التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
| العنوان: |
Comparison of on-demand vs planned relaparotomy strategy in patients with severe peritonitis: a randomized trial. |
| المؤلفون: |
van Ruler O, Mahler CW, Boer KR, Reuland EA, Gooszen HG, Opmeer BC, de Graaf PW, Lamme B, Gerhards MF, Steller EP, van Till JWO, de Borgie CJA, Gouma DJ, Reitsma JB, Boermeester MA, Dutch Peritonitis Study Group, van Ruler, Oddeke, Mahler, Cecilia W, Boer, Kimberly R, Reuland, E Ascelijn |
| المصدر: |
JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association; 8/22/2007, Vol. 298 Issue 8, p865-873, 9p |
| مستخلص: |
Context: In patients with severe secondary peritonitis, there are 2 surgical treatment strategies following an initial emergency laparotomy: planned relaparotomy and relaparotomy only when the patient's condition demands it ("on-demand"). The on-demand strategy may reduce mortality, morbidity, health care utilization, and costs. However, randomized trials have not been performed.Objective: To compare patient outcome, health care utilization, and costs of on-demand and planned relaparotomy.Design, Setting, and Patients: Randomized, nonblinded clinical trial at 2 academic and 5 regional teaching hospitals in the Netherlands from November 2001 through February 2005. Patients had severe secondary peritonitis and an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE-II) score of 11 or greater.Intervention: Random allocation to on-demand or planned relaparotomy strategy.Main Outcome Measures: The primary end point was death and/or peritonitis-related morbidity within a 12-month follow-up period. Secondary end points included health care utilization and costs.Results: A total of 232 patients (116 on-demand and 116 planned) were randomized. One patient in the on-demand group was excluded due to an operative diagnosis of pancreatitis and 3 in each group withdrew or were lost to follow-up. There was no significant difference in primary end point (57% on-demand [n = 64] vs 65% planned [n = 73]; P = .25) or in mortality alone (29% on-demand [n = 32] vs 36% planned [n = 41]; P = .22) or morbidity alone (40% on-demand [n = 32] vs 44% planned [n = 32]; P = .58). A total of 42% of the on-demand patients had a relaparotomy vs 94% of the planned relaparotomy group. A total of 31% of first relaparotomies were negative in the on-demand group vs 66% in the planned group (P <.001). Patients in the on-demand group had shorter median intensive care unit stays (7 vs 11 days; P = .001) and shorter median hospital stays (27 vs 35 days; P = .008). Direct medical costs per patient were reduced by 23% using the on-demand strategy.Conclusion: Patients in the on-demand relaparotomy group did not have a significantly lower rate of death or major peritonitis-related morbidity compared with the planned relaparotomy group but did have a substantial reduction in relaparotomies, health care utilization, and medical costs.Trial Registration: http://isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN51729393. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association is the property of American Medical Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| قاعدة البيانات: |
Complementary Index |
