-
Annals of Medicine Dec 2023Pancreatic fluid collections (PFC) are debris or fluid of the pancreas that needs to be drained out. This may result from surgery or necrotizing pancreatitis. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND/AIMS
Pancreatic fluid collections (PFC) are debris or fluid of the pancreas that needs to be drained out. This may result from surgery or necrotizing pancreatitis. This meta-analysis compared the outcomes of PFC through endoscopic and percutaneous interventions.
METHODS
A medical database was searched up to June 2022, comparing the outcomes of endoscopic drainage (ED) and percutaneous drainage (PD) for the PFC. Eligible studies reporting clinical and technical success and adverse events were selected.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies with 1170 patients were included for meta-analysis, of which 543 patients underwent ED and 627 underwent PD. The odd ratio (OR) of technical success was 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31, 2.1) and clinical success was in the favor of the ED group at OR 2.23 (95% CI 1.45, 3.41). Adverse events OR 0.62 (95% CI 0.27, 1.39) and stent migration OR 0.61 (95% CI 0.10, 3.88) were the same in both groups, but hospital stay pooled mean difference of 15.02 days (95% CI 9.86, 20.18), mortality OR 0.24 (95% CI 0.09, 0.67), and re-interventions OR 0.25 (95% CI 0.16, 0.40) favored ED.
CONCLUSIONS
ED is safe and efficient for PFC with higher clinical success, lower mortality rate, hospital stay, and re-interventions compared with PD.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreas; Endoscopy; Stents; Drainage; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37243522
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2023.2213898 -
Journal of Investigative Surgery : the... Dec 2023Our objective is to compare the early outcomes associated with passive (gravity) drainage (PG) and active drainage (AD) after surgery. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Our objective is to compare the early outcomes associated with passive (gravity) drainage (PG) and active drainage (AD) after surgery.
METHODS
Studies published until April 28, 2022 were retrieved from the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, Web of Science databases.
RESULTS
Nine studies with 14,169 patients were identified. Two groups had the same intra-abdominal infection rate (RR: 0.55; = 0.13); In subgroup analysis of pancreaticoduodenectomy, active drainage had no significant effect on postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rate (RR: 1.21; = 0.26) and clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) (RR: 1.05; = 0.72); Active drainage was not associated with lower percutaneous drainage rate (RR: 1.00; = 0.96), incidence of sepsis (RR: 1.00; = 0.99) and overall morbidity (RR: 1.02; = 0.73). Both groups had the same POPF rate (RR: 1.20; = 0.18) and CR-POPF rate (RR: 1.20; = 0.18) after distal pancreatectomy. There was no difference between two groups on the day of drain removal after pancreaticoduodenectomy (Mean difference: -0.16; = 0.81) and liver surgery (Mean difference: 0.03; = 0.99).
CONCLUSIONS
Active drainage is not superior to passive drainage and both drainage methods can be considered.
Topics: Humans; Abdomen; Pancreas; Drainage; Pancreatectomy; Postoperative Complications; Pancreaticoduodenectomy
PubMed: 37733388
DOI: 10.1080/08941939.2023.2180115 -
The European Respiratory Journal Nov 2020Thoracentesis using suction is perceived to have increased risk of complications, including pneumothorax and re-expansion pulmonary oedema (REPO). Current guidelines...
BACKGROUND
Thoracentesis using suction is perceived to have increased risk of complications, including pneumothorax and re-expansion pulmonary oedema (REPO). Current guidelines recommend limiting drainage to 1.5 L to avoid REPO. Our purpose was to examine the incidence of complications with symptom-limited drainage of pleural fluid using suction and identify risk factors for REPO.
METHODS
A retrospective cohort study of all adult patients who underwent symptom-limited thoracentesis using suction at our institution between January 1, 2004 and August 31, 2018 was performed, and a total of 10 344 thoracenteses were included.
RESULTS
Pleural fluid ≥1.5 L was removed in 19% of the procedures. Thoracentesis was stopped due to chest discomfort (39%), complete drainage of fluid (37%) and persistent cough (13%). Pneumothorax based on chest radiography was detected in 3.98%, but only 0.28% required intervention. The incidence of REPO was 0.08%. The incidence of REPO increased with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≥3 compounded with ≥1.5 L (0.04-0.54%; 95% CI 0.13-2.06 L). Thoracentesis in those with ipsilateral mediastinal shift did not increase complications, but less fluid was removed (p<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
Symptom-limited thoracentesis using suction is safe even with large volumes. Pneumothorax requiring intervention and REPO are both rare. There were no increased procedural complications in those with ipsilateral mediastinal shift. REPO increased with poor ECOG PS and drainage ≥1.5 L. Symptom-limited drainage using suction without pleural manometry is safe.
