RESUMO
ABSTRACT: There exists no cure for acute, recurrent acute or chronic pancreatitis and treatments to date have been focused on managing symptoms. A recent workshop held by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) focused on interventions that might disrupt or perhaps even reverse the natural course of this heterogenous disease, aiming to identify knowledge gaps and research opportunities that might inform future funding initiatives for NIDDK. The breadth and variety of identified active or planned clinical trials traverses the spectrum of the disease and was conceptually grouped for the workshop into behavioral, nutritional, pharmacologic and biologic, and mechanical interventions. Cognitive and other behavioral therapies are proven interventions for pain and addiction, but barriers exist to their use. Whilst a disease specific instrument quantifying pain is now validated, an equivalent is lacking for nutrition - and both face challenges in ease and frequency of administration. Multiple pharmacologic agents hold promise. Ongoing development of Patient Reported Outcome (PRO) measurements can satisfy Investigative New Drug (IND) regulatory assessments. Despite multiple randomized clinical trials demonstrating benefit, great uncertainty remains regarding patient selection, timing of intervention, and type of mechanical intervention (endoscopic versus surgery). Challenges and opportunities to establish beneficial interventions for patients were identified.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus , Pancreatite Crônica , Humanos , Diabetes Mellitus/diagnóstico , Diabetes Mellitus/terapia , National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (U.S.) , Dor , Pancreatite Crônica/terapia , Pancreatite Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Estados UnidosRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the optimal fistula mitigation strategy following pancreaticoduodenectomy. BACKGROUND: The utility of technical strategies to prevent clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) may vary by the circumstances of the anastomosis. The Fistula Risk Score (FRS) identifies a distinct high-risk cohort (FRS 7 to 10) that demonstrates substantially worse clinical outcomes. The value of various fistula mitigation strategies in these particular high-stakes cases has not been previously explored. METHODS: This multinational study included 5323 PDs performed by 62 surgeons at 17 institutions. Mitigation strategies, including both technique related (ie, pancreatogastrostomy reconstruction; dunking; tissue patches) and the use of adjuvant strategies (ie, intraperitoneal drains; anastomotic stents; prophylactic octreotide; tissue sealants), were evaluated using multivariable regression analysis and propensity score matching. RESULTS: A total of 522 (9.8%) PDs met high-risk FRS criteria, with an observed CR-POPF rate of 29.1%. Pancreatogastrostomy, prophylactic octreotide, and omission of externalized stents were each associated with an increased rate of CR-POPF (all P < 0.001). In a multivariable model accounting for patient, surgeon, and institutional characteristics, the use of external stents [odds ratio (OR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.25-0.81] and the omission of prophylactic octreotide (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30-0.78) were independently associated with decreased CR-POPF occurrence. In the propensity score matched cohort, an "optimal" mitigation strategy (ie, externalized stent and no prophylactic octreotide) was associated with a reduced rate of CR-POPF (13.2% vs 33.5%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The scenarios identified by the high-risk FRS zone represent challenging anastomoses associated with markedly elevated rates of fistula. Externalized stents and omission of prophylactic octreotide, in the setting of intraperitoneal drainage and pancreaticojejunostomy reconstruction, provides optimal outcomes.