胃切除术后预防性引流管放置和术后侵入性手术:胃切除术后腹腔引流管(ADIGE)随机临床试验。

IF 15.7 1区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Jacopo Weindelmayer, Valentina Mengardo, Filippo Ascari, Gian Luca Baiocchi, Riccardo Casadei, Giovanni Domenico De Palma, Stefano De Pascale, Ugo Elmore, Giovanni Carlo Ferrari, Massimo Framarini, Roberta Gelmini, Monica Gualtierotti, Federico Marchesi, Marco Milone, Lucia Puca, Rossella Reddavid, Riccardo Rosati, Leonardo Solaini, Lorena Torroni, Luigi Totaro, Alessandro Veltri, Giuseppe Verlato, Giovanni de Manzoni
{"title":"胃切除术后预防性引流管放置和术后侵入性手术:胃切除术后腹腔引流管(ADIGE)随机临床试验。","authors":"Jacopo Weindelmayer, Valentina Mengardo, Filippo Ascari, Gian Luca Baiocchi, Riccardo Casadei, Giovanni Domenico De Palma, Stefano De Pascale, Ugo Elmore, Giovanni Carlo Ferrari, Massimo Framarini, Roberta Gelmini, Monica Gualtierotti, Federico Marchesi, Marco Milone, Lucia Puca, Rossella Reddavid, Riccardo Rosati, Leonardo Solaini, Lorena Torroni, Luigi Totaro, Alessandro Veltri, Giuseppe Verlato, Giovanni de Manzoni","doi":"10.1001/jamasurg.2024.5227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Evidence suggests that prophylactic abdominal drainage after gastrectomy for cancer may reduce postoperative morbidity and hospital stay but this evidence comes from small studies with a high risk of bias. Further research is needed to determine whether drains safely meet their primary purpose of identifying and managing postoperative intraperitoneal collections without the need for reoperation or additional percutaneous drainage.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether avoiding routine abdominal drainage increased postoperative invasive procedures.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>The Abdominal Drain in Gastrectomy (ADIGE) Trial was a multicenter prospective randomized noninferiority trial. Enrollment spanned from December 2019 to January 2023. Follow-up evaluations were completed at 30 and 90 days. Eleven centers within the Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer, encompassing both academic medical centers and community hospitals, were included. Patients with gastric cancer undergoing subtotal or total gastrectomy with curative intent were eligible, excluding those younger than 18 years, with serious comorbidities, or undergoing procedure types outside the scope of the study. Of 803 patients assessed for eligibility, 404 were randomized and 390 were included in final analyses.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Patients were randomized 1:1 into prophylactic drain or no drain arms.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The primary end point was a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis measuring reoperation or percutaneous drainage within 30 postoperative days. The null hypothesis was rejected when the 90% CI upper limit of the proportion difference did not exceed 3.56%. The calculated sample size to achieve 80% power with a 10% dropout rate was 404 patients (202 in each group). Surgeons and patients were blinded until gastrointestinal reconstruction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 404 patients randomized 226 (57.8%) were male; the median (IQR) age was 71 (62-78) years. Intraoperative identification of nonresectable disease occurred in 14 patients, leading to their exclusion from the study, leaving 390 patients. In the mITT analysis, 15 patients (7.7%) in the drain group needed reoperation or percutaneous drainage by postoperative day 30 vs 29 (15%) in the no drain group, favoring the drain group (difference, 7.2%; 90% CI, 2.1-12.4; P = .02). Of note, the difference in the primary composite end point was entirely due to a similar difference in reoperation (5.1% in the drain group vs 12.4% in the no drain group; P = .01). Drain-related complications occurred in 4 patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>The findings of this study indicate that refraining from prophylactic drain use after gastrectomy heightened the risk of postoperative invasive procedures, discouraging its avoidance. Future studies identifying high-risk groups could optimize prophylactic drainage decisions.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04227951.</p>","PeriodicalId":14690,"journal":{"name":"JAMA surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":15.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prophylactic Drain Placement and Postoperative Invasive Procedures After Gastrectomy: The Abdominal Drain After Gastrectomy (ADIGE) Randomized Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Jacopo Weindelmayer, Valentina Mengardo, Filippo Ascari, Gian Luca Baiocchi, Riccardo Casadei, Giovanni Domenico De Palma, Stefano De Pascale, Ugo Elmore, Giovanni Carlo Ferrari, Massimo Framarini, Roberta Gelmini, Monica Gualtierotti, Federico Marchesi, Marco Milone, Lucia Puca, Rossella Reddavid, Riccardo Rosati, Leonardo Solaini, Lorena Torroni, Luigi Totaro, Alessandro Veltri, Giuseppe Verlato, Giovanni de Manzoni\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/jamasurg.2024.5227\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Evidence suggests that prophylactic abdominal drainage after gastrectomy for cancer may reduce postoperative morbidity and hospital stay but this evidence comes from small studies with a high risk of bias. Further research is needed to determine whether drains safely meet their primary purpose of identifying and managing postoperative intraperitoneal collections without the need for reoperation or additional percutaneous drainage.