-
Communications Medicine Apr 2024Islet autoantibodies form the foundation for type 1 diabetes (T1D) diagnosis and staging, but heterogeneity exists in T1D development and presentation. We hypothesized...
BACKGROUND
Islet autoantibodies form the foundation for type 1 diabetes (T1D) diagnosis and staging, but heterogeneity exists in T1D development and presentation. We hypothesized that autoantibodies can identify heterogeneity before, at, and after T1D diagnosis, and in response to disease-modifying therapies.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed PubMed and EMBASE databases (6/14/2022) assessing 10 years of original research examining relationships between autoantibodies and heterogeneity before, at, after diagnosis, and in response to disease-modifying therapies in individuals at-risk or within 1 year of T1D diagnosis. A critical appraisal checklist tool for cohort studies was modified and used for risk of bias assessment.
RESULTS
Here we show that 152 studies that met extraction criteria most commonly characterized heterogeneity before diagnosis (91/152). Autoantibody type/target was most frequently examined, followed by autoantibody number. Recurring themes included correlations of autoantibody number, type, and titers with progression, differing phenotypes based on order of autoantibody seroconversion, and interactions with age and genetics. Only 44% specifically described autoantibody assay standardization program participation.
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence most strongly supports the application of autoantibody features to more precisely define T1D before diagnosis. Our findings support continued use of pre-clinical staging paradigms based on autoantibody number and suggest that additional autoantibody features, particularly in relation to age and genetic risk, could offer more precise stratification. To improve reproducibility and applicability of autoantibody-based precision medicine in T1D, we propose a methods checklist for islet autoantibody-based manuscripts which includes use of precision medicine MeSH terms and participation in autoantibody standardization workshops.
PubMed: 38582818
DOI: 10.1038/s43856-024-00478-y -
The British Journal of Surgery Jan 2024Untreated pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (PEI) results in substantial patient harm. Upper gastrointestinal surgery (bariatric metabolic surgery and oesophagogastric... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Untreated pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (PEI) results in substantial patient harm. Upper gastrointestinal surgery (bariatric metabolic surgery and oesophagogastric resection) affects the delicate physiology of pancreatic exocrine function and may result in PEI. The aim of this study was to assimilate the literature on incidence, diagnosis, and management of PEI after bariatric metabolic surgery and oesophagogastric resection.
METHODS
A systematic review of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases identified studies investigating PEI after non-pancreatic upper gastrointestinal surgery. Meta-analyses were undertaken for incidence of PEI and benefit of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy.
RESULTS
Among 1620 patients from 24 studies included in quantitative synthesis, 36.0% developed PEI. The incidence of PEI was 23.0 and 50.4% after bariatric metabolic surgery and oesophagogastric resection respectively. Notably, the incidence of PEI was 44% after biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch and 66.2% after total gastrectomy. The most common diagnostic test used was faecal elastase 1 (15 of 31 studies), with less than 200 µg/g being diagnostic of PEI. A total of 11 studies considered the management of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency, with 78.6% of patients responding positively to pancreatic enzyme replacement when it was prescribed.
CONCLUSION
PEI is common after non-pancreatic upper gastrointestinal surgery and patients may benefit from enzyme replacement therapy.
Topics: Humans; Pancreas; Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency; Enzyme Replacement Therapy; Feces; Gastrectomy
PubMed: 38064682
DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znad369 -
Infectious Diseases & Clinical... Sep 2023This study aimed to determine the effect of prophylactic use of carbapenems for acute pancreatitis on clinical outcomes. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to determine the effect of prophylactic use of carbapenems for acute pancreatitis on clinical outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
It was conducted according to the preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines by using the keywords "Pancrea AND carbapenem OR imipenem OR ertapenem OR meropenem OR doripenem." Primer outcomes were mortality, surgical intervention, and pancreatic and non-pancreatic infection. Subgroup analyses were also performed to reduce the risk of bias.
RESULTS
Ten studies with 4038 patients were included in the meta-analyses. While eight of ten were randomized controlled trials, two were observational studies. The prophylactic use of carbapenems had no statistically significant effect on mortality (OR=0.82, 95% CI=0.65-1.04, I²=0%) and surgical intervention. (OR=0.81, 95% CI=0.57-1.17, I²=0%). However, the real impact of prophylaxis on reducing the incidence of mortality and surgical intervention was uncertain due to the insufficient sample size. The prophylactic use of carbapenems was significantly associated with a lower risk of peripancreatic (OR=0.37, 95% CI=0.25-0.55, I²=61%) and non-pancreatic infection risk (OR=0.60, 95% CI=0.46-0.78, I²=65%). The definitions of infection in the articles were not clear, and the diagnostic approach to infection was based on subjective criteria. In addition, there was inadequate collateral damage and safety assessments. In high-quality studies with a low risk of bias, prophylactic carbapenems had no effect on peripancreatic infection (RR=1.54, 95% CI=0.65-3.47, I²=0%) and non-pancreatic infection (RR=0.72, 95% CI=0.48-1.07, I²=0%).
CONCLUSION
Although there is a reduction in the infection risk, routine carbapenem use in acute pancreatitis cases should not be recommended based on current evidence. Cooperation with Infectious Disease specialists and developing diagnostic algorithms are required instead of routine prophylaxis to prevent infection, especially non-pancreatic infection.
PubMed: 38633556
DOI: 10.36519/idcm.2023.239 -
Annals of Surgical Oncology Feb 2024Optimal preoperative biliary drainage for patients with pancreatic cancer before pancreatoduodenectomy remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the comparison of... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Optimal preoperative biliary drainage for patients with pancreatic cancer before pancreatoduodenectomy remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the comparison of efficacy and safety between a metallic stent (MS) and a plastic stent (PS).
METHODS
Comparative studies on the use of MS and PS for pancreatic cancer before pancreatoduodenectomy were systematically searched using the MEDLINE and Web of Science databases. Pre- and postoperative data also were extracted. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to compare post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) complications as well as intra- and postoperative outcomes between the two arms of the study, and pooled odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) were calculated with 95 percent confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
The study analyzed 12 studies involving 683 patients. Insertion of MS was associated with a lower incidence of re-intervention (OR, 0.06; 95% CI 0.03-0.15; P < 0.001), increased post-ERCP adverse events (OR, 2.22; 95% CI 1.13-4.36; P = 0.02), and similar operation time (MD, 18.0 min; 95% CI -29.1 to 65.6 min; P = 0.46), amount of blood loss (MD, 43.0 ml; 95% CI -207.1 to 288.2 ml; P = 0.73), and surgical complication rate (OR, 0.78; 95% CI 0.53-1.15; P = 0.21). The cumulative stent patency rate after 3 months was higher in the MS group than in the PS group (70-100 % vs 30.0-45.0 %).
CONCLUSION
For biliary drainage in patients with pancreatic cancer during this era of multidisciplinary treatment, MS use might be the first choice because MS provides a more durable biliary drainage and a similar risk of postoperative outcomes compared with PS.
Topics: Humans; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Cholestasis; Drainage; Pancreas; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Stents; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37952017
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-023-14523-y -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Nov 2023Data regarding oncologic outcomes of segmental bile duct resection (SBDR) versus pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for bile duct cancers (BDC) are conflicting. We compared SBDR... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Data regarding oncologic outcomes of segmental bile duct resection (SBDR) versus pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for bile duct cancers (BDC) are conflicting. We compared SBDR and PD for BDC utilizing pooled data analysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A comprehensive PRISMA 2020 systematic review was performed. Studies comparing SBDR with PD for BDC were included. Pooled mean differences (MD), odds ratios (OR), and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed. Study quality, bias, heterogeneity, and certainty were analyzed.
RESULTS
Twelve studies from 2004 to 2021 were included, comprising 533 SBDR and 1,313 PD. SBDR was associated with positive proximal duct margins (OR 1.56; CI 1.11-2.18; P = .01), and distal duct margins (OR 43.25; CI 10.38-180.16; P < .01). SBDR yielded fewer lymph nodes (MD -6.93 nodes; CI -9.72-4.15; P < .01) and detected fewer nodal metastases (OR 0.72; CI 0.55-0.94; P = .01). SBDR portended less perioperative morbidity (OR 0.31; CI 0.21-0.46; P < .01), but not mortality (OR 0.52; CI 0.20-1.32; P = .17). SBDR was associated with locoregional recurrences (OR 1.88; CI 1.01-3.53; P = .02), and lymph node recurrences (OR 2.13; CI 1.42-3.2; P = .04). SBDR yielded decreased 5-year OS (OR 0.75; CI 0.65-0.85; P < .01).
CONCLUSIONS
Despite decreased perioperative morbidity, SBDR appears to provide inferior oncologic control for BDC.
PubMed: 37423850
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2023.06.012 -
International Journal of Surgery... Mar 2024Partial pancreatectomy, commonly used for chronic pancreatitis, or pancreatic lesions, has diverse impacts on endocrine and metabolism system. The study aims to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Partial pancreatectomy, commonly used for chronic pancreatitis, or pancreatic lesions, has diverse impacts on endocrine and metabolism system. The study aims to determine the global prevalence of new-onset, worsening, and resolution of diabetes following partial pancreatectomy.
METHODS
The authors searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to October, 2023. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with Logit transformation was used. Sensitivity analysis, meta-regression, and subgroup analysis were employed to investigate determinants of the prevalence of new-onset diabetes.
RESULTS
A total of 82 studies involving 13 257 patients were included. The overall prevalence of new-onset diabetes after partial pancreatectomy was 17.1%. Univariate meta-regression indicated that study size was the cause of heterogeneity. Multivariable analysis suggested that income of country or area had the highest predictor importance (49.7%). For subgroup analysis, the prevalence of new-onset diabetes varied from 7.6% (France, 95% CI: 4.3-13.0) to 38.0% (UK, 95% CI: 28.2-48.8, P <0.01) across different countries. Patients with surgical indications for chronic pancreatitis exhibited a higher prevalence (30.7%, 95% CI: 21.8-41.3) than those with pancreatic lesions (16.4%, 95% CI: 14.3-18.7, P <0.01). The type of surgical procedure also influenced the prevalence, with distal pancreatectomy having the highest prevalence (23.7%, 95% CI: 22.2-25.3, P <0.01). Moreover, the prevalence of worsening and resolution of preoperative diabetes was 41.1 and 25.8%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Postoperative diabetes has a relatively high prevalence in patients undergoing partial pancreatectomy, which calls for attention and dedicated action from primary care physicians, specialists, and health policy makers alike.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Diabetes Mellitus; Pancreas; Pancreatitis, Chronic; Pancreatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 38126341
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000998 -
Updates in Surgery Dec 2023Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a severe complication after distal pancreatectomy (DP); however, it is unclear how to effectively reduce the incidence. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a severe complication after distal pancreatectomy (DP); however, it is unclear how to effectively reduce the incidence. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to determine whether reinforced stapling reduces POPF after DP. From February 2007 to April 2023, a comprehensive search of electronic data and references was conducted in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. In this study, the perioperative outcomes were evaluated for the reinforced stapler (RS) group and the standard stapler (SS) group in DP using Review Manager Software. Using fixed- or random-effects models, pooled odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. In total, three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with 425 patients and five observational clinical studies (OCS) with 318 patients were included. In pooled meta-analyses from RCTs, there was no difference between the two groups in the incidence of POPF (OR = 0.79; 95% CI [0.47,1.35]; P = 0.39), intraoperative blood loss (MD = 10.66; 95% CI [- 28.83,50.16]; P = 0.6), operative time (MD = 9.88; 95% CI [- 8.92,28.67]; P = 0.3), major morbidity (OR = 1.12; 95% CI [0.67,1.90]; P = 0.66), reoperation (OR = 0.97; 95% CI [0.41,2.32]; P = 0.95), readmission (OR = 0.99; 95% CI [0.57,1.72]; P = 0.97) or hospital stay (MD = - 0.95; 95% CI [- 5.22,3.31]; P = 0.66). However, the results of POPF and readmission were favorable for RS in the OCS group.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Reoperation; Risk Factors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37950142
DOI: 10.1007/s13304-023-01691-5 -
ANZ Journal of Surgery Jun 2024Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) is a significant complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy. CR-POPF is associated with various adverse... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) is a significant complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy. CR-POPF is associated with various adverse outcomes, including high mortality rates. Identifying complication predictors for CR-POPF, such as preoperative CT scan features, including pancreatic attenuation index (PAI) and pancreatic duct diameter (PDD), is critical. This systematic review and meta-analysis consolidate existing literature to assess the impact of these variables on CR-POPF risk.
