Delivering Safe Surgical Care While Simultaneously Caring for Patients With COVID-19; Assessment of Patient Selection, Volume and Outcomes in a Tertiary Care Hospital

Objectives: Compare patient selection and postoperative outcomes after surgical treatment for gastrointestinal disorders before and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Methods: We assessed gastrointestinal surgeries conducted at a tertiary center from 2017-2021 for differences in patient populations and procedures before (up to February 2020) and during the pandemic (March 2020 to December 2021). We analyzed mortality, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) length of stay, admission to ICU and postoperative complications for complex procedures using descriptive statistics and regression models. Results: 7309 procedures were analyzed, showing a caseload reduction in March and October 2020, but no statistical evidence for fewer overall procedures overall. Population characteristics differed with lower Body Mass Indices in 2020 and 2021, more patients smoking and with diabetes treated in 2020. There was no increased mortality, ICU length of stay and in 1,144 complex procedures assessed low overall morbidity at 90 days postoperative. Conclusion: Delivering surgical care while treating patients for COVID-19 in the same hospital was safe. Healthcare officials should consider continuing surgical care during future health crises as consequences of limiting surgical treatment for gastrointestinal disorders may be fatal for patients

Delivering Safe Surgical Care While Simultaneously Caring for Patients With COVID-19; Assessment of Patient Selection, Volume and Outcomes in a Tertiary Care Hospital

Objectives: Compare patient selection and postoperative outcomes after surgical treatment for gastrointestinal disorders before and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.Methods: We assessed gastrointestinal surgeries conducted at a tertiary center from 2017–2021 for differences in patient populations and procedures before (up to February 2020) and during the pandemic (March 2020 to December 2021). We analyzed mortality, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) length of stay, admission to ICU and postoperative complications for complex procedures using descriptive statistics and regression models.Results: 7309 procedures were analyzed, showing a caseload reduction in March and October 2020, but no statistical evidence for fewer overall procedures overall. Population characteristics differed with lower Body Mass Indices in 2020 and 2021, more patients smoking and with diabetes treated in 2020. There was no increased mortality, ICU length of stay and in 1,144 complex procedures assessed low overall morbidity at 90 days postoperative.Conclusion: Delivering surgical care while treating patients for COVID-19 in the same hospital was safe. Healthcare officials should consider continuing surgical care during future health crises as consequences of limiting surgical treatment for gastrointestinal disorders may be fatal for patients

Allgrove (AAA) Syndrome manifestations after gastroenteritis: A case report

Allgrove (AAA) syndrome or familial glucocorticoid deficiency or Tripple A Syndrome is a rare genetic disorder with transmitted autosomal recessive. Allgrove and colleagues first described this syndrome in 1978. Allgrove Syndrome characterized by Adrenal insufficiency, Alacrima and Achalasia. Neurological and dermatological findings may be presented in some patients. Hyperpigmentation and Alacrima are diagnostic key findings in Allgrove Syndrome. In this report we describe a 2 year old patient with the clinical picture of Allgrove Syndrome after gasteroenteritis

Novel Benchmark Values for Redo Liver Transplantation: Does the Outcome Justify the Effort?

OBJECTIVE To define benchmark cutoffs for redo liver transplantation (redo-LT). BACKGROUND In the era of organ shortage, redo-LT is frequently discussed in terms of expected poor outcome and wasteful resources. However, there is a lack of benchmark data to reliably evaluate outcomes after redo-LT. METHODS We collected data on redo-LT between January 2010 and December 2018 from 22 high-volume transplant centers. Benchmark cases were defined as recipients with model of end stage liver disease (MELD) score ≤25, absence of portal vein thrombosis, no mechanical ventilation at the time of surgery, receiving a graft from a donor after brain death. Also, high-urgent priority and early redo-LT including those for primary nonfunction (PNF) or hepatic artery thrombosis were excluded. Benchmark cutoffs were derived from the 75th percentile of the medians of all benchmark centers. RESULTS Of 1110 redo-LT, 373 (34%) cases qualified as benchmark cases. Among these cases, the rate of postoperative complications until discharge was 76%, and increased up to 87% at 1-year, respectively. One-year overall survival rate was excellent with 90%. Benchmark cutoffs included Comprehensive Complication Index CCI ® at 1-year of ≤72, and in-hospital and 1-year mortality rates of ≤13% and ≤15%, respectively. In contrast, patients who received a redo-LT for PNF showed worse outcomes with some values dramatically outside the redo-LT benchmarks. CONCLUSION This study shows that redo-LT achieves good outcome when looking at benchmark scenarios. However, this figure changes in high-risk redo-LT, as for example in PNF. This analysis objectifies for the first-time results and efforts for redo-LT and can serve as a basis for discussion about the use of scarce resources

Perioperative outcome assessment from the perspectives of different stakeholders: need for reconsideration?

