Short-term outcome of treatment limitation discussions for newborn infants, a multicentre prospective observational cohort study

Objective To determine the short-term outcomes of babies for whom clinicians or parents discussed the limitation of life-sustaining treatment (LST). Design Prospective multicentre observational study. Setting Two level 3, six level 2 and one level 1 neonatal units in the North-East London Neonatal Network. Participants A total of 87 babies including 68 for whom limiting LST was discussed with parents and 19 babies died without discussion of limiting LST in the labour ward or neonatal unit. Outcome measures Final decision reached after discussions about limiting LST and neonatal unit outcomes (death or survived to discharge) for babies. Results Withdrawing LST, withholding LST and do not resuscitate (DNR) order was discussed with 48, 16 and 4 parents, respectively. In 49/68 (72%) cases decisions occurred in level 3 and 19 cases in level 2 units. Following the initial discussions, 34/68 parents made the decision to continue LST. In 33/68 cases, a second opinion was obtained. The parents of 14/48 and 2/16 babies did not agree to withdraw and withhold LST, respectively. Forty-seven out of 87 babies (54%) died following limitation of LST, 28/87 (32%) died receiving full intensive care support, 5/87 (6%) survived following a decision to limit LST and 7/87 (8%) babies survived following decision to continue LST. Conclusions A significant proportion of parents chose to continue treatment following discussions regarding limiting LST for their babies, and a proportion of these babies survived to neonatal unit discharge. The long-term outcomes of babies who survive following limiting LST discussion need to be investigated

International Variations in Surgical Morbidity and Mortality Post Gynