Comparison of outcomes in non-head injured trauma patients using pre-injury warfarin or direct oral anticoagulant therapy

Background: Patients on prehospital anticoagulation with warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) represent a vulnerable subset of the trauma population. While protocolized warfarin reversal is widely available and easily implemented, prehospital anticoagulation with DOAC is cost prohibitive with only a few reversal options. This study aims to compare hospital outcomes of non-head injured trauma patients taking pre-injury DOAC versus warfarin.Methods: A retrospective cohort study at a level 1 trauma center was performed. All adult trauma patients with pre-injury anticoagulation admitted between January 2015 and December 2018, were stratified into DOAC-using and warfarin-using groups. Patients were excluded if they had traumatic brain injury (TBI). Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed. Outcomes measures included inhospital mortality, blood transfusion requirements, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS and discharge disposition.Results: 374 non-TBI trauma patients on anticoagulation were identified, of which 134 were on DOACs and 240 on warfarin. Patients on DOACs had a higher ISS (9 [IQR, 9-10] vs. 9 [IQR, 5-9]; p<0.001), and lower admission INR values (1.2 [IQR, 1.1-1.3] vs 2.4 [IQR, 1.8-2.7]; p<0.001) than warfarin users. Use of reversal agents was higher in warfarin users (p< 0.001). Relative to warfarin, DOAC users did not differ significantly with respect to hospital mortality (OR 0.47, 95% CI [0.13-1.73]). Multivariable analysis (not possible for mortality) did not show significant difference for RBC transfusion requirements (OR 0.92 [0.51-1.67]), ICU LOS (OR 1.08 [0.53-2.19]), hospital LOS (OR 1.10 [0.70-1.74]) or discharge disposition (OR 0.56 [0.29-1.11]) between the groups.Conclusion: Despite lower reversal rates and higher ISS, non-TBI trauma patients with pre-injury DOAC use had similar outcomes as patients on pre-injury warfarin. There may be equipoise to have larger, prospective studies evaluating the comparative safety of DOACs and warfarin in the population prone to low energy fall type injuries. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Trauma Surger

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

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.Scientific Assessment and Innovation in Neurosurgical Treatment Strategie