NL
DE
23 May 2019
Background
International guidelines advise laparoscopic cholecystectomy to treat symptomatic, uncomplicated gallstones. Usual care regarding cholecystectomy is associated with practice variation and persistent post-cholecystectomy pain in 10-41% of patients. We aimed to compare the non-inferiority of a restrictive strategy with stepwise selection with usual care to assess (in)efficient use of cholecystectomy.
Methods
We did a multicentre, randomised, parallel-arm, non-inferiority study in 24 academic and non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands. We enrolled patients aged 18-95 years with abdominal pain and ultrasound-proven gallstones or sludge. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either usual care in which selection for cholecystectomy was left to the discretion of the surgeon, or a restrictive strategy with stepwise selection for cholecystectomy. For the restrictive strategy, cholecystectomy was advised for patients who fulfilled all five pre-specified criteria of the triage instrument: 1) severe pain attacks, 2) pain lasting 15-30 min or longer, 3) pain located in epigastrium or right upper quadrant, 4) pain radiating to the back, and 5) a positive pain response to simple analgesics. Randomisation was done with an online program, implemented into a web-based application using blocks of variable sizes, and stratified for centre (academic versus non-academic and a high vs low number of patients), sex, and body-mass index. Physicians and patients were masked for study-arm allocation until after completion of the triage instrument. The primary, non-inferiority, patient-reported endpoint was the proportion of patients who were pain-free at 12 months' follow-up, analysed by intention to treat and per protocol. A 5% non-inferiority margin was chosen, based on the estimated clinically relevant difference. Safety analyses were also done in the intention-to treat population. This trial is registered at the Netherlands National Trial Register, number NTR4022.
Findings
Between Feb 5, 2014, and April 25, 2017, we included 1067 patients for analysis: 537 assigned to usual care and 530 to the restrictive strategy. At 12 months' follow-up 298 patients (56%; 95% CI, 52·0-60·4) were pain-free in the restrictive strategy group, compared with 321 patients (60%, 55·6-63·8) in usual care. Non-inferiority was not shown (difference 3·6%; one-sided 95% lower CI -8·6%; pnon-inferiority=0·316). According to a secondary endpoint analysis, the restrictive strategy resulted in significantly fewer cholecystectomies than usual care (358 [68%] of 529 vs 404 [75%] of 536; p=0·01). There were no between-group differences in trial-related gallstone complications (40 patients [8%] of 529 in usual care vs 38 [7%] of 536 in restrictive strategy; p=0·16) and surgical complications (74 [21%] of 358 vs 88 [22%] of 404, p=0·77), or in non-trial-related serious adverse events (27 [5%] of 529 vs 29 [5%] of 526).
Interpretation
Suboptimal pain reduction in patients with gallstones and abdominal pain was noted with both usual care and following a restrictive strategy for selection for cholecystectomy. However, the restrictive strategy was associated with fewer cholecystectomies. The findings should encourage physicians involved in the care of patients with gallstones to rethink cholecystectomy, and to be more careful in advising a surgical approach in patients with gallstones and abdominal symptoms.
Funding
The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and CZ healthcare insurance.
Publication
Restrictive strategy versus usual care for cholecystectomy in patients with gallstones and abdominal pain (SECURE): a multicentre, randomised, parallel-arm, non-inferiority trial.
van Dijk AH, Wennmacker SZ, de Reuver PR, Latenstein CSS, Buyne O, Donkervoort SC, Eijsbouts QAJ, Heisterkamp J, Hof KHIH, Janssen J, Nieuwenhuijs VB, Schaap HM, Steenvoorde P, Stockmann HBAC, Boerma D, Westert GP, Drenth JPH, Dijkgraaf MGW, Boermeester MA, van Laarhoven CJHM.
Kees van Laarhoven is member of theme Tumors of digestive tract.
In Lancet Kees van Laarhoven and colleagues showed that usual care for symptomatic patients with gallstones is suboptimal and that less than two third of patients are pain-free after surgery. A restrictive patient selection strategy where only patients with specific gallstone related symptoms undergo surgery, did not result in more pain-free patients, but did reduce the number of surgeries being performed.
Abstract
Background
International guidelines advise laparoscopic cholecystectomy to treat symptomatic, uncomplicated gallstones. Usual care regarding cholecystectomy is associated with practice variation and persistent post-cholecystectomy pain in 10-41% of patients. We aimed to compare the non-inferiority of a restrictive strategy with stepwise selection with usual care to assess (in)efficient use of cholecystectomy.
