OBJECTIVES: The Pancreatitis Activity Scoring System (PASS) has been derived by an international group of experts via a modified Delphi process. Our aim was to perform an external validation study to assess for concordance of the PASS score with high face validity clinical outcomes and determine specific meaningful thresholds to assist in application of this scoring system in a large prospectively ascertained cohort. METHODS: We analyzed data from a prospective cohort study of consecutive patients admitted to the Los Angeles County Hospital between March 2015 and March 2017. Patients were identified using an emergency department paging system and electronic alert system. Comprehensive characterization included substance use history, pancreatitis etiology, biochemical profile, and detailed clinical course. We calculated the PASS score at admission, discharge, and at 12 h increments during the hospitalization. We performed several analyses to assess the relationship between the PASS score and outcomes at various points during hospitalization as well as following discharge. Using multivariable logistic regression analysis, we assessed the relationship between admission PASS score and risk of severe pancreatitis. PASS score performance was compared to established systems used to predict severe pancreatitis. Additional inpatient outcomes assessed included local complications, length of stay, development of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. We also assessed whether the PASS score at discharge was associated with early readmission (re-hospitalization for pancreatitis symptoms and complications within 30 days of discharge). RESULTS: A total of 439 patients were enrolled, their mean age was 42 (±15) years, and 53% were male. Admission PASS score >140 was associated with moderately severe and severe pancreatitis (OR 3.5 [95% CI 2.0, 6.3]), ICU admission (OR 4.9 [2.5, 9.4]), local complications (3.0 [1.6, 5.7]), and development of SIRS (OR 2.9 [1.8, 4.5]) as well as prolongation of hospitalization by a mean of 1.5 (1.3–1.7) days. For the prediction of moderately severe/severe pancreatitis, the PASS score (AUC = 0.71) was comparable to the more established Ranson’s (AUC = 0.63), Glasgow (AUC = 0.72), Panc3 (AUC = 0.57), and HAPS (AUC = 0.54) scoring systems. Discharge PASS score >60 was associated with early readmission (OR 5.0 [2.4, 10.7]). CONCLUSIONS: The PASS score is associated with important clinical outcomes in acute pancreatitis. The ability of the score to forecast important clinical events at different points in the disease course suggests that it is a valid measure of activity in patients with acute pancreatitis.

Evidence before this study: Acute appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency in children. Its diagnosis remains challenging and children presenting with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain may be admitted for clinical observation or undergo normal appendicectomy (removal of a histologically normal appendix). A search for external validation studies of risk prediction models for acute appendicitis in children was performed on MEDLINE and Web of Science on 12 January 2017 using the search terms ["appendicitis" OR "appendectomy" OR "appendicectomy"] AND ["score" OR "model" OR "nomogram" OR "scoring"]. Studies validating prediction models aimed at differentiating acute appendicitis from all other causes of RIF pain were included. No date restrictions were applied. Validation studies were most commonly performed for the Alvarado, Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score (AIRS), and Paediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS) models. Most validation studies were based on retrospective, single centre, or small cohorts, and findings regarding model performance were inconsistent. There was no high quality evidence to guide selection of the optimum model and threshold cutoff for identification of low-risk children in the UK and Ireland. Added value of this study: Most children admitted to hospital with RIF pain do not undergo surgery. When children do undergo appendicectomy, removal of a normal appendix (normal appendicectomy) is common, occurring in around 1 in 6 children. The Shera score is able to identify a large low-risk group of children who present with acute RIF pain but do not have acute appendicitis (specificity 44%). This low-risk group has an overall 1 in 30 risk of acute appendicitis and a 1 in 270 risk of perforated appendicitis. The Shera score is unable to achieve a sufficiently high positive predictive value to select a high-risk group who should proceed directly to surgery. Current diagnostic performance of ultrasound is also too poor to select children for surgery. Implications of all the available evidence: Routine pre-operative risk scoring could inform shared decision making by doctors, children, and parents by supporting safe selection of lowrisk patients for ambulatory management, reducing unnecessary admissions and normal appendicectomy. Hospitals should ensure seven-day-a-week availability of ultrasound for medium and high-risk patients. Ultrasound should be performed by operators trained to assess for acute appendicitis in children. For children in whom diagnostic uncertainty remains following ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or low-dose computed tomography (CT) are second-line investigations.

