No abstract

IMPORTANCE Splenic arterial embolization (SAE) improves the rate of spleen rescue, yet the advantage of prophylactic SAE (pSAE) compared with surveillance and then embolization only if necessary (SURV) for patients at high risk of spleen rupture remains controversial. OBJECTIVE To determine whether the 1-month spleen salvage rate is better after pSAE or SURV. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn this randomized clinical trial conducted between February 6, 2014, and September 1, 2017, at 16 institutions in France, 133 patients with splenic trauma at high risk of rupture were randomized to undergo pSAE or SURV. All analyses were performed on a per-protocol basis, as well as an intention-to-treat analysis for specific events.INTERVENTIONS Prophylactic SAE, preferably using an arterial approach via the femoral artery, or SURV. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary end point was an intact spleen or a spleen with at least 50% vascularized parenchyma detected on an arterial computed tomography scan at 1 month after trauma, assessed by senior radiologists masked to the treatment group. Secondary end points included splenectomy and pseudoaneurysm, secondary SAE after inclusion, complications, length of hospital stay, quality-of-life score, and length of time off work or studies during the 6-month follow-up.RESULTS A total of 140 patients were randomized, and 133 (105 men [78.9%]; median age, 30 years [interquartile range, 23-47 years]) were retained in the study. For the primary end point, data from 117 patients (57 who underwent pSAE and 60 who underwent SURV) could be analyzed. The number of patients with at least a 50% viable spleen detected on a computed tomography scan at month 1 was not significantly different between the pSAE and SURV groups (56 of 57 [98.2%] vs 56 of 60 [93.3%]; difference, 4.9%; 95% CI, −2.4% to 12.1%; P = .37). By the day 5 visit, there were significantly fewer splenic pseudoaneurysms among patients in the pSAE group than in the SURV group (1 of 65 [1.5%] vs 8 of 65 [12.3%]; difference, −10.8%; 95% CI, −19.3% to −2.1%; P = .03), significantly fewer secondary embolizations among patients in the pSAE group than in the SURV group (1 of 65 [1.5%] vs 19 of 65 [29.2%]; difference, −27.7%; 95% CI, −41.0% to −15.9%; P < .001), and no difference in the overall complication rate between the pSAE and SURV groups (19 of 65 [29.2%] vs 27 of 65 [41.5%]; difference, −12.3%; 95% CI, −28.3% to 4.4%; P = .14). Between the day 5 and month 1 visits, the overall complication rate was not significantly different between the pSAE and SURV groups (11 of 59 [18.6%] vs 12 of 63 [19.0%]; difference, −0.4%; 95% CI, −14.4% to 13.6%; P = .96). The median length of hospitalization was significantly shorter for patients in the pSAE group than for those in the SURV group (9 days [interquartile range, 6-14 days] vs 13 days [interquartile range, 9-17 days]; P = .002).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with splenic trauma at high risk of rupture, the 1-month spleen salvage rate was not statistically different between patients...

Objective: The primary objective of this article is to identify risk factors for infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for severe acute pancreatitis. We also described outcomes of IPN. Background: Acute pancreatitis is common and associated with multiple, potentially life-threatening complications. Over the last decade, minimally invasive procedures have been developed to treat IPN. Methods: We retrospectively studied consecutive patients admitted for severe acute pancreatitis to the ICUs of the Nantes University Hospital in France, between 2012 and 2015. Logistic regression was used to evaluate potential associations linking IPN to baseline patient characteristics and outcomes. Results: Of the 148 included patients, 26 (17.6%) died. IPN developed in 62 (43%) patients and consistently required radiological, endoscopic, and/or surgical intervention. By multivariate analysis, factors associated with IPN were number of organ failure (OF) (for ! 3: OR, 28.67 (6.23-131.96), p < 0.001) and portosplenomesenteric venous thrombosis (OR, )).Conclusion: IPN occurred in nearly half our ICU patients with acute pancreatitis and consistently required interventional therapy. Number of OFs and portosplenomesenteric venous thrombosis were significantly associated with IPN. Early management of OF may reduce IPN incidence, and management of portosplenomesenteric venous thrombosis should be investigated. KeywordsSevere acute pancreatitis, infected pancreatic necrosis, risk factors, intensive care, portosplenomesenteric venous thrombosis Received: 6 November 2017; accepted: 10 February 2018 Key summaryInfected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) increases the already high morbidity and mortality rates in severe acute pancreatitis. Whereas the step-up approach is now advocated for management of IPN, few clinical risk factors are known.Half the patients in a retrospective cohort developed IPN. Independent risk factors of IPN were portosplenomesenteric venous thrombosis and multiple organ failure. Anticoagulation for portosplenomesenteric venous thrombosis did not protect from the development of cavernoma.

No abstract

Graphical abstract