Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Patients Who Develop Mucosal Barrier Injury-Laboratory Confirmed Bloodstream Infections in the First 100 Days after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant

Importance: Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) are at risk for bloodstream infection (BSI) secondary to translocation of bacteria through the injured mucosa, termed mucosal barrier injury-laboratory confirmed bloodstream infection (MBI-LCBI), in addition to BSI secondary to indwelling catheters and infection at other sites (BSI-other). Objective: To determine the incidence, timing, risk factors, and outcomes of patients who develop MBI-LCBI in the first 100 days after HSCT. Design, Setting, and Participants: A case-cohort retrospective analysis was performed using data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database on 16875 consecutive pediatric and adult patients receiving a first allogeneic HSCT from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2016. Patients were classified into 4 categories: MBI-LCBI (1481 [8.8%]), MBI-LCBI and BSI-other (698 [4.1%]), BSI-other only (2928 [17.4%]), and controls with no BSI (11768 [69.7%]). Statistical analysis was performed from April 5 to July 17, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Demographic characteristics and outcomes, including overall survival, chronic graft-vs-host disease, and transplant-related mortality (only for patients with malignant disease), were compared among groups. Results: Of the 16875 patients in the study (9737 [57.7%] male; median [range] age, 47 [0.04-82] years) 13686 (81.1%) underwent HSCT for a malignant neoplasm, and 3189 (18.9%) underwent HSCT for a nonmalignant condition. The cumulative incidence of MBI-LCBI was 13% (99% CI, 12%-13%) by day 100, and the cumulative incidence of BSI-other was 21% (99% CI, 21%-22%) by day 100. Median (range) time from transplant to first MBI-LCBI was 8 (<1 to 98) days vs 29 (<1 to 100) days for BSI-other. Multivariable analysis revealed an increased risk of MBI-LCBI with poor Karnofsky/Lansky performance status (hazard ratio [HR], 1.21 [99% CI, 1.04-1.41]), cord blood grafts (HR, 2.89 [99% CI, 1.97-4.24]), myeloablative conditioning (HR, 1.46 [99% CI, 1.19-1.78]), and posttransplant cyclophosphamide graft-vs-host disease prophylaxis (HR, 1.85 [99% CI, 1.38-2.48]). One-year mortality was significantly higher for patients with MBI-LCBI (HR, 1.81 [99% CI, 1.56-2.12]), BSI-other (HR, 1.81 [99% CI, 1.60-2.06]), and MBI-LCBI plus BSI-other (HR, 2.65 [99% CI, 2.17-3.24]) compared with controls. Infection was more commonly reported as a cause of death for patients with MBI-LCBI (139 of 740 [18.8%]), BSI (251 of 1537 [16.3%]), and MBI-LCBI plus BSI (94 of 435 [21.6%]) than for controls (566 of 4740 [11.9%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, MBI-LCBI, in addition to any BSIs, were associated with significant morbidity and mortality after HSCT. Further investigation into risk reduction should be a clinical and scientific priority in this patient population

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries