A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Primary Anastomosis or Hartmann's Procedure for Perforated Left Colonic Diverticulitis With Purulent or Fecal Peritonitis.

OBJECTIVES: : To evaluate the outcome after Hartmann's procedure (HP) versus primary anastomosis (PA) with diverting ileostomy for perforated left-sided diverticulitis. BACKGROUND: : The surgical management of left-sided colonic perforation with purulent or fecal peritonitis remains controversial. PA with ileostomy seems to be superior to HP; however, results in the literature are affected by a significant selection bias. No randomized clinical trial has yet compared the 2 procedures. METHODS: : Sixty-two patients with acute left-sided colonic perforation (Hinchey III and IV) from 4 centers were randomized to HP (n = 30) and to PA (with diverting ileostomy, n = 32), with a planned stoma reversal operation after 3 months in both groups. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary end point was the overall complication rate. The study was discontinued following an interim analysis that found significant differences of relevant secondary end points as well as a decreasing accrual rate (NCT01233713). RESULTS: : Patient demographics were equally distributed in both groups (Hinchey III: 76% vs 75% and Hinchey IV: 24% vs 25%, for HP vs PA, respectively). The overall complication rate for both resection and stoma reversal operations was comparable (80% vs 84%, P = 0.813). Although the outcome after the initial colon resection did not show any significant differences (mortality 13% vs 9% and morbidity 67% vs 75% in HP vs PA), the stoma reversal rate after PA with diverting ileostomy was higher (90% vs 57%, P = 0.005) and serious complications (Grades IIIb-IV: 0% vs 20%, P = 0.046), operating time (73 minutes vs 183 minutes, P < 0.001), hospital stay (6 days vs 9 days, P = 0.016), and lower in-hospital costs (US $16,717 vs US $24,014) were significantly reduced in the PA group. CONCLUSIONS: : This is the first randomized clinical trial favoring PA with diverting ileostomy over HP in patients with perforated diverticulitis.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," published in 2004. DESIGN: Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding. METHODS: We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation (1) indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost) or clearly do not. Weak recommendations (2) indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations, listed by category, include early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure > or = 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for postoperative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7-9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B), targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization (2C); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); and a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). CONCLUSIONS: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Superior outcome of women with stage I/II cutaneous melanoma: pooled analysis of four European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer phase III trials.

PURPOSE: Several studies observed a female advantage in the prognosis of cutaneous melanoma, for which behavioral factors or an underlying biologic mechanism might be responsible. Using complete and reliable follow-up data from four phase III trials of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Melanoma Group, we explored the female advantage across multiple end points and in relation to other important prognostic indicators. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with localized melanoma were included in EORTC adjuvant treatment trials 18832, 18871, 18952, and 18961 and randomly assigned during the period of 1984 to 2005. Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for women compared with men, adjusted for age, Breslow thickness, body site, ulceration, performed lymph node dissection, and treatment. RESULTS: A total of 2,672 patients with stage I/II melanoma were included. Women had a highly consistent and independent advantage in overall survival (adjusted HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.83), disease-specific survival (adjusted HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.88), time to lymph node metastasis (adjusted HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.96), and time to distant metastasis (adjusted HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.81). Subgroup analysis showed that the female advantage was consistent across all prognostic subgroups (with the possible exception of head and neck melanomas) and in pre- and postmenopausal age groups. CONCLUSION: Women have a consistent and independent relative advantage in all aspects of the progression of localized melanoma of approximately 30%, most likely caused by an underlying biologic sex difference.

Wound infection after excision and primary midline closure for pilonidal disease: risk factor analysis to improve patient selection.

BACKGROUND: Excision and primary midline closure for pilonidal disease (PD) is a simple procedure; however, it is frequently complicated by infection and prolonged healing. The aim of this study was to analyze risk factors for surgical site infection (SSI) in this context. METHODS: All consecutive patients undergoing excision and primary closure for PD from January 2002 through October 2008 were retrospectively assessed. The end points were SSI, as defined by the Center for Disease Control, and time to healing. Univariable and multivariable risk factor analyses were performed. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-one patients were included [97 men (74%), median age = 24 (range 15-66) years]. SSI occurred in 41 (31%) patients. Median time to healing was 20 days (range 12-76) in patients without SSI and 62 days (range 20-176) in patients with SSI (P < 0.0001). In univariable and multivariable analyses, smoking [OR = 2.6 (95% CI 1.02, 6.8), P = 0.046] and lack of antibiotic prophylaxis [OR = 5.6 (95% CI 2.5, 14.3), P = 0.001] were significant predictors for SSI. Adjusted for SSI, age over 25 was a significant predictor of prolonged healing. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the rate of SSI after excision and primary closure of PD is higher in smokers and could be reduced by antibiotic prophylaxis. SSI significantly prolongs healing time, particularly in patients over 25 years.