Topics: Adult; Drainage; Humans; Pleural Effusion; Pneumothorax; Retrospective Studies; Suction; Thoracentesis
PubMed: 32499336
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02356-2019 -
Trials May 2023With the increasing popularity of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural interventions, walled-off necrosis (WON) of the pancreas is increasingly managed via...
WONDER-01: immediate necrosectomy vs. drainage-oriented step-up approach after endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of walled-off necrosis-study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.
BACKGROUND
With the increasing popularity of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural interventions, walled-off necrosis (WON) of the pancreas is increasingly managed via non-surgical endoscopic interventions. However, there has been an ongoing debate over the appropriate treatment strategy following the initial EUS-guided drainage. Direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) removes intracavity necrotic tissue, potentially facilitating early resolution of the WON, but may associate with a high rate of adverse events. Given the increasing safety of DEN, we hypothesised that immediate DEN following EUS-guided drainage of WON might shorten the time to WON resolution compared to the drainage-oriented step-up approach.
METHODS
The WONDER-01 trial is a multicentre, open-label, superiority, randomised controlled trial, which will enrol WON patients aged ≥ 18 years requiring EUS-guided treatment in 23 centres in Japan. This trial plans to enrol 70 patients who will be randomised at a 1:1 ratio to receive either the immediate DEN or drainage-oriented step-up approach (35 patients per arm). In the immediate DEN group, DEN will be initiated during (or within 72 h of) the EUS-guided drainage session. In the step-up approach group, drainage-based step-up treatment with on-demand DEN will be considered after 72-96 h observation. The primary endpoint is time to clinical success, which is defined as a decrease in a WON size to ≤ 3 cm and an improvement of inflammatory markers (i.e. body temperature, white blood cell count, and C-reactive protein). Secondary endpoints include technical success, adverse events including mortality, and recurrence of the WON.
DISCUSSION
The WONDER-01 trial will investigate the efficacy and safety of immediate DEN compared to the step-up approach for WON patients receiving EUS-guided treatment. The findings will help us to establish new treatment standards for patients with symptomatic WON.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05451901, registered on 11 July 2022. UMIN000048310, registered on 7 July 2022. jRCT1032220055, registered on 1 May 2022.
Topics: Humans; Drainage; Endosonography; Pancreas; Necrosis; Ultrasonography, Interventional; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Multicenter Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37226252
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-023-07377-y -
Annals of Surgery Apr 2024To compare the long-term outcomes of immediate drainage versus the postponed-drainage approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVE
To compare the long-term outcomes of immediate drainage versus the postponed-drainage approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis.
BACKGROUND
In the randomized POINTER trial, patients assigned to the postponed-drainage approach using antibiotic treatment required fewer interventions, as compared with immediate drainage, and over a third were treated without any intervention.
METHODS
Clinical data of those patients alive after the initial 6-month follow-up were re-evaluated. The primary outcome was a composite of death and major complications.
RESULTS
Out of 104 patients, 88 were re-evaluated with a median follow-up of 51 months. After the initial 6-month follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 7 of 47 patients (15%) in the immediate-drainage group and 7 of 41 patients (17%) in the postponed-drainage group (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.33-2.28; P =0.78). Additional drainage procedures were performed in 7 patients (15%) versus 3 patients (7%) (RR 2.03; 95% CI 0.56-7.37; P =0.34). The median number of additional interventions was 0 (IQR 0-0) in both groups ( P =0.028). In the total follow-up, the median number of interventions was higher in the immediate-drainage group than in the postponed-drainage group (4 vs. 1, P =0.001). Eventually, 14 of 15 patients (93%) in the postponed-drainage group who were successfully treated in the initial 6-month follow-up with antibiotics and without any intervention remained without intervention. At the end of follow-up, pancreatic function and quality of life were similar.
CONCLUSIONS
Also, during long-term follow-up, a postponed-drainage approach using antibiotics in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis results in fewer interventions as compared with immediate drainage and should therefore be the preferred approach.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ISRCTN33682933.
