Surgery

ATLANTA – Patients with rheumatoid arthritis were more at risk of postoperative infection because of a high Charlson Comorbidity Index or longer surgery time than because of perioperative use of antirheumatic medications, according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

Anna Shmagel, MD, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort study of 154 patients with seropositive RA who were in the Fairview Health System between Jan. 2010 and Dec. 2017 and underwent either orthopedic or major organ surgery. The patients were classified based on their use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologics alone or in combination, with patients divided into “no DMARD or biologic,” “DMARD but no biologic” and “biologic with or without DMARD” groups.

The question of whether to discontinue antirheumatic medications before surgery is still controversial, with conflicting evidence across studies, Dr. Shmagel said in her presentation. A study by Giles and colleagues found 10 of 91 patients (11%) RA who underwent an orthopedic surgical procedure developed a postoperative infection, with patients receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors more likely to develop an infection, compared with patients who were not receiving TNF inhibitors (Arthritis Care Res. 2006. doi: 10.1002/art.21841).

However, other studies have challenged that idea, and a 2018 study from Goodman and colleagues raised the issue of whether patients stopping biologics prior to surgery are at increased risk of flares. Of 120 RA patients in their study who underwent total hip or total knee arthroplasty, 75% of patients flared at 6 weeks after surgery. While patients who halted biologics before surgery were more likely to flare, stopping biologics did not predict flaring after surgery (J Rheumatol. 2018. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.170366).

“It’s not entirely clear whether these theories are related to what we do with antirheumatic medications, but we felt that it was pertinent to further study this question.” Dr. Shmagel said.

Dr. Shmagel and colleagues examined the 30-day infection rate of RA patients postoperatively, with 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality rates as secondary outcomes. Patient-associated factors such as age, gender, race, body mass index, smoking status, Charlson Comorbidity Index, income, and use of corticosteroids were analyzed as covariates in addition to factors involving surgery such as expected surgery time, perioperative antibiotic use, and whether the procedure was elective or emergency surgery.

A majority of the patients in the study across all groups were white women about 63 years old with a body mass index above 30 kg/m² and almost all undergoing electing surgery compared with emergency surgery. While patients in each group were similar with regard to Charlson Comorbidity Index, expected length of surgery, and percentage of patients undergoing elective surgery, patients in the biologic with or without DMARD group had a significantly lower median income level compared with those in the other two groups (P = .01).

Overall, there were 244 surgeries in 154 patients, with 117 surgeries in the group not receiving biologics or DMARDs, 95 surgeries in the group receiving DMARDs but no biologics, and 32 surgeries in the biologics with or without DMARD group. In the DMARD but no biologics group, most patients were receiving methotrexate (45%) or hydroxychloroquine (44%), while the most common biologics in the biologics with or without DMARD group were infliximab (25%), tocilizumab (19%), abatacept (16%), etanercept (13%), rituximab (9%), and tofacitinib (9%).

There was an 11% overall rate of infection, with a similar rate of infection across all groups (P = .09). While there was a higher rate of surgical site infections among patients in the biologics with or without DMARD group (9%) and a higher percentage of urinary tract infections in the no DMARD and no biologics group (4%), the results were not statistically significant. When the rate of infections was examined by type of surgery, there were no significant differences between infections from musculoskeletal surgery (P = .7) and major organ surgery (P = .8).

The overall 30-day readmission rate was 12%, but there were no statistically significant differences between groups. Although there were five deaths in the study, four deaths were in the group not receiving DMARDs or biologics, and one death was in the biologic with or without DMARD group.

Higher Charlson Comorbidity Index did predict infection risk, with an odds ratio of 1.37 per 1-point increase in the index (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.70). Length of surgery also increased the risk of infection, with an OR of 1.16 per 15-minute increase in surgery time (95% CI, 1.09-1.23).

Dr. Shmagel noted that the retrospective nature of the study and the midwestern cohort may mean the results are not generalizable to other populations and that larger randomized trials should be considered. “Certainly, a larger study with more events would be needed,” she said.

This study was funded by the University of Minnesota. Dr. Shmagel reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Kerski M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71 (suppl 10), Abstract 1805.

ATLANTA – Patients with rheumatoid arthritis were more at risk of postoperative infection because of a high Charlson Comorbidity Index or longer surgery time than because of perioperative use of antirheumatic medications, according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

Anna Shmagel, MD, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort study of 154 patients with seropositive RA who were in the Fairview Health System between Jan. 2010 and Dec. 2017 and underwent either orthopedic or major organ surgery. The patients were classified based on their use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologics alone or in combination, with patients divided into “no DMARD or biologic,” “DMARD but no biologic” and “biologic with or without DMARD” groups.

The question of whether to discontinue antirheumatic medications before surgery is still controversial, with conflicting evidence across studies, Dr. Shmagel said in her presentation. A study by Giles and colleagues found 10 of 91 patients (11%) RA who underwent an orthopedic surgical procedure developed a postoperative infection, with patients receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors more likely to develop an infection, compared with patients who were not receiving TNF inhibitors (Arthritis Care Res. 2006. doi: 10.1002/art.21841).

However, other studies have challenged that idea, and a 2018 study from Goodman and colleagues raised the issue of whether patients stopping biologics prior to surgery are at increased risk of flares. Of 120 RA patients in their study who underwent total hip or total knee arthroplasty, 75% of patients flared at 6 weeks after surgery. While patients who halted biologics before surgery were more likely to flare, stopping biologics did not predict flaring after surgery (J Rheumatol. 2018. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.170366).

“It’s not entirely clear whether these theories are related to what we do with antirheumatic medications, but we felt that it was pertinent to further study this question.” Dr. Shmagel said.

Dr. Shmagel and colleagues examined the 30-day infection rate of RA patients postoperatively, with 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality rates as secondary outcomes. Patient-associated factors such as age, gender, race, body mass index, smoking status, Charlson Comorbidity Index, income, and use of corticosteroids were analyzed as covariates in addition to factors involving surgery such as expected surgery time, perioperative antibiotic use, and whether the procedure was elective or emergency surgery.

A majority of the patients in the study across all groups were white women about 63 years old with a body mass index above 30 kg/m² and almost all undergoing electing surgery compared with emergency surgery. While patients in each group were similar with regard to Charlson Comorbidity Index, expected length of surgery, and percentage of patients undergoing elective surgery, patients in the biologic with or without DMARD group had a significantly lower median income level compared with those in the other two groups (P = .01).

Overall, there were 244 surgeries in 154 patients, with 117 surgeries in the group not receiving biologics or DMARDs, 95 surgeries in the group receiving DMARDs but no biologics, and 32 surgeries in the biologics with or without DMARD group. In the DMARD but no biologics group, most patients were receiving methotrexate (45%) or hydroxychloroquine (44%), while the most common biologics in the biologics with or without DMARD group were infliximab (25%), tocilizumab (19%), abatacept (16%), etanercept (13%), rituximab (9%), and tofacitinib (9%).

There was an 11% overall rate of infection, with a similar rate of infection across all groups (P = .09). While there was a higher rate of surgical site infections among patients in the biologics with or without DMARD group (9%) and a higher percentage of urinary tract infections in the no DMARD and no biologics group (4%), the results were not statistically significant. When the rate of infections was examined by type of surgery, there were no significant differences between infections from musculoskeletal surgery (P = .7) and major organ surgery (P = .8).

The overall 30-day readmission rate was 12%, but there were no statistically significant differences between groups. Although there were five deaths in the study, four deaths were in the group not receiving DMARDs or biologics, and one death was in the biologic with or without DMARD group.

Higher Charlson Comorbidity Index did predict infection risk, with an odds ratio of 1.37 per 1-point increase in the index (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.70). Length of surgery also increased the risk of infection, with an OR of 1.16 per 15-minute increase in surgery time (95% CI, 1.09-1.23).

Dr. Shmagel noted that the retrospective nature of the study and the midwestern cohort may mean the results are not generalizable to other populations and that larger randomized trials should be considered. “Certainly, a larger study with more events would be needed,” she said.

This study was funded by the University of Minnesota. Dr. Shmagel reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Kerski M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71 (suppl 10), Abstract 1805.

ATLANTA – Patients with rheumatoid arthritis were more at risk of postoperative infection because of a high Charlson Comorbidity Index or longer surgery time than because of perioperative use of antirheumatic medications, according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

Anna Shmagel, MD, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort study of 154 patients with seropositive RA who were in the Fairview Health System between Jan. 2010 and Dec. 2017 and underwent either orthopedic or major organ surgery. The patients were classified based on their use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologics alone or in combination, with patients divided into “no DMARD or biologic,” “DMARD but no biologic” and “biologic with or without DMARD” groups.

The question of whether to discontinue antirheumatic medications before surgery is still controversial, with conflicting evidence across studies, Dr. Shmagel said in her presentation. A study by Giles and colleagues found 10 of 91 patients (11%) RA who underwent an orthopedic surgical procedure developed a postoperative infection, with patients receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors more likely to develop an infection, compared with patients who were not receiving TNF inhibitors (Arthritis Care Res. 2006. doi: 10.1002/art.21841).

However, other studies have challenged that idea, and a 2018 study from Goodman and colleagues raised the issue of whether patients stopping biologics prior to surgery are at increased risk of flares. Of 120 RA patients in their study who underwent total hip or total knee arthroplasty, 75% of patients flared at 6 weeks after surgery. While patients who halted biologics before surgery were more likely to flare, stopping biologics did not predict flaring after surgery (J Rheumatol. 2018. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.170366).

“It’s not entirely clear whether these theories are related to what we do with antirheumatic medications, but we felt that it was pertinent to further study this question.” Dr. Shmagel said.

Dr. Shmagel and colleagues examined the 30-day infection rate of RA patients postoperatively, with 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality rates as secondary outcomes. Patient-associated factors such as age, gender, race, body mass index, smoking status, Charlson Comorbidity Index, income, and use of corticosteroids were analyzed as covariates in addition to factors involving surgery such as expected surgery time, perioperative antibiotic use, and whether the procedure was elective or emergency surgery.

A majority of the patients in the study across all groups were white women about 63 years old with a body mass index above 30 kg/m² and almost all undergoing electing surgery compared with emergency surgery. While patients in each group were similar with regard to Charlson Comorbidity Index, expected length of surgery, and percentage of patients undergoing elective surgery, patients in the biologic with or without DMARD group had a significantly lower median income level compared with those in the other two groups (P = .01).

Overall, there were 244 surgeries in 154 patients, with 117 surgeries in the group not receiving biologics or DMARDs, 95 surgeries in the group receiving DMARDs but no biologics, and 32 surgeries in the biologics with or without DMARD group. In the DMARD but no biologics group, most patients were receiving methotrexate (45%) or hydroxychloroquine (44%), while the most common biologics in the biologics with or without DMARD group were infliximab (25%), tocilizumab (19%), abatacept (16%), etanercept (13%), rituximab (9%), and tofacitinib (9%).

There was an 11% overall rate of infection, with a similar rate of infection across all groups (P = .09). While there was a higher rate of surgical site infections among patients in the biologics with or without DMARD group (9%) and a higher percentage of urinary tract infections in the no DMARD and no biologics group (4%), the results were not statistically significant. When the rate of infections was examined by type of surgery, there were no significant differences between infections from musculoskeletal surgery (P = .7) and major organ surgery (P = .8).

The overall 30-day readmission rate was 12%, but there were no statistically significant differences between groups. Although there were five deaths in the study, four deaths were in the group not receiving DMARDs or biologics, and one death was in the biologic with or without DMARD group.

Higher Charlson Comorbidity Index did predict infection risk, with an odds ratio of 1.37 per 1-point increase in the index (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.70). Length of surgery also increased the risk of infection, with an OR of 1.16 per 15-minute increase in surgery time (95% CI, 1.09-1.23).

Dr. Shmagel noted that the retrospective nature of the study and the midwestern cohort may mean the results are not generalizable to other populations and that larger randomized trials should be considered. “Certainly, a larger study with more events would be needed,” she said.

This study was funded by the University of Minnesota. Dr. Shmagel reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Kerski M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71 (suppl 10), Abstract 1805.