BackgroundThere is currently conflicting evidence surrounding the effects of obesity on postoperative outcomes. Previous studies have found obesity to be associated with adverse events, but others have found no association. The aim of this study was to determine whether increasing body mass index (BMI) is an independent risk factor for development of major postoperative complications.MethodsThis was a multicentre prospective cohort study across the UK and Republic of Ireland. Consecutive patients undergoing elective or emergency gastrointestinal surgery over a 4‐month interval (October–December 2014) were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was the 30‐day major complication rate (Clavien–Dindo grade III–V). BMI was grouped according to the World Health Organization classification. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to adjust for patient, operative and hospital‐level effects, creating odds ratios (ORs) and 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i.).ResultsOf 7965 patients, 2545 (32·0 per cent) were of normal weight, 2673 (33·6 per cent) were overweight and 2747 (34·5 per cent) were obese. Overall, 4925 (61·8 per cent) underwent elective and 3038 (38·1 per cent) emergency operations. The 30‐day major complication rate was 11·4 per cent (908 of 7965). In adjusted models, a significant interaction was found between BMI and diagnosis, with an association seen between BMI and major complications for patients with malignancy (overweight: OR 1·59, 95 per cent c.i. 1·12 to 2·29, P = 0·008; obese: OR 1·91, 1·31 to 2·83, P = 0·002; compared with normal weight) but not benign disease (overweight: OR 0·89, 0·71 to 1·12, P = 0·329; obese: OR 0·84, 0·66 to 1·06, P = 0·147).ConclusionOverweight and obese patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal malignancy are at increased risk of major postoperative complications compared with those of normal weight.

No abstract

Intra-procedural hepatic arterial complications encountered during radioembolization were infrequent but occurred mainly during coil embolization to prevent non-target delivery to extra-hepatic arteries.

BackgroundThe optimal approach to the drainage of malignant obstruction at the liver hilum remains uncertain. We aim to compare percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) to endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) as the first intervention in patients with cholestasis due to suspected malignant hilar obstruction (MHO).MethodsThe INTERCPT trial is a multi-center, comparative effectiveness, randomized, superiority trial of PTBD vs. ERC for decompression of suspected MHO. One hundred and eighty-four eligible patients across medical centers in the United States, who provide informed consent, will be randomly assigned in 1:1 fashion via a web-based electronic randomization system to either ERC or PTBD as the initial drainage and, if indicated, diagnostic procedure. All subsequent clinical interventions, including crossover to the alternative procedure, will be dictated by treating physicians per usual clinical care. Enrolled subjects will be assessed for successful biliary drainage (primary outcome measure), adequate tissue diagnosis, adverse events, the need for additional procedures, hospitalizations, and oncological outcomes over a 6-month follow-up period. Subjects, treating clinicians and outcome assessors will not be blinded.DiscussionThe INTERCPT trial is designed to determine whether PTBD or ERC is the better initial approach when managing a patient with suspected MHO, a common clinical dilemma that has never been investigated in a randomized trial.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT03172832. Registered on 1 June 2017.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2473-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Patient selection for critical care admission must balance patient safety with optimal resource allocation. This study aimed to determine the relationship between critical care admission, and postoperative mortality after abdominal surgery. Methods: This prespecified secondary analysis of a multicentre, prospective, observational study included consecutive patients enrolled in the DISCOVER study from UK and Republic of Ireland undergoing major gastrointestinal and liver surgery between October and December 2014. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Multivariate logistic regression was used to explore associations between critical care admission (planned and unplanned) and mortality, and intercentre variation in critical care admission after emergency laparotomy. Results: Of 4529 patients included, 37.8% (n¼1713) underwent planned critical care admissions from theatre. Some 3.1% (n¼86/2816) admitted to ward-level care subsequently underwent unplanned critical care admission. Overall 30-day mortality was 2.9% (n¼133/4519), and the risk-adjusted association between 30-day mortality and critical care admission was higher in unplanned [odds ratio (OR): 8.65, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.51e19.97) than planned admissions (OR: 2.32, 95% CI: 1.43e3.85). Some 26.7% of patients (n¼1210/4529) underwent emergency laparotomies. After adjustment, 49.3% (95% CI: 46.8e51.9%, P<0.001) were predicted to have planned critical care admissions, with 7% (n¼10/145) of centres outside the 95% CI. Conclusions: After risk adjustment, no 30-day survival benefit was identified for either planned or unplanned postoperative admissions to critical care within this cohort. This likely represents appropriate admission of the highest-risk patients. Planned admissions in selected, intermediate-risk patients may present a strategy to mitigate the risk of unplanned admission. Substantial inter-centre variation exists in planned critical care admissions after emergency laparotomies.

No abstract