Topics: Humans; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome; Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drainage
PubMed: 37450701
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006001 -
Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) 2023Biliary drainage for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA) can be performed either by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Endoscopic Biliary Darinage (EBD) versus Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD) for biliary drainage in patients with Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA): A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Biliary drainage for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA) can be performed either by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD). To date there is no consensus about which method is preferred. Taking that into account, the aim of this study is to compare Endoscopic Biliary Drainage (EBD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma through a systematic review and metanalysis. A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was performed. Evaluated outcomes included technical success, clinical success, post drainage complications (cholangitis, pancreatitis, bleeding, and major complications), crossover, hospital length stay, and seeding metastases. Data extracted from the studies were used to calculate Mean Differences (MD). Seventeen studies were included, with a total of 2284 patients (EBD = 1239, PTBD = 1045). Considering resectable PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated lower rates of crossover (RD = 0.29; 95% CI 0.07‒0.51; p = 0.009 I² = 90%), post-drainage complications (RD = 0.20; 95% CI 0.06‒0.33; p < 0.0001; I² = 78%), and post-drainage pancreatitis (RD = 0.10; 95% CI 0.05‒0.16; p < 0.0001; I² = 64%). The EBD group presented reduced length of hospital stay (RD = -2.89; 95% CI -3.35 ‒ -2,43; p < 0.00001; I² = 42%). Considering palliative PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated a higher clinical success (RD = -0.19; 95% CI -0.27 ‒ -0.11; p < 0.00001; I² = 0%) and less post-drainage cholangitis (RD = 0.08; 95% CI 0.01‒0.15; p = 0.02; I² = 48%) when compared to the EBD group. There was no statistical difference between the groups regarding: technical success, post-drainage bleeding, major post-drainage complications, and seeding metastases.
Topics: Humans; Klatskin Tumor; Bile Duct Neoplasms; Cholangitis; Pancreatitis; Drainage; Bile Ducts, Intrahepatic; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36681067
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinsp.2022.100163 -
Digestion 2023At present, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage (PTCD) are frequently used for reducing malignant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of Efficacy and Safety between Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography and Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangial Drainage for the Treatment of Malignant Obstructive Jaundice: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
At present, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage (PTCD) are frequently used for reducing malignant obstructive jaundice (MOJ). However, it is controversial as to which method is superior in terms of efficacy and safety.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to compare the safety, feasibility, and clinical benefits of ERCP and PTCD in matched cases of MOJ.
METHODS
The Web of Science, Cochrane, PubMed, and CNKI databases were searched systematically to identify studies published between January 2000 and December 2019, without language restrictions, that compared ERCP and PTCD in patients with MOJ. The primary outcome was the success rate for each procedure. The secondary outcomes were the technical success rate, serum total bilirubin level, length of hospital stay, hospital expense, complication rate, and survival. This meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including 1,143 cases of ERCP and 854 cases of PTCD. The analysis demonstrated that jaundice remission in PTCD was equal to that in ERCP (mean difference [MD], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.56 to -2.93; p = 0.18). However, the length of hospital stay in the ERCP group was 3.03 days shorter than that in the PTCD group (MD, -2.41; 95% CI: -4.61 to -0.22; p = 0.03). ERCP had a lower rate of postoperative complications (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% CI: 0.42-1.05); however, the difference was not significant (p = 0.08). ERCP was also more cost-efficient (MD, -5.42; 95% CI: -5.52 to -5.32; p < 0.01). Further, we calculated the absolute mean of hospital stay (ERCP:PTCD = 8.73:12.95 days), hospital expenses (ERCP:PTCD = 5,104.13:5,866.75 RMB), and postoperative complications (ERCP:PTCD = 11.2%:9.1%) in both groups.
CONCLUSION
For remission of MOJ, PTCD and ERCP had similar clinical efficacy. Each method has its own strengths and weaknesses. Considering that ERCP had a lower rate of postoperative complications, shorter hospital stay, and higher cost efficiency, ERCP may be a superior initial treatment choice for MOJ.
Topics: Humans; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Jaundice, Obstructive; Drainage; Treatment Outcome; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 36617409
DOI: 10.1159/000528020 -
JAMA Network Open Oct 2023Intraventricular lavage has been proposed as a minimally invasive method to evacuate intraventricular hemorrhage. There is little evidence to support its use. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
IMPORTANCE
Intraventricular lavage has been proposed as a minimally invasive method to evacuate intraventricular hemorrhage. There is little evidence to support its use.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the safety and potential efficacy of intraventricular lavage treatment of intraventricular hemorrhage.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This single-blinded, controlled, investigator-initiated 1:1 randomized clinical trial was conducted at Aarhus University Hospital and Odense University Hospital in Denmark from January 13, 2022, to November 24, 2022. Follow-up duration was 90 days. The trial was set to include 58 patients with intraventricular hemorrhage. Prespecified interim analysis was performed for the first 20 participants. Data were analyzed from February to April 2023.
INTERVENTIONS
Participants were randomized to receive either intraventricular lavage or standard drainage.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The main outcome was risk of catheter occlusions. Additional safety outcomes were catheter-related infections and procedure time, length of stay at the intensive care unit, duration of treatment, and 30-day mortality. The main outcome of the prespecified interim analysis was risk of severe adverse events. Efficacy outcomes were hematoma clearance, functional outcome, overall survival, and shunt dependency.
RESULTS
A total of 21 participants (median [IQR] age, 67 [59-82] years; 14 [66%] male) were enrolled, with 11 participants randomized to intraventricular lavage and 10 participants randomized to standard drainage; 20 participants (95%) had secondary intraventricular hemorrhage. The median (IQR) Graeb score was 9 (5-11), and the median (IQR) Glasgow Coma Scale score was 6.5 (4-8). The study was terminated early due to a significantly increased risk of severe adverse events associated with intraventricular lavage at interim analysis (risk difference for control vs intervention, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.06-0.81; P = .04; incidence rate ratio for control vs intervention, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.38-26.1; P = .01). The rate of catheter occlusion was higher for intraventricular lavage compared with drainage (6 of 16 patients [38%] vs 2 of 13 patients [7%]; hazard ratio, 4.4 [95% CI, 0.6-31.2]; P = .14), which met the prespecified α = .20 level. Median (IQR) procedure time for catheter placement was 53.5 (33-75) minutes for intraventricular lavage vs 12 (4-20) minutes for control (P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This randomized clinical trial of intraventricular lavage vs standard drainage found that intraventricular lavage was encumbered with a significantly increased number of severe adverse events. Caution is recommended when using the device to ensure patient safety.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05204849.
Topics: Humans; Male; Aged; Female; Therapeutic Irrigation; Cerebral Hemorrhage; Drainage; Intensive Care Units
PubMed: 37815832
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.35247 -
Ear, Nose, & Throat Journal Sep 2023Deep neck infections are common in infants and occur in several anatomic subsites including the retropharyngeal space. Retropharyngeal abscesses are significant given... (Review)
Review
Deep neck infections are common in infants and occur in several anatomic subsites including the retropharyngeal space. Retropharyngeal abscesses are significant given their propensity for mediastinal extension and can have life-threatening sequelae. We present 3 cases of retropharyngeal abscess with mediastinal extension in infants. In one case, an incompletely vaccinated 10-month-old boy presented with cough, rhinorrhea, and fever. Despite antibiotic treatment, he developed Horner's syndrome and hypoxia. A computed tomography (CT) scan showed a C1-T7 retropharyngeal abscess. He underwent transoral incision and drainage and recovered fully. In another case, a 12-month old infant presented with 8 days of fever and neck pain. A CT scan showed a retropharyngeal collection extending to the mediastinum and right hemithorax. Transoral incision and drainage and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery thoracotomy were performed for abscess drainage. He recovered fully with antibiotics. In the third case, an 8-month-old boy presented to the emergency room following several days of fever, lethargy, and decreased neck range of motion. A CT scan showed a large retropharyngeal abscess that required both transoral and transcervical drainage. His case was complicated by septic shock, yet the patient eventually made a full recovery.
Topics: Male; Infant; Humans; Retropharyngeal Abscess; Mediastinum; Neck; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drainage
PubMed: 37309202
DOI: 10.1177/01455613231178975 -
Pneumologie (Stuttgart, Germany) Oct 2019
Topics: Drainage; Humans; Pericardiocentesis; Pericardium; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Punctures
PubMed: 31622998
DOI: 10.1055/a-0863-8903