Neoadjuvant Therapy Is Associated with Improved Chemotherapy Delivery and Overall Survival Compared to Upfront Resection in Pancreatic Cancer without Increasing Perioperative Complications.

The role of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and/or chemotherapy (neoCHT) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is poorly defined. We hypothesized that patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) would have improved systemic therapy delivery, as well as comparable perioperative complications, compared to patients undergoing upfront resection. This is an IRB-approved retrospective study of potentially resectable PDAC patients treated within an academic quaternary referral center between 2011 and 2018. Data were abstracted from the electronic medical record using an institutional cancer registry and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Three hundred and fourteen patients were eligible for analysis and eighty-one patients received NAT. The median overall survival (OS) was significantly improved in patients who received NAT (28.6 vs. 20.1 months, p = 0.014). Patients receiving neoCHT had an overall increased mean duration of systemic therapy (p < 0.001), and the median OS improved with each month of chemotherapy delivered (HR = 0.81 per month CHT, 95% CI (0.76-0.86), p < 0.001). NAT was not associated with increases in early severe post-operative complications (p = 0.47), late leaks (p = 0.23), or 30-90 day readmissions (p = 0.084). Our results show improved OS in patients who received NAT, driven largely by improved chemotherapy delivery, without an apparent increase in early or late perioperative complications compared to patients undergoing upfront resection.

Effect of a hospital-associated urinary tract infection reduction policy on general surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-associated UTI rates in surgery patients have not improved despite recommendations for reducing indwelling catheter days. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of institutional NSQIP general surgery patient data, 2006-2015. During this time, a UTI-reduction policy was implemented. Demographics, HA-UTI incidence, CA-UTI incidence, indwelling catheter days, straight catheterization rates, and mortality were examined. RESULTS: Females had significantly higher risk of HA-UTI. There was no significant change in HA-UTI (X12 = 0.02, p = .878) or indwelling catheter days (5.18 ±â€¯1.12 days v 3.73 ±â€¯0.39 days, p = .23). Straight catheterizations among those with HA-UTI increased (0.04 ±â€¯0.04 v 0.32 ±â€¯0.12, p = .029). There was no change in CA-UTI (1.38 v 1.11 CAUTI/1000 patient hospital-days P = .555) or in initial indwelling catheter days of patients with CA-UTI (7.2 SD 8.89 v 47.0 SD 7.04 days P = .961) after policy implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The reduction policy increased the number of straight catheterizations for patients developing HA-UTI, but did not reduce the number of initial indwelling catheter days, HA-UTI rates, or CA-UTI rates.

Do pancreatic duct stents cause or prevent pancreatic sepsis?

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic sepsis can occur after contrast injection into an obstructed or disrupted pancreatic duct. Whether stents cause or prevent pancreatic sepsis is unknown. Accordingly, the pancreatic duct bacteriology in patients with pancreatic duct stents was retrospectively reviewed and contrasted with biliary cultures taken from patients at the time of bile duct stent retrieval and/or exchange. METHODS: Of 61 patients (29 men, 32 women; 72 stents; mean age 51 [16] years, range 14-88 years), 36 with pancreatic duct stents had pancreatic duct cultures obtained at the time of stent exchange and/or retrieval. The results of these cultures were compared with bile duct cultures taken from 36 patients at the time of biliary stent exchange/retrieval. Eleven of the 36 patients with pancreatic duct stents also had bile duct stents. Data collected included stent patency, clinical sepsis at initial stent placement or retrieval, administration of antibiotics before the procedure, indication for stent placement, stent duration, and culture results. RESULTS: At stent retrieval and/or exchange, all 61 patients with pancreatic and/or biliary stents had contamination of the respective ducts with multiple enteric bacteria (mean 3.4 organisms in patients with pancreatic duct stents vs. 3.3 in those with bile duct stents). Clostridium perfringens was found in 17% and 0% of patients with, respectively, bile duct and pancreatic duct stents. Among the most common indications for pancreatic duct stent placement were stricture (28), sphincterotomy (9), leak (7), stones (3), and dilated pancreatic duct (1). Indications for a biliary stent included benign stricture (29), malignancy (6), stones (2), cholangitis (1), chronic pancreatitis (1), and dilated common bile duct (1). Pancreatic cultures were taken at a median of 85 days (interquartile range 60-126; range 13-273) and biliary cultures at a median of 87 days (interquartile range 45-149; range 19-927) after stent placement. Eleven patients, 6 with a bile duct stent, 4 with a pancreatic duct stent, and one with dual stents, developed pre-exchange/retrieval clinical sepsis; 3 had pancreatic sepsis. All had received antibiotics at initial placement. In the 11 patients with sepsis (12 stents), 8 stents were completely occluded at exchange/retrieval, 3 were partially occluded, and one was patent. In 50 patients (60 stents), no clinical sepsis developed; 7 stents were patent, 31 partially occluded, and 22 completely obstructed. CONCLUSIONS: (1) Comparable to patients with biliary stents, all patients with pancreatic stents had contamination of the pancreatic ductal system by enteric flora. (2) In contrast to the 17% of patients with bile duct stents who had intraductal Clostridium perfringens, there were no instances of contamination with this organism in patients with pancreatic stent (p = 0.025), although, after adjusting for multiple comparisons, statistical significance was lost. (3) There was a tendency for stent occlusion to predispose to pancreatic sepsis, but occlusion by itself was insufficient (p = 0.106). (4) Further investigation is required to define the additional variables that are associated with the development of pancreatic sepsis.

