Erik A. Rauws

BACKGROUND: The benefits of preoperative biliary drainage, which was introduced to improve the postoperative outcome in patients with obstructive jaundice caused by a tumor of the pancreatic head, are unclear. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized trial, we compared preoperative biliary drainage with surgery alone for patients with cancer of the pancreatic head. Patients with obstructive jaundice and a bilirubin level of 40 to 250 micromol per liter (2.3 to 14.6 mg per deciliter) were randomly assigned to undergo either preoperative biliary drainage for 4 to 6 weeks, followed by surgery, or surgery alone within 1 week after diagnosis. Preoperative biliary drainage was attempted primarily with the placement of an endoprosthesis by means of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The primary outcome was the rate of serious complications within 120 days after randomization. RESULTS: We enrolled 202 patients; 96 were assigned to undergo early surgery and 106 to undergo preoperative biliary drainage; 6 patients were excluded from the analysis. The rates of serious complications were 39% (37 patients) in the early-surgery group and 74% (75 patients) in the biliary-drainage group (relative risk in the early-surgery group, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.71; P<0.001). Preoperative biliary drainage was successful in 96 patients (94%) after one or more attempts, with complications in 47 patients (46%). Surgery-related complications occurred in 35 patients (37%) in the early-surgery group and in 48 patients (47%) in the biliary-drainage group (relative risk, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.11; P=0.14). Mortality and the length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Routine preoperative biliary drainage in patients undergoing surgery for cancer of the pancreatic head increases the rate of complications. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN31939699.)

BACKGROUND: For patients with chronic pancreatitis and a dilated pancreatic duct, ductal decompression is recommended. We conducted a randomized trial to compare endoscopic and surgical drainage of the pancreatic duct. METHODS: All symptomatic patients with chronic pancreatitis and a distal obstruction of the pancreatic duct but without an inflammatory mass were eligible for the study. We randomly assigned patients to undergo endoscopic transampullary drainage of the pancreatic duct or operative pancreaticojejunostomy. The primary end point was the average Izbicki pain score during 2 years of follow-up. The secondary end points were pain relief at the end of follow-up, physical and mental health, morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay, number of procedures undergone, and changes in pancreatic function. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients underwent randomization: 19 to endoscopic treatment (16 of whom underwent lithotripsy) and 20 to operative pancreaticojejunostomy. During the 24 months of follow-up, patients who underwent surgery, as compared with those who were treated endoscopically, had lower Izbicki pain scores (25 vs. 51, P<0.001) and better physical health summary scores on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey questionnaire (P=0.003). At the end of follow-up, complete or partial pain relief was achieved in 32% of patients assigned to endoscopic drainage as compared with 75% of patients assigned to surgical drainage (P=0.007). Rates of complications, length of hospital stay, and changes in pancreatic function were similar in the two treatment groups, but patients receiving endoscopic treatment required more procedures than did patients in the surgery group (a median of eight vs. three, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical drainage of the pancreatic duct was more effective than endoscopic treatment in patients with obstruction of the pancreatic duct due to chronic pancreatitis. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN04572410 [controlled-trials.com].).

Extensive population-based studies are much needed to accurately establish epidemiology and disease course in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). We aimed to obtain population-based prevalence and incidence figures, insight in disease course with regard to survival, liver transplantation (LT), and occurrence of malignancies, as well as risk factors thereof. Four independent hospital databases were searched in 44 hospitals in a large geographically defined area of the Netherlands, comprising 50% of the population. In addition, all PSC patients in the three Dutch liver transplant centers and all inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients in the adherence area of a large district hospital were identified. All medical records were reviewed on-site, verifying diagnosis. Five hundred and ninety PSC patients were identified, resulting in an incidence of 0.5 and a point prevalence of 6.0 per 100,000. Median follow up was 92 months. Estimated median survival from diagnosis until LT or PSC-related death in the entire cohort was 21.3 years, as opposed to 13.2 years in the combined transplant centers cohort (n = 422; P < 0.0001). Colorectal carcinoma (CRC) risk was 10-fold increased, as compared to ulcerative colitis controls, and developed at a much younger age (39 years; range, 26-64), compared to IBD controls (59 years; range, 34-73; P = 0.019). Colonoscopic surveillance was associated with significantly better outcome. Conclusion: This study exemplifies that, for relatively rare diseases, it is paramount to collect observational data from large, population-based cohorts, because incidence and prevalence rates of PSC are markedly lower and survival much longer than previously reported. The selection of a bias-free, population-based cohort showed a significantly longer survival, compared to the tertiary referral cohort. CRC can develop at an early age, warranting surveillance from time of PSC diagnosis. (Hepatology 2013; 58:2045–2055)

BACKGROUND: Several scoring systems have been developed to predict the risk of rebleeding or death in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). These risk scoring systems have not been validated in a new patient population outside the clinical context of the original study. AIMS: To assess internal and external validity of a simple risk scoring system recently developed by Rockall and coworkers. METHODS: Calibration and discrimination were assessed as measures of validity of the scoring system. Internal validity was assessed using an independent, but similar patient sample studied by Rockall and coworkers, after developing the scoring system (Rockall's validation sample). External validity was assessed using patients admitted to several hospitals in Amsterdam (Vreeburg's validation sample). Calibration was evaluated by a chi2 goodness of fit test, and discrimination was evaluated by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. RESULTS: Calibration indicated a poor fit in both validation samples for the prediction of rebleeding (p<0.0001, Vreeburg; p=0.007, Rockall), but a better fit for the prediction of mortality in both validation samples (p=0.2, Vreeburg; p=0.3, Rockall). The areas under the ROC curves were rather low in both validation samples for the prediction of rebleeding (0.61, Vreeburg; 0.70, Rockall), but higher for the prediction of mortality (0.73, Vreeburg; 0.81, Rockall). CONCLUSIONS: The risk scoring system developed by Rockall and coworkers is a clinically useful scoring system for stratifying patients with acute UGIB into high and low risk categories for mortality. For the prediction of rebleeding, however, the performance of this scoring system was unsatisfactory.