully treated with catheter drainage alone. It is currently not possible to predict which patients also need necrosectomy. We evaluated predictive factors for successful catheter drainage., Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of 130 prospectively included patients undergoing catheter drainage for (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Using logistic regression, we evaluated the association between success of catheter drainage (ie, survival without necrosectomy) and 22 factors regarding demographics, disease severity (eg, Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II score, organ failure), and morphologic characteristics on computed tomography (eg, percentage of necrosis)., Results: Catheter drainage was performed percutaneously in 113 patients and endoscopically in 17 patients. Infected necrosis was confirmed in 116 patients (89%). Catheter drainage was successful in 45 patients (35%). In multivariable regression, the following factors were associated with a reduced chance of success: male sex [odds ratio (OR) = 0.27; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.09-0.55; P <0.01), multiple organ failure (OR = 0.15; 95% CI: 0.04-0.62; P < 0.01), percentage of pancreatic necrosis (<30%/30%-50%/>50%: OR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.30-0.96; P = 0.03), and heterogeneous collection (OR = 0.21; 95% CI: 0.06-0.67; P < 0.01). A prediction model incorporating these factors demonstrated an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.76. A prognostic nomogram yielded success probability of catheter drainage from 2% to 91%., Conclusions: Male sex, multiple organ failure, increasing percentage of pancreatic necrosis and heterogeneity of the collection are negative predictors for success of catheter drainage in infected necrotizing pancreatitis. The constructed nomogram can guide prognostication in clinical practice and risk stratification in clinical studies.

Objectives: Vagus nerve injury is a feared complication of antireflux surgery (ARS) that may negatively affect reflux control. The aim of the present prospective study was to evaluate short-term and long-term impact of vagus nerve injury, evaluated by pancreatic polypeptide response to insulin-induced hypoglycemia (PP-IH), on the outcome of ARS., Methods: In the period from 1990 until 2000, 125 patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) underwent ARS at a single center. Before and 6 months after surgery, vagus nerve integrity testing (PP-IH), 24-h pH-monitoring, gastric emptying, and reflux-associated symptoms were evaluated. In 2014, 14-25 years after surgery, 110 patients were contacted again for evaluation of long-term symptomatic outcome using two validated questionnaires (Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) and GERD-Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL))., Results: Short-term follow-up: vagus nerve injury (PP peak ≤47 pmol/l) was observed in 23 patients (18%) 6 months after fundoplication. In both groups, a comparable decrease in reflux parameters and symptoms was observed at 6-month follow-up. Postoperative gastric emptying was significantly delayed in the vagus nerve injury group compared with the vagus nerve intact group. Long-term follow-up: patients with vagus nerve injury showed significantly less effective reflux control and a higher re-operation rate., Conclusions: Vagus nerve injury occurs in up to 20% of patients after ARS. Reflux control 6 months after surgery was not affected by vagus nerve injury. However, long-term follow-up showed a negative effect on reflux symptom control and re-operation rate in patients with vagus nerve injury.

Background: Acute pancreatitis is mostly caused by gallstones or sludge. Early decompression of the biliary tree by endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) with sphincterotomy may improve outcome in these patients. Whereas current guidelines recommend early ERC in patients with concomitant cholangitis, early ERC is not recommended in patients with mild biliary pancreatitis. Evidence on the role of routine early ERC with endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients without cholangitis but with biliary pancreatitis at high risk for complications is lacking. We hypothesize that early ERC with sphincterotomy improves outcome in these patients., Methods/design: The APEC trial is a randomized controlled, parallel group, superiority multicenter trial. Within 24 hours after presentation to the emergency department, patients with biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis and at high risk for complications, based on an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE-II) score of 8 or greater, Modified Glasgow score of 3 or greater, or serum C-reactive protein above 150 mg/L, will be randomized. In 27 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group, 232 patients will be allocated to early ERC with sphincterotomy or to conservative treatment. The primary endpoint is a composite of major complications (that is, organ failure, pancreatic necrosis, pneumonia, bacteremia, cholangitis, pancreatic endocrine, or exocrine insufficiency) or death within 180 days after randomization. Secondary endpoints include ERC-related complications, infected necrotizing pancreatitis, length of hospital stay and an economical evaluation., Discussion: The APEC trial investigates whether an early ERC with sphincterotomy reduces the composite endpoint of major complications or death compared with conservative treatment in patients with biliary pancreatitis at high risk of complications., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN97372133 (date registration: 17-12-2012).

Background: The optimal diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis is subject to debate. We performed a survey on these topics amongst a group of international expert pancreatologists., Methods: An online survey including case vignettes was sent to 118 international pancreatologists. We evaluated the use and timing of fine needle aspiration (FNA), antibiotics, catheter drainage and (minimally invasive) necrosectomy., Results: The response rate was 74% (N = 87). None of the respondents use FNA routinely, 85% selectively and 15% never. Most respondents (87%) use a step-up approach in patients with infected necrosis. Walled-off necrosis (WON) is considered a prerequisite for endoscopic drainage and percutaneous drainage by 66% and 12%, respectively. After diagnosing infected necrosis, 55% routinely postpone invasive interventions, whereas 45% proceed immediately to intervention. Lack of consensus about timing of intervention was apparent on day 14 with proven infected necrosis (58% intervention vs. 42% non-invasive) as well as on day 20 with only clinically suspected infected necrosis (59% intervention vs. 41% non-invasive)., Discussion: The step-up approach is the preferred treatment strategy in infected necrotizing pancreatitis amongst expert pancreatologists. There is no uniformity regarding the use of FNA and timing of intervention in the first 2-3 weeks of infected necrotizing pancreatitis., (Copyright © 2015 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. All rights reserved.)

Severe acute pancreatitis poses unique nutritional challenges. The optimal nutritional support in patients with severe acute pancreatitis has been a subject of debate for decades. This review provides a critical review of the available literature. According to current literature, enteral nutrition is superior to parenteral nutrition, although several limitations should be taken into account. The optimal route of enteral nutrition remains unclear, but normal or nasogastric tube feeding seems safe when tolerated. In patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis an on-demand feeding strategy is advised and when patients do not tolerate an oral diet after 72 hours, enteral nutrition can be started. The use of supplements, both parenteral as enteral, are not recommended. Optimal nutritional support in severe cases often requires a tailor-made approach with day-to-day evaluation of its effectiveness.

Objectives: Predicting severe acute pancreatitis (AP) remains a challenge. The present study compares admission blood urea nitrogen (BUN), hematocrit, and creatinine, as well as changes in their levels over 24 h, aiming to determine the most accurate laboratory test for predicting persistent organ failure and pancreatic necrosis., Methods: Clinical data of 1,612 AP patients, enrolled prospectively in three independent cohorts (University of Pittsburgh, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group), were abstracted. The predictive accuracy of the studied laboratories was measured using area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis. A pooled analysis was conducted to determine their impact on the risk for persistent organ failure and pancreatic necrosis. Finally, a classification tree was developed on the basis of the most accurate laboratory parameters., Results: Admission hematocrit ≥44% and rise in BUN at 24 h were the most accurate in predicting persistent organ failure (AUC: 0.67 and 0.71, respectively) and pancreatic necrosis (0.66 and 0.67, respectively), outperforming the other laboratory parameters and the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation-II score. In a pooled analysis, admission hematocrit ≥44% and rise in BUN at 24 h were associated with an odds ratio of 3.54 and 5.84 for persistent organ failure, and 3.11 and 4.07, respectively, for pancreatic necrosis. In addition, the classification tree illustrated that when both admission hematocrit was ≥44% and BUN levels increased at 24 h, the rates of persistent organ failure and pancreatic necrosis reached 53.6% and 60.3%, respectively., Conclusions: Admission hematocrit ≥44% and rise in BUN at 24 h may be the optimal predictive tools in clinical practice among existing laboratory parameters and scoring systems.

Background: The optimal diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis are subject to debate. A survey was performed on these topics amongst a group of international expert pancreatologists., Methods: An online survey including case vignettes was sent to 118 international pancreatologists. The use and timing of fine-needle aspiration (FNA), antibiotics, catheter drainage and (minimally invasive) necrosectomy were evaluated., Results: The response rate was 74% (N = 87). None of the respondents use FNA routinely, 85% selectively and 15% never. Most respondents (87%) use a step-up approach in patients with infected necrosis. Walled-off necrosis (WON) is considered a prerequisite for endoscopic drainage and percutaneous drainage by 66% and 12%, respectively. After diagnosing infected necrosis, 55% routinely postpone invasive interventions, whereas 45% proceed immediately to intervention. A lack of consensus about timing of intervention was apparent on day 14 with proven infected necrosis (58% intervention versus 42% non-invasive) as well as on day 20 with only clinically suspected infected necrosis (59% intervention versus 41% non-invasive)., Discussion: The step-up approach is the preferred treatment strategy in infected necrotizing pancreatitis amongst expert pancreatologists. There is no uniformity regarding the use of FNA and timing of intervention in the first 2-3 weeks of infected necrotizing pancreatitis., (© 2015 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association.)

Background: In patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis, cholecystectomy during the same hospital admission might reduce the risk of recurrent gallstone-related complications, compared with the more commonly used strategy of interval cholecystectomy. However, evidence to support same-admission cholecystectomy is poor, and concerns exist about an increased risk of cholecystectomy-related complications with this approach. In this study, we aimed to compare same-admission and interval cholecystectomy, with the hypothesis that same-admission cholecystectomy would reduce the risk of recurrent gallstone-related complications without increasing the difficulty of surgery., Methods: For this multicentre, parallel-group, assessor-masked, randomised controlled superiority trial, inpatients recovering from mild gallstone pancreatitis at 23 hospitals in the Netherlands (with hospital discharge foreseen within 48 h) were assessed for eligibility. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were eligible for randomisation if they had a serum C-reactive protein concentration less than 100 mg/L, no need for opioid analgesics, and could tolerate a normal oral diet. Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class III physical status who were older than 75 years of age, all ASA class IV patients, those with chronic pancreatitis, and those with ongoing alcohol misuse were excluded. A central study coordinator randomly assigned eligible patients (1:1) by computer-based randomisation, with varying block sizes of two and four patients, to cholecystectomy within 3 days of randomisation (same-admission cholecystectomy) or to discharge and cholecystectomy 25-30 days after randomisation (interval cholecystectomy). Randomisation was stratified by centre and by whether or not endoscopic sphincterotomy had been done. Neither investigators nor participants were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was a composite of readmission for recurrent gallstone-related complications (pancreatitis, cholangitis, cholecystitis, choledocholithiasis needing endoscopic intervention, or gallstone colic) or mortality within 6 months after randomisation, analysed by intention to treat. The trial was designed to reduce the incidence of the primary endpoint from 8% in the interval group to 1% in the same-admission group. Safety endpoints included bile duct leakage and other complications necessitating re-intervention. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN72764151, and is complete., Findings: Between Dec 22, 2010, and Aug 19, 2013, 266 inpatients from 23 hospitals in the Netherlands were randomly assigned to interval cholecystectomy (n=137) or same-admission cholecystectomy (n=129). One patient from each group was excluded from the final analyses, because of an incorrect diagnosis of pancreatitis in one patient (in the interval group) and discontinued follow-up in the other (in the same-admission group). The primary endpoint occurred in 23 (17%) of 136 patients in the interval group and in six (5%) of 128 patients in the same-admission group (risk ratio 0·28, 95% CI 0·12-0·66; p=0·002). Safety endpoints occurred in four patients: one case of bile duct leakage and one case of postoperative bleeding in each group. All of these were serious adverse events and were judged to be treatment related, but none led to death., Interpretation: Compared with interval cholecystectomy, same-admission cholecystectomy reduced the rate of recurrent gallstone-related complications in patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis, with a very low risk of cholecystectomy-related complications., Funding: Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Poor inter-professional collaboration might negatively influence adequate planning of operative procedures. Interventions capable of improving inter-professional collaboration will positively impact professional practice and health care outcomes. Radboud University Medical Center (UMC) redesigned their operating room (OR) scheduling method by implementing cross-functional teams (CFTs). In this center, positive effects of CFTs were already demonstrated in a mono-center study. This study aims to confirm these effects by comparing the Radboud data with data from 6 other similar centers using a nationwide OR benchmark collaborative., Study Design: The effect of CFTs was measured by the performance indicator "raw utilization." The Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA was applied to compare OR performance among all 7 centers. The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to determine differences in OR performance between Radboud UMC and the control group., Results: Operating room performance differed significantly among all 7 centers (p<0.0005). Radboud UMC demonstrated the highest median raw utilization of 94% vs 85% in the control group (p<0.0005). Box-and-whisker plots validated the reduced variation during the years, indicating an organizational learning effect. Therefore, not only a better performance than the control group, but also a gradual improvement of this performance during the years., Conclusions: This study shows that multidisciplinary collaboration in CFTs during the perioperative phase has a positive influence on OR scheduling and use of OR time. Other national databases considering mortality rates also support the idea that introducing CFTs is not only an important condition for improving OR performance, but also for improving quality of care., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Endoscopy and surgery are the treatment modalities of choice for patients with chronic pancreatitis and dilated pancreatic duct (obstructive chronic pancreatitis). Physicians face, without clear consensus, the choice between endoscopy or surgery for this group of patients., Objectives: To assess and compare the effects and complications of surgical and endoscopic interventions in the management of pain for obstructive chronic pancreatitis., Search Methods: We searched the following databases in The Cochrane Library: CENTRAL (2014, Issue 2), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2014, Issue 2), and DARE (2014, Issue 2). We also searched the following databases up to 25 March 2014: MEDLINE (from 1950), Embase (from 1980), and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (CPCI-S) (from 1990). We performed a cross-reference search. Two review authors independently performed the selection of trials., Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of endoscopic or surgical interventions in obstructive chronic pancreatitis. We included trials comparing endoscopic versus surgical interventions as well as trials comparing either endoscopic or surgical interventions to conservative treatment (i.e. non-invasive treatment modalities). We included relevant trials irrespective of blinding, the number of participants randomised, and the language of the article., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Two authors independently extracted data from the articles. We evaluated the methodological quality of the included trials and requested additional information from study authors in the case of missing data., Main Results: We identified three eligible trials. Two trials compared endoscopic intervention with surgical intervention and included a total of 111 participants: 55 in the endoscopic group and 56 in the surgical group. Compared with the endoscopic group, the surgical group had a higher proportion of participants with pain relief, both at middle/long-term follow-up (two to five years: risk ratio (RR) 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 2.15) and long-term follow-up (≥ five years, RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.05). Surgical intervention resulted in improved quality of life and improved preservation of exocrine pancreatic function at middle/long-term follow-up (two to five years), but not at long-term follow-up (≥ 5 years). No differences were found in terms of major post-interventional complications or mortality, although the number of participants did not allow for this to be reliably evaluated. One trial, including 32 participants, compared surgical intervention with conservative treatment: 17 in the surgical group and 15 in the conservative group. The trial showed that surgical intervention resulted in a higher percentage of participants with pain relief and better preservation of pancreatic function. The trial had methodological limitations, and the number of participants was relatively small., Authors' Conclusions: For patients with obstructive chronic pancreatitis and dilated pancreatic duct, this review shows that surgery is superior to endoscopy in terms of pain relief. Morbidity and mortality seem not to differ between the two intervention modalities, but the small trials identified do not provide sufficient power to detect the small differences expected in this outcome.Regarding the comparison of surgical intervention versus conservative treatment, this review has shown that surgical intervention in an early stage of chronic pancreatitis is a promising approach in terms of pain relief and pancreatic function. Other trials need to confirm these results because of the methodological limitations and limited number of participants assessed in the present evidence.