Standardised and universal perioperative endpoint reporting are the cornerstone for outcomes assessment, reliable clinical trials, and health services research. The Outcome4medicine initiative recently reported consensus recommendations on how to assess the quality of surgical interventions, proposing a framework for surgical outcome assessment and quality improvement after medical interventions. In the same field, the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine - Core Outcome Measures for Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (StEP-COMPAC) group recently proposed standardised and valid measures of mortality and morbidity, derived from a three-stage Delphi process. Here a core group of the Outcome4medicine conference discusses how these two initiatives are aligned and emphasises the importance of standardised outcome assessment by integrating the perspectives of different stakeholders

Impact of muscle mass on survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation beyond the Milan criteria

Background: Access to the liver transplant waitlist for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) depends on tumour presentation, biology, and response to treatments. The Milan Criteria (MC) represent the benchmark for expanded criteria that incorporate additional prognostic factors. The purpose of this study was to determine the added value of skeletal muscle index (SMI) in HCC patients beyond the MC. Method: Patients with HCC that were transplanted beyond the MC were included in this retrospective multicentre study. SMI was quantified using the Computed Tomography (CT) within 3 months prior to transplantation. Cox regression models were used to identify predictors of overall survival (OS). The discriminative performance of SMI extended Metroticket 2.0 and AFP models was also assessed. Results: Out of 889 patients transplanted outside the MC, 528 had a CT scan within 3 months prior to liver transplantation (LT), of whom 176 (33%) were classified as sarcopenic. The median time between assessment of the SMI and LT was 1.8 months (IQR: 0.77–2.67). The median follow-up period was 5.1 95% CI [4.7–5.5] years, with a total of 177 recorded deaths from any cause. In a linear regression model with SMI as the dependent variable, only male gender (8.55 95% CI [6.51–10.59], P < 0.001) and body mass index (0.74 95% CI [0.59–0.89], P < 0.001) were significant. Univariable survival analysis of patients with sarcopenia versus patients without sarcopenia showed a significant difference in OS (HR 1.44 95% CI [1.07 − 1.94], P = 0.018). Also the SMI was significant (HR 0.98 95% CI [0.96–0.99], P = 0.014). The survival difference between the lowest SMI quartile versus the highest SMI quartile was significant (log-rank: P = 0.005) with 5 year OS of 57% and 71%, respectively. Data from 423 patients, describing 139 deaths, was used for multivariate analysis. Both sarcopenia (HR 1.45 95% CI [1.02 − 2.05], P = 0.036) and SMI were (HR 0.98 95% CI [0.95–0.99], P = 0.035) significant. On the survival scale this translates to a 5 year OS difference of 11% between sarcopenia and no sarcopenia. Whereas for SMI, this translates to a survival difference of 8% between first and third quartiles for both genders. Conclusions: Overall, we can conclude that higher muscle mass contributes to a better long-term survival. However, for individual patients, low muscle mass should not be considered an absolute contra-indication for LT as its discriminatory performance was limited

Novel Benchmark Values for Redo Liver Transplantation. Does the Outcome Justify the Effort?: Does the Outcome Justify the Effort?

OBJECTIVE: To define benchmark cutoffs for redo liver transplantation (redo-LT). BACKGROUND: In the era of organ shortage, redo-LT is frequently discussed in terms of expected poor outcome and wasteful resources. However, there is a lack of benchmark data to reliably evaluate outcomes after redo-LT. METHODS: We collected data on redo-LT between January 2010 and December 2018 from 22 high-volume transplant centers. Benchmark cases were defined as recipients with MELD score ≤25, absence of portal vein thrombosis, no mechanical ventilation at the time of surgery, receiving a graft from a donor after brain death. Also, high-urgent priority and early redo-LT including those for primary non-function (PNF) or hepatic artery thrombosis were excluded. Benchmark cutoffs were derived from the 75th percentile of the medians of all benchmark centers. RESULTS: Out of 1110 redo-LT, 373 (34%) cases qualified as benchmark cases. Among these cases, the rate of postoperative complications until discharge was 76%, and increased up to 87% at 1-year, respectively. One-year overall survival rate was excellent with 90%. Benchmark cutoffs included Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®) at 1-year of ≤72, and in-hospital and 1-year mortality rates of ≤13% and ≤15%, respectively. In contrast, patients who received a redo-LT for PNF showed worse outcomes with some values dramatically outside the redo-LT benchmarks. CONCLUSION: This study shows that redo-LT achieves good outcome when looking at benchmark scenarios. However, this figure changes in high-risk redo-LT, as for example in PNF. This major analysis objectifies for the first-time results and efforts for redo-LT and can serve as a basis for discussion about the use of scarce resources

Novel Benchmark Values for Redo Liver Transplantation. Does the Outcome Justify the Effort?

To define benchmark cutoffs for redo liver transplantation (redo-LT). In the era of organ shortage, redo-LT is frequently discussed in terms of expected poor outcome and wasteful resources. However, there is a lack of benchmark data to reliably evaluate outcomes after redo-LT. We collected data on redo-LT between January 2010 and December 2018 from 22 high-volume transplant centers. Benchmark cases were defined as recipients with MELD score ≤25, absence of portal vein thrombosis, no mechanical ventilation at the time of surgery, receiving a graft from a donor after brain death. Also, high-urgent priority and early redo-LT including those for primary non-function (PNF) or hepatic artery thrombosis were excluded. Benchmark cutoffs were derived from the 75th percentile of the medians of all benchmark centers. Out of 1110 redo-LT, 373 (34%) cases qualified as benchmark cases. Among these cases, the rate of postoperative complications until discharge was 76%, and increased up to 87% at 1-year, respectively. One-year overall survival rate was excellent with 90%. Benchmark cutoffs included Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®) at 1-year of ≤72, and in-hospital and 1-year mortality rates of ≤13% and ≤15%, respectively. In contrast, patients who received a redo-LT for PNF showed worse outcomes with some values dramatically outside the redo-LT benchmarks. This study shows that redo-LT achieves good outcome when looking at benchmark scenarios. However, this figure changes in high-risk redo-LT, as for example in PNF. This major analysis objectifies for the first-time results and efforts for redo-LT and can serve as a basis for discussion about the use of scarce resources