Nivel de atracción de inversiones en generación hidroeléctrica : análisis comparativo entre el Perú y Colombia

A partir del año 1992, se aplicaron en el Perú una serie de políticas gubernamentales orientadas a impulsar el desarrollo económico para mejorar los niveles socioeconómicos, generar mayores ingresos fiscales, descentralizar los servicios públicos y atraer inversión extranjera. El crecimiento generado se tradujo en mayores requerimientos de energía y, por tanto, de inversiones en el sector eléctrico. Considerando que Perú y Colombia presentan esquemas de desarrollo muy similares, en esta investigación se determinan y comparan las principales variables que, en estos países, definen el nivel de atracción de inversión privada para un proyecto de generación hidroeléctrica. En el análisis se consideran las características del entorno económico de cada país en el escenario mundial y se identifican los factores que definen su nivel de competitividad. Además, se comparan el marco legal, regulatorio y tributario de cada mercado y se reconocen los incentivos que cada país ofrece a la inversión, en general, y al sector, en particular. Sobre esta base, se estima el impacto que estas variables tienen en la creación de valor de un proyecto de generación hidroeléctrica. Los resultados obtenidos se analizan de forma progresiva y conjunta para observar los efectos de cada variable. La principal conclusión es que el proyecto de generación hidroeléctrica muestra una rentabilidad económica y financiera mayor para Colombia en todos los escenarios trazados

Evolving trends in the management of acute appendicitis during COVID-19 waves. The ACIE appy II study

Background: In 2020, ACIE Appy study showed that COVID-19 pandemic heavily affected the management of patients with acute appendicitis (AA) worldwide, with an increased rate of non-operative management (NOM) strategies and a trend toward open surgery due to concern of virus transmission by laparoscopy and controversial recommendations on this issue. The aim of this study was to survey again the same group of surgeons to assess if any difference in management attitudes of AA had occurred in the later stages of the outbreak. Methods: From August 15 to September 30, 2021, an online questionnaire was sent to all 709 participants of the ACIE Appy study. The questionnaire included questions on personal protective equipment (PPE), local policies and screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection, NOM, surgical approach and disease presentations in 2021. The results were compared with the results from the previous study. Results: A total of 476 answers were collected (response rate 67.1%). Screening policies were significatively improved with most patients screened regardless of symptoms (89.5% vs. 37.4%) with PCR and antigenic test as the preferred test (74.1% vs. 26.3%). More patients tested positive before surgery and commercial systems were the preferred ones to filter smoke plumes during laparoscopy. Laparoscopic appendicectomy was the first option in the treatment of AA, with a declined use of NOM. Conclusion: Management of AA has improved in the last waves of pandemic. Increased evidence regarding SARS-COV-2 infection along with a timely healthcare systems response has been translated into tailored attitudes and a better care for patients with AA worldwide

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

Abstract 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

Nivel de atracción de inversiones en generación hidroeléctrica : análisis comparativo entre el Perú y Colombia

A partir del año 1992, se aplicaron en el Perú una serie de políticas gubernamentales orientadas a impulsar el desarrollo económico para mejorar los niveles socioeconómicos, generar mayores ingresos fiscales, descentralizar los servicios públicos y atraer inversión extranjera. El crecimiento generado se tradujo en mayores requerimientos de energía y, por tanto, de inversiones en el sector eléctrico. Considerando que Perú y Colombia presentan esquemas de desarrollo muy similares, en esta investigación se determinan y comparan las principales variables que, en estos países, definen el nivel de atracción de inversión privada para un proyecto de generación hidroeléctrica. En el análisis se consideran las características del entorno económico de cada país en el escenario mundial y se identifican los factores que definen su nivel de competitividad. Además, se comparan el marco legal, regulatorio y tributario de cada mercado y se reconocen los incentivos que cada país ofrece a la inversión, en general, y al sector, en particular. Sobre esta base, se estima el impacto que estas variables tienen en la creación de valor de un proyecto de generación hidroeléctrica. Los resultados obtenidos se analizan de forma progresiva y conjunta para observar los efectos de cada variable. La principal conclusión es que el proyecto de generación hidroeléctrica muestra una rentabilidad económica y financiera mayor para Colombia en todos los escenarios trazados