Background: The purpose of this study was to assess the direct and indirect relationships between first-case tardiness (or "late start"), turnover time, underused operating room (OR) time, and raw utilization, as well as to determine which indicator had the most negative impact on OR utilization to identify improvement potential. Furthermore, we studied the indirect relationships of the three indicators of "nonoperative" time on OR utilization, to recognize possible "trickle down" effects during the day., Materials and Methods: (Multiple) linear regression analysis and mediation effect analysis were applied to a data set from all eight University Medical Centers in the Netherlands. This data set consisted of 190,071 OR days (on which 623,871 surgical cases were performed)., Results: Underused OR time at the end of the day had the strongest influence on raw utilization, followed by late start and turnover time. The relationships between the three "nonoperative" time indicators were negligible. The impact of the partial indirect effects of "nonoperative" time indicators on raw utilization were statistically significant, but relatively small. The "trickle down" effect that late start can cause resulting in an increased delay as the day progresses, was not supported by our results., Conclusions: The study findings clearly suggest that OR utilization can be improved by focusing on the reduction of underused OR time at the end of the day. Improving the prediction of total procedure time, improving OR scheduling by, for example, altering the sequencing of operations, changing patient cancellation policies, and flexible staffing of ORs adjusted to patient needs, are means to reduce "nonoperative" time., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Chronic pancreatitis is a complex disease with many unanswered questions regarding the natural history and therapy. Prospective longitudinal studies with long-term follow-up are warranted., Methods: The Dutch Chronic Pancreatitis Registry (CARE) is a nationwide registry aimed at prospective evaluation and follow-up of patients with chronic pancreatitis. All patients with (suspected) chronic or recurrent pancreatitis are eligible for CARE. Patients are followed-up by yearly questionnaires and review of medical records. Study outcomes are pain, disease complications, quality of life, and pancreatic function. The target sample size was set at 500 for the first year and 1000 patients within 3 years., Results: A total of 1218 patients were included from February 2010 until June 2013 by 76 participating surgeons and gastroenterologist from 33 hospitals. Participation rate was 90% of eligible patients. Eight academic centers included 761 (62%) patients, while 25 community hospitals included 457 (38%). Patient centered outcomes were assessed by yearly questionnaires, which had a response rate of 85 and 82% for year 1 and 2, respectively. The median age of patients was 58 years, 814 (67%) were male, and 38% had symptoms for less than 5 years., Discussion: The CARE registry has successfully recruited over 1200 patients with chronic and recurrent pancreatitis in about 3 years. The defined inclusion criteria ensure patients are included at an early disease stage. Participation and compliance rates are high. CARE offers a unique opportunity with sufficient power to investigate many clinical questions regarding natural course, complications, and efficacy and timing of treatment strategies., (Copyright © 2014 IAP and EPC. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Infectious complications often occur in acute pancreatitis, related to impaired intestinal barrier function, with prolonged disease course and even mortality as a result. The bile salt nuclear receptor farnesoid X receptor (FXR), which is expressed in the ileum, liver and other organs including the pancreas, exhibits anti-inflammatory effects by inhibiting NF-κB activation and is implicated in maintaining intestinal barrier integrity and preventing bacterial overgrowth and translocation. Here we explore, with the aid of complementary animal and human experiments, the potential role of FXR in acute pancreatitis., Methods: Experimental acute pancreatitis was induced using the CCK-analogue cerulein in wild-type and Fxr-/- mice. Severity of acute pancreatitis was assessed using histology and a semi-quantitative scoring system. Ileal permeability was analyzed in vitro by Ussing chambers and an in vivo permeability assay. Gene expression of Fxr and Fxr target genes was studied by quantitative RT-PCR. Serum FGF19 levels were determined by ELISA in acute pancreatitis patients and healthy volunteers. A genetic association study in 387 acute pancreatitis patients and 853 controls was performed using 9 tagging single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) covering the complete FXR gene and two additional functional SNPs., Results: In wild-type mice with acute pancreatitis, ileal transepithelial resistance was reduced and ileal mRNA expression of Fxr target genes Fgf15, SHP, and IBABP was decreased. Nevertheless, Fxr-/- mice did not exhibit a more severe acute pancreatitis than wild-type mice. In patients with acute pancreatitis, FGF19 levels were lower than in controls. However, there were no associations of FXR SNPs or haplotypes with susceptibility to acute pancreatitis, or its course, outcome or etiology., Conclusion: We found no evidence for a major role of FXR in acute human or murine pancreatitis. The observed altered Fxr activity during the course of disease may be a secondary phenomenon.

