A922 Sequential measurement of 1 hour creatinine clearance (1-CRCL) in critically ill patients at risk of acute kidney injury (AKI)

Meeting abstrac

Catálogo Taxonômico da Fauna do Brasil: setting the baseline knowledge on the animal diversity in Brazil

The limited temporal completeness and taxonomic accuracy of species lists, made available in a traditional manner in scientific publications, has always represented a problem. These lists are invariably limited to a few taxonomic groups and do not represent up-to-date knowledge of all species and classifications. In this context, the Brazilian megadiverse fauna is no exception, and the Catálogo Taxonômico da Fauna do Brasil (CTFB) (http://fauna.jbrj.gov.br/), made public in 2015, represents a database on biodiversity anchored on a list of valid and expertly recognized scientific names of animals in Brazil. The CTFB is updated in near real time by a team of more than 800 specialists. By January 1, 2024, the CTFB compiled 133,691 nominal species, with 125,138 that were considered valid. Most of the valid species were arthropods (82.3%, with more than 102,000 species) and chordates (7.69%, with over 11,000 species). These taxa were followed by a cluster composed of Mollusca (3,567 species), Platyhelminthes (2,292 species), Annelida (1,833 species), and Nematoda (1,447 species). All remaining groups had less than 1,000 species reported in Brazil, with Cnidaria (831 species), Porifera (628 species), Rotifera (606 species), and Bryozoa (520 species) representing those with more than 500 species. Analysis of the CTFB database can facilitate and direct efforts towards the discovery of new species in Brazil, but it is also fundamental in providing the best available list of valid nominal species to users, including those in science, health, conservation efforts, and any initiative involving animals. The importance of the CTFB is evidenced by the elevated number of citations in the scientific literature in diverse areas of biology, law, anthropology, education, forensic science, and veterinary science, among others

Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995–2009: analysis of individual data for 25 676 887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2)

SummaryBackgroundWorldwide data for cancer survival are scarce. We aimed to initiate worldwide surveillance of cancer survival by central analysis of population-based registry data, as a metric of the effectiveness of health systems, and to inform global policy on cancer control.MethodsIndividual tumour records were submitted by 279 population-based cancer registries in 67 countries for 25·7 million adults (age 15–99 years) and 75 000 children (age 0–14 years) diagnosed with cancer during 1995–2009 and followed up to Dec 31, 2009, or later. We looked at cancers of the stomach, colon, rectum, liver, lung, breast (women), cervix, ovary, and prostate in adults, and adult and childhood leukaemia. Standardised quality control procedures were applied; errors were corrected by the registry concerned. We estimated 5-year net survival, adjusted for background mortality in every country or region by age (single year), sex, and calendar year, and by race or ethnic origin in some countries. Estimates were age-standardised with the International Cancer Survival Standard weights.Findings5-year survival from colon, rectal, and breast cancers has increased steadily in most developed countries. For patients diagnosed during 2005–09, survival for colon and rectal cancer reached 60% or more in 22 countries around the world; for breast cancer, 5-year survival rose to 85% or higher in 17 countries worldwide. Liver and lung cancer remain lethal in all nations: for both cancers, 5-year survival is below 20% everywhere in Europe, in the range 15–19% in North America, and as low as 7–9% in Mongolia and Thailand. Striking rises in 5-year survival from prostate cancer have occurred in many countries: survival rose by 10–20% between 1995–99 and 2005–09 in 22 countries in South America, Asia, and Europe, but survival still varies widely around the world, from less than 60% in Bulgaria and Thailand to 95% or more in Brazil, Puerto Rico, and the USA. For cervical cancer, national estimates of 5-year survival range from less than 50% to more than 70%; regional variations are much wider, and improvements between 1995–99 and 2005–09 have generally been slight. For women diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2005–09, 5-year survival was 40% or higher only in Ecuador, the USA, and 17 countries in Asia and Europe. 5-year survival for stomach cancer in 2005–09 was high (54–58%) in Japan and South Korea, compared with less than 40% in other countries. By contrast, 5-year survival from adult leukaemia in Japan and South Korea (18–23%) is lower than in most other countries. 5-year survival from childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia is less than 60% in several countries, but as high as 90% in Canada and four European countries, which suggests major deficiencies in the management of a largely curable disease.InterpretationInternational comparison of survival trends reveals very wide differences that are likely to be attributable to differences in access to early diagnosis and optimum treatment. Continuous worldwide surveillance of cancer survival should become an indispensable source of information for cancer patients and researchers and a stimulus for politicians to improve health policy and health-care systems.FundingCanadian Partnership Against Cancer (Toronto, Canada), Cancer Focus Northern Ireland (Belfast, UK), Cancer Institute New South Wales (Sydney, Australia), Cancer Research UK (London, UK), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Atlanta, GA, USA), Swiss Re (London, UK), Swiss Cancer Research foundation (Bern, Switzerland), Swiss Cancer League (Bern, Switzerland), and University of Kentucky (Lexington, KY, USA)