Recursos Hídricos: Conceptos básicos y estudios de caso en Iberoamérica

El agua como fuente de vida y en el desempeño de sus funciones: sociales, ambientales, económicas y culturales, condiciona el desarrollo de una región, nación o continente, pues, la concentración urbana, el incremento de la superficie de riego para la producción de alimentos y la creciente contaminación someten a los recursos hídricos a una fuerte presión que no es posible soportar, originando situaciones de crisis. Así, mientras encuentran localidades la satisfacción de las necesidades en agua de sus habitantes representa un esfuerzo cotidiano, en otras, el desperdicio es una práctica generalizada pero inadmisible. Sin duda alguna en el mediano y largo plazo la tendencia actual en el uso de agua es simplemente insostenible. No es posible sufragar permanentemente el costo económico, social ay ambiental de abastecer a las grandes urbes con escurrimientos superficiales importados desde enormes distancias, de agotar los acuíferos de alterar la calidad de las agua rebasando límites de renovación económicamente factibles. Tampoco es posible enfrentar el problema del agua como si la disponibilidad del recurso fuera ilimitada y gratuita..

Global attitudes in the management of acute appendicitis during COVID-19 pandemic: ACIE Appy Study

Background: Surgical strategies are being adapted to face the COVID-19 pandemic. Recommendations on the management of acute appendicitis have been based on expert opinion, but very little evidence is available. This study addressed that dearth with a snapshot of worldwide approaches to appendicitis. Methods: The Association of Italian Surgeons in Europe designed an online survey to assess the current attitude of surgeons globally regarding the management of patients with acute appendicitis during the pandemic. Questions were divided into baseline information, hospital organization and screening, personal protective equipment, management and surgical approach, and patient presentation before versus during the pandemic. Results: Of 744 answers, 709 (from 66 countries) were complete and were included in the analysis. Most hospitals were treating both patients with and those without COVID. There was variation in screening indications and modality used, with chest X-ray plus molecular testing (PCR) being the commonest (19\ub78 per cent). Conservative management of complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis was used by 6\ub76 and 2\ub74 per cent respectively before, but 23\ub77 and 5\ub73 per cent, during the pandemic (both P < 0\ub7001). One-third changed their approach from laparoscopic to open surgery owing to the popular (but evidence-lacking) advice from expert groups during the initial phase of the pandemic. No agreement on how to filter surgical smoke plume during laparoscopy was identified. There was an overall reduction in the number of patients admitted with appendicitis and one-third felt that patients who did present had more severe appendicitis than they usually observe. Conclusion: Conservative management of mild appendicitis has been possible during the pandemic. The fact that some surgeons switched to open appendicectomy may reflect the poor guidelines that emanated in the early phase of SARS-CoV-2

30-Day Morbidity and Mortality of Bariatric Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Multinational Cohort Study of 7704 Patients from 42 Countries.

BACKGROUND There are data on the safety of cancer surgery and the efficacy of preventive strategies on the prevention of postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 in these patients. But there is little such data for any elective surgery. The main objectives of this study were to examine the safety of bariatric surgery (BS) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to determine the efficacy of perioperative COVID-19 protective strategies on postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 rates. METHODS We conducted an international cohort study to determine all-cause and COVID-19-specific 30-day morbidity and mortality of BS performed between 01/05/2020 and 31/10/2020. RESULTS Four hundred ninety-nine surgeons from 185 centres in 42 countries provided data on 7704 patients. Elective primary BS (n = 7084) was associated with a 30-day morbidity of 6.76% (n = 479) and a 30-day mortality of 0.14% (n = 10). Emergency BS, revisional BS, insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, and untreated obstructive sleep apnoea were associated with increased complications on multivariable analysis. Forty-three patients developed symptomatic COVID-19 postoperatively, with a higher risk in non-whites. Preoperative self-isolation, preoperative testing for SARS-CoV-2, and surgery in institutions not concurrently treating COVID-19 patients did not reduce the incidence of postoperative COVID-19. Postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 was more likely if the surgery was performed during a COVID-19 peak in that country. CONCLUSIONS BS can be performed safely during the COVID-19 pandemic with appropriate perioperative protocols. There was no relationship between preoperative testing for COVID-19 and self-isolation with symptomatic postoperative COVID-19. The risk of postoperative COVID-19 risk was greater in non-whites or if BS was performed during a local peak

