Kim, Myung‐Hwan

ObjectiveIgG4‐related disease (IgG4‐RD) can cause fibroinflammatory lesions in nearly any organ, leading to organ dysfunction and failure. The IgG4‐RD Responder Index (RI) was developed to help investigators assess the efficacy of treatment in a structured manner. The aim of this study was to validate the RI in a multinational investigation.MethodsThe RI guides investigators through assessments of disease activity and damage in 25 domains, incorporating higher weights for disease manifestations that require urgent treatment or that worsen despite treatment. After a training exercise, investigators reviewed 12 written IgG4‐RD vignettes based on real patients. Investigators calculated both an RI score as well as a physician's global assessment (PhGA) score for each vignette. In a longitudinal assessment, 3 investigators used the RI in 15 patients with newly active disease who were followed up over serial visits after treatment. We assessed interrater and intrarater reliability, precision, validity, and responsiveness.ResultsThe 26 physician investigators included representatives from 6 specialties and 9 countries. The interrater and intrarater reliability of the RI was strong (0.89 and 0.69, respectively). Correlations (construct validity) between the RI and PhGA were high (Spearman's r = 0.9, P < 0.0001). The RI was sensitive to change (discriminant validity). Following treatment, there was significant improvement in the RI score (mean change 10.5 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 5.4–12], P < 0.001), which correlated with the change in the PhGA. Urgent disease and damage were captured effectively.DiscussionIn this international, multispecialty study, we observed that the RI is a valid and reliable disease activity assessment tool that can be used to measure response to therapy.

Abstract Management bundles that define items or procedures strongly recommended in clinical practice have been used in many guidelines in recent years. Application of these bundles facilitates the adaptation of guidelines and helps improve the prognosis of target diseases. In Tokyo Guidelines 2013 ( TG 13), we proposed management bundles for acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. Here, in Tokyo Guidelines 2018 ( TG 18), we redefine the management bundles for acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. Critical parts of the bundles in TG 18 include the diagnostic process, severity assessment, transfer of patients if necessary, and therapeutic approach at each time point. Observance of these items and procedures should improve the prognosis of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. Studies are now needed to evaluate the dissemination of these TG 18 bundles and their effectiveness. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47 . Related clinical questions and references are also included.

AbstractThe initial management of patients with suspected acute biliary infection starts with the measurement of vital signs to assess whether or not the situation is urgent. If the case is judged to be urgent, initial medical treatment should be started immediately including respiratory/circulatory management if required, without waiting for a definitive diagnosis. The patient's medical history is then taken; an abdominal examination is performed; blood tests, urinalysis, and diagnostic imaging are carried out; and a diagnosis is made using the diagnostic criteria for cholangitis/cholecystitis. Once the diagnosis has been confirmed, initial medical treatment should be started immediately, severity should be assessed according to the severity grading criteria for acute cholangitis/cholecystitis, and the patient's general status should be evaluated. For mild acute cholangitis, in most cases initial treatment including antibiotics is sufficient, and most patients do not require biliary drainage. However, biliary drainage should be considered if a patient does not respond to initial treatment. For moderate acute cholangitis, early endoscopic or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage is indicated. If the underlying etiology requires treatment, this should be provided after the patient's general condition has improved; endoscopic sphincterotomy and subsequent choledocholithotomy may be performed together with biliary drainage. For severe acute cholangitis, appropriate respiratory/circulatory management is required. Biliary drainage should be performed as soon as possible after the patient's general condition has been improved by initial treatment and respiratory/circulatory management. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47. Related clinical questions and references are also included.

Abstract Since the publication of the Tokyo Guidelines in 2007 and their revision in 2013, appropriate management for acute cholecystitis has been more clearly established. Since the last revision, several manuscripts, especially for alternative endoscopic techniques, have been reported; therefore, additional evaluation and refinement of the 2013 Guidelines is required. We describe a standard drainage method for surgically high‐risk patients with acute cholecystitis and the latest developed endoscopic gallbladder drainage techniques described in the updated Tokyo Guidelines 2018 ( TG 18). Our study confirmed that percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage should be considered the first alternative to surgical intervention in surgically high‐risk patients with acute cholecystitis. Also, endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage or endoscopic ultrasound‐guided gallbladder drainage can be considered in high‐volume institutes by skilled endoscopists. In the endoscopic transpapillary approach, either endoscopic naso‐gallbladder drainage or gallbladder stenting can be considered for gallbladder drainage. We also introduce special techniques and the latest outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound‐guided gallbladder drainage studies. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47 . Related clinical questions and references are also included.

Abstract Bile duct injury ( BDI ) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains a serious iatrogenic surgical complication. BDI most often occurs as a result of misidentification of the anatomy; however, clinical evidence on its precise mechanism and surgeons’ perceptions is scarce. Surgeons from Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and the USA, etc. ( n = 614) participated in a questionnaire regarding their BDI experience and near‐misses; and perceptions on landmarks, intraoperative findings, and surgical techniques. Respondents voted for a Delphi process and graded each item on a five‐point scale. The consensus was built when ≥80% of overall responses were 4 or 5. Response rates for the first‐ and second‐round Delphi were 60.6% and 74.9%, respectively. Misidentification of local anatomy accounted for 76.2% of BDI . Final consensus was reached on: (1) Effective retraction of the gallbladder, (2) Always obtaining critical view of safety, and (3) Avoiding excessive use of electrocautery/clipping as vital procedures; and (4) Calot's triangle area and (5) Critical view of safety as important landmarks. For (6) Impacted gallstone and (7) Severe fibrosis/scarring in Calot's triangle, bail‐out procedures may be indicated. A consensus was reached among expert surgeons on relevant landmarks and intraoperative findings and appropriate surgical techniques to avoid BDI .