Bilateral mastectomy significantly decreases the risk for a second contralateral breast cancer, but does not decrease the risk of death, compared with breast-conserving therapy, results of a large retrospective study indicate.

Among 245,418 patients followed for a median of 6.7 years, the risk of death from breast cancer was similar for those who had undergone either breast-conserving therapy or bilateral mastectomy (BLM) but was 20% higher among women who had undergone unilateral mastectomy (ULM) when compared with breast-conserving therapy, reported Allison W. Kurian, MD, MSc, from Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

“Second breast cancers are rare, and their reduction should be weighed against the harms associated with BLM,” they wrote in a study published online in Cancer.

The investigators extracted data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program on all women diagnosed with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage 0 to stage III unilateral breast cancer in California from 1998 to 2015 who were treated with either BLM versus breast-conserving therapy, including surgery and radiation or unilateral mastectomy.­­

They calculated the absolute excess risk of contralateral breast cancer as the observed minus expected number of breast cancers in the general population divided by 10,000 person-years at risk.

­Of 421,643 women with a first diagnosis of primary breast cancer during the study period, 245,418 met the study criteria. Of this cohort, 7,784 (3.2%) developed a contralateral second breast cancer more than 6 months after diagnosis of the first, after a median 6.7 years of follow-up.

Slightly more than half of the cohort (52.1%) had undergone breast-conserving therapy, 37.5% underwent unilateral mastectomy, and 7.6% had bilateral mastectomy. An additional 2.9% of patients were women aged 70 years and older with stage I hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative disease who underwent breast-conserving surgery without radiation (percentages exceed 100% because of rounding).

A multivariate-adjusted model showed that, as might be expected, patients who underwent bilateral mastectomy had a 90% reduction in risk of contralateral cancer (hazard ratio, 0.10; P less than .001), compared with breast-conserving therapy. In contrast, patients who underwent unilateral mastectomy had a slight but significant increase in risk for a second contralateral breast cancer (HR, 1.07; P = .008).

The absolute excess risk for second contralateral breast cancer was 5 per 10,000 person-years with breast-conserving therapy, 13.6 per 10,000 person-years with unilateral mastectomy, and –28.6 per 10,000 person-years with bilateral mastectomy.

When they looked at risk for death, however they found that, compared with breast-conserving therapy, breast-conserving surgery alone (HR, 1.36; P = .0001) and unilateral mastectomy (HR, 1.21; P less than .001), but not bilateral mastectomy (HR, 1.03; P = .35) were significantly associated with increased risk for breast cancer death.

The authors noted that their estimates of absolute risk of second contralateral breast cancer jibe with those of earlier studies, and can help clinicians frame the discussion of the benefits versus risks for individual patients.

“What one patient might consider to be a negligible benefit of BLM, weighed against its potential harms of greater pain, recovery time, and impact on body image and employment, might appear worthwhile to another,” they wrote.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health & Human Services, Suzanne Pride Bryan Fund for Breast Cancer Research, Jan Weimer Faculty Chair for Breast Oncology, and the BRCA Foundation. Dr. Kurian disclosed institutional research funding from Myriad Genetics.

SOURCE: Kurin AW et al. Cancer. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32618.

Bilateral mastectomy significantly decreases the risk for a second contralateral breast cancer, but does not decrease the risk of death, compared with breast-conserving therapy, results of a large retrospective study indicate.

Among 245,418 patients followed for a median of 6.7 years, the risk of death from breast cancer was similar for those who had undergone either breast-conserving therapy or bilateral mastectomy (BLM) but was 20% higher among women who had undergone unilateral mastectomy (ULM) when compared with breast-conserving therapy, reported Allison W. Kurian, MD, MSc, from Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

“Second breast cancers are rare, and their reduction should be weighed against the harms associated with BLM,” they wrote in a study published online in Cancer.

The investigators extracted data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program on all women diagnosed with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage 0 to stage III unilateral breast cancer in California from 1998 to 2015 who were treated with either BLM versus breast-conserving therapy, including surgery and radiation or unilateral mastectomy.­­

They calculated the absolute excess risk of contralateral breast cancer as the observed minus expected number of breast cancers in the general population divided by 10,000 person-years at risk.

­Of 421,643 women with a first diagnosis of primary breast cancer during the study period, 245,418 met the study criteria. Of this cohort, 7,784 (3.2%) developed a contralateral second breast cancer more than 6 months after diagnosis of the first, after a median 6.7 years of follow-up.

Slightly more than half of the cohort (52.1%) had undergone breast-conserving therapy, 37.5% underwent unilateral mastectomy, and 7.6% had bilateral mastectomy. An additional 2.9% of patients were women aged 70 years and older with stage I hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative disease who underwent breast-conserving surgery without radiation (percentages exceed 100% because of rounding).

A multivariate-adjusted model showed that, as might be expected, patients who underwent bilateral mastectomy had a 90% reduction in risk of contralateral cancer (hazard ratio, 0.10; P less than .001), compared with breast-conserving therapy. In contrast, patients who underwent unilateral mastectomy had a slight but significant increase in risk for a second contralateral breast cancer (HR, 1.07; P = .008).

The absolute excess risk for second contralateral breast cancer was 5 per 10,000 person-years with breast-conserving therapy, 13.6 per 10,000 person-years with unilateral mastectomy, and –28.6 per 10,000 person-years with bilateral mastectomy.

When they looked at risk for death, however they found that, compared with breast-conserving therapy, breast-conserving surgery alone (HR, 1.36; P = .0001) and unilateral mastectomy (HR, 1.21; P less than .001), but not bilateral mastectomy (HR, 1.03; P = .35) were significantly associated with increased risk for breast cancer death.

The authors noted that their estimates of absolute risk of second contralateral breast cancer jibe with those of earlier studies, and can help clinicians frame the discussion of the benefits versus risks for individual patients.

“What one patient might consider to be a negligible benefit of BLM, weighed against its potential harms of greater pain, recovery time, and impact on body image and employment, might appear worthwhile to another,” they wrote.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health & Human Services, Suzanne Pride Bryan Fund for Breast Cancer Research, Jan Weimer Faculty Chair for Breast Oncology, and the BRCA Foundation. Dr. Kurian disclosed institutional research funding from Myriad Genetics.

SOURCE: Kurin AW et al. Cancer. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32618.

Bilateral mastectomy significantly decreases the risk for a second contralateral breast cancer, but does not decrease the risk of death, compared with breast-conserving therapy, results of a large retrospective study indicate.

Among 245,418 patients followed for a median of 6.7 years, the risk of death from breast cancer was similar for those who had undergone either breast-conserving therapy or bilateral mastectomy (BLM) but was 20% higher among women who had undergone unilateral mastectomy (ULM) when compared with breast-conserving therapy, reported Allison W. Kurian, MD, MSc, from Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

“Second breast cancers are rare, and their reduction should be weighed against the harms associated with BLM,” they wrote in a study published online in Cancer.

The investigators extracted data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program on all women diagnosed with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage 0 to stage III unilateral breast cancer in California from 1998 to 2015 who were treated with either BLM versus breast-conserving therapy, including surgery and radiation or unilateral mastectomy.­­

They calculated the absolute excess risk of contralateral breast cancer as the observed minus expected number of breast cancers in the general population divided by 10,000 person-years at risk.

­Of 421,643 women with a first diagnosis of primary breast cancer during the study period, 245,418 met the study criteria. Of this cohort, 7,784 (3.2%) developed a contralateral second breast cancer more than 6 months after diagnosis of the first, after a median 6.7 years of follow-up.

Slightly more than half of the cohort (52.1%) had undergone breast-conserving therapy, 37.5% underwent unilateral mastectomy, and 7.6% had bilateral mastectomy. An additional 2.9% of patients were women aged 70 years and older with stage I hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative disease who underwent breast-conserving surgery without radiation (percentages exceed 100% because of rounding).

A multivariate-adjusted model showed that, as might be expected, patients who underwent bilateral mastectomy had a 90% reduction in risk of contralateral cancer (hazard ratio, 0.10; P less than .001), compared with breast-conserving therapy. In contrast, patients who underwent unilateral mastectomy had a slight but significant increase in risk for a second contralateral breast cancer (HR, 1.07; P = .008).

The absolute excess risk for second contralateral breast cancer was 5 per 10,000 person-years with breast-conserving therapy, 13.6 per 10,000 person-years with unilateral mastectomy, and –28.6 per 10,000 person-years with bilateral mastectomy.

When they looked at risk for death, however they found that, compared with breast-conserving therapy, breast-conserving surgery alone (HR, 1.36; P = .0001) and unilateral mastectomy (HR, 1.21; P less than .001), but not bilateral mastectomy (HR, 1.03; P = .35) were significantly associated with increased risk for breast cancer death.

The authors noted that their estimates of absolute risk of second contralateral breast cancer jibe with those of earlier studies, and can help clinicians frame the discussion of the benefits versus risks for individual patients.

“What one patient might consider to be a negligible benefit of BLM, weighed against its potential harms of greater pain, recovery time, and impact on body image and employment, might appear worthwhile to another,” they wrote.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health & Human Services, Suzanne Pride Bryan Fund for Breast Cancer Research, Jan Weimer Faculty Chair for Breast Oncology, and the BRCA Foundation. Dr. Kurian disclosed institutional research funding from Myriad Genetics.

SOURCE: Kurin AW et al. Cancer. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32618.

Opioid pain management should be reserved for just 21 of the 87 most common dermatologic procedures, an expert panel of dermatologists has recommended.

sdominick/iStock/Getty Images

Rotation flaps, interpolation flaps, wedge resections, cartilage alar-batten grafts, and Mustarde flaps were among the 20 procedures that can be managed with up to 10 oral oxycodone 5-mg equivalents, according to the panel. Only the Abbe procedure might warrant dispensing up to 15 oxycodone 5-mg pills, Justin McLawhorn, MD, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. The recommended amount of opioids are in addition to nonopioid analgesics, the guidelines point out.

All the other procedures can – and should – be managed with a combination of acetaminophen and ibuprofen, either alone or in an alternating dose pattern, said Dr. McLawhorn, of the department of dermatology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and coauthors.

But limited opioid prescribing is an important part of healing for patients who undergo the most invasive procedures, they wrote. “The management of complications, including adequate pain control, should be tailored to each patient on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, any pain management plan should not strictly adhere to any single guideline, but rather should be formed with consideration of the expected pain from the procedure and/or closure and consider the patient’s expectations for pain control.”

The time is ripe for dermatologists to make a stand in combating the opioid crisis, according to a group email response to questions from Dr. McLawhorn, Thomas Stasko, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, and Lindsey Collins, MD, also of the University of Oklahoma.

“The opioid crisis has reached epidemic proportions. More than 70,000 Americans have died from an opioid overdose in 2017,” they wrote. “Moreover, recent data suggest that nearly 6% of postsurgical, opioid-naive patients become long-term users of opioids. The lack of specific evidence-based recommendations likely contributes to a wide variety in prescribing patterns and a steady supply of unused opioids. Countering the opioid crisis necessitates a restructuring of the opioid prescribing practices that addresses pain in a procedure-specific manner. These recommendations are one tool in the dermatologists’ arsenal that can be used as a reference to help guide opioid management and prevent excessive opioid prescriptions at discharge following dermatologic interventions.”

Unfortunately, they added, dermatologists have inadvertently fueled the opioid abuse fire.

“It is difficult to quantify which providers are responsible for the onslaught of opioids into our communities,” the authors wrote in the email interview. “However, we can deduce, based on recent opioid prescribing patterns, that dermatologists provide approximately 500,000 unused opioid pills to their communities on an annual basis. This is the result of a wide variation in practice patterns and narratives that have been previously circulated in an attempt to mitigate the providers’ perception of the addictive nature of opioid analgesics. Our hope is that by addressing pain in a procedure-specific manner, we can help to limit the excessive number of unused opioid pills that are provided by dermatologists and ultimately decrease the rate of opioid-related complications, including addiction and death.”

Still, patients need and deserve effective pain management after a procedure. In the guidelines, the investigators wrote that a “one-size-fits-all” approach “does not account for the mechanism of pain, the invasiveness of the procedure, or the anatomic structures that are manipulated. As a result, current guidelines cannot accurately predict the quantity of opioids that are necessary to manage postoperative pain.”

The panel brought together experts in general dermatology, dermatologic surgery, cosmetics, and phlebology to develop a consensus on opioid prescribing guidelines for 87 of the most common procedures. Everyone on the panel was a member of the American College of Mohs Surgery, American Academy of Dermatology, or the American Vein and Lymphatic Society. The panel conducted a literature review to determine which procedures might require opioids and which would not. At least 75% of the panel had to agree on a reasonable but effective opioid amount; they were then polled as to whether they might employ that recommendation in their own clinical practice.

The recommendations are aimed at patients who experienced no peri- or postoperative complications.

The panel agreed that acetaminophen and ibuprofen – alone, in combination, or with opioids – were reasonable choices for all the 87 procedures. In such instances, acetaminophen 1 g can be staggered with ibuprofen 400 mg every 4 or 8 hours.

“I think providers will encounter a mixed bag of preconceived notions regarding patients’ expectations for pain control,” Dr. McLawhorn and coauthors wrote in the interview. “The important point for providers to make is to emphasize the noninferiority of acetaminophen and/or ibuprofen in controlling acute pain for patients who are not dependent on opioids for the management of chronic pain. Our experience in caring for many surgical patients has shown that patients are usually receptive to the use of nonopioid analgesics as many are familiar with their addictive potential because of the uptick in the publicity of the opioid-related complications.”

In cases where opioids might be appropriate, the panel unanimously agreed that dose limits be imposed. For 15 of the 87 procedures, the panel recommend a maximum prescription of 10 oxycodone 5-mg equivalents. Only one other – the Abbe flap – might warrant more, with a maximum of 15 oxycodone 5-mg pills at discharge.

Sometimes called a “lip switch,” the Abbe flap is reconstruction for full-thickness lip defects. It is a composite flap that moves skin, muscle, mucosa, and blood supply from the lower lip to reconstruct a defect of the upper lip. This reconstruction attempts to respect the native anatomic landmarks of the lip and allow for a better functional outcome.

“Because of the extensive nature of the repair and the anatomic territories that are manipulated, including the suturing of the lower lip to the upper lip with delayed separation, adequate pain control may require opioid analgesics in the immediate postoperative period,” the team wrote in the interview.

The panel could not agree on pain management strategies for five other procedures: Karapandzic flaps, en bloc nail excisions, facial resurfacing with deep chemical peels, and small- or large-volume liposuction. This was partly because of a lack of personal experience. Only 8 of the 40 panelists performed Karapandzic flaps. The maximum number of 5-mg oxycodone tablets any panelist prescribed for Karapandzic flaps and en bloc nail excisions was 20.

Facial resurfacing was likewise an uncommon procedure for the panel, with just 11 members performing this using deep chemical peels. However, five of those panelists said that opioids were routinely needed for postoperative pain with a maximum of 15 oxycodone 5-mg equivalents. And just four panelists performed liposuction, for which they used a maximum of 15 oxycodone 5-mg equivalents.

“However,” they wrote in the guidelines, “these providers noted that the location where the procedure is performed strongly influences the need for opioid pain management, with small-volume removal in the neck, arms, or flanks being unlikely to require opioids for adequate pain control, whereas large-volume removal in the thighs, knees, and hips may routinely require opioids.”

Addressing patient expectations is a very important part of pain management, the panel noted. “Patients will invariably experience postoperative pain after cutaneous surgeries or other interventions, often peaking within 4 hours after surgery. Wound tension, size and type of repair, anatomical location/nerve innervation, and patient pain tolerance are all factors that contribute to postoperative discomfort and should be considered when developing a postoperative pain management plan.”

Ultimately, according to Dr. McLawhorn and coauthors, the decision to use opioids at discharge for postoperative pain control should be an individual one based on patients’ comorbidities and expectations.

“Admittedly, many of the procedures listed within the recommendations may result in a rather large or complex defect that requires an equally large or complex repair,” they wrote in the interview. “However, proper education of the patient and provider regarding the risks of addiction with the use of opioids even short term should be discussed as part of every preoperative consultation. Furthermore, the patient and the provider must discuss their expectations for postoperative pain interventions for adequate pain control.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: McLawhorn J et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.09.080.

Opioid pain management should be reserved for just 21 of the 87 most common dermatologic procedures, an expert panel of dermatologists has recommended.

sdominick/iStock/Getty Images

Rotation flaps, interpolation flaps, wedge resections, cartilage alar-batten grafts, and Mustarde flaps were among the 20 procedures that can be managed with up to 10 oral oxycodone 5-mg equivalents, according to the panel. Only the Abbe procedure might warrant dispensing up to 15 oxycodone 5-mg pills, Justin McLawhorn, MD, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. The recommended amount of opioids are in addition to nonopioid analgesics, the guidelines point out.

All the other procedures can – and should – be managed with a combination of acetaminophen and ibuprofen, either alone or in an alternating dose pattern, said Dr. McLawhorn, of the department of dermatology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and coauthors.

But limited opioid prescribing is an important part of healing for patients who undergo the most invasive procedures, they wrote. “The management of complications, including adequate pain control, should be tailored to each patient on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, any pain management plan should not strictly adhere to any single guideline, but rather should be formed with consideration of the expected pain from the procedure and/or closure and consider the patient’s expectations for pain control.”

The time is ripe for dermatologists to make a stand in combating the opioid crisis, according to a group email response to questions from Dr. McLawhorn, Thomas Stasko, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, and Lindsey Collins, MD, also of the University of Oklahoma.

“The opioid crisis has reached epidemic proportions. More than 70,000 Americans have died from an opioid overdose in 2017,” they wrote. “Moreover, recent data suggest that nearly 6% of postsurgical, opioid-naive patients become long-term users of opioids. The lack of specific evidence-based recommendations likely contributes to a wide variety in prescribing patterns and a steady supply of unused opioids. Countering the opioid crisis necessitates a restructuring of the opioid prescribing practices that addresses pain in a procedure-specific manner. These recommendations are one tool in the dermatologists’ arsenal that can be used as a reference to help guide opioid management and prevent excessive opioid prescriptions at discharge following dermatologic interventions.”

Unfortunately, they added, dermatologists have inadvertently fueled the opioid abuse fire.

“It is difficult to quantify which providers are responsible for the onslaught of opioids into our communities,” the authors wrote in the email interview. “However, we can deduce, based on recent opioid prescribing patterns, that dermatologists provide approximately 500,000 unused opioid pills to their communities on an annual basis. This is the result of a wide variation in practice patterns and narratives that have been previously circulated in an attempt to mitigate the providers’ perception of the addictive nature of opioid analgesics. Our hope is that by addressing pain in a procedure-specific manner, we can help to limit the excessive number of unused opioid pills that are provided by dermatologists and ultimately decrease the rate of opioid-related complications, including addiction and death.”

Still, patients need and deserve effective pain management after a procedure. In the guidelines, the investigators wrote that a “one-size-fits-all” approach “does not account for the mechanism of pain, the invasiveness of the procedure, or the anatomic structures that are manipulated. As a result, current guidelines cannot accurately predict the quantity of opioids that are necessary to manage postoperative pain.”

The panel brought together experts in general dermatology, dermatologic surgery, cosmetics, and phlebology to develop a consensus on opioid prescribing guidelines for 87 of the most common procedures. Everyone on the panel was a member of the American College of Mohs Surgery, American Academy of Dermatology, or the American Vein and Lymphatic Society. The panel conducted a literature review to determine which procedures might require opioids and which would not. At least 75% of the panel had to agree on a reasonable but effective opioid amount; they were then polled as to whether they might employ that recommendation in their own clinical practice.

The recommendations are aimed at patients who experienced no peri- or postoperative complications.

The panel agreed that acetaminophen and ibuprofen – alone, in combination, or with opioids – were reasonable choices for all the 87 procedures. In such instances, acetaminophen 1 g can be staggered with ibuprofen 400 mg every 4 or 8 hours.

“I think providers will encounter a mixed bag of preconceived notions regarding patients’ expectations for pain control,” Dr. McLawhorn and coauthors wrote in the interview. “The important point for providers to make is to emphasize the noninferiority of acetaminophen and/or ibuprofen in controlling acute pain for patients who are not dependent on opioids for the management of chronic pain. Our experience in caring for many surgical patients has shown that patients are usually receptive to the use of nonopioid analgesics as many are familiar with their addictive potential because of the uptick in the publicity of the opioid-related complications.”

In cases where opioids might be appropriate, the panel unanimously agreed that dose limits be imposed. For 15 of the 87 procedures, the panel recommend a maximum prescription of 10 oxycodone 5-mg equivalents. Only one other – the Abbe flap – might warrant more, with a maximum of 15 oxycodone 5-mg pills at discharge.

Sometimes called a “lip switch,” the Abbe flap is reconstruction for full-thickness lip defects. It is a composite flap that moves skin, muscle, mucosa, and blood supply from the lower lip to reconstruct a defect of the upper lip. This reconstruction attempts to respect the native anatomic landmarks of the lip and allow for a better functional outcome.

“Because of the extensive nature of the repair and the anatomic territories that are manipulated, including the suturing of the lower lip to the upper lip with delayed separation, adequate pain control may require opioid analgesics in the immediate postoperative period,” the team wrote in the interview.

The panel could not agree on pain management strategies for five other procedures: Karapandzic flaps, en bloc nail excisions, facial resurfacing with deep chemical peels, and small- or large-volume liposuction. This was partly because of a lack of personal experience. Only 8 of the 40 panelists performed Karapandzic flaps. The maximum number of 5-mg oxycodone tablets any panelist prescribed for Karapandzic flaps and en bloc nail excisions was 20.

Facial resurfacing was likewise an uncommon procedure for the panel, with just 11 members performing this using deep chemical peels. However, five of those panelists said that opioids were routinely needed for postoperative pain with a maximum of 15 oxycodone 5-mg equivalents. And just four panelists performed liposuction, for which they used a maximum of 15 oxycodone 5-mg equivalents.

“However,” they wrote in the guidelines, “these providers noted that the location where the procedure is performed strongly influences the need for opioid pain management, with small-volume removal in the neck, arms, or flanks being unlikely to require opioids for adequate pain control, whereas large-volume removal in the thighs, knees, and hips may routinely require opioids.”

Addressing patient expectations is a very important part of pain management, the panel noted. “Patients will invariably experience postoperative pain after cutaneous surgeries or other interventions, often peaking within 4 hours after surgery. Wound tension, size and type of repair, anatomical location/nerve innervation, and patient pain tolerance are all factors that contribute to postoperative discomfort and should be considered when developing a postoperative pain management plan.”

Ultimately, according to Dr. McLawhorn and coauthors, the decision to use opioids at discharge for postoperative pain control should be an individual one based on patients’ comorbidities and expectations.

“Admittedly, many of the procedures listed within the recommendations may result in a rather large or complex defect that requires an equally large or complex repair,” they wrote in the interview. “However, proper education of the patient and provider regarding the risks of addiction with the use of opioids even short term should be discussed as part of every preoperative consultation. Furthermore, the patient and the provider must discuss their expectations for postoperative pain interventions for adequate pain control.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: McLawhorn J et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.09.080.

Opioid pain management should be reserved for just 21 of the 87 most common dermatologic procedures, an expert panel of dermatologists has recommended.

sdominick/iStock/Getty Images

Rotation flaps, interpolation flaps, wedge resections, cartilage alar-batten grafts, and Mustarde flaps were among the 20 procedures that can be managed with up to 10 oral oxycodone 5-mg equivalents, according to the panel. Only the Abbe procedure might warrant dispensing up to 15 oxycodone 5-mg pills, Justin McLawhorn, MD, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. The recommended amount of opioids are in addition to nonopioid analgesics, the guidelines point out.

All the other procedures can – and should – be managed with a combination of acetaminophen and ibuprofen, either alone or in an alternating dose pattern, said Dr. McLawhorn, of the department of dermatology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and coauthors.

But limited opioid prescribing is an important part of healing for patients who undergo the most invasive procedures, they wrote. “The management of complications, including adequate pain control, should be tailored to each patient on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, any pain management plan should not strictly adhere to any single guideline, but rather should be formed with consideration of the expected pain from the procedure and/or closure and consider the patient’s expectations for pain control.”

The time is ripe for dermatologists to make a stand in combating the opioid crisis, according to a group email response to questions from Dr. McLawhorn, Thomas Stasko, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, and Lindsey Collins, MD, also of the University of Oklahoma.

“The opioid crisis has reached epidemic proportions. More than 70,000 Americans have died from an opioid overdose in 2017,” they wrote. “Moreover, recent data suggest that nearly 6% of postsurgical, opioid-naive patients become long-term users of opioids. The lack of specific evidence-based recommendations likely contributes to a wide variety in prescribing patterns and a steady supply of unused opioids. Countering the opioid crisis necessitates a restructuring of the opioid prescribing practices that addresses pain in a procedure-specific manner. These recommendations are one tool in the dermatologists’ arsenal that can be used as a reference to help guide opioid management and prevent excessive opioid prescriptions at discharge following dermatologic interventions.”

Unfortunately, they added, dermatologists have inadvertently fueled the opioid abuse fire.

“It is difficult to quantify which providers are responsible for the onslaught of opioids into our communities,” the authors wrote in the email interview. “However, we can deduce, based on recent opioid prescribing patterns, that dermatologists provide approximately 500,000 unused opioid pills to their communities on an annual basis. This is the result of a wide variation in practice patterns and narratives that have been previously circulated in an attempt to mitigate the providers’ perception of the addictive nature of opioid analgesics. Our hope is that by addressing pain in a procedure-specific manner, we can help to limit the excessive number of unused opioid pills that are provided by dermatologists and ultimately decrease the rate of opioid-related complications, including addiction and death.”

Still, patients need and deserve effective pain management after a procedure. In the guidelines, the investigators wrote that a “one-size-fits-all” approach “does not account for the mechanism of pain, the invasiveness of the procedure, or the anatomic structures that are manipulated. As a result, current guidelines cannot accurately predict the quantity of opioids that are necessary to manage postoperative pain.”

The panel brought together experts in general dermatology, dermatologic surgery, cosmetics, and phlebology to develop a consensus on opioid prescribing guidelines for 87 of the most common procedures. Everyone on the panel was a member of the American College of Mohs Surgery, American Academy of Dermatology, or the American Vein and Lymphatic Society. The panel conducted a literature review to determine which procedures might require opioids and which would not. At least 75% of the panel had to agree on a reasonable but effective opioid amount; they were then polled as to whether they might employ that recommendation in their own clinical practice.

The recommendations are aimed at patients who experienced no peri- or postoperative complications.

The panel agreed that acetaminophen and ibuprofen – alone, in combination, or with opioids – were reasonable choices for all the 87 procedures. In such instances, acetaminophen 1 g can be staggered with ibuprofen 400 mg every 4 or 8 hours.

“I think providers will encounter a mixed bag of preconceived notions regarding patients’ expectations for pain control,” Dr. McLawhorn and coauthors wrote in the interview. “The important point for providers to make is to emphasize the noninferiority of acetaminophen and/or ibuprofen in controlling acute pain for patients who are not dependent on opioids for the management of chronic pain. Our experience in caring for many surgical patients has shown that patients are usually receptive to the use of nonopioid analgesics as many are familiar with their addictive potential because of the uptick in the publicity of the opioid-related complications.”

In cases where opioids might be appropriate, the panel unanimously agreed that dose limits be imposed. For 15 of the 87 procedures, the panel recommend a maximum prescription of 10 oxycodone 5-mg equivalents. Only one other – the Abbe flap – might warrant more, with a maximum of 15 oxycodone 5-mg pills at discharge.

Sometimes called a “lip switch,” the Abbe flap is reconstruction for full-thickness lip defects. It is a composite flap that moves skin, muscle, mucosa, and blood supply from the lower lip to reconstruct a defect of the upper lip. This reconstruction attempts to respect the native anatomic landmarks of the lip and allow for a better functional outcome.

“Because of the extensive nature of the repair and the anatomic territories that are manipulated, including the suturing of the lower lip to the upper lip with delayed separation, adequate pain control may require opioid analgesics in the immediate postoperative period,” the team wrote in the interview.

The panel could not agree on pain management strategies for five other procedures: Karapandzic flaps, en bloc nail excisions, facial resurfacing with deep chemical peels, and small- or large-volume liposuction. This was partly because of a lack of personal experience. Only 8 of the 40 panelists performed Karapandzic flaps. The maximum number of 5-mg oxycodone tablets any panelist prescribed for Karapandzic flaps and en bloc nail excisions was 20.

Facial resurfacing was likewise an uncommon procedure for the panel, with just 11 members performing this using deep chemical peels. However, five of those panelists said that opioids were routinely needed for postoperative pain with a maximum of 15 oxycodone 5-mg equivalents. And just four panelists performed liposuction, for which they used a maximum of 15 oxycodone 5-mg equivalents.

“However,” they wrote in the guidelines, “these providers noted that the location where the procedure is performed strongly influences the need for opioid pain management, with small-volume removal in the neck, arms, or flanks being unlikely to require opioids for adequate pain control, whereas large-volume removal in the thighs, knees, and hips may routinely require opioids.”

Addressing patient expectations is a very important part of pain management, the panel noted. “Patients will invariably experience postoperative pain after cutaneous surgeries or other interventions, often peaking within 4 hours after surgery. Wound tension, size and type of repair, anatomical location/nerve innervation, and patient pain tolerance are all factors that contribute to postoperative discomfort and should be considered when developing a postoperative pain management plan.”

Ultimately, according to Dr. McLawhorn and coauthors, the decision to use opioids at discharge for postoperative pain control should be an individual one based on patients’ comorbidities and expectations.

“Admittedly, many of the procedures listed within the recommendations may result in a rather large or complex defect that requires an equally large or complex repair,” they wrote in the interview. “However, proper education of the patient and provider regarding the risks of addiction with the use of opioids even short term should be discussed as part of every preoperative consultation. Furthermore, the patient and the provider must discuss their expectations for postoperative pain interventions for adequate pain control.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: McLawhorn J et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.09.080.

Mitchel L. Zoler’s article on Abstract A105, presented at Obesity Week 2019, addresses an important health concern and is timely.

Over the past 4 decades we have seen a rise in the prevalence of obesity and associated health complications, not just in the United States but across the world. The incidence of obesity (having a BMI greater than 30) was 35% for women and 31% for men in the United States, and associated deaths and disability were primarily attributed to diabetes and cardiovascular disease resulting from obesity.

This article references the benefits of bariatric/metabolic surgery in individuals with class 1 obesity. In the United States, more than half of those who meet the criteria for obesity come under the class 1 category (BMI, 30-34.9). Those in this class of obesity are at increased risk of developing diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, obstructive sleep apnea, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and bone and joint disorders.

There are several studies that document the significant reduction in incidence of the above cardiometabolic risks with sustained weight loss. Nonsurgical interventions in individuals with class 1 obesity through lifestyle modifications and pharmacotherapy have not demonstrated success in providing persistent weight loss or metabolic benefits. The data presented in this article are of great significance to patients and physicians alike as they highlight the long-term benefits and reversal of metabolic disorders.

Current guidelines for bariatric surgery for individuals with a BMI greater than 35 were published in 1991. Since then several safe surgical options including laparoscopic procedures, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric banding have been developed with decreased surgical risks, morbidity, and mortality.

The International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, the International Diabetes Federation, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence of the United Kingdom, have supported the option of bariatric surgery in class 1 obese individuals with metabolic disorders.

While lifestyle modifications with medications should be the first-line treatment for class 1 obesity, as a primary care physician I believe that, given the major changes in the surgical options, the proven long-term benefits, and the rising incidences of obesity and metabolic syndrome, it is time for the health care community, insurers, patients, and all other stakeholders to consider bariatric surgery in class 1 obese individuals as a potential and viable option.

Noel N. Deep, MD, is a general internist in a multispecialty group practice with Aspirus Antigo (Wis.) Clinic and the chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo. He is also assistant clinical professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Central Wisconsin Campus, Wausau, and the governor of the Wisconsin chapter of the American College of Physicians. Dr. Deep serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

He made these comments in response to questions from MDedge and had no relevant disclosures.

Mitchel L. Zoler’s article on Abstract A105, presented at Obesity Week 2019, addresses an important health concern and is timely.

Over the past 4 decades we have seen a rise in the prevalence of obesity and associated health complications, not just in the United States but across the world. The incidence of obesity (having a BMI greater than 30) was 35% for women and 31% for men in the United States, and associated deaths and disability were primarily attributed to diabetes and cardiovascular disease resulting from obesity.

This article references the benefits of bariatric/metabolic surgery in individuals with class 1 obesity. In the United States, more than half of those who meet the criteria for obesity come under the class 1 category (BMI, 30-34.9). Those in this class of obesity are at increased risk of developing diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, obstructive sleep apnea, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and bone and joint disorders.

There are several studies that document the significant reduction in incidence of the above cardiometabolic risks with sustained weight loss. Nonsurgical interventions in individuals with class 1 obesity through lifestyle modifications and pharmacotherapy have not demonstrated success in providing persistent weight loss or metabolic benefits. The data presented in this article are of great significance to patients and physicians alike as they highlight the long-term benefits and reversal of metabolic disorders.

Current guidelines for bariatric surgery for individuals with a BMI greater than 35 were published in 1991. Since then several safe surgical options including laparoscopic procedures, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric banding have been developed with decreased surgical risks, morbidity, and mortality.

The International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, the International Diabetes Federation, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence of the United Kingdom, have supported the option of bariatric surgery in class 1 obese individuals with metabolic disorders.

While lifestyle modifications with medications should be the first-line treatment for class 1 obesity, as a primary care physician I believe that, given the major changes in the surgical options, the proven long-term benefits, and the rising incidences of obesity and metabolic syndrome, it is time for the health care community, insurers, patients, and all other stakeholders to consider bariatric surgery in class 1 obese individuals as a potential and viable option.

Noel N. Deep, MD, is a general internist in a multispecialty group practice with Aspirus Antigo (Wis.) Clinic and the chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo. He is also assistant clinical professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Central Wisconsin Campus, Wausau, and the governor of the Wisconsin chapter of the American College of Physicians. Dr. Deep serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

He made these comments in response to questions from MDedge and had no relevant disclosures.

Mitchel L. Zoler’s article on Abstract A105, presented at Obesity Week 2019, addresses an important health concern and is timely.

Over the past 4 decades we have seen a rise in the prevalence of obesity and associated health complications, not just in the United States but across the world. The incidence of obesity (having a BMI greater than 30) was 35% for women and 31% for men in the United States, and associated deaths and disability were primarily attributed to diabetes and cardiovascular disease resulting from obesity.

This article references the benefits of bariatric/metabolic surgery in individuals with class 1 obesity. In the United States, more than half of those who meet the criteria for obesity come under the class 1 category (BMI, 30-34.9). Those in this class of obesity are at increased risk of developing diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, obstructive sleep apnea, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and bone and joint disorders.

There are several studies that document the significant reduction in incidence of the above cardiometabolic risks with sustained weight loss. Nonsurgical interventions in individuals with class 1 obesity through lifestyle modifications and pharmacotherapy have not demonstrated success in providing persistent weight loss or metabolic benefits. The data presented in this article are of great significance to patients and physicians alike as they highlight the long-term benefits and reversal of metabolic disorders.

Current guidelines for bariatric surgery for individuals with a BMI greater than 35 were published in 1991. Since then several safe surgical options including laparoscopic procedures, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric banding have been developed with decreased surgical risks, morbidity, and mortality.

The International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, the International Diabetes Federation, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence of the United Kingdom, have supported the option of bariatric surgery in class 1 obese individuals with metabolic disorders.

While lifestyle modifications with medications should be the first-line treatment for class 1 obesity, as a primary care physician I believe that, given the major changes in the surgical options, the proven long-term benefits, and the rising incidences of obesity and metabolic syndrome, it is time for the health care community, insurers, patients, and all other stakeholders to consider bariatric surgery in class 1 obese individuals as a potential and viable option.

Noel N. Deep, MD, is a general internist in a multispecialty group practice with Aspirus Antigo (Wis.) Clinic and the chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo. He is also assistant clinical professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Central Wisconsin Campus, Wausau, and the governor of the Wisconsin chapter of the American College of Physicians. Dr. Deep serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

He made these comments in response to questions from MDedge and had no relevant disclosures.

A new study has found that a simple screening tool can identify patients at risk of postoperative delirium (POD) after orthopedic surgery, and a prevention program can help improve staff education and outcomes.

Spotmatik/Thinkstock

“In an aging society, it is very important to develop and implement a strategy for POD prevention to ensure that aging patients are treated as safely and effectively as possible,” wrote Jung-Yeon Choi of Seoul (South Korea) National University Bundang Hospital and coauthors. The study was published in BMC Geriatrics.

To determine how to better identify and treat high-risk patients for POD after orthopedic surgery, the researchers led a retrospective cohort study that included an intervention group of participants who were aged at least 65 years (n = 275) and a control group from a year prior (n = 274). Patients in the intervention group had their risk of delirium assessed and categorized using a simple screening tool, and those deemed at risk were entered into a multicomponent delirium prevention program.

Of the 275 patients in the intervention group, 144 required screening for delirium. Ninety-nine were classified as low risk, 29 were classified as high risk, and 16 missed the screening. Fifty-three additional patients were classified as high risk because they were aged 80 years or older. During the study, 17 participants experienced POD, 16 of whom were classified as high risk. In regard to estimating POD risk, the sensitivity and specificity of the delirium screening tool were 94.1% and 72.7%, respectively. Incidence rates of POD were 10.2% in the control group and 6.2% in the intervention group.

The authors noted their study’s limitations, including its design as a retrospective review of medical records rather than a prospective randomized controlled trial. In addition, because it was conducted in just one teaching hospital, they deemed it “not possible to determine the generalizability and long-term effect of our findings.”

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Choi JY et al. BMC Geriatr. 2019 Oct 26. doi: 10.1186/s12877-019-1303-z.

A new study has found that a simple screening tool can identify patients at risk of postoperative delirium (POD) after orthopedic surgery, and a prevention program can help improve staff education and outcomes.

Spotmatik/Thinkstock

“In an aging society, it is very important to develop and implement a strategy for POD prevention to ensure that aging patients are treated as safely and effectively as possible,” wrote Jung-Yeon Choi of Seoul (South Korea) National University Bundang Hospital and coauthors. The study was published in BMC Geriatrics.

To determine how to better identify and treat high-risk patients for POD after orthopedic surgery, the researchers led a retrospective cohort study that included an intervention group of participants who were aged at least 65 years (n = 275) and a control group from a year prior (n = 274). Patients in the intervention group had their risk of delirium assessed and categorized using a simple screening tool, and those deemed at risk were entered into a multicomponent delirium prevention program.

Of the 275 patients in the intervention group, 144 required screening for delirium. Ninety-nine were classified as low risk, 29 were classified as high risk, and 16 missed the screening. Fifty-three additional patients were classified as high risk because they were aged 80 years or older. During the study, 17 participants experienced POD, 16 of whom were classified as high risk. In regard to estimating POD risk, the sensitivity and specificity of the delirium screening tool were 94.1% and 72.7%, respectively. Incidence rates of POD were 10.2% in the control group and 6.2% in the intervention group.

The authors noted their study’s limitations, including its design as a retrospective review of medical records rather than a prospective randomized controlled trial. In addition, because it was conducted in just one teaching hospital, they deemed it “not possible to determine the generalizability and long-term effect of our findings.”

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Choi JY et al. BMC Geriatr. 2019 Oct 26. doi: 10.1186/s12877-019-1303-z.

A new study has found that a simple screening tool can identify patients at risk of postoperative delirium (POD) after orthopedic surgery, and a prevention program can help improve staff education and outcomes.

Spotmatik/Thinkstock

“In an aging society, it is very important to develop and implement a strategy for POD prevention to ensure that aging patients are treated as safely and effectively as possible,” wrote Jung-Yeon Choi of Seoul (South Korea) National University Bundang Hospital and coauthors. The study was published in BMC Geriatrics.

To determine how to better identify and treat high-risk patients for POD after orthopedic surgery, the researchers led a retrospective cohort study that included an intervention group of participants who were aged at least 65 years (n = 275) and a control group from a year prior (n = 274). Patients in the intervention group had their risk of delirium assessed and categorized using a simple screening tool, and those deemed at risk were entered into a multicomponent delirium prevention program.

Of the 275 patients in the intervention group, 144 required screening for delirium. Ninety-nine were classified as low risk, 29 were classified as high risk, and 16 missed the screening. Fifty-three additional patients were classified as high risk because they were aged 80 years or older. During the study, 17 participants experienced POD, 16 of whom were classified as high risk. In regard to estimating POD risk, the sensitivity and specificity of the delirium screening tool were 94.1% and 72.7%, respectively. Incidence rates of POD were 10.2% in the control group and 6.2% in the intervention group.

The authors noted their study’s limitations, including its design as a retrospective review of medical records rather than a prospective randomized controlled trial. In addition, because it was conducted in just one teaching hospital, they deemed it “not possible to determine the generalizability and long-term effect of our findings.”

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Choi JY et al. BMC Geriatr. 2019 Oct 26. doi: 10.1186/s12877-019-1303-z.

SAN ANTONIO – Three-quarters of gastroenterologists who participated in an American College of Gastroenterology–sponsored national survey indicated they have experienced endoscopy-related musculoskeletal injuries, Swati Pawa, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Moreover, most respondents said they received zero training in ergonomic strategies for endoscopy-related injury (ERI) prevention during their fellowship training. And there’s been none since. Eighty-one percent of respondents indicated they would welcome such training, added Dr. Pawa, a gastroenterologist at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

The survey results expose a glaring unmet need in clinical practice, she said: “There have been no published guidelines from any of the major professional GI societies to date addressing how to prevent endoscopy-related injuries.”

The 38-item survey was created by the ACG Women in GI Committee and sponsored by the ACG governing board.

Among the key findings was the identification of sex differences in the types of ERIs reported, which suggests different contributory mechanisms. For example, female gastroenterologists were more likely than were their male colleagues to have experienced ERIs involving the upper back, by a margin of 49% to 36%. Upper extremity pain was more common among the women, too, with 63% reporting hand or finger pain, compared with 53% of men. Twenty-four percent of women reported carpal tunnel syndrome and an equal percentage developed tendonitis, compared with 18% and 17% of men, respectively.

Seventy-one percent of women attributed their ERI to torquing with their right hand, as did 63% of men. Women also more frequently cited having to deal with a nonadjustable bed or monitor as contributing to injury. In contrast, roughly twice as many men as women attributed their ERI to wearing a lead apron or use of the elevator on the duodenoscope.

Equally common causes of ERIs in men and women included standing in awkward positions while supporting an endoscope, standing for a long time, and adjusting tip angulation with the left hand.

Male and female gastroenterologists differed in their practice patterns. The men had been performing endoscopy for a mean of 23 years, compared with 13 years for the women. Fifty-six percent of the men were in private practice, compared with 35% of the women. In contrast, 43% of the women worked in academic settings versus 28% of the men. Thirty percent of the male gastroenterologists characterized themselves as interventional specialists, a rate more than twice that in women, who more commonly specialized in inflammatory bowel disease.

The survey was sent to nearly 16,000 ACG members. It generated a 14% response rate. Roughly two-thirds of responses were provided by male gastroenterologists.

Dr. Pawa and her coinvestigators are now drilling down through the survey data in an effort to identify an appropriate endoscopy workload limit that’s associated with reduced ERI risk.

One audience member commented, “The incidence of ERI in your survey is much higher than most of us would expect.” He speculated that response bias might be at work, with gastroenterologists who have personally experienced an ERI being perhaps more highly motivated to be among the 14% who completed the 38-question survey. Dr. Pawa replied that the survey figures are in line with other, smaller studies.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

[email protected]

SAN ANTONIO – Three-quarters of gastroenterologists who participated in an American College of Gastroenterology–sponsored national survey indicated they have experienced endoscopy-related musculoskeletal injuries, Swati Pawa, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Moreover, most respondents said they received zero training in ergonomic strategies for endoscopy-related injury (ERI) prevention during their fellowship training. And there’s been none since. Eighty-one percent of respondents indicated they would welcome such training, added Dr. Pawa, a gastroenterologist at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

The survey results expose a glaring unmet need in clinical practice, she said: “There have been no published guidelines from any of the major professional GI societies to date addressing how to prevent endoscopy-related injuries.”

The 38-item survey was created by the ACG Women in GI Committee and sponsored by the ACG governing board.

Among the key findings was the identification of sex differences in the types of ERIs reported, which suggests different contributory mechanisms. For example, female gastroenterologists were more likely than were their male colleagues to have experienced ERIs involving the upper back, by a margin of 49% to 36%. Upper extremity pain was more common among the women, too, with 63% reporting hand or finger pain, compared with 53% of men. Twenty-four percent of women reported carpal tunnel syndrome and an equal percentage developed tendonitis, compared with 18% and 17% of men, respectively.

Seventy-one percent of women attributed their ERI to torquing with their right hand, as did 63% of men. Women also more frequently cited having to deal with a nonadjustable bed or monitor as contributing to injury. In contrast, roughly twice as many men as women attributed their ERI to wearing a lead apron or use of the elevator on the duodenoscope.

Equally common causes of ERIs in men and women included standing in awkward positions while supporting an endoscope, standing for a long time, and adjusting tip angulation with the left hand.

Male and female gastroenterologists differed in their practice patterns. The men had been performing endoscopy for a mean of 23 years, compared with 13 years for the women. Fifty-six percent of the men were in private practice, compared with 35% of the women. In contrast, 43% of the women worked in academic settings versus 28% of the men. Thirty percent of the male gastroenterologists characterized themselves as interventional specialists, a rate more than twice that in women, who more commonly specialized in inflammatory bowel disease.

The survey was sent to nearly 16,000 ACG members. It generated a 14% response rate. Roughly two-thirds of responses were provided by male gastroenterologists.

Dr. Pawa and her coinvestigators are now drilling down through the survey data in an effort to identify an appropriate endoscopy workload limit that’s associated with reduced ERI risk.

One audience member commented, “The incidence of ERI in your survey is much higher than most of us would expect.” He speculated that response bias might be at work, with gastroenterologists who have personally experienced an ERI being perhaps more highly motivated to be among the 14% who completed the 38-question survey. Dr. Pawa replied that the survey figures are in line with other, smaller studies.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

[email protected]

SAN ANTONIO – Three-quarters of gastroenterologists who participated in an American College of Gastroenterology–sponsored national survey indicated they have experienced endoscopy-related musculoskeletal injuries, Swati Pawa, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Moreover, most respondents said they received zero training in ergonomic strategies for endoscopy-related injury (ERI) prevention during their fellowship training. And there’s been none since. Eighty-one percent of respondents indicated they would welcome such training, added Dr. Pawa, a gastroenterologist at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

The survey results expose a glaring unmet need in clinical practice, she said: “There have been no published guidelines from any of the major professional GI societies to date addressing how to prevent endoscopy-related injuries.”

The 38-item survey was created by the ACG Women in GI Committee and sponsored by the ACG governing board.

Among the key findings was the identification of sex differences in the types of ERIs reported, which suggests different contributory mechanisms. For example, female gastroenterologists were more likely than were their male colleagues to have experienced ERIs involving the upper back, by a margin of 49% to 36%. Upper extremity pain was more common among the women, too, with 63% reporting hand or finger pain, compared with 53% of men. Twenty-four percent of women reported carpal tunnel syndrome and an equal percentage developed tendonitis, compared with 18% and 17% of men, respectively.

Seventy-one percent of women attributed their ERI to torquing with their right hand, as did 63% of men. Women also more frequently cited having to deal with a nonadjustable bed or monitor as contributing to injury. In contrast, roughly twice as many men as women attributed their ERI to wearing a lead apron or use of the elevator on the duodenoscope.

Equally common causes of ERIs in men and women included standing in awkward positions while supporting an endoscope, standing for a long time, and adjusting tip angulation with the left hand.

Male and female gastroenterologists differed in their practice patterns. The men had been performing endoscopy for a mean of 23 years, compared with 13 years for the women. Fifty-six percent of the men were in private practice, compared with 35% of the women. In contrast, 43% of the women worked in academic settings versus 28% of the men. Thirty percent of the male gastroenterologists characterized themselves as interventional specialists, a rate more than twice that in women, who more commonly specialized in inflammatory bowel disease.

The survey was sent to nearly 16,000 ACG members. It generated a 14% response rate. Roughly two-thirds of responses were provided by male gastroenterologists.

Dr. Pawa and her coinvestigators are now drilling down through the survey data in an effort to identify an appropriate endoscopy workload limit that’s associated with reduced ERI risk.

One audience member commented, “The incidence of ERI in your survey is much higher than most of us would expect.” He speculated that response bias might be at work, with gastroenterologists who have personally experienced an ERI being perhaps more highly motivated to be among the 14% who completed the 38-question survey. Dr. Pawa replied that the survey figures are in line with other, smaller studies.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

[email protected]

The American Gastroenterological Association recently issued a clinical practice update for the management of pancreatic necrosis, including 15 recommendations based on a comprehensive literature review and the experiences of leading experts.

Recommendations range from the general, such as the need for a multidisciplinary approach, to the specific, such as the superiority of metal over plastic stents for endoscopic transmural drainage.

The expert review, which was conducted by lead author Todd H. Baron, MD, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill and three other colleagues, was vetted by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board. In addition, the update underwent external peer review prior to publication in Gastroenterology.

In the update, the authors outlined the clinical landscape for pancreatic necrosis, including challenges posed by complex cases and a mortality rate as high as 30%.

“Successful management of these patients requires expert multidisciplinary care by gastroenterologists, surgeons, interventional radiologists, and specialists in critical care medicine, infectious disease, and nutrition,” the investigators wrote.

They went on to explain how management has evolved over the past 10 years.

“Whereby major surgical intervention and debridement was once the mainstay of therapy for patients with symptomatic necrotic collections, a minimally invasive approach focusing on percutaneous drainage and/or endoscopic drainage or debridement is now favored,” they wrote. They added that debridement is still generally agreed to be the best choice for cases of infected necrosis or patients with sterile necrosis “marked by abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and nutritional failure or with associated complications including gastrointestinal luminal obstruction, biliary obstruction, recurrent acute pancreatitis, fistulas, or persistent systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).”

Other elements of care, however, remain debated, the investigators noted, which has led to variations in multiple aspects of care, such as interventional timing, intravenous fluids, antibiotics, and nutrition. Within this framework, the present practice update is aimed at offering “concise best practice advice for the optimal management of patients with this highly morbid condition.”

Among these pieces of advice, the authors emphasized that routine prophylactic antibiotics and/or antifungals to prevent infected necrosis are unsupported by multiple clinical trials. When infection is suspected, the update recommends broad spectrum intravenous antibiotics, noting that, in most cases, it is unnecessary to perform CT-guided fine-needle aspiration for cultures and gram stain.

Regarding nutrition, the update recommends against “pancreatic rest”; instead, it calls for early oral intake and, if this is not possible, then initiation of total enteral nutrition. Although the authors deemed multiple routes of enteral feeding acceptable, they favored nasogastric or nasoduodenal tubes, when appropriate, because of ease of placement and maintenance. For prolonged total enteral nutrition or patients unable to tolerate nasoenteric feeding, the authors recommended endoscopic feeding tube placement with a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube for those who can tolerate gastric feeding or a percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tube for those who cannot or have a high risk of aspiration.

As described above, the update recommends debridement for cases of infected pancreatic necrosis. Ideally, this should be performed at least 4 weeks after onset, and avoided altogether within the first 2 weeks, because of associated risks of morbidity and mortality; instead, during this acute phase, percutaneous drainage may be considered.

For walled-off pancreatic necrosis, the authors recommended transmural drainage via endoscopic therapy because this mitigates risk of pancreatocutaneous fistula. Percutaneous drainage may be considered in addition to, or in absence of, endoscopic drainage, depending on clinical status.

The remainder of the update covers decisions related to stents, other minimally invasive techniques, open operative debridement, and disconnected left pancreatic remnants, along with discussions of key supporting clinical trials.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Cook Endoscopy, Boston Scientific, Olympus, and others.

SOURCE: Baron TH et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Aug 31. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.07.064.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently issued a clinical practice update for the management of pancreatic necrosis, including 15 recommendations based on a comprehensive literature review and the experiences of leading experts.

Recommendations range from the general, such as the need for a multidisciplinary approach, to the specific, such as the superiority of metal over plastic stents for endoscopic transmural drainage.

The expert review, which was conducted by lead author Todd H. Baron, MD, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill and three other colleagues, was vetted by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board. In addition, the update underwent external peer review prior to publication in Gastroenterology.

In the update, the authors outlined the clinical landscape for pancreatic necrosis, including challenges posed by complex cases and a mortality rate as high as 30%.

“Successful management of these patients requires expert multidisciplinary care by gastroenterologists, surgeons, interventional radiologists, and specialists in critical care medicine, infectious disease, and nutrition,” the investigators wrote.

They went on to explain how management has evolved over the past 10 years.

“Whereby major surgical intervention and debridement was once the mainstay of therapy for patients with symptomatic necrotic collections, a minimally invasive approach focusing on percutaneous drainage and/or endoscopic drainage or debridement is now favored,” they wrote. They added that debridement is still generally agreed to be the best choice for cases of infected necrosis or patients with sterile necrosis “marked by abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and nutritional failure or with associated complications including gastrointestinal luminal obstruction, biliary obstruction, recurrent acute pancreatitis, fistulas, or persistent systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).”

Other elements of care, however, remain debated, the investigators noted, which has led to variations in multiple aspects of care, such as interventional timing, intravenous fluids, antibiotics, and nutrition. Within this framework, the present practice update is aimed at offering “concise best practice advice for the optimal management of patients with this highly morbid condition.”

Among these pieces of advice, the authors emphasized that routine prophylactic antibiotics and/or antifungals to prevent infected necrosis are unsupported by multiple clinical trials. When infection is suspected, the update recommends broad spectrum intravenous antibiotics, noting that, in most cases, it is unnecessary to perform CT-guided fine-needle aspiration for cultures and gram stain.

Regarding nutrition, the update recommends against “pancreatic rest”; instead, it calls for early oral intake and, if this is not possible, then initiation of total enteral nutrition. Although the authors deemed multiple routes of enteral feeding acceptable, they favored nasogastric or nasoduodenal tubes, when appropriate, because of ease of placement and maintenance. For prolonged total enteral nutrition or patients unable to tolerate nasoenteric feeding, the authors recommended endoscopic feeding tube placement with a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube for those who can tolerate gastric feeding or a percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tube for those who cannot or have a high risk of aspiration.

As described above, the update recommends debridement for cases of infected pancreatic necrosis. Ideally, this should be performed at least 4 weeks after onset, and avoided altogether within the first 2 weeks, because of associated risks of morbidity and mortality; instead, during this acute phase, percutaneous drainage may be considered.

For walled-off pancreatic necrosis, the authors recommended transmural drainage via endoscopic therapy because this mitigates risk of pancreatocutaneous fistula. Percutaneous drainage may be considered in addition to, or in absence of, endoscopic drainage, depending on clinical status.

The remainder of the update covers decisions related to stents, other minimally invasive techniques, open operative debridement, and disconnected left pancreatic remnants, along with discussions of key supporting clinical trials.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Cook Endoscopy, Boston Scientific, Olympus, and others.

SOURCE: Baron TH et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Aug 31. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.07.064.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently issued a clinical practice update for the management of pancreatic necrosis, including 15 recommendations based on a comprehensive literature review and the experiences of leading experts.

Recommendations range from the general, such as the need for a multidisciplinary approach, to the specific, such as the superiority of metal over plastic stents for endoscopic transmural drainage.

The expert review, which was conducted by lead author Todd H. Baron, MD, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill and three other colleagues, was vetted by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board. In addition, the update underwent external peer review prior to publication in Gastroenterology.

In the update, the authors outlined the clinical landscape for pancreatic necrosis, including challenges posed by complex cases and a mortality rate as high as 30%.

“Successful management of these patients requires expert multidisciplinary care by gastroenterologists, surgeons, interventional radiologists, and specialists in critical care medicine, infectious disease, and nutrition,” the investigators wrote.

They went on to explain how management has evolved over the past 10 years.

“Whereby major surgical intervention and debridement was once the mainstay of therapy for patients with symptomatic necrotic collections, a minimally invasive approach focusing on percutaneous drainage and/or endoscopic drainage or debridement is now favored,” they wrote. They added that debridement is still generally agreed to be the best choice for cases of infected necrosis or patients with sterile necrosis “marked by abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and nutritional failure or with associated complications including gastrointestinal luminal obstruction, biliary obstruction, recurrent acute pancreatitis, fistulas, or persistent systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).”

Other elements of care, however, remain debated, the investigators noted, which has led to variations in multiple aspects of care, such as interventional timing, intravenous fluids, antibiotics, and nutrition. Within this framework, the present practice update is aimed at offering “concise best practice advice for the optimal management of patients with this highly morbid condition.”

Among these pieces of advice, the authors emphasized that routine prophylactic antibiotics and/or antifungals to prevent infected necrosis are unsupported by multiple clinical trials. When infection is suspected, the update recommends broad spectrum intravenous antibiotics, noting that, in most cases, it is unnecessary to perform CT-guided fine-needle aspiration for cultures and gram stain.

Regarding nutrition, the update recommends against “pancreatic rest”; instead, it calls for early oral intake and, if this is not possible, then initiation of total enteral nutrition. Although the authors deemed multiple routes of enteral feeding acceptable, they favored nasogastric or nasoduodenal tubes, when appropriate, because of ease of placement and maintenance. For prolonged total enteral nutrition or patients unable to tolerate nasoenteric feeding, the authors recommended endoscopic feeding tube placement with a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube for those who can tolerate gastric feeding or a percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tube for those who cannot or have a high risk of aspiration.

As described above, the update recommends debridement for cases of infected pancreatic necrosis. Ideally, this should be performed at least 4 weeks after onset, and avoided altogether within the first 2 weeks, because of associated risks of morbidity and mortality; instead, during this acute phase, percutaneous drainage may be considered.

For walled-off pancreatic necrosis, the authors recommended transmural drainage via endoscopic therapy because this mitigates risk of pancreatocutaneous fistula. Percutaneous drainage may be considered in addition to, or in absence of, endoscopic drainage, depending on clinical status.

The remainder of the update covers decisions related to stents, other minimally invasive techniques, open operative debridement, and disconnected left pancreatic remnants, along with discussions of key supporting clinical trials.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Cook Endoscopy, Boston Scientific, Olympus, and others.

SOURCE: Baron TH et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Aug 31. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.07.064.

NEW YORK – Published 12 months apart, guidelines on management of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) from the European Society for Vascular Surgery are similar but diverged in instructive ways from those of the Society for Vascular Surgery, according to a critical review at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. “Some of the differences were almost unavoidable in the sense that the ESVS guidelines represent multiple idiosyncratic health care systems across Europe,” reported Ronald L. Dalman, MD, chief of vascular surgery, Stanford (Calif.) University.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

As a result, the ESVS guidelines provide very little specificity about pharmacologic options because of the differences in availability of these treatments within specific health systems. In addition, both open and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are given similar emphasis because of the limited availability of EVAR in some parts of Europe.

“The ESVS guidelines specifically recommend repair of an aneurysm within 8 weeks when repair is indicated, but there are not many aneurysms that go 8 weeks in the U.S. without being fixed by a fee-for-service surgeon,” Dr. Dalman observed.

The SVS AAA guidelines were published in January 2018 (J Vasc Surg 2018;67:2-77) and the ESVS guidelines followed 1 year later (Eur J Vasc Surg 2019;57:8-93).

The differences in the guidelines, although modest, are interesting because each set of guidelines was based largely on the same set of trials and published studies, according to Dr. Dalman, who was a coauthor of the SVS guidelines and an external reviewer for the ESVS guidelines.

In the lag between completion of the two guidelines, new information led to three ESVS additions not found in the SVS guidelines, according to Dr. Dalman. They involved the importance of considering aneurysm diameter as a prognostic factor, new understanding of the limitations on endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS), and new information about how aneurysm size should affect frequency of surveillance.

Overall, the U.S. guidelines contain 111 recommendations based on 177 references, while the ESVS guidelines contain 125 guidelines based on 189 references. In retrospect, Dr. Dalman believes both sets of guidelines omitted some clinically meaningful information, such as the risk of large-diameter devices for causing endoleaks.

The authors of the ESVS guidelines did have an opportunity to review of a draft of the SVS guidelines, so differences can be interpreted as intentional. For example, the SVS guidelines recommend risk calculators, but Dr. Dalman suggested that the authors of the ESVS guidelines were less convinced that their utility was established.

The decision not to recommend a door-to-treatment time for ruptured aneurysms, as in the SVS recommendations, might have been in deference to disparate practice across European countries, Dr. Dalman suggested.

Ultimately, the guidelines are “substantially similar,” according to Dr. Dalman, but he expressed concerned that neither guideline is accompanied by a specific mechanism or recommended strategy to ensure implementation.

Many of the SVS recommendations are likely to be translated into quality metrics at U.S. institutions, but “there are implementation issues” for ensuring that each guideline is applied, Dr. Dalman said.

Given the agreement on the vast majority of the recommendations, Dr. Dalman suggested that “it might be time to consider global guidelines” for management of AAA and other vascular diseases. Some type of language might be required to accommodate divergent resources or practices across borders, but Dr. Dalman questioned the need to review the same literature to arrive at mostly the same conclusions.

NEW YORK – Published 12 months apart, guidelines on management of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) from the European Society for Vascular Surgery are similar but diverged in instructive ways from those of the Society for Vascular Surgery, according to a critical review at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. “Some of the differences were almost unavoidable in the sense that the ESVS guidelines represent multiple idiosyncratic health care systems across Europe,” reported Ronald L. Dalman, MD, chief of vascular surgery, Stanford (Calif.) University.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

As a result, the ESVS guidelines provide very little specificity about pharmacologic options because of the differences in availability of these treatments within specific health systems. In addition, both open and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are given similar emphasis because of the limited availability of EVAR in some parts of Europe.

“The ESVS guidelines specifically recommend repair of an aneurysm within 8 weeks when repair is indicated, but there are not many aneurysms that go 8 weeks in the U.S. without being fixed by a fee-for-service surgeon,” Dr. Dalman observed.

The SVS AAA guidelines were published in January 2018 (J Vasc Surg 2018;67:2-77) and the ESVS guidelines followed 1 year later (Eur J Vasc Surg 2019;57:8-93).

The differences in the guidelines, although modest, are interesting because each set of guidelines was based largely on the same set of trials and published studies, according to Dr. Dalman, who was a coauthor of the SVS guidelines and an external reviewer for the ESVS guidelines.

In the lag between completion of the two guidelines, new information led to three ESVS additions not found in the SVS guidelines, according to Dr. Dalman. They involved the importance of considering aneurysm diameter as a prognostic factor, new understanding of the limitations on endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS), and new information about how aneurysm size should affect frequency of surveillance.

Overall, the U.S. guidelines contain 111 recommendations based on 177 references, while the ESVS guidelines contain 125 guidelines based on 189 references. In retrospect, Dr. Dalman believes both sets of guidelines omitted some clinically meaningful information, such as the risk of large-diameter devices for causing endoleaks.

The authors of the ESVS guidelines did have an opportunity to review of a draft of the SVS guidelines, so differences can be interpreted as intentional. For example, the SVS guidelines recommend risk calculators, but Dr. Dalman suggested that the authors of the ESVS guidelines were less convinced that their utility was established.

The decision not to recommend a door-to-treatment time for ruptured aneurysms, as in the SVS recommendations, might have been in deference to disparate practice across European countries, Dr. Dalman suggested.

Ultimately, the guidelines are “substantially similar,” according to Dr. Dalman, but he expressed concerned that neither guideline is accompanied by a specific mechanism or recommended strategy to ensure implementation.

Many of the SVS recommendations are likely to be translated into quality metrics at U.S. institutions, but “there are implementation issues” for ensuring that each guideline is applied, Dr. Dalman said.

Given the agreement on the vast majority of the recommendations, Dr. Dalman suggested that “it might be time to consider global guidelines” for management of AAA and other vascular diseases. Some type of language might be required to accommodate divergent resources or practices across borders, but Dr. Dalman questioned the need to review the same literature to arrive at mostly the same conclusions.

NEW YORK – Published 12 months apart, guidelines on management of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) from the European Society for Vascular Surgery are similar but diverged in instructive ways from those of the Society for Vascular Surgery, according to a critical review at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. “Some of the differences were almost unavoidable in the sense that the ESVS guidelines represent multiple idiosyncratic health care systems across Europe,” reported Ronald L. Dalman, MD, chief of vascular surgery, Stanford (Calif.) University.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

As a result, the ESVS guidelines provide very little specificity about pharmacologic options because of the differences in availability of these treatments within specific health systems. In addition, both open and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are given similar emphasis because of the limited availability of EVAR in some parts of Europe.

“The ESVS guidelines specifically recommend repair of an aneurysm within 8 weeks when repair is indicated, but there are not many aneurysms that go 8 weeks in the U.S. without being fixed by a fee-for-service surgeon,” Dr. Dalman observed.

The SVS AAA guidelines were published in January 2018 (J Vasc Surg 2018;67:2-77) and the ESVS guidelines followed 1 year later (Eur J Vasc Surg 2019;57:8-93).

The differences in the guidelines, although modest, are interesting because each set of guidelines was based largely on the same set of trials and published studies, according to Dr. Dalman, who was a coauthor of the SVS guidelines and an external reviewer for the ESVS guidelines.

In the lag between completion of the two guidelines, new information led to three ESVS additions not found in the SVS guidelines, according to Dr. Dalman. They involved the importance of considering aneurysm diameter as a prognostic factor, new understanding of the limitations on endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS), and new information about how aneurysm size should affect frequency of surveillance.

Overall, the U.S. guidelines contain 111 recommendations based on 177 references, while the ESVS guidelines contain 125 guidelines based on 189 references. In retrospect, Dr. Dalman believes both sets of guidelines omitted some clinically meaningful information, such as the risk of large-diameter devices for causing endoleaks.

The authors of the ESVS guidelines did have an opportunity to review of a draft of the SVS guidelines, so differences can be interpreted as intentional. For example, the SVS guidelines recommend risk calculators, but Dr. Dalman suggested that the authors of the ESVS guidelines were less convinced that their utility was established.

The decision not to recommend a door-to-treatment time for ruptured aneurysms, as in the SVS recommendations, might have been in deference to disparate practice across European countries, Dr. Dalman suggested.

Ultimately, the guidelines are “substantially similar,” according to Dr. Dalman, but he expressed concerned that neither guideline is accompanied by a specific mechanism or recommended strategy to ensure implementation.

Many of the SVS recommendations are likely to be translated into quality metrics at U.S. institutions, but “there are implementation issues” for ensuring that each guideline is applied, Dr. Dalman said.

Given the agreement on the vast majority of the recommendations, Dr. Dalman suggested that “it might be time to consider global guidelines” for management of AAA and other vascular diseases. Some type of language might be required to accommodate divergent resources or practices across borders, but Dr. Dalman questioned the need to review the same literature to arrive at mostly the same conclusions.

VANCOUVER – A retrospective analysis of women who became pregnant after undergoing laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (Lap-RFA) of symptomatic myomas found no evidence that the procedure negatively impacted pregnancy or birth outcomes, according to Jay Berman, MD.

The procedure is a minimally invasive alternative to myomectomy, hysterectomy, and other surgical techniques, with minimal scarring and quick recovery. But the pivotal trials excluded women who were planning to become pregnant, and the Food and Drug Administration recommends against its use in women planning a future pregnancy because of the lack of safety and efficacy data in that population.

The procedure, which gained FDA approval in 2016, combines laparoscopic ultrasound with targeted radiofrequency to heat fibroids, which then shrink over the next few months. “There have been a lot of questions from infertility specialists regarding whether Lap-RFA can be applied to their patients because there’s very little scarring and a quick return to work. It’s really a very nice outpatient procedure for dealing with fibroids,” Dr. Berman said in an interview.

There is natural concern, however, because clinicians are uncomfortable exposing women to a pregnancy risk. “I think there’s concern from many gynecologists and reproductive endocrinologists on the pregnancy outcomes following fibroid therapy, whatever that happens to be – traditional open laparoscopic myomectomy, robotic myomectomy, all of those kinds of therapies. We were interested in looking at pregnancy outcomes following [RFA for fibroids] and whether or not C-sections would need to be recommended, similar to what you see following myomectomy, where if you enter the cavity or go through more than half of the myometrium, you recommend a C-section for that patient in subsequent pregnancies,” said Dr. Berman, who is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Wayne State University, Detroit.

Early case studies, mostly done in Mexico and Guatemala, found the uteri of women to be normal following Lap-RFA, he said.

The results of this study are encouraging, but are far from the final word, as the data are retrospective and small. Acessa, which provided statistical analysis for the current work, is planning a prospective study. “I don’t think there’s enough to say that the labeling should be changed, but we’re moving in that direction. There needs to be a lot more information,” Dr. Berman said at the meeting sponsored by AAGL.

The study combined data from two randomized, controlled trials in the United States and Germany; six cohort studies in the United States, Germany, and Latin America; and commercial procedures performed in the United States. The researchers relied on standardized case reports that focused primarily on maternal and infant safety, and the mode of delivery. They collected data from 38 women (mean age, 36 years) who had fibroids types 1-6 that were of a maximum 0.2-13 cm in diameter. In 19 cases, it was 5.5 cm or smaller. The number of fibroids treated ranged from 1 to 31; 19 women had one or two fibroids treated.

There were a total of 43 pregnancies, 32 of which resulted in full-term live births (74%) and there was 1 preterm birth (2.3%). All infants were healthy, and there 19 vaginal births and 13 C-sections. The reasons for the C-sections were previous C-sections or obstetric indications, such as unusual bleeding, nonprogression of labor, or abnormal fetal heartbeat. There were eight spontaneous abortions (19%) and one therapeutic abortion (2.3%), and one pregnancy was ongoing (2.3%).

Dr. Berman has been a consultant for Acessa Health, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Abbvie. He has been on the speakers bureau for Acessa, Merck, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abbvie, and Lupin. He has performed contracted research for Acessa, Bayer, Allergan, and Obseva.

VANCOUVER – A retrospective analysis of women who became pregnant after undergoing laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (Lap-RFA) of symptomatic myomas found no evidence that the procedure negatively impacted pregnancy or birth outcomes, according to Jay Berman, MD.

The procedure is a minimally invasive alternative to myomectomy, hysterectomy, and other surgical techniques, with minimal scarring and quick recovery. But the pivotal trials excluded women who were planning to become pregnant, and the Food and Drug Administration recommends against its use in women planning a future pregnancy because of the lack of safety and efficacy data in that population.

The procedure, which gained FDA approval in 2016, combines laparoscopic ultrasound with targeted radiofrequency to heat fibroids, which then shrink over the next few months. “There have been a lot of questions from infertility specialists regarding whether Lap-RFA can be applied to their patients because there’s very little scarring and a quick return to work. It’s really a very nice outpatient procedure for dealing with fibroids,” Dr. Berman said in an interview.

There is natural concern, however, because clinicians are uncomfortable exposing women to a pregnancy risk. “I think there’s concern from many gynecologists and reproductive endocrinologists on the pregnancy outcomes following fibroid therapy, whatever that happens to be – traditional open laparoscopic myomectomy, robotic myomectomy, all of those kinds of therapies. We were interested in looking at pregnancy outcomes following [RFA for fibroids] and whether or not C-sections would need to be recommended, similar to what you see following myomectomy, where if you enter the cavity or go through more than half of the myometrium, you recommend a C-section for that patient in subsequent pregnancies,” said Dr. Berman, who is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Wayne State University, Detroit.

