I puritani

Coreògraf i mestre de ball : Joan Magrinyà ; Mestre de cor : Riccardo Bottino ; Director d'escena : Diego MonjoDe cada obra s'ha digitalitzat un programa sencer. De la resta s'han digitalitzat les parts que són diferents.Empresa: Juan A. PamiasOrquestra del Gran Teatre del Liceu dirigida per Renato SabbioniÒpera de Bellini i llibret de Pepol

Abdominal drainage after elective colorectal surgery: propensity score-matched retrospective analysis of an Italian cohort

background: In italy, surgeons continue to drain the abdominal cavity in more than 50 per cent of patients after colorectal resection. the aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of abdominal drain placement on early adverse events in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. methods: a database was retrospectively analysed through a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 21 covariates. the primary endpoint was the postoperative duration of stay, and the secondary endpoints were surgical site infections, infectious morbidity rate defined as surgical site infections plus pulmonary infections plus urinary infections, anastomotic leakage, overall morbidity rate, major morbidity rate, reoperation and mortality rates. the results of multiple logistic regression analyses were presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95 per cent c.i. results: a total of 6157 patients were analysed to produce two well-balanced groups of 1802 patients: group (A), no abdominal drain(s) and group (B), abdominal drain(s). group a versus group B showed a significantly lower risk of postoperative duration of stay >6 days (OR 0.60; 95 per cent c.i. 0.51-0.70; P < 0.001). a mean postoperative duration of stay difference of 0.86 days was detected between groups. no difference was recorded between the two groups for all the other endpoints. conclusion: this study confirms that placement of abdominal drain(s) after elective colorectal surgery is associated with a non-clinically significant longer (0.86 days) postoperative duration of stay but has no impact on any other secondary outcomes, confirming that abdominal drains should not be used routinely in colorectal surgery

Blood Transfusions and Adverse Events after Colorectal Surgery: A Propensity-Score-Matched Analysis of a Hen-Egg Issue

Blood transfusions are considered a risk factor for adverse outcomes after colorectal surgery. However, it is still unclear if they are the cause (the hen) or the consequence (the egg) of adverse events. A prospective database of 4529 colorectal resections gathered over a 12-month period in 76 Italian surgical units (the iCral3 study), reporting patient-, disease-, and procedure-related variables, together with 60-day adverse events, was retrospectively analyzed identifying a subgroup of 304 cases (6.7%) that received intra- and/or postoperative blood transfusions (IPBTs). The endpoints considered were overall and major morbidity (OM and MM, respectively), anastomotic leakage (AL), and mortality (M) rates. After the exclusion of 336 patients who underwent neo-adjuvant treatments, 4193 (92.6%) cases were analyzed through a 1:1 propensity score matching model including 22 covariates. Two well-balanced groups of 275 patients each were obtained: group A, presence of IPBT, and group B, absence of IPBT. Group A vs. group B showed a significantly higher risk of overall morbidity (154 (56%) vs. 84 (31%) events; OR 3.07; 95%CI 2.13-4.43; p = 0.001), major morbidity (59 (21%) vs. 13 (4.7%) events; OR 6.06; 95%CI 3.17-11.6; p = 0.001), and anastomotic leakage (31 (11.3%) vs. 8 (2.9%) events; OR 4.72; 95%CI 2.09-10.66; p = 0.0002). No significant difference was recorded between the two groups concerning the risk of mortality. The original subpopulation of 304 patients that received IPBT was further analyzed considering three variables: appropriateness of BT according to liberal transfusion thresholds, BT following any hemorrhagic and/or major adverse event, and major adverse event following BT without any previous hemorrhagic adverse event. Inappropriate BT was administered in more than a quarter of cases, without any significant influence on any endpoint. The majority of BT was administered after a hemorrhagic or a major adverse event, with significantly higher rates of MM and AL. Finally, a major adverse event followed BT in a minority (4.3%) of cases, with significantly higher MM, AL, and M rates. In conclusion, although the majority of IPBT was administered with the consequence of hemorrhage and/or major adverse events (the egg), after adjustment accounting for 22 covariates, IPBT still resulted in a definite source of a higher risk of major morbidity and anastomotic leakage rates after colorectal surgery (the hen), calling urgent attention to the implementation of patient blood management programs

Length of stay after colorectal surgery in Italy: the gap between “fit for” and “actual” discharge in a prospective cohort of 4529 cases

