Outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Diagnosis: Drifting/Dreaming, Waiting

A series of eight audiovisual works consisting of images and accompanying music compositions accessed via QR codes, which are displayed alongside or embedded within the images. Creative methods used: Ebru paper marbling, music sampling and recording. The artists create a shared language across the music and visual art consisting of of dripping, looping, layering and disintegrating, so that the music and visual works are created in real time in dialogue with one another. Six of these pieces were co-created with young people from Lavender Walk Adolescent Mental Health Unit, London. The works were exhibited at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, form April - September 2021

Erratum: Bronchoscopic Coil Treatment for Patients with Severe Emphysema: A Meta-Analysis

Background: Bronchoscopic coil treatment has been shown to improve pulmonary function, exercise capacity, and quality of life in patients with severe emphysema. Objectives: To perform a meta-analysis of the results of four independent European clinical trials investigating this coil therapy for emphysema. Methods: Data on all patients included in the four European clinical trials were analyzed for efficacy and safety outcomes. Results: A total of 2,536 coils were placed during 259 procedures in 140 patients. A total of 37 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations and 27 pneumonias were recorded as serious adverse events up to 1 year after treatment. The pneumothorax rate was 6.4%. Both 6 and 12 months after treatment, significant (all p < 0.001) improvements were observed for: forced expiratory volume in 1 s [+0.08 liters (±0.19) and +0.08 liters (±0.21)], residual volume [RV; -510 ml (±850) and -430 ml (±720)], 6-min walking distance [6MWD; +44.1 m (±69.8) and +38.1 m (±71.9)], and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score [SGRQ; -9.5 points (±14.3) and -7.7 points (±14.2)]. No differences in any outcome measures were observed between heterogeneous and homogeneous emphysema patients. Only a high baseline RV was found to be an independent predictor of successful treatment. Conclusions: Bronchoscopic coil treatment improves pulmonary function, 6MWD, and quality of life in patients with severe emphysema up to 1 year after treatment, independent of the distribution of the disease

Supplementary Material for: Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction Coil Treatment for Severe Emphysema: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant Data

Background: Lung volume reduction coil (LVR-coil) treatment provides a minimally invasive treatment option for severe emphysema patients which has been studied in multiple clinical trials. Objectives: The aim of the study was to assess the effect of LVR-coil treatment on pulmonary function, quality of life, and exercise capacity using individual participant data. Method: PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched until May 17, 2021. Prospective single-arm and randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of LVR-coil treatment on forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), residual volume (RV), St. George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, and/or 6-min walk distance (6MWD) and were registered in an official clinical trial database were eligible for inclusion. Individual patient data were requested, and a linear mixed effects model was used to calculate overall treatment effects. Results: Eight trials were included in the final analysis, representing 680 individual patients. LVR-coil treatment resulted in a significant improvement in FEV1 at 3- (0.09 L [95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.06–0.12]) and 6-month follow-up (0.07 L [95% CI: 0.03–0.10]), a significant reduction in RV at 3- (−0.45L [95% CI: −0.62 to −0.28]), 6- (−0.33L [95% CI: −0.52 to −0.14]), and 12-month follow-up (−0.36L [95% CI: −0.64 to −0.08]), a significant reduction in SGRQ total score at 3- (−12.3 points [95% CI: −15.8 to −8.8]), 6- (−10.1 points [95% CI: −12.8 to −7.3]), and 12-month follow-up (−9.8 points [95% CI: −15.0 to −4.7]) and a significant increase in 6MWD at 3-month follow-up (38 m [95% CI: 18–58]). Conclusions: LVR-coil treatment in emphysema patients results in sustained improvements in pulmonary function and quality of life and shorter lived improvements in exercise capacity. Since the owner of this LVR-coil has decided to stop the production and newer generations LVR-coils are currently being developed, these results can act as a reference for future studies and clinical guidance

Supplementary Material for: Expert Statement: Pneumothorax Associated with One-Way Valve Therapy for Emphysema: 2020 Update

For selected patients with advanced emphysema, bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with one-way valves can lead to clinically relevant improvements of airflow obstruction, hyperinflation, exercise capacity, and quality of life. The most common complication of this procedure is pneumothorax with a prevalence of up to ±34% of the treated patients. Patients who develop a pneumothorax also experience meaningful clinical benefits once the pneumothorax is resolved. Timely resolution of a post-valve treatment pneumothorax requires skilled and adequate pneumothorax management. This expert panel statement is an updated recommendation of the 2014 statement developed to help guide pneumothorax management after valve placement. Additionally, mechanisms for pneumothorax development, risk assessment, prevention of pneumothorax, and outcomes after pneumothorax are addressed. This recommendation is based on a combination of the current scientific literature and expert opinion, which was obtained through a modified Delphi method