Apolipoprotein A-II Influences Apolipoprotein E-Linked Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Women with High Levels of HDL Cholesterol and C-Reactive Protein

Background: In a previous report by our group, high levels of apolipoprotein E (apoE) were demonstrated to be associated with risk of incident cardiovascular disease in women with high levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) in the setting of both low (designated as HR1 subjects) and high (designated as HR2 subjects) levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). To assess whether apolipoprotein A-II (apoA-II) plays a role in apoE-associated risk in the two female groups. Methodology/Principal: Outcome event mapping, a graphical data exploratory tool; Cox proportional hazards multivariable regression; and curve-fitting modeling were used to examine apoA-II influence on apoE-associated risk focusing on HDL particles with apolipoprotein A-I (apoA-I) without apoA-II (LpA-I) and HDL particles with both apoA-I and apoA-II (LpA-I:A-II). Results of outcome mappings as a function of apoE levels and the ratio of apoA-II to apoA-I revealed within each of the two populations, a high-risk subgroup characterized in each situation by high levels of apoE and additionally: in HR1, by a low value of the apoA-II/apoA-I ratio; and in HR2, by a moderate value of the apoA-II/apoA-I ratio. Furthermore, derived estimates of LpA-I and LpA-I:A-II levels revealed for high-risk versus remaining subjects: in HR1, higher levels of LpA-I and lower levels of LpA-I:A-II; and in HR2 the reverse, lower levels of LpA-I and higher levels of LpA-I:A-II. Results of multivariable risk modeling as a function of LpA-I and LpA-I:A-II (dichotomized as highest quartile versus combined three lower quartiles) revealed association of risk only for high levels of LpA-I:A-II in the HR2 subgroup (hazard ratio 5.31, 95% CI 1.12-25.17, p = 0.036). Furthermore, high LpA-I: A-II levels interacted with high apoE levels in establishing subgroup risk. Conclusions/Significance: We conclude that apoA-II plays a significant role in apoE-associated risk of incident CVD in women with high levels of HDL-C and CRP

Intraperitoneal drain placement and outcomes after elective colorectal surgery: international matched, prospective, cohort study

Despite current guidelines, intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery remains widespread. Drains were not associated with earlier detection of intraperitoneal collections, but were associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased risk of surgical-site infections.Background Many surgeons routinely place intraperitoneal drains after elective colorectal surgery. However, enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines recommend against their routine use owing to a lack of clear clinical benefit. This study aimed to describe international variation in intraperitoneal drain placement and the safety of this practice. Methods COMPASS (COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery) was a prospective, international, cohort study which enrolled consecutive adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery (February to March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included: rate and time to diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections; rate of surgical site infections (SSIs); time to discharge; and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade at least III). After propensity score matching, multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to estimate the independent association of the secondary outcomes with drain placement. Results Overall, 1805 patients from 22 countries were included (798 women, 44.2 per cent; median age 67.0 years). The drain insertion rate was 51.9 per cent (937 patients). After matching, drains were not associated with reduced rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. 0.79 to 2.23; P = 0.287) or earlier detection (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 0.33 to 2.31; P = 0.780) of collections. Although not associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR 1.09, 0.68 to 1.75; P = 0.709), drains were associated with delayed hospital discharge (HR 0.58, 0.52 to 0.66; P < 0.001) and an increased risk of SSIs (OR 2.47, 1.50 to 4.05; P < 0.001). Conclusion Intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery is not associated with earlier detection of postoperative collections, but prolongs hospital stay and increases SSI risk

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 < 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