A Review of metabolic staging in severely injured patients

An interpretation of the metabolic response to injury in patients with severe accidental or surgical trauma is made. In the last century, various authors attributed a meaning to the post-traumatic inflammatory response by using teleological arguments. Their interpretations of this response, not only facilitates integrating the knowledge, but also the flow from the bench to the bedside, which is the main objective of modern translational research. The goal of the current review is to correlate the metabolic changes with the three phenotypes -ischemia-reperfusion, leukocytic and angiogenic- that the patients express during the evolution of the systemic inflammatory response. The sequence in the expression of multiple metabolic systems that becomes progressively more elaborate and complex in severe injured patients urges for more detailed knowledge in order to establish the most adequate metabolic support according to the evolutive phase. Thus, clinicians must employ different treatment strategies based on the different metabolic phases when caring for this challenging patient population. Perhaps, the best therapeutic option would be to favor early hypometabolism during the ischemia-reperfusion phase, to boost the antienzymatic metabolism and to reduce hypermetabolism during the leukocytic phase through the early administration of enteral nutrition and the modulation of the acute phase response. Lastly, the early epithelial regeneration of the injured organs and tissues by means of an oxidative metabolism would reduce the fibrotic sequelae in these severely injured patients

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Surgical techniques, open versus minimally invasive gastrectomy after chemotherapy (STOMACH trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Laparoscopic surgery has been shown to provide important advantages in comparison with open procedures in the treatment of several malignant diseases, such as less perioperative blood loss and faster patient recovery. It also maintains similar results with regard to tumor resection margins and oncological long-term survival. In gastric cancer the role of laparoscopic surgery remains unclear. Current recommended treatment for gastric cancer consists of radical resection of the stomach, with a free margin of 5 to 6 cm from the tumor, combined with a lymphadenectomy. The extent of the lymphadenectomy is considered a marker for radicality of surgery and quality of care. Therefore, it is imperative that a novel surgical technique, such as minimally invasive total gastrectomy, should be non-inferior with regard to radicality of surgery and lymph node yield. The Surgical Techniques, Open versus Minimally invasive gastrectomy After CHemotherapy (STOMACH) study is a randomized, clinical multicenter trial. All adult patients with primary carcinoma of the stomach, in which the tumor is considered surgically resectable (T1-3, N0-1, M0) after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, are eligible for inclusion and randomization. The primary endpoint is quality of oncological resection, measured by radicality of surgery and number of retrieved lymph nodes. The pathologist is blinded towards patient allocation. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) regarding quality of life, postoperative complications and cost-effectiveness. Based on a non-inferiority model for lymph node yield, with an average lymph node yield of 20, a non-inferiority margin of -4 and a 90% power to detect non-inferiority, a total of 168 patients are to be included. The STOMACH trial is a prospective, multicenter, parallel randomized study to define the optimal surgical strategy in patients with proximal or central gastric cancer after neo-adjuvant therapy: the conventional 'open' approach or minimally invasive total gastrectomy. This trial was registered on 28 April 2014 at Clinicaltrials.gov with the identifier NCT0213072

Open versus minimally invasive total gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results of a European randomized trial

Background: Surgical resection with adequate lymphadenectomy is regarded the only curative option for gastric cancer. Regarding minimally invasive techniques, mainly Asian studies showed comparable oncological and short-term postoperative outcomes. The incidence of gastric cancer is lower in the Western population and patients often present with more advanced stages of disease. Therefore, the reproducibility of these Asian results in the Western population remains to be investigated. Methods: A randomized trial was performed in thirteen hospitals in Europe. Patients with an indication for total gastrectomy who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were eligible for inclusion and randomized between open total gastrectomy (OTG) or minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MITG). Primary outcome was oncological safety, measured as the number of resected lymph nodes and radicality. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, recovery and 1-year survival. Results: Between January 2015 and June 2018, 96 patients were included in this trial. Forty-nine patients were randomized to OTG and 47 to MITG. The mean number of resected lymph nodes was 43.4 ± 17.3 in OTG and 41.7 ± 16.1 in MITG (p = 0.612). Forty-eight patients in the OTG group had a R0 resection and 44 patients in the MITG group (p = 0.617). One-year survival was 90.4% in OTG and 85.5% in MITG (p = 0.701). No significant differences were found regarding postoperative complications and recovery. Conclusion: These findings provide evidence that MITG after neoadjuvant therapy is not inferior regarding oncological quality of resection in comparison to OTG in Western patients with resectable gastric cancer. In addition, no differences in postoperative complications and recovery were seen

Correction to: Open versus minimally invasive total gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results of a European randomized trial (Gastric Cancer, (2021), 24, 1, (258-271), 10.1007/s10120-020-01109-w)

In the original publication of the article, the co-author name “Christoph Reiβfelder” was incorrectly published

Health related quality of life following open versus minimally invasive total gastrectomy for cancer: Results from a randomized clinical trial

Introduction: Minimally invasive techniques show improved short-term and comparable long-term outcomes compared to open techniques in the treatment of gastric cancer and improved survival has been seen with the implementation of multimodality treatment. Therefore, focus of research has shifted towards optimizing treatment regimens and improving quality of life. Materials and methods: A randomized trial was performed in thirteen hospitals in Europe. Patients were randomized between open total gastrectomy (OTG) or minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MITG) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This study investigated patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following OTG or MITG, using the Euro-Qol-5D (EQ-5D) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires, modules C30 and STO22. Due to multiple testing a p-value < 0.001 was deemed statistically significant. Results: Between January 2015 and June 2018, 96 patients were included in this trial. Forty-nine patients were randomized to OTG and 47 to MITG. A response compliance of 80% was achieved for all PROMs. The EQ5D overall health score one year after surgery was 85 (60–90) in the open group and 68 (50–83.8) in the minimally invasive group (P = 0.049). The median EORTC-QLQ-C30 overall health score one year postoperatively was 83,3 (66,7–83,3) in the open group and 58,3 (35,4–66,7) in the minimally invasive group (P = 0.002). This was not statistically significant. Conclusion: No differences were observed between open total gastrectomy and minimally invasive total gastrectomy regarding HRQoL data, collected using the EQ-5D, EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC-QLQ-STO22 questionnaires