Early definitive treatment rate as a quality indicator of care in acute gallstone pancreatitis.
Published: 9th August 2017
Authors: R. Green, S. C. Charman, T. Palser
Early definitive treatment (cholecystectomy or endoscopic sphincterotomy in the same admission or within 2 weeks after discharge) of gallstone disease after a biliary attack of acute pancreatitis is standard of care. This study investigated whether compliance with early definitive treatment for acute gallstone pancreatitis can be used as a care quality indicator for the condition.
A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Hospital Episode Statistics database. All emergency admissions to National Health Service hospitals in England with a first time diagnosis of acute gallstone pancreatitis in the financial years 2008, 2009 and 2010 were examined. Trends in early definitive treatment between hospital trusts were examined and patient morbidity outcomes were determined.
During the study interval there were 19 510 patients with an overall rate of early definitive treatment at 34·7 (range 9·4–84·7) per cent. In the 1‐year follow‐up period, 4661 patients (23·9 per cent) had one or more emergency readmissions for complications related to gallstone pancreatitis. Of these, 2692 (57·8 per cent) were readmissions for acute pancreatitis; 911 (33·8 per cent) were within the first 2 weeks of discharge, with the remaining 1781 (66·2 per cent) occurring after the point at which definitive treatment should have been received. Early definitive treatment resulted in a 39 per cent reduction in readmission risk (adjusted risk ratio (
In acute gallstone pancreatitis, compliance with recommended early definitive treatment varied considerably, with associated variation in outcomes. Compliance should be used as a quality indicator to improve care.Read more
You may also be interested in
Randomized clinical trial
Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic ultrasonography before laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection. BJS 2017; 104: 1462-1469.
Authors: S. B. Ellebæk, C. W. Fristrup, C. Hovendal, N. Qvist, L. Bundgaard, S. Salomon et al.
Notes: No additional benefit
Randomized clinical trial
Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary tumours. BJS 2017; 104: 1443-1450.
Authors: C. Palanivelu, P. Senthilnathan, S. C. Sabnis, N. S. Babu, S. Srivatsan Gurumurthy, N. Anand Vijai et al.
Notes: Shorter stay
Authors: K. J. Roberts
Authors: B. Le Roy, M. Gelli, G. Pittau, M.‐A. Allard, B. Pereira, B. Serji et al.
Notes: Option to increase resectability
Authors: A. J. Klompenhouwer, M. E. E. Bröker, M. G. J. Thomeer, M. P. Gaspersz, R. A. de Man, J. N. M. IJzermans et al.
Notes: Wait and see policy justified
Nationwide outcomes in patients undergoing surgical exploration without resection for pancreatic cancer. BJS 2017; 104: 1568-1577.
Authors: L. G. M. van der Geest, V. E. P. P. Lemmens, I. H. J. T. de Hingh, C. J. H. M. van Laarhoven, T. L. Bollen, C. Y. Nio et al.
Notes: Negative impacts
Impact of portal vein infiltration and type of venous reconstruction in surgery for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. BJS 2017; 104: 1539-1548.
Authors: R. Ravikumar, C. Sabin, M. Abu Hilal, A. Al‐Hilli, S. Aroori, G. Bond‐Smith et al.
Notes: No difference between type of reconstruction
Trends in indications, complications and outcomes for venous resection during pancreatoduodenectomy. BJS 2017; 104: 1558-1567.
Authors: D. Kleive, M. A. Sahakyan, A. E. Berstad, C. S. Verbeke, I. P. Gladhaug, B. Edwin et al.
Notes: Severe complications, more reoperations
Pancreatoduodenectomy with portal vein resection for distal cholangiocarcinoma. BJS 2017; 104: 1549-1557.
Authors: T. Maeta, T. Ebata, E. Hayashi, T. Kawahara, S. Mizuno, N. Matsumoto et al.
Notes: Poor survival despite portal vein resection
Average treatment effect of hepatic resection versus locoregional therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma.
Authors: A. Cucchetti, V. Mazzaferro, A. D. Pinna, C. Sposito, R. Golfieri, C. Serra et al.
Notes: Resection is better
Meta‐analysis of determinants of survival following treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma. BJS 2017; 104: 1433-1442.
Authors: S. Erridge, P. H. Pucher, S. R. Markar, G. Malietzis, T. Athanasiou, A. Darzi et al.
Notes: No evidence for best treatment