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether avoiding routine abdominal drainage increased postoperative invasive procedures.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>The Abdominal Drain in Gastrectomy (ADIGE) Trial was a multicenter prospective randomized noninferiority trial. Enrollment spanned from December 2019 to January 2023. Follow-up evaluations were completed at 30 and 90 days. Eleven centers within the Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer, encompassing both academic medical centers and community hospitals, were included. Patients with gastric cancer undergoing subtotal or total gastrectomy with curative intent were eligible, excluding those younger than 18 years, with serious comorbidities, or undergoing procedure types outside the scope of the study. Of 803 patients assessed for eligibility, 404 were randomized and 390 were included in final analyses.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Patients were randomized 1:1 into prophylactic drain or no drain arms.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The primary end point was a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis measuring reoperation or percutaneous drainage within 30 postoperative days. The null hypothesis was rejected when the 90% CI upper limit of the proportion difference did not exceed 3.56%. The calculated sample size to achieve 80% power with a 10% dropout rate was 404 patients (202 in each group). Surgeons and patients were blinded until gastrointestinal reconstruction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 404 patients randomized 226 (57.8%) were male; the median (IQR) age was 71 (62-78) years. Intraoperative identification of nonresectable disease occurred in 14 patients, leading to their exclusion from the study, leaving 390 patients. In the mITT analysis, 15 patients (7.7%) in the drain group needed reoperation or percutaneous drainage by postoperative day 30 vs 29 (15%) in the no drain group, favoring the drain group (difference, 7.2%; 90% CI, 2.1-12.4; P = .02). Of note, the difference in the primary composite end point was entirely due to a similar difference in reoperation (5.1% in the drain group vs 12.4% in the no drain group; P = .01). Drain-related complications occurred in 4 patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>The findings of this study indicate that refraining from prophylactic drain use after gastrectomy heightened the risk of postoperative invasive procedures, discouraging its avoidance. Future studies identifying high-risk groups could optimize prophylactic drainage decisions.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04227951.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14690,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMA surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":15.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMA surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2024.5227\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2024.5227","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性:有证据表明,癌症胃切除术后预防性腹腔引流可降低术后发病率和住院时间,但这些证据来自于偏倚风险较高的小型研究。需要进一步研究以确定引流管是否能安全地达到其主要目的,即识别和处理术后腹腔积液,而无需再次手术或额外的经皮引流:目的:确定避免常规腹腔引流是否会增加术后侵入性手术:腹腔引流在胃切除术中的应用(ADIGE)试验是一项多中心前瞻性随机非劣效性试验。注册时间为 2019 年 12 月至 2023 年 1 月。随访评估在 30 天和 90 天后完成。意大利胃癌研究小组(Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer)的11个中心(包括学术医疗中心和社区医院)参与了该试验。接受根治性次全胃切除术或全胃切除术的胃癌患者均符合条件,但不包括年龄小于18岁、患有严重合并症或接受研究范围以外手术类型的患者。在803名通过资格评估的患者中,404人被随机分配,390人被纳入最终分析:患者按 1:1 随机分为预防性引流管组和无引流管组:主要终点是对术后30天内再次手术或经皮引流术的改良意向治疗(mITT)分析。当90% CI的比例差异上限不超过3.56%时,拒绝零假设。计算得出的样本量为 404 例患者(每组 202 例),在 10%的辍学率下达到 80% 的功率。在胃肠道重建之前,外科医生和患者都是盲人:在随机抽取的 404 名患者中,226 名(57.8%)为男性;中位数(IQR)年龄为 71(62-78)岁。有 14 名患者在术中发现了不可切除的疾病,因此被排除在研究之外,剩下 390 名患者。在 mITT 分析中,引流管组有 15 名患者(7.7%)在术后第 30 天需要再次手术或经皮引流,无引流管组有 29 名患者(15%)需要再次手术或经皮引流,引流管组更胜一筹(差异为 7.2%;90% CI,2.1-12.4;P = .02)。值得注意的是,主要复合终点的差异完全归因于再次手术的类似差异(引流管组为5.1%,无引流管组为12.4%;P = .01)。4名患者出现了引流管相关并发症:本研究结果表明,胃切除术后不预防性使用引流管会增加术后侵入性手术的风险,因此不提倡避免使用引流管。未来对高风险人群的研究可优化预防性引流决定:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT04227951。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prophylactic Drain Placement and Postoperative Invasive Procedures After Gastrectomy: The Abdominal Drain After Gastrectomy (ADIGE) Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence suggests that prophylactic abdominal drainage after gastrectomy for cancer may reduce postoperative morbidity and hospital stay but this evidence comes from small studies with a high risk of bias. Further research is needed to determine whether drains safely meet their primary purpose of identifying and managing postoperative intraperitoneal collections without the need for reoperation or additional percutaneous drainage.