Safety of Bariatric Surgery in ≥ 65-Year-Old Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background Age &gt;= 65 years is regarded as a relative contraindication for bariatric surgery. Advanced age is also a recognised risk factor for adverse outcomes with Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) which continues to wreak havoc on global populations. This study aimed to assess the safety of bariatric surgery (BS) in this particular age group during the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison with the younger cohort.Methods We conducted a prospective international study of patients who underwent BS between 1/05/2020 and 31/10/2020. Patients were divided into two groups - patients &gt;= 65-years-old (Group I) and patients &lt; 65-years-old (Group II). The two groups were compared for 30-day morbidity and mortality.Results There were 149 patients in Group 1 and 6923 patients in Group II. The mean age, preoperative weight, and BMI were 67.6 +/- 2.5 years, 119.5 +/- 24.5 kg, and 43 +/- 7 in Group I and 39.8 +/- 11.3 years, 117.7 +/- 20.4 kg, and 43.7 +/- 7 in Group II, respectively. Approximately, 95% of patients in Group 1 had at least one co-morbidity compared to 68% of patients in Group 2 (p = &lt; 0.001). The 30-day morbidity was significantly higher in Group I ( 11.4%) compared to Group II (6.6%) (p = 0.022). However, the 30-day mortality and COVID-19 infection rates were not significantly different between the two groups.Conclusions Bariatric surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with a higher complication rate in those &gt;= 65 years of age compared to those &lt; 65 years old. However, the mortality and postoperative COVID-19 infection rates are not significantly different between the two groups

Effect of BMI on safety of bariatric surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, procedure choice, and safety protocols - An analysis from the GENEVA Study

Background: It has been suggested that patients with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of &gt; 60 kg/m2 should be offered expedited Bariatric Surgery (BS) during the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The main objective of this study was to assess the safety of this approach. Methods: We conducted a global study of patients who underwent BS between 1/05/2020 and 31/10/2020. Patients were divided into three groups according to their preoperative BMI -Group I (BMI &lt; 50 kg/m2), Group II (BMI 50-60 kg/m2), and Group III (BMI &gt; 60 kg/m2). The effect of preoperative BMI on 30-day morbidity and mortality, procedure choice, COVID-19 specific safety protocols, and comorbidities was assessed. Results: This study included 7084 patients (5197;73.4 % females). The mean preoperative weight and BMI were 119.49 &amp; PLUSMN; 24.4 Kgs and 43.03 &amp; PLUSMN; 6.9 Kg/m2, respectively. Group I included 6024 (85 %) patients, whereas Groups II and III included 905 (13 %) and 155 (2 %) patients, respectively.The 30-day mortality rate was higher in Group III (p = 0.001). The complication rate and COVID-19 infection were not different. Comorbidities were significantly more likely in Group III (p = &lt; 0.001). A significantly higher proportion of patients in group III received Sleeve Gastrectomy or One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass compared to other groups. Patients with a BMI of &gt; 70 kg/m2 had a 30-day mortality of 7.7 % (2/26). None of these patients underwent a Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass. Conclusion: The 30-day mortality rate was significantly higher in patients with BMI &gt; 60 kg/m2. There was, however, no significant difference in complications rates in different BMI groups, probably due to differences in procedure selection