Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating Patient-Reported Outcomes after Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review

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.

Gallstone Pancreatitis: Admission Versus Normal Cholecystectomy-a Randomized Trial (Gallstone PANC Trial)

INTRODUCTION

Early cholecystectomy shortly after admission for mild gallstone pancreatitis has been proposed based on observational data. We hypothesized that cholecystectomy within 24 hours of admission versus after clinical resolution of gallstone pancreatitis that is predicted to be mild results in decreased length-of-stay (LOS) without an increase in complications.

METHODS

Adults with predicted mild gallstone pancreatitis were randomized to cholecystectomy with cholangiogram within 24 hours of presentation (early group) versus after clinical resolution (control) based on abdominal exam and normalized laboratory values. Primary outcome was 30-day LOS including readmissions. Secondary outcomes were time to surgery, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) rates, and postoperative complications. Frequentist and Bayesian intention-to-treat analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar in the early (n = 49) and control (n = 48) groups. Early group had fewer ERCPs (15% vs 29%, P = 0.038), faster time to surgery (16 h vs 43 h, P < 0.005), and shorter 30-day LOS (50 h vs 77 h, RR 0.68 95% CI 0.65 - 0.71, P < 0.005). Complication rates were 6% in early group versus 2% in controls (P = 0.613), which included recurrence/progression of pancreatitis (2 early, 1 control) and a cystic duct stump leak (early). On Bayesian analysis, early cholecystectomy has a 99% probability of reducing 30-day LOS, 93% probability of decreasing ERCP use, and 72% probability of increasing complications.

CONCLUSION

In patients with predicted mild gallstone pancreatitis, cholecystectomy within 24 hours of admission reduced rate of ERCPs, time to surgery, and 30-day length-of-stay. Minor complications may be increased with early cholecystectomy. Identification of patients with predicted mild gallstone pancreatitis in whom early cholecystectomy is safe warrants further investigation.

A systematic review of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and quality of life reporting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide a valuable means of measuring outcomes subjectively from a patient's perspective, facilitating the assessment of service quality across healthcare providers, and assisting patients and clinicians in shared decision making. The primary aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise all historic studies evaluating patient reported quality of life, in adult patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstones. The secondary aim was to perform a quality assessment of cholecystectomy-specific PROM-validation studies. A literature review was performed in PubMed, Google ScholarTM, the Cochrane Library, Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsychINFO databases up to September 2017. Study characteristics, PROM-specific details and a bias assessment were summarised for non-validation studies. A COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) analysis was performed to assess the methodological quality of identified PROM-validation studies. Fifty one studies were found to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Although 94.1% of these studies included PROMs as a primary outcome measure, <20% provided level 1 evidence through randomised controlled trials (RCTs). There was significant variation in the selection and reporting of PROMs, with no studies declaring patient involvement in PROM selection, and 88.2% of studies failing to document the management of missing data points, or non-returned surveys (33.3%). In the 6 PROM-validation studies identified, only 5 psychometric properties were evaluated, the findings of which were limited due to the small number of studies. This systematic review identifies a lack in consistency of study design and PRO reporting in clinical trials. Whilst an increasing number of studies are being performed to evaluate PROs, a lack of adherence to existing PRO administration and reporting guidelines is continuing to negatively affect study quality. We recommend that future clinical trials utilizing PROs should adhere to established comprehensive guidelines as described.

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.