Legal framework of antimicrobial stewardship in hospitals (LEASH): a European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) cross-sectional international survey

Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) is the cornerstone activity in the combat against antimicrobial resistance. In order to ensure sustainable deployment and development of AMS, a strategic and regulatory framework needs to be provided by national healthcare authorities. Experts from 32 European countries, Israel and Turkey were invited to participate in a cross-sectional internet-based survey from October 2016 to May 2017 on the legal framework and mandatory components (structures, activities) of AMS in hospitals, i.e. components required by legislation or regulations. We collected data from 25 countries and two regions (in countries with federal health administration). Laws regulating AMS existed in seven countries and one region. Other health ministry regulations were applicable in 13 countries and one region. National strategies and/or action plans approved by ministries of health were in place in 13 countries and one region. Conversely, five countries and one region had no regulation of AMS in hospitals. Funding for AMS in hospitals was provided in five countries and one region. Eight countries and one region reported mandatory AMS structures and activities complying with the Transatlantic Taskforce on Antimicrobial Resistance (TATFAR) structure, policy and practice indicators. In 10/27 cases, however, the mandatory AMS activities were not being fully carried out. The survey showed heterogeneous legal frameworks for AMS in hospitals, and in many countries it was even lacking. The situation may be critical in countries with poor control of antimicrobial use and resistance. Recent international initiatives calling on policy-makers to address the threat of antimicrobial resistance could yield improvement

Evaluation of prognostic risk models for postoperative pulmonary complications in adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: a systematic review and international external validation cohort study

Background Stratifying risk of postoperative pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery allows clinicians to modify risk through targeted interventions and enhanced monitoring. In this study, we aimed to identify and validate prognostic models against a new consensus definition of postoperative pulmonary complications. Methods We did a systematic review and international external validation cohort study. The systematic review was done in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE and Embase on March 1, 2020, for articles published in English that reported on risk prediction models for postoperative pulmonary complications following abdominal surgery. External validation of existing models was done within a prospective international cohort study of adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing major abdominal surgery. Data were collected between Jan 1, 2019, and April 30, 2019, in the UK, Ireland, and Australia. Discriminative ability and prognostic accuracy summary statistics were compared between models for the 30-day postoperative pulmonary complication rate as defined by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine Core Outcome Measures in Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (StEP-COMPAC). Model performance was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC). Findings In total, we identified 2903 records from our literature search; of which, 2514 (86·6%) unique records were screened, 121 (4·8%) of 2514 full texts were assessed for eligibility, and 29 unique prognostic models were identified. Nine (31·0%) of 29 models had score development reported only, 19 (65·5%) had undergone internal validation, and only four (13·8%) had been externally validated. Data to validate six eligible models were collected in the international external validation cohort study. Data from 11 591 patients were available, with an overall postoperative pulmonary complication rate of 7·8% (n=903). None of the six models showed good discrimination (defined as AUROCC ≥0·70) for identifying postoperative pulmonary complications, with the Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia score showing the best discrimination (AUROCC 0·700 [95% CI 0·683–0·717]). Interpretation In the pre-COVID-19 pandemic data, variability in the risk of pulmonary complications (StEP-COMPAC definition) following major abdominal surgery was poorly described by existing prognostication tools. To improve surgical safety during the COVID-19 pandemic recovery and beyond, novel risk stratification tools are required. Funding British Journal of Surgery Society