Objective: To determine whether avoiding routine abdominal drainage increased postoperative invasive procedures.

Design, setting, and participants: The Abdominal Drain in Gastrectomy (ADIGE) Trial was a multicenter prospective randomized noninferiority trial. Enrollment spanned from December 2019 to January 2023. Follow-up evaluations were completed at 30 and 90 days. Eleven centers within the Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer, encompassing both academic medical centers and community hospitals, were included. Patients with gastric cancer undergoing subtotal or total gastrectomy with curative intent were eligible, excluding those younger than 18 years, with serious comorbidities, or undergoing procedure types outside the scope of the study. Of 803 patients assessed for eligibility, 404 were randomized and 390 were included in final analyses.

Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 into prophylactic drain or no drain arms.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary end point was a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis measuring reoperation or percutaneous drainage within 30 postoperative days. The null hypothesis was rejected when the 90% CI upper limit of the proportion difference did not exceed 3.56%. The calculated sample size to achieve 80% power with a 10% dropout rate was 404 patients (202 in each group). Surgeons and patients were blinded until gastrointestinal reconstruction.

Results: Of the 404 patients randomized 226 (57.8%) were male; the median (IQR) age was 71 (62-78) years. Intraoperative identification of nonresectable disease occurred in 14 patients, leading to their exclusion from the study, leaving 390 patients. In the mITT analysis, 15 patients (7.7%) in the drain group needed reoperation or percutaneous drainage by postoperative day 30 vs 29 (15%) in the no drain group, favoring the drain group (difference, 7.2%; 90% CI, 2.1-12.4; P = .02). Of note, the difference in the primary composite end point was entirely due to a similar difference in reoperation (5.1% in the drain group vs 12.4% in the no drain group; P = .01). Drain-related complications occurred in 4 patients.

Conclusions and relevance: The findings of this study indicate that refraining from prophylactic drain use after gastrectomy heightened the risk of postoperative invasive procedures, discouraging its avoidance. Future studies identifying high-risk groups could optimize prophylactic drainage decisions.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04227951.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JAMA surgery
JAMA surgery SURGERY-
CiteScore
20.80
自引率
3.60%
发文量
400
期刊介绍: JAMA Surgery, an international peer-reviewed journal established in 1920, is the official publication of the Association of VA Surgeons, the Pacific Coast Surgical Association, and the Surgical Outcomes Club.It is a proud member of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信