Serious Asthma Events with Fluticasone plus Salmeterol versus Fluticasone Alone

BACKGROUND: The safe and appropriate use of long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) for the treatment of asthma has been widely debated. In two large clinical trials, investigators found a potential risk of serious asthma-related events associated with LABAs. This study was designed to evaluate the risk of administering the LABA salmeterol in combination with an inhaled glucocorticoid, fluticasone propionate. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, adolescent and adult patients (age, ≥12 years) with persistent asthma were assigned to receive either fluticasone with salmeterol or fluticasone alone for 26 weeks. All the patients had a history of a severe asthma exacerbation in the year before randomization but not during the previous month. Patients were excluded from the trial if they had a history of life-threatening or unstable asthma. The primary safety end point was the first serious asthma-related event (death, endotracheal intubation, or hospitalization). Noninferiority of fluticasone-salmeterol to fluticasone alone was defined as an upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the risk of the primary safety end point of less than 2.0. The efficacy end point was the first severe asthma exacerbation. RESULTS: Of 11,679 patients who were enrolled, 67 had 74 serious asthma-related events, with 36 events in 34 patients in the fluticasone-salmeterol group and 38 events in 33 patients in the fluticasone-only group. The hazard ratio for a serious asthma-related event in the fluticasone-salmeterol group was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.66), and noninferiority was achieved (P=0.003). There were no asthma-related deaths; 2 patients in the fluticasone-only group underwent asthma-related intubation. The risk of a severe asthma exacerbation was 21% lower in the fluticasone-salmeterol group than in the fluticasone-only group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.89), with at least one severe asthma exacerbation occurring in 480 of 5834 patients (8%) in the fluticasone-salmeterol group, as compared with 597 of 5845 patients (10%) in the fluticasone-only group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received salmeterol in a fixed-dose combination with fluticasone did not have a significantly higher risk of serious asthma-related events than did those who received fluticasone alone. Patients receiving fluticasone-salmeterol had fewer severe asthma exacerbations than did those in the fluticasone-only group

Outcomes after perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with proximal femoral fractures: an international cohort study

Objectives Studies have demonstrated high rates of mortality in people with proximal femoral fracture and SARS-CoV-2, but there is limited published data on the factors that influence mortality for clinicians to make informed treatment decisions. This study aims to report the 30-day mortality associated with perioperative infection of patients undergoing surgery for proximal femoral fractures and to examine the factors that influence mortality in a multivariate analysis. Setting Prospective, international, multicentre, observational cohort study. Participants Patients undergoing any operation for a proximal femoral fracture from 1 February to 30 April 2020 and with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection (either 7 days prior or 30-day postoperative). Primary outcome 30-day mortality. Multivariate modelling was performed to identify factors associated with 30-day mortality. Results This study reports included 1063 patients from 174 hospitals in 19 countries. Overall 30-day mortality was 29.4% (313/1063). In an adjusted model, 30-day mortality was associated with male gender (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.68 to 3.13, p80 years (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.31, p=0.013), preoperative diagnosis of dementia (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.16, p=0.005), kidney disease (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.55, p=0.005) and congestive heart failure (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.48, p=0.025). Mortality at 30 days was lower in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.6 (0.42 to 0.85), p=0.004). There was no difference in mortality in patients with an increase to delay in surgery (p=0.220) or type of anaesthetic given (p=0.787). Conclusions Patients undergoing surgery for a proximal femoral fracture with a perioperative infection of SARS-CoV-2 have a high rate of mortality. This study would support the need for providing these patients with individualised medical and anaesthetic care, including medical optimisation before theatre. Careful preoperative counselling is needed for those with a proximal femoral fracture and SARS-CoV-2, especially those in the highest risk groups

Outcomes after perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with proximal femoral fractures: an international cohort study

Objectives Studies have demonstrated high rates of mortality in people with proximal femoral fracture and SARS-CoV-2, but there is limited published data on the factors that influence mortality for clinicians to make informed treatment decisions. This study aims to report the 30-day mortality associated with perioperative infection of patients undergoing surgery for proximal femoral fractures and to examine the factors that influence mortality in a multivariate analysis. Setting Prospective, international, multicentre, observational cohort study. Participants Patients undergoing any operation for a proximal femoral fracture from 1 February to 30 April 2020 and with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection (either 7 days prior or 30-day postoperative). Primary outcome 30-day mortality. Multivariate modelling was performed to identify factors associated with 30-day mortality. Results This study reports included 1063 patients from 174 hospitals in 19 countries. Overall 30-day mortality was 29.4% (313/1063). In an adjusted model, 30-day mortality was associated with male gender (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.68 to 3.13, p80 years (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.31, p=0.013), preoperative diagnosis of dementia (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.16, p=0.005), kidney disease (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.55, p=0.005) and congestive heart failure (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.48, p=0.025). Mortality at 30 days was lower in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.6 (0.42 to 0.85), p=0.004). There was no difference in mortality in patients with an increase to delay in surgery (p=0.220) or type of anaesthetic given (p=0.787). Conclusions Patients undergoing surgery for a proximal femoral fracture with a perioperative infection of SARS-CoV-2 have a high rate of mortality. This study would support the need for providing these patients with individualised medical and anaesthetic care, including medical optimisation before theatre. Careful preoperative counselling is needed for those with a proximal femoral fracture and SARS-CoV-2, especially those in the highest risk groups. Trial registration number NCT0432364

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

Aim The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. Methods This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. Results Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P &lt; 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. Conclusion One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease