Global patient outcomes after elective surgery: prospective cohort study in 27 low-, middle- and high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: As global initiatives increase patient access to surgical treatments, there remains a need to understand the adverse effects of surgery and define appropriate levels of perioperative care. METHODS: We designed a prospective international 7-day cohort study of outcomes following elective adult inpatient surgery in 27 countries. The primary outcome was in-hospital complications. Secondary outcomes were death following a complication (failure to rescue) and death in hospital. Process measures were admission to critical care immediately after surgery or to treat a complication and duration of hospital stay. A single definition of critical care was used for all countries. RESULTS: A total of 474 hospitals in 19 high-, 7 middle- and 1 low-income country were included in the primary analysis. Data included 44 814 patients with a median hospital stay of 4 (range 2-7) days. A total of 7508 patients (16.8%) developed one or more postoperative complication and 207 died (0.5%). The overall mortality among patients who developed complications was 2.8%. Mortality following complications ranged from 2.4% for pulmonary embolism to 43.9% for cardiac arrest. A total of 4360 (9.7%) patients were admitted to a critical care unit as routine immediately after surgery, of whom 2198 (50.4%) developed a complication, with 105 (2.4%) deaths. A total of 1233 patients (16.4%) were admitted to a critical care unit to treat complications, with 119 (9.7%) deaths. Despite lower baseline risk, outcomes were similar in low- and middle-income compared with high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Poor patient outcomes are common after inpatient surgery. Global initiatives to increase access to surgical treatments should also address the need for safe perioperative care. STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN5181700

Impact of Donor and Recipient Cytokine Genotypes on Renal Allograft Outcome

Allelic differences in gene promoter or codifying regions have been described to affect regulation of gene expression, consequently increasing or decreasing cytokine production and signal transduction responses to a given stimulus. This observation has been reported for interleukin (IL)-10 (-1082 A/G; -819/-592 CT/CA), transforming growth factor (TGF)-beta (codon 10 C/T, codon 25 G/C), tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha (-308 G/A), TNF-beta (+252 A/G), interferon (IFN)-gamma (+874 T/A), IL-6 (-174 G/C), and IL-4R alpha (+1902 G/A). To evaluate the influence of these cytokine genotypes on the development of acute or chronic rejection, we correlated the genotypes of both kidney graft recipients and cadaver donors with the clinical outcome. Kidney recipients had 5 years follow-up, at least 2 HLA-DRB compatibilities, and a maximum of 25% anti-HLA pretransplantation sensitization. The clinical outcomes were grouped as follows: stable functioning graft (NR, n = 35); acute rejection episodes (AR, n = 31); and chronic rejection (CR, n = 31). The cytokine genotype polymorphisms were defined using PCR-SSP typing. A statistical analysis showed a significant prevalence of recipient IL-10 -819/-592 genotype among CR individuals; whereas among donors, the TGF-beta codon 10 CT genotype was significantly associated with the AR cohort and the IL-6 -174 CC genotype with CR. Other albeit not significant observations included a strong predisposition of recipient TGF-beta codon 10 CT genotype with CR, and TNF-beta 252 AA with AR. A low frequency of TNF-alpha -308 AA genotype also was observed among recipients and donors who showed poor allograft outcomes

Is community treatment best? A randomised trial comparing delivery of cancer treatment in the hospital, home and GP surgery

Background: Care closer to home is being explored as a means of improving patient experience as well as efficiency in terms of cost savings. Evidence that community cancer services improve care quality and/or generate cost savings is currently limited. A randomised study was undertaken to compare delivery of cancer treatment in the hospital with two different community settings. Methods: Ninety-seven patients being offered outpatient-based cancer treatment were randomised to treatment delivered in a hospital day unit, at the patient’s home or in local general practice (GP) surgeries. The primary outcome was patient-perceived benefits, using the emotional function domain of the EORTC quality of life (QOL) QLQC30 questionnaire evaluated after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included additional QOL measures, patient satisfaction, safety and health economics. Results: There was no statistically significant QOL difference between treatment in the combined community locations relative to hospital (difference of −7.2, 95% confidence interval: −19·5 to +5·2, P=0.25). There was a significant difference between the two community locations in favour of home (+15·2, 1·3 to 29·1, P=0.033). Hospital anxiety and depression scale scores were consistent with the primary outcome measure. There was no evidence that community treatment compromised patient safety and no significant difference between treatment arms in terms of overall costs or Quality Adjusted Life Year. Seventy-eight percent of patients expressed satisfaction with their treatment whatever their location, whereas 57% of patients preferred future treatment to continue at the hospital, 81% at GP surgeries and 90% at home. Although initial pre-trial interviews revealed concerns among health-care professionals and some patients regarding community treatment, opinions were largely more favourable in post-trial interviews. Interpretation: Patient QOL favours delivering cancer treatment in the home rather than GP surgeries. Nevertheless, both community settings were acceptable to and preferred by patients compared with hospital, were safe, with no detrimental impact on overall health-care costs