Search

IntroductionIdiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) remains a dilemma for physicians as it is uncertain whether patients with IAP may actually have an occult aetiology. It is unclear to what extent additional diagnostic modalities such as endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) are warranted after a first episode of IAP in order to uncover this aetiology. Failure to timely determine treatable aetiologies delays appropriate treatment and might subsequently cause recurrence of acute pancreatitis. Therefore, the aim of the Pancreatitis of Idiopathic origin: Clinical added value of endoscopic UltraSonography (PICUS) Study is to determine the value of routine EUS in determining the aetiology of pancreatitis in patients with a first episode of IAP.Methods and analysisPICUS is designed as a multicentre prospective cohort study of 106 patients with a first episode of IAP after complete standard diagnostic work-up, in whom a diagnostic EUS will be performed. Standard diagnostic work-up will include a complete personal and family history, laboratory tests including serum alanine aminotransferase, calcium and triglyceride levels and imaging by transabdominal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography after clinical recovery from the acute pancreatitis episode. The primary outcome measure is detection of aetiology by EUS. Secondary outcome measures include pancreatitis recurrence rate, severity of recurrent pancreatitis, readmission, additional interventions, complications, length of hospital stay, quality of life, mortality and costs, during a follow-up period of 12 months.Ethics and disseminationPICUS is conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. Five medical ethics review committees assessed PICUS (Medical Ethics Review Committee of Academic Medical Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Radboud University Medical Center, Erasmus Medical Center and Maastricht University Medical Center). The results will be submitted for publication in an international peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNetherlands Trial Registry (NL7066). Prospectively registered.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Real-time differentiation of diminutive polyps (1-5 mm) during endoscopy could replace histopathology analysis. According to guidelines, implementation of optical diagnosis into routine practice would require it to identify rectosigmoid neoplastic lesions with a negative predictive value (NPV) of more than 90%, using histologic findings as a reference, and agreement with histology-based surveillance intervals for more than 90% of cases.METHODS: We performed a prospective study with 39 endoscopists accredited to perform colonoscopies on participants with positive results from fecal immunochemical tests in the Bowel Cancer Screening Program at 13 centers in the Netherlands. Endoscopists were trained in optical diagnosis using a validated module (Workgroup serrAted polypS and Polyposis). After meeting predefined performance thresholds in the training program, the endoscopists started a 1-year program (continuation phase) in which they performed narrow band imaging analyses during colonoscopies of participants in the screening program and predicted histological findings with confidence levels. The endoscopists were randomly assigned to groups that received feedback or no feedback on the accuracy of their predictions. Primary outcome measures were endoscopists' abilities to identify rectosigmoid neoplastic lesions (using histology as a reference) with NPVs of 90% or more, and selecting surveillance intervals that agreed with those determined by histology for at least 90% of cases.RESULTS: Of 39 endoscopists initially trained, 27 (69%) completed the training program. During the continuation phase, these 27 endoscopists performed 3144 colonoscopies in which 4504 diminutive polyps were removed. The endoscopists identified neoplastic lesions with a pooled NPV of 90.8% (95% confidence interval 88.6-92.6); their proposed surveillance intervals agreed with those determined by histologic analysis for 95.4% of cases (95% confidence interval 94.0-96.6). Findings did not differ between the group that did vs did not receive feedback. Sixteen endoscopists (59%) identified rectosigmoid neoplastic lesions with NPVs greater than 90% and selected surveillance intervals in agreement with those determined from histology for more than 90% of patients.CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective study following a validated training module, we found that a selected group of endoscopists identified rectosigmoid neoplastic lesions with pooled NPVs greater than 90% and accurately selected surveillance intervals for more than 90% of patients over the course of 1 year. Providing regular interim feedback on the accuracy of neoplastic lesion prediction and surveillance interval selection did not lead to differences in those endpoints. Monitoring is suggested, as individual performance varied. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02516748; Netherland Trial Register: NTR4635.

Contains fulltext : 152695.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) 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.

Contains fulltext : 69534.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: With the availability of infliximab, nowadays recurrent Crohn's disease, defined as disease refractory to immunomodulatory agents that has been treated with steroids, is generally treated with infliximab. Infliximab is an effective but expensive treatment and once started it is unclear when therapy can be discontinued. Surgical resection has been the golden standard in recurrent Crohn's disease. Laparoscopic ileocolic resection proved to be safe and is characterized by a quick symptom reduction.The objective of this study is to compare infliximab treatment with laparoscopic ileocolic resection in patients with recurrent Crohn's disease of the distal ileum with respect to quality of life and costs. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is designed as a multicenter randomized clinical trial including patients with Crohn's disease located in the terminal ileum that require infliximab treatment following recent consensus statements on inflammatory bowel disease treatment: moderate to severe disease activity in patients that fail to respond to steroid therapy or immunomodulatory therapy. Patients will be randomized to receive either infliximab or undergo a laparoscopic ileocolic resection. Primary outcomes are quality of life and costs. Secondary outcomes are hospital stay, early and late morbidity, sick leave and surgical recurrence. In order to detect an effect size of 0.5 on the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire at a 5% two sided significance level with a power of 80%, a sample size of 65 patients per treatment group can be calculated. An economic evaluation will be performed by assessing the marginal direct medical, non-medical and time costs and the costs per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) will be calculated. For both treatment strategies a cost-utility ratio will be calculated. Patients will be included from December 2007. DISCUSSION: The LIR!C-trial is a randomized multicenter trial that will provide evidence whether infliximab treatment or surgery is the best treatment for recurrent distal ileitis in Crohn's disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Nederlands Trial Register NTR1150.