The CIAO Study (“Complicated Intra-Abdominal infection Observational” Study) is a multicenter investigation performed in 68 medical institutions throughout Europe over the course of a 6-month observational period (January-June 2012).Patients with either community-acquired or healthcare-associated complicated intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) were included in the study.2,152 patients with a mean age of 53.8 years (range: 4–98 years) were enrolled in the study. 46.3% of the patients were women and 53.7% were men. Intraperitoneal specimens were collected from 62.2% of the enrolled patients, and from these samples, a variety of microorganisms were collectively identified.The overall mortality rate was 7.5% (163/2.152).According to multivariate analysis of the compiled data, several criteria were found to be independent variables predictive of patient mortality, including patient age, the presence of an intestinal non-appendicular source of infection (colonic non-diverticular perforation, complicated diverticulitis, small bowel perforation), a delayed initial intervention (a delay exceeding 24 hours), sepsis and septic shock in the immediate post-operative period, and ICU admission.Given the sweeping geographical distribution of the participating medical centers, the CIAO Study gives an accurate description of the epidemiological, clinical, microbiological, and treatment profiles of complicated intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) throughout Europe.

BackgroundTo validate a new practical Sepsis Severity Score for patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) including the clinical conditions at the admission (severe sepsis/septic shock), the origin of the cIAIs, the delay in source control, the setting of acquisition and any risk factors such as age and immunosuppression.MethodsThe WISS study (WSES cIAIs Score Study) is a multicenter observational study underwent in 132 medical institutions worldwide during a four-month study period (October 2014-February 2015). Four thousand five hundred thirty-three patients with a mean age of 51.2 years (range 18–99) were enrolled in the WISS study.ResultsUnivariate analysis has shown that all factors that were previously included in the WSES Sepsis Severity Score were highly statistically significant between those who died and those who survived (p < 0.0001). The multivariate logistic regression model was highly significant (p < 0.0001, R2 = 0.54) and showed that all these factors were independent in predicting mortality of sepsis. Receiver Operator Curve has shown that the WSES Severity Sepsis Score had an excellent prediction for mortality. A score above 5.5 was the best predictor of mortality having a sensitivity of 89.2 %, a specificity of 83.5 % and a positive likelihood ratio of 5.4.ConclusionsWSES Sepsis Severity Score for patients with complicated Intra-abdominal infections can be used on global level. It has shown high sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio that may help us in making clinical decisions.

Encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis (EPS) is a devastating but, fortunately, rare complication of long-term peritoneal dialysis. The disease is associated with extensive thickening and fibrosis of the peritoneum resulting in the formation of a fibrous cocoon encapsulating the bowel leading to intestinal obstruction. The incidence of EPS ranges between 0.7 and 3.3% and increases with duration of peritoneal dialysis therapy. Dialysis fluid is hyperosmotic, hyperglycemic, and acidic causing chronic injury and inflammation in the peritoneum with loss of mesothelium and extensive tissue fibrosis. The pathogenesis of EPS, however, still remains uncertain, although a widely accepted hypothesis is the “two-hit theory,” where, the first hit is chronic peritoneal membrane injury from long standing peritoneal dialysis followed by a second hit such as an episode of peritonitis, genetic predisposition and/or acute cessation of peritoneal dialysis, leading to EPS. Recently, EPS has been reported in patients shortly after transplantation suggesting that this procedure may also act as a possible second insult. The process of epithelial–mesenchymal transition of mesothelial cells is proposed to play a central role in the development of peritoneal sclerosis, a common characteristic of patients on dialysis, however, its importance in EPS is less clear. There is no established treatment for EPS although evidence from small case studies suggests that corticosteroids and tamoxifen may be beneficial. Nutritional support is essential and surgical intervention (peritonectomy and enterolysis) is recommended in later stages to relieve bowel obstruction.

Study Type – Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4 What’s known on the subject? and What does the study add? The indications and timing of native nephrectomy in patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is controversial, especially for those undergoing renal transplantation. Post‐transplant unilateral native nephrectomy appears to be the preferred intervention compared to pre‐transplant native nephrectomy. There seems to be substantial additive risk to bilateral over unilateral nephrectomy, especially prior to transplantation. Pre‐transplant native nephrectomy should only be carried out when there are clear indications such as massive size preventing allograft placement, severe pain, early satiety, recurrent bleeding and infections, or suspected malignancy. OBJECTIVE To analyse indications, timing and outcomes of native nephrectomy in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) patients listed for kidney transplantation. PATIENTS AND METHODS A retrospective analysis of all ADPKD patients who had a native nephrectomy prior to or following transplantation between January 2003 and December 2009 at a single centre, including those undergoing the sandwich technique (removal of the most severely affected native kidney prior to transplantation, and the other afterwards), was undertaken. RESULTS There were 35 individuals in our cohort (M : F = 16 : 19), with a median age of 51.5 years (range 43–65). Twenty patients were in the pre‐transplant nephrectomy group, 12 in the post‐transplant group, and three underwent the sandwich technique. Indications for nephrectomy varied but were most commonly pain/discomfort, space for transplantation, ongoing haematuria, recurrent infections, and gastrointestinal pressure symptoms (early satiety). Seven individuals in the pre‐transplant group and three in the post‐transplant group required critical care admission after nephrectomy. Transient renal graft dysfunction occurred in two post‐transplant bilateral nephrectomy patients. Two patients in the bilateral nephrectomy pre‐transplant group and one in the bilateral nephrectomy post‐transplant group died in the immediate post‐operative period. No complications were noted in the sandwich technique group. CONCLUSION Native nephrectomy in ADPKD is a major undertaking associated with significant morbidity especially in the pre‐transplant group. Post‐transplant unilateral nephrectomy appears to be the safest approach with fewest complications.

Type 1 diabetics with renal failure listed for pancreas transplantation are at a significant risk of mortality even without surgery. Transplantation offers considerable survival benefits, despite associated surgical and immunosuppressive risks. In selected patients, pancreas transplantation remains the benchmark treatment for type 1 diabetes mellitus.