Background: It is common to observe a gap between the day on which the discharge criteria are reached and the actual day of discharge after colorectal surgery. The aim of this study is to understand the reasons for this difference and its clinical impact on the overall length of stay (LOS). Methods: All patients enrolled in the prospective iCral3 study were analyzed regarding any difference and reason between the "fit for discharge" (FFD) and "actual discharge" (AD) dates. The association between the gap and the LOS in the whole population was then assessed through a multivariate regression model including other confounding variables. Results: The analysis included 4529 patients, with a median [IQR] LOS of 6 [4-8] days. The median [IQR] LOS was 6 [4-8] days in the no-gap group (3,910 patients, 86.3%), significantly lower (p < .001) than 7 [6-10] days in the gap group (619 patients, 13.7%). Among the gap reasons, the "need for postoperative rehabilitation" compared to "not willing to return home" and "social constraints" was associated with the longest LOS (9 [6.0-12.5] days, p < 0.001 vs other reasons). The existence of the gap independently determined a 2.3-day lengthening of LOS. Conclusions: Among other factors, the gap between FFD and AD had an independent impact on LOS. The most frequent reasons for this gap were "not willing to return home" and "social constraint", while the "need for postoperative rehabilitation" had the greater clinical impact

Bowel preparation for elective colorectal resection: multi-treatment machine learning analysis on 6241 cases from a prospective Italian cohort

background current evidence concerning bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery is still controversial. this study aimed to compare the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL), surgical site infections (SSIs), and overall morbidity (any adverse event, OM) after elective colorectal surgery using four different types of bowel preparation. methods a prospective database gathered among 78 Italian surgical centers in two prospective studies, including 6241 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection with anastomosis for malignant or benign disease, was re-analyzed through a multi-treatment machine-learning model considering no bowel preparation (NBP; No. = 3742; 60.0%) as the reference treatment arm, compared to oral antibiotics alone (oA; No. = 406; 6.5%), mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP; No. = 1486; 23.8%), or in combination with oAB (MoABP; No. = 607; 9.7%). twenty covariates related to biometric data, surgical procedures, perioperative management, and hospital/center data potentially affecting outcomes were included and balanced into the model. the primary endpoints were AL, SSIs, and OM. all the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). results compared to NBP, MBP showed significantly higher AL risk (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.23-2.71; p = .003) and OM risk (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10-1.72; p = .005), no significant differences for all the endpoints were recorded in the oA group, whereas MoABP showed a significantly reduced SSI risk (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25-0.79; p = .008). conclusions MoABP significantly reduced the SSI risk after elective colorectal surgery, therefore representing a valid alternative to NBP

Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Special Populations: Beyond the Clinical Trials

Currently, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the first-line anticoagulant strategy in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). They are characterized by a more favorable pharmacological profile than warfarin, having demonstrated equal efficacy in stroke prevention and greater safety in terms of intracranial bleeding. The study population in the randomized trials of DOACs was highly selected, so the results of these trials cannot be extended to specific populations such as obese, elderly, frail, and cancer patients, which, on the other hand, are sub-populations widely represented in clinical practice. Furthermore, due to the negative results of DOAC administration in patients with mechanical heart valves, the available evidence in subjects with biological heart valves is still few and often controversial. We sought to review the available literature on the efficacy and safety of DOACs in elderly, obese, underweight, frail, cancer patients, and in patients with bioprosthetic heart valves with NVAF to clarify the best anticoagulant strategy in these special and poorly studied subpopulations.</jats:p

Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Special Populations: Beyond the Clinical Trials

Currently, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the first-line anticoagulant strategy in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). They are characterized by a more favorable pharmacological profile than warfarin, having demonstrated equal efficacy in stroke prevention and greater safety in terms of intracranial bleeding. The study population in the randomized trials of DOACs was highly selected, so the results of these trials cannot be extended to specific populations such as obese, elderly, frail, and cancer patients, which, on the other hand, are sub-populations widely represented in clinical practice. Furthermore, due to the negative results of DOAC administration in patients with mechanical heart valves, the available evidence in subjects with biological heart valves is still few and often controversial. We sought to review the available literature on the efficacy and safety of DOACs in elderly, obese, underweight, frail, cancer patients, and in patients with bioprosthetic heart valves with NVAF to clarify the best anticoagulant strategy in these special and poorly studied subpopulations