METHODS
Our comprehensive search, conducted in May 2023, covered PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Inclusion criteria encompassed peer-reviewed cohort studies on pancreaticoduodenectomy, focusing on preoperative CT scan data. Case reports, case series, and studies reporting distal pancreatectomy were excluded. The quality assessment of included articles was done using New-Castle Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Statistical analysis was carried out using Review Manager 5. This study was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (PROSPERO) on 12 May 2023 (registration number: CRD42023414139).
RESULTS
We conducted a detailed analysis of 38 studies with 7393 participants. The overall incidence of CR-POPF was 24%. Multiple linear regression analyses revealed that PDD and pancreatic parenchymal thickness were significantly associated with CR-POPF.
CONCLUSION
Our systematic review and meta-analysis shed light on CT scan findings for predicting CR-POPF after Whipple surgery. Age, PDD, and pancreatic parenchymal thickness significantly correlate with CR-POPF.
Topics: Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Postoperative Complications; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Risk Factors; Preoperative Period; Incidence
PubMed: 38837835
DOI: 10.1111/ans.19033 -
World Journal of Gastrointestinal... Aug 2023Post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the primary cause of morbidity following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Rates of POPF have remained high despite well known risk...
BACKGROUND
Post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is the primary cause of morbidity following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Rates of POPF have remained high despite well known risk factors. The theory that hypoperfusion of the pancreatic stump leads to anastomotic failure has recently gained interest.
AIM
To define the published literature with regards to intraoperative pancreas perfusion assessment and its correlation with POPF.
METHODS
A systematic search of available literature was performed in November 2022. Data extracted included study characteristics, method of assessment of pancreas stump perfusion, POPF and other post-pancreatic surgery specific complications.
RESULTS
Five eligible studies comprised two prospective non-randomised studies and three case reports, total 156 patients. Four studies used indocyanine green fluorescence angiography to assess the pancreatic stump, with the remaining study assessing pancreas perfusion by visual inspection of arterial bleeding of the pancreatic stump. There was significant heterogeneity in the definition of POPF. Studies had a combined POPF rate of 12%; intraoperative perfusion assessment revealed hypoperfusion was present in 39% of patients who developed POPF. The rate of POPF was 11% in patients with no evidence of hypoperfusion and 13% in those with evidence of hypoperfusion, suggesting that not all hypoperfusion gives rise to POPF and further analysis is required to analyse if there is a clinically relevant cut off. Significant variance in practice was seen in the pancreatic stump management once hypoperfusion was identified.
CONCLUSION
The current published evidence around pancreas perfusion during pancreaticoduodenectomy is of poor quality. It does not support a causative link between hypoperfusion and POPF. Further well-designed prospective studies are required to investigate this.
PubMed: 37701689
DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v15.i8.1799 -
Computer Methods and Programs in... Jun 2024The pancreas is a vital organ in digestive system which has significant health implications. It is imperative to evaluate and identify malignant pancreatic lesions... (Review)
Review
The pancreas is a vital organ in digestive system which has significant health implications. It is imperative to evaluate and identify malignant pancreatic lesions promptly in light of the high mortality rate linked to such malignancies. Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) is a non-invasive precise technique to detect pancreas disorders, but it is highly operator dependent. Artificial intelligence (AI), including traditional machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) techniques can play a pivotal role to enhancing the performance of EUS regardless of operator. AI performs a critical function in the detection, classification, and segmentation of medical images. The utilization of AI-assisted systems has improved the accuracy and productivity of pancreatic analysis, including the detection of diverse pancreatic disorders (e.g., pancreatitis, masses, and cysts) as well as landmarks and parenchyma. This systematic review examines the rapidly developing domain of AI-assisted system in EUS of the pancreas. Its objective is to present a thorough study of the present research status and developments in this area. This paper explores the significant challenges of AI-assisted system in pancreas EUS imaging, highlights the potential of AI techniques in addressing these challenges, and suggests the scope for future research in domain of AI-assisted EUS systems.
Topics: Humans; Endosonography; Artificial Intelligence; Pancreas; Machine Learning; Deep Learning; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreatic Diseases; Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
PubMed: 38703435
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2024.108205