Patient-Reported Outcomes for Acute Gallstone Pathology

National clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of symptomatic gallstone disease: 2021 recommendations from the Danish Surgical Society

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Gallstones are highly prevalent, and more than 9000 cholecystectomies are performed annually in Denmark. The aim of this guideline was to improve the clinical course of patients with gallstone disease including a subgroup of high-risk patients. Outcomes included reduction of complications, readmissions, and need for additional interventions in patients with uncomplicated gallstone disease, acute cholecystitis, and common bile duct stones (CBDS).

METHODS

An interdisciplinary group of clinicians developed the guideline according to the GRADE methodology. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were primarily included. Non-RCTs were included if RCTs could not answer the clinical questions. Recommendations were strong or weak depending on effect estimates, quality of evidence, and patient preferences.

RESULTS

For patients with acute cholecystitis, acute laparoscopic cholecystectomy is recommended (16 RCTs, strong recommendation). Gallbladder drainage may be used as an interval procedure before a delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with temporary contraindications to surgery and severe acute cholecystitis (1 RCT and 1 non-RCT, weak recommendation). High-risk patients are suggested to undergo acute laparoscopic cholecystectomy instead of drainage (1 RCT and 1 non-RCT, weak recommendation). For patients with CBDS, a one-step procedure with simultaneous laparoscopic cholecystectomy and CBDS removal by laparoscopy or endoscopy is recommended (22 RCTs, strong recommendation). In high-risk patients with CBDS, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is suggested to be included in the treatment (6 RCTs, weak recommendation). For diagnosis of CBDS, the use of magnetic resonance imaging or endoscopic ultrasound prior to surgical treatment is recommended (8 RCTs, strong recommendation). For patients with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease, observation is suggested as an alternative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (2 RCTs, weak recommendation).

CONCLUSIONS

Seven recommendations, four weak and three strong, for treating patients with symptomatic gallstone disease were developed. Studies for treatment of high-risk patients are few and more are needed.

ENDORSEMENT

The Danish Surgical Society.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

Healthcare requires patient feedback to improve outcomes and experience. This study undertook a systematic review of the depth, variability, and digital suitability of current patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods

A PROSPERO-registered (registration number CRD42021261707) systematic review was undertaken for all relevant English language articles using PubMed version of MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic databases in June 2021. The search used Boolean operators and wildcards and included the keywords: laparoscopic cholecystectomy AND patient outcome OR patient-reported outcome OR patient-reported outcome measure OR PRO OR PROM. Medical Subjects Heading terms were used to search PubMed and Scopus. Articles published from 1 January 2011 to 2 June 2021 were included.

Results

A total of 4960 individual articles were reviewed in this study, of which 44 were found to evaluate PROMs in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and underwent methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) grading. Twenty-one articles spanning 19 countries and four continents met all inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative data synthesis. There was significant heterogeneity in PROMs identified with eight different comprehensive PROM tools used in the 21 studies. There was wide variation in the time points at which PROMs were recorded. Fourteen of 21 studies recorded PROMs before and after surgery, and 7 of 21 recorded PROMs only after surgery. Follow-up intervals ranged from 3 days to 2 years after surgery.

Conclusions

This study identified that while post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy PROMs are infrequently measured currently, tools are widely available to achieve this in clinical practice. PROMs may not capture all the outcomes but should be incorporated into future cholecystectomy outcome research. The EQ-5D™ (EuroQoL Group, Rotterdam, the Netherlands) provides a simple platform for the modern digital era.

Patient reported outcomes in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Backgrounds/Aims

Traditional outcome measures (e.g., length of hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality) are used to determine the quality of care, but these may not be most important to patients. It is unclear which outcomes matter to patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC). We aim to identify patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) which patients undergoing ELC valued most.

Methods

A 45-item questionnaire with Four-point Likert-type questions developed from prior literature review, prospectively administered to patients treated with ELC at a tertiary institution in Singapore.

Results

Seventy-five patients participated. Most essential factors were technical skill and experience level of a surgeon, long-term quality of life (QoL), patient involvement in decision-making, communication skill of a surgeon, cleanliness of the ward environment, and standards of nursing care. Least important factors were hospitalization leave duration, length of hospital stay, a family's opinion of the hospital, and scar cosmesis. Employed patients were more likely to find hospitalization leave duration (p<0.001) and procedure duration (p=0.042) important. Younger patients (p=0.048) and female gender (p=0.003) were more likely to perceive scar cosmesis as important.

Conclusions

Patients undergoing ELC value long-term QoL, surgeon technical skill and experience level, patient involvement in decision-making, surgeon communication skill, cleanliness of the ward environment, and nursing care standards. Day-case surgery, medical leave, family opinion of hospital, and scar cosmesis were least important. Understanding what patients value will help guide patient-centric healthcare delivery.

Protocol for a randomized trial of the effect of timing of cholecystectomy during initial admission for predicted mild gallstone pancreatitis at a safety-net hospital

Background

There is evidence-based consensus for laparoscopic cholecystectomy during index admission for predicted mild gallstone pancreatitis, defined by the absence of organ failure and of local or systemic complications. However, the optimal timing for surgery within that admission is controversial. Early cholecystectomy may shorten hospital length of stay (LOS) and increase patient satisfaction. Alternatively, it may increase operative difficulty and complications resulting in readmissions.

Methods

This trial is a single-center randomized trial of patients with predicted mild gallstone pancreatitis comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) at index admission within 24 hours of presentation versus after clinical resolution on clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The primary endpoint is 30-day LOS (hours) after initial presentation, which includes the index admission and readmissions. Secondary outcomes are conversion to open, complications, time from admission to cholecystectomy, initial hospital LOS, number of procedures within 30 days, 30-day readmissions, and PROs (change in Gastrointestinal Quality-of-Life Index).

Discussion

The primary goal of this research is to obtain the least biased estimate of effect of timing of cholecystectomy for mild gallstone pancreatitis on clinical and PROs; the results of this trial will be used to inform patient care locally as well as to design future multicenter effectiveness and implementation trials. This trial will provide data regarding PROs including health-related quality of life that can be used in cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses.

Trial registration number

NCT02806297, ClinicalTrials.gov.