Background: Early enteral feeding through a nasoenteric feeding tube is often used in patients with severe acute pancreatitis to prevent gut-derived infections, but evidence to support this strategy is limited. We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing early nasoenteric tube feeding with an oral diet at 72 hours after presentation to the emergency department in patients with acute pancreatitis., Methods: We enrolled patients with acute pancreatitis who were at high risk for complications on the basis of an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 8 or higher (on a scale of 0 to 71, with higher scores indicating more severe disease), an Imrie or modified Glasgow score of 3 or higher (on a scale of 0 to 8, with higher scores indicating more severe disease), or a serum C-reactive protein level of more than 150 mg per liter. Patients were randomly assigned to nasoenteric tube feeding within 24 hours after randomization (early group) or to an oral diet initiated 72 hours after presentation (on-demand group), with tube feeding provided if the oral diet was not tolerated. The primary end point was a composite of major infection (infected pancreatic necrosis, bacteremia, or pneumonia) or death during 6 months of follow-up., Results: A total of 208 patients were enrolled at 19 Dutch hospitals. The primary end point occurred in 30 of 101 patients (30%) in the early group and in 28 of 104 (27%) in the on-demand group (risk ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.44; P=0.76). There were no significant differences between the early group and the on-demand group in the rate of major infection (25% and 26%, respectively; P=0.87) or death (11% and 7%, respectively; P=0.33). In the on-demand group, 72 patients (69%) tolerated an oral diet and did not require tube feeding., Conclusions: This trial did not show the superiority of early nasoenteric tube feeding, as compared with an oral diet after 72 hours, in reducing the rate of infection or death in patients with acute pancreatitis at high risk for complications. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and others; PYTHON Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN18170985.).

Background/objectives: Recently, a randomized controlled trial showed that probiotic prophylaxis was associated with an increased mortality in enterally fed patients with predicted severe pancreatitis. In a rat model for acute pancreatitis, we investigated whether an association between probiotic prophylaxis and enteral nutrition contributed to the higher mortality rate., Methods: Male Sprague-Dawley rats were allocated to four groups: 1) acute pancreatitis (n = 9), 2) acute pancreatitis and probiotic prophylaxis (n = 10), 3) acute pancreatitis and enteral nutrition (n = 10), and 4) acute pancreatitis, probiotic prophylaxis and enteral nutrition (n = 11). Acute pancreatitis was induced by intraductal glycodeoxycholate and intravenous cerulein infusion. Enteral nutrition, saline, probiotics and placebo were administered through a permanent jejunal feeding. Probiotics or placebo were administered starting 4 days before induction of pancreatitis and enteral nutrition 1 day before start until the end of the experiment, 6 days after induction of pancreatitis. Tissue samples and body fluids were collected for microbiological and histological examination., Results: In all animals, serum amylase was increased six hours after induction of pancreatitis. After fulfilling the experiment, no differences between groups were found in histological severity of pancreatitis, degree of discomfort, weight loss, histological examination of small bowel and bacterial translocation (all p > 0.05). Overall mortality was 10% without differences between groups (p = 0.54)., Conclusion: No negative association was found between prophylactic probiotics and enteral nutrition in acute pancreatitis. No new clues for a potential mechanism responsible for the higher mortality and bowel ischaemia in the PROPATRIA study were found., (Copyright © 2014 IAP and EPC. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In acute pancreatitis, enteral nutrition (EN) reduces the rate of complications, such as infected pancreatic necrosis, organ failure, and mortality, as compared to parenteral nutrition (PN). Starting EN within 24 h of admission might further reduce complications., Methods: A literature search for trials of EN in acute pancreatitis was performed. Authors of eligible trials were requested to provide the data of all patients in the EN-arm of their trials. A meta-analysis of individual patient data was performed. The cohort of patients with EN was divided into patients receiving EN within 24 h or after 24 h of admission. Multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for predicted disease severity and trial, was used to study the effect of timing of EN on a composite endpoint of infected pancreatic necrosis, organ failure, or mortality., Results: Observational data from 165 individuals from 8 randomised trials were obtained; 100 patients with EN within 24 h and 65 patients with EN after 24 h of admission. In the multivariable model, EN started within 24 h of admission compared to EN started after 24 h of admission, reduced the composite endpoint from 45% to 19% (adjusted odds ratio [OR] of 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20-0.96). Within the composite endpoint, organ failure was reduced from 42% to 16% (adjusted OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.19-0.94)., Conclusions: In this meta-analysis of observational data from individuals with acute pancreatitis, starting EN within 24 h after hospital admission, compared with after 24 h, was associated with a reduction in complications., (Copyright © 2014 IAP and EPC. All rights reserved.)