Comparison of On-Demand vs Planned Relaparotomy Strategy in Patients With Severe Peritonitis

Сравнение стратегии релапаротомии по требованию и плановой релапаротомии у пациентов с тяжелым перитонитом
Oddeke van Ruler, Cecilia W. Mahler, Kimberly R. Boer, E. Ascelijn Reuland, Hein G. Gooszen, Brent C. Opmeer, Peter W. de Graaf, Bas Lamme, Michael F. Gerhards, E. Philip Steller, J. W. Olivier van Till, Corianne J. A. M. de Borgie, Dirk J. Gouma, Johannes B. Reitsma, Marja A. Boermeester, for the Dutch Peritonitis Study Group
2007-08-21

health care utilization and costson-demand relaparotomyplanned relaparotomyrandomized clinical trialsevere secondary peritonitis
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.
1
First relaparotomies were negative less often with on-demand management than planned management: 31% versus 66% (P < .001).
2
In severe secondary peritonitis, on-demand and planned relaparotomy produced no significant difference in 12-month death or peritonitis-related morbidity.
3
Mortality and morbidity individually were also not significantly different between on-demand and planned relaparotomy strategies.
4
On-demand management reduced median intensive care unit stay from 11 to 7 days and hospital stay from 35 to 27 days.
5
Relaparotomy was performed in 42% of on-demand patients versus 94% of planned-strategy patients.

Patients with severe secondary peritonitis undergoing surgical treatment after initial emergency laparotomy

Comparative patient outcomes, health care utilization, and costs of on-demand versus planned relaparotomy strategies

Publication Details
Publication Date
2007-08-21
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Access Type
Author Information
Authors
Oddeke van Ruler
Cecilia W. Mahler
Kimberly R. Boer
E. Ascelijn Reuland
Hein G. Gooszen
Brent C. Opmeer
Peter W. de Graaf
Bas Lamme
Michael F. Gerhards
E. Philip Steller
J. W. Olivier van Till
Corianne J. A. M. de Borgie
Dirk J. Gouma
Johannes B. Reitsma
Marja A. Boermeester
for the Dutch Peritonitis Study Group
Explore further
Open the scid.ai AI chat with a ready-made request: it will find papers on a similar topic and help build a literature review.
Find similar papers in the chat
Make a presentation
100%