Early case studies, mostly done in Mexico and Guatemala, found the uteri of women to be normal following Lap-RFA, he said.

The results of this study are encouraging, but are far from the final word, as the data are retrospective and small. Acessa, which provided statistical analysis for the current work, is planning a prospective study. “I don’t think there’s enough to say that the labeling should be changed, but we’re moving in that direction. There needs to be a lot more information,” Dr. Berman said at the meeting sponsored by AAGL.

The study combined data from two randomized, controlled trials in the United States and Germany; six cohort studies in the United States, Germany, and Latin America; and commercial procedures performed in the United States. The researchers relied on standardized case reports that focused primarily on maternal and infant safety, and the mode of delivery. They collected data from 38 women (mean age, 36 years) who had fibroids types 1-6 that were of a maximum 0.2-13 cm in diameter. In 19 cases, it was 5.5 cm or smaller. The number of fibroids treated ranged from 1 to 31; 19 women had one or two fibroids treated.

There were a total of 43 pregnancies, 32 of which resulted in full-term live births (74%) and there was 1 preterm birth (2.3%). All infants were healthy, and there 19 vaginal births and 13 C-sections. The reasons for the C-sections were previous C-sections or obstetric indications, such as unusual bleeding, nonprogression of labor, or abnormal fetal heartbeat. There were eight spontaneous abortions (19%) and one therapeutic abortion (2.3%), and one pregnancy was ongoing (2.3%).

Dr. Berman has been a consultant for Acessa Health, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Abbvie. He has been on the speakers bureau for Acessa, Merck, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abbvie, and Lupin. He has performed contracted research for Acessa, Bayer, Allergan, and Obseva.

VANCOUVER – A retrospective analysis of women who became pregnant after undergoing laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (Lap-RFA) of symptomatic myomas found no evidence that the procedure negatively impacted pregnancy or birth outcomes, according to Jay Berman, MD.

The procedure is a minimally invasive alternative to myomectomy, hysterectomy, and other surgical techniques, with minimal scarring and quick recovery. But the pivotal trials excluded women who were planning to become pregnant, and the Food and Drug Administration recommends against its use in women planning a future pregnancy because of the lack of safety and efficacy data in that population.

The procedure, which gained FDA approval in 2016, combines laparoscopic ultrasound with targeted radiofrequency to heat fibroids, which then shrink over the next few months. “There have been a lot of questions from infertility specialists regarding whether Lap-RFA can be applied to their patients because there’s very little scarring and a quick return to work. It’s really a very nice outpatient procedure for dealing with fibroids,” Dr. Berman said in an interview.

There is natural concern, however, because clinicians are uncomfortable exposing women to a pregnancy risk. “I think there’s concern from many gynecologists and reproductive endocrinologists on the pregnancy outcomes following fibroid therapy, whatever that happens to be – traditional open laparoscopic myomectomy, robotic myomectomy, all of those kinds of therapies. We were interested in looking at pregnancy outcomes following [RFA for fibroids] and whether or not C-sections would need to be recommended, similar to what you see following myomectomy, where if you enter the cavity or go through more than half of the myometrium, you recommend a C-section for that patient in subsequent pregnancies,” said Dr. Berman, who is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Wayne State University, Detroit.

Early case studies, mostly done in Mexico and Guatemala, found the uteri of women to be normal following Lap-RFA, he said.

The results of this study are encouraging, but are far from the final word, as the data are retrospective and small. Acessa, which provided statistical analysis for the current work, is planning a prospective study. “I don’t think there’s enough to say that the labeling should be changed, but we’re moving in that direction. There needs to be a lot more information,” Dr. Berman said at the meeting sponsored by AAGL.

The study combined data from two randomized, controlled trials in the United States and Germany; six cohort studies in the United States, Germany, and Latin America; and commercial procedures performed in the United States. The researchers relied on standardized case reports that focused primarily on maternal and infant safety, and the mode of delivery. They collected data from 38 women (mean age, 36 years) who had fibroids types 1-6 that were of a maximum 0.2-13 cm in diameter. In 19 cases, it was 5.5 cm or smaller. The number of fibroids treated ranged from 1 to 31; 19 women had one or two fibroids treated.

There were a total of 43 pregnancies, 32 of which resulted in full-term live births (74%) and there was 1 preterm birth (2.3%). All infants were healthy, and there 19 vaginal births and 13 C-sections. The reasons for the C-sections were previous C-sections or obstetric indications, such as unusual bleeding, nonprogression of labor, or abnormal fetal heartbeat. There were eight spontaneous abortions (19%) and one therapeutic abortion (2.3%), and one pregnancy was ongoing (2.3%).

Dr. Berman has been a consultant for Acessa Health, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Abbvie. He has been on the speakers bureau for Acessa, Merck, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abbvie, and Lupin. He has performed contracted research for Acessa, Bayer, Allergan, and Obseva.

VANCOUVER – Presurgical ultrasound does a good job predicting advanced versus early American Society of Reproductive Medicine endometriosis stage, and that can help ensure that a patient gets to the right surgeon.

Researchers retrospectively collected data from ultrasounds, using it to create an ASRM stage, and compared the results with the stage seen at surgery. “We’re very good at telling people what they should expect at surgery,” said Mathew Leonardi, MD, who is a gynecologist at the University of Sydney’s Nepean Hospital.

The researchers conducted the study because of perceived mistrust among surgeons when it comes to presurgical imaging. “There is still a lot of cynicism and a lot of hesitancy to adopt this,” Dr. Leonardi said at the meeting sponsored by AAGL. He was unapologetic about the activist nature of the research. “We thought, what better way [to convince surgeons] than to produce an ultrasound-based ASRM scoring system to then match to the surgical findings, because if we can predict the ASRM score preoperatively, there may be more buy-in by the surgeons for the value of imaging.”

He noted that surgeons differ in their training, so getting the patient to the right surgeon is critical. “If you go to a gynecologist who is not minimally invasive trained, you may [end up with] an abandoned surgery, or an incomplete surgical excision leading to residual disease. So being able to predict the severity of the disease preoperatively, you can allow the patient to get to the right surgeon with the right team members.”

The analysis included 204 procedures performed between January 2016 and April 2018. Participants underwent deep endometriosis transvaginal ultrasound at one of two tertiary referral service centers, and laparoscopy by surgeons in the Sydney metropolitan area. Each case was received as a ASRM score of 0-4 at both ultrasound and surgery, and scores of 0-2 and 3-4 were grouped together for analysis.

“We grouped patients that have ASRM 3-4 into one group and those who have less than that [into another group], because clinically that seems to be where the most practical divide is,” said Dr. Leonardi.

It was difficult to differentiate individual ASRM stages from one another using ultrasound, but the technique performed much better in the combined analysis. In assigning a patient to the ASRM stage 0-2 endometriosis group, it had 94.9% sensitivity and 93.8% specificity, and for assigning to ASRM stage 3-4, it had values of 93.8% and 94.9%, respectively.

The success is encouraging, but there is more work to be done. “We are going to have to differentiate those with early-stage endometriosis or stage 1-2, and those that are negative. We are working on being able to identify superficial endometriosis noninvasively, but for now, as a triaging tool ultrasound can get the patient to the right surgeon,” Dr. Leonardi said.

Dr. Leonardi reported no relevant financial disclosures

VANCOUVER – Presurgical ultrasound does a good job predicting advanced versus early American Society of Reproductive Medicine endometriosis stage, and that can help ensure that a patient gets to the right surgeon.

Researchers retrospectively collected data from ultrasounds, using it to create an ASRM stage, and compared the results with the stage seen at surgery. “We’re very good at telling people what they should expect at surgery,” said Mathew Leonardi, MD, who is a gynecologist at the University of Sydney’s Nepean Hospital.

The researchers conducted the study because of perceived mistrust among surgeons when it comes to presurgical imaging. “There is still a lot of cynicism and a lot of hesitancy to adopt this,” Dr. Leonardi said at the meeting sponsored by AAGL. He was unapologetic about the activist nature of the research. “We thought, what better way [to convince surgeons] than to produce an ultrasound-based ASRM scoring system to then match to the surgical findings, because if we can predict the ASRM score preoperatively, there may be more buy-in by the surgeons for the value of imaging.”

He noted that surgeons differ in their training, so getting the patient to the right surgeon is critical. “If you go to a gynecologist who is not minimally invasive trained, you may [end up with] an abandoned surgery, or an incomplete surgical excision leading to residual disease. So being able to predict the severity of the disease preoperatively, you can allow the patient to get to the right surgeon with the right team members.”

The analysis included 204 procedures performed between January 2016 and April 2018. Participants underwent deep endometriosis transvaginal ultrasound at one of two tertiary referral service centers, and laparoscopy by surgeons in the Sydney metropolitan area. Each case was received as a ASRM score of 0-4 at both ultrasound and surgery, and scores of 0-2 and 3-4 were grouped together for analysis.

“We grouped patients that have ASRM 3-4 into one group and those who have less than that [into another group], because clinically that seems to be where the most practical divide is,” said Dr. Leonardi.

It was difficult to differentiate individual ASRM stages from one another using ultrasound, but the technique performed much better in the combined analysis. In assigning a patient to the ASRM stage 0-2 endometriosis group, it had 94.9% sensitivity and 93.8% specificity, and for assigning to ASRM stage 3-4, it had values of 93.8% and 94.9%, respectively.

The success is encouraging, but there is more work to be done. “We are going to have to differentiate those with early-stage endometriosis or stage 1-2, and those that are negative. We are working on being able to identify superficial endometriosis noninvasively, but for now, as a triaging tool ultrasound can get the patient to the right surgeon,” Dr. Leonardi said.

Dr. Leonardi reported no relevant financial disclosures

VANCOUVER – Presurgical ultrasound does a good job predicting advanced versus early American Society of Reproductive Medicine endometriosis stage, and that can help ensure that a patient gets to the right surgeon.

Researchers retrospectively collected data from ultrasounds, using it to create an ASRM stage, and compared the results with the stage seen at surgery. “We’re very good at telling people what they should expect at surgery,” said Mathew Leonardi, MD, who is a gynecologist at the University of Sydney’s Nepean Hospital.

The researchers conducted the study because of perceived mistrust among surgeons when it comes to presurgical imaging. “There is still a lot of cynicism and a lot of hesitancy to adopt this,” Dr. Leonardi said at the meeting sponsored by AAGL. He was unapologetic about the activist nature of the research. “We thought, what better way [to convince surgeons] than to produce an ultrasound-based ASRM scoring system to then match to the surgical findings, because if we can predict the ASRM score preoperatively, there may be more buy-in by the surgeons for the value of imaging.”

He noted that surgeons differ in their training, so getting the patient to the right surgeon is critical. “If you go to a gynecologist who is not minimally invasive trained, you may [end up with] an abandoned surgery, or an incomplete surgical excision leading to residual disease. So being able to predict the severity of the disease preoperatively, you can allow the patient to get to the right surgeon with the right team members.”

The analysis included 204 procedures performed between January 2016 and April 2018. Participants underwent deep endometriosis transvaginal ultrasound at one of two tertiary referral service centers, and laparoscopy by surgeons in the Sydney metropolitan area. Each case was received as a ASRM score of 0-4 at both ultrasound and surgery, and scores of 0-2 and 3-4 were grouped together for analysis.

“We grouped patients that have ASRM 3-4 into one group and those who have less than that [into another group], because clinically that seems to be where the most practical divide is,” said Dr. Leonardi.

It was difficult to differentiate individual ASRM stages from one another using ultrasound, but the technique performed much better in the combined analysis. In assigning a patient to the ASRM stage 0-2 endometriosis group, it had 94.9% sensitivity and 93.8% specificity, and for assigning to ASRM stage 3-4, it had values of 93.8% and 94.9%, respectively.

The success is encouraging, but there is more work to be done. “We are going to have to differentiate those with early-stage endometriosis or stage 1-2, and those that are negative. We are working on being able to identify superficial endometriosis noninvasively, but for now, as a triaging tool ultrasound can get the patient to the right surgeon,” Dr. Leonardi said.

Dr. Leonardi reported no relevant financial disclosures