Methods
We did a multicentre, randomised, parallel-arm, non-inferiority study in 24 academic and non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands. We enrolled patients aged 18-95 years with abdominal pain and ultrasound-proven gallstones or sludge. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either usual care in which selection for cholecystectomy was left to the discretion of the surgeon, or a restrictive strategy with stepwise selection for cholecystectomy. For the restrictive strategy, cholecystectomy was advised for patients who fulfilled all five pre-specified criteria of the triage instrument: 1) severe pain attacks, 2) pain lasting 15-30 min or longer, 3) pain located in epigastrium or right upper quadrant, 4) pain radiating to the back, and 5) a positive pain response to simple analgesics. Randomisation was done with an online program, implemented into a web-based application using blocks of variable sizes, and stratified for centre (academic versus non-academic and a high vs low number of patients), sex, and body-mass index. Physicians and patients were masked for study-arm allocation until after completion of the triage instrument. The primary, non-inferiority, patient-reported endpoint was the proportion of patients who were pain-free at 12 months' follow-up, analysed by intention to treat and per protocol. A 5% non-inferiority margin was chosen, based on the estimated clinically relevant difference. Safety analyses were also done in the intention-to treat population. This trial is registered at the Netherlands National Trial Register, number NTR4022.
Findings
Between Feb 5, 2014, and April 25, 2017, we included 1067 patients for analysis: 537 assigned to usual care and 530 to the restrictive strategy. At 12 months' follow-up 298 patients (56%; 95% CI, 52·0-60·4) were pain-free in the restrictive strategy group, compared with 321 patients (60%, 55·6-63·8) in usual care. Non-inferiority was not shown (difference 3·6%; one-sided 95% lower CI -8·6%; pnon-inferiority=0·316). According to a secondary endpoint analysis, the restrictive strategy resulted in significantly fewer cholecystectomies than usual care (358 [68%] of 529 vs 404 [75%] of 536; p=0·01). There were no between-group differences in trial-related gallstone complications (40 patients [8%] of 529 in usual care vs 38 [7%] of 536 in restrictive strategy; p=0·16) and surgical complications (74 [21%] of 358 vs 88 [22%] of 404, p=0·77), or in non-trial-related serious adverse events (27 [5%] of 529 vs 29 [5%] of 526).
Interpretation
Suboptimal pain reduction in patients with gallstones and abdominal pain was noted with both usual care and following a restrictive strategy for selection for cholecystectomy. However, the restrictive strategy was associated with fewer cholecystectomies. The findings should encourage physicians involved in the care of patients with gallstones to rethink cholecystectomy, and to be more careful in advising a surgical approach in patients with gallstones and abdominal symptoms.
Funding
The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and CZ healthcare insurance.
Publication
Restrictive strategy versus usual care for cholecystectomy in patients with gallstones and abdominal pain (SECURE): a multicentre, randomised, parallel-arm, non-inferiority trial.
van Dijk AH, Wennmacker SZ, de Reuver PR, Latenstein CSS, Buyne O, Donkervoort SC, Eijsbouts QAJ, Heisterkamp J, Hof KHIH, Janssen J, Nieuwenhuijs VB, Schaap HM, Steenvoorde P, Stockmann HBAC, Boerma D, Westert GP, Drenth JPH, Dijkgraaf MGW, Boermeester MA, van Laarhoven CJHM.
Kees van Laarhoven is member of theme Tumors of digestive tract.
-
Want to know more about these subjects? Click on the buttons below for more news.
Related news items
Increased role of patients after bowel cancer treatment
30 July 2020 Approximately 14,000 patients get colorectal cancer every year. Almost all patients are operated on and monitored afterwards (follow-up). In 2019 Radboudumc started a new approach to follow-up research after the treatment of stage II/III colorectal cancer. read more
Laparoscopy reduces the number of adhesions but it is still too high
14 January 2020 Adhesions after abdominal surgery cause too many re-admissions. Although keyhole surgery reduces the number of adhesions and the complications associated with them, the total disease burden remains high, as reported in The Lancet by RIHS researcher Richard ten Broek and colleagues. read more
Valentine’s day spectacle at the Radboud Research Rounds
21 February 2019 This year’s Valentine’s day in the Radboudumc was focused on the RRR of the Tumors of the Digestive Tract. In the biannual Paper Award session the big prize went to Daniel Garza from the Center for Molecular and Biomolecular Informatics, for his paper on “the environmental metabolome”. read more
Radiotherapy-associated angiosarcoma after breast cancer treatment
7 February 2019 In Jama Oncology Anouk Rombouts and co-workers showed that one in 1000 patients who were treated with radiotherapy for breast cancer will develop an angiosarcoma of the breast. read more
Remote patient follow up after colorectal cancer surgery
7 February 2019 Seyed Qaderi, Hans de Wilt and colleagues developed and implemented a new patient centered follow up schedule for colorectal cancer survivors. read more