Clinical outcomes in patients who undergo extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for chronic calcific pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: There is controversy as to whether extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy fragmentation and ERCP retrieval of pancreatic stones are associated with relief of chronic pain or relapsing attacks of pancreatitis. Our most recent experience with this technology is reviewed. METHODS: Forty patients with chronic calcific pancreatitis who required extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy between 1995 and 2000 to facilitate pancreatic duct stone removal were retrospectively reviewed. Data collected included patient presentation, number of lithotripsy and ERCP sessions required, complications, and outcomes measures to include pre- and post-ESWL pain scale, monthly oxycodone (5 mg)-equivalent pills ingested, yearly hospitalizations, and need for subsequent surgery. RESULTS: A single extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy session was required for 35 patients who underwent a total of 86 ERCPs to achieve complete stone extraction from the main pancreatic duct. Minor complications occurred in 20%. There was one episode of pancreatic sepsis that was treated with antibiotics and removal of an occluded pancreatic prosthesis. At a mean [SD] follow-up of 2.4 (0.6) years, 80% of patients had avoided surgery and there was a statistically significant decrease in pain scores (6.9 [1.3] vs. 2.9 [1.1]; p = 0.001), yearly hospitalizations for pancreatitis (3.9 [1.9] vs. 0.9 [0.9]; p = 0.001), and oxycodone-equivalent narcotic medication ingested monthly (125 [83] vs. 81 [80]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy fragmentation of pancreatic duct calculi in conjunction with endoscopic clearance of the main pancreatic duct is associated with significant improvement in clinical outcomes in most patients with chronic pancreatitis.

Contamination of single-use biopsy forceps: a prospective in vitro analysis.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that single-use biopsy forceps prevent interpatient transmission of infection during endoscopy. Passage of sterile forceps through the accessory channel of the endoscope may lead to contamination, however, if the endoscope has been inadequately processed. The potential for contamination of single-use biopsy forceps at various stages of endoscope reprocessing was prospectively evaluated. METHODS: A total of 50 disposable biopsy forceps were passed through the accessory channels of 10 colonoscopes at the following stages of reprocessing: (1) before use in patients to establish a baseline of high-level disinfection, (2) directly after colonoscopy to confirm contamination with use, (3) after manual cleaning and flushing of the accessory channel to support the claim that manual cleaning significantly decreases bioburden, (4) after manual cleaning and a 2-minute soak in 2% glutaraldehyde to assess for contamination after an inadequate cleaning time, and (5) after manual cleaning and a 20-minute soak in 2% glutaraldehyde. The forceps were then sealed in sterile plastic bags after adding 20 mL of thioglycollate broth medium. The suspension was passed through a 0.2-micron vacuum filter and the filters were cultured. All cultures were incubated more than 48 hours. RESULTS: Biopsy forceps underwent a total of 50 aerobic and 50 anaerobic cultures. Colony-forming units too numerous to count of GI flora, including Escherichia coli, Klebsiella, Pseudomonas, and Clostridium species, grew on 19 of 20 culture plates from biopsy forceps passed through colonoscopes immediately after use. One plate in this group grew 3 colony-forming units of E coli. Persistence of GI flora was noted on 5 of 20 plates after manual cleaning of the colonoscopes. No GI flora were found on forceps after the colonoscopes after soaking in gluteraldehyde for 2 and 20 minutes. Environmental contaminants including diptheroids, Staphylococcus, and Streptococcus species grew on 16 culture plates. CONCLUSIONS: (1) Single-use biopsy forceps are highly susceptible to contamination during passage through the accessory channels of improperly cleaned endoscopes. (2) Disinfection of the colonoscopes in this study prevented contamination of the forceps at baseline and after reprocessing. (3) Proper endoscope reprocessing may be the most important factor in preventing biopsy forceps-related interpatient infection.