Dutch Chronic Pancreatitis Registry (CARE): design and rationale of a nationwide prospective evaluation and follow-up

BACKGROUND

Chronic pancreatitis is a complex disease with many unanswered questions regarding the natural history and therapy. Prospective longitudinal studies with long-term follow-up are warranted.

METHODS

The Dutch Chronic Pancreatitis Registry (CARE) is a nationwide registry aimed at prospective evaluation and follow-up of patients with chronic pancreatitis. All patients with (suspected) chronic or recurrent pancreatitis are eligible for CARE. Patients are followed-up by yearly questionnaires and review of medical records. Study outcomes are pain, disease complications, quality of life, and pancreatic function. The target sample size was set at 500 for the first year and 1000 patients within 3 years.

RESULTS

A total of 1218 patients were included from February 2010 until June 2013 by 76 participating surgeons and gastroenterologist from 33 hospitals. Participation rate was 90% of eligible patients. Eight academic centers included 761 (62%) patients, while 25 community hospitals included 457 (38%). Patient centered outcomes were assessed by yearly questionnaires, which had a response rate of 85 and 82% for year 1 and 2, respectively. The median age of patients was 58 years, 814 (67%) were male, and 38% had symptoms for less than 5 years.

DISCUSSION

The CARE registry has successfully recruited over 1200 patients with chronic and recurrent pancreatitis in about 3 years. The defined inclusion criteria ensure patients are included at an early disease stage. Participation and compliance rates are high. CARE offers a unique opportunity with sufficient power to investigate many clinical questions regarding natural course, complications, and efficacy and timing of treatment strategies.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: day-care versus clinical observation

OBJECTIVE

To determine the feasibility and desirability of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in day-care versus LC with clinical observation.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed regularly as outpatient surgery in patients with uncomplicated gallstone disease in the United States, but this has not been generally accepted in Europe. The main objections are the risk of early severe complications (bleeding) or other reasons for readmission, and the argument that patients might feel safer when observed for one night. Quality-of-life differences hitherto have not been investigated.

METHODS

Eighty patients (American Society of Anesthesiology [ASA] I/II) with symptomatic gallstones were randomized to receive LC either in day-care or with clinical observation. Complications, (re)admissions, consultations of general practitioners or the day-care center within 4 days after surgery, use of pain medication, quality of life, convalescence period, time off from professional activities, and treatment preference were assessed. The respective costs of day-care and clinical observation were determined.

RESULTS

Of the 37 patients assigned to the day-care group who underwent elective surgery, 92% were discharged successfully after an observation period of 5.7+/-0.2 hours. The remainder of the patients in this group were admitted to the hospital and clinically observed for 24 hours. For the 37 patients in the clinical observation group who underwent elective surgery, the observation time after surgery was 31+/-3 hours. Three patients in the day-care group and one patient in the clinical observation group had complications after surgery. None of the patients in either group consulted a general practitioner or the hospital during the first week after surgery. Use of pain medication was comparable in both groups over the first 48 hours after surgery. There were no differences in pain and other quality-of-life indicators between the groups during the 6 weeks of follow-up. Of the patients in the day-care group, 92% preferred day-care to clinical observation. The same percentage of patients in the clinical observation group preferred at least 24 hours of observation to day-care. Costs for the day-care patients were substantially lower (approximately $750/patient) than for the clinical observation patients.

CONCLUSION

Effectiveness was equal in both patient groups, and both groups appeared to be satisfied with their treatment. Because no differences were found with respect to the other outcomes, day-care is the preferred treatment in most ASA I and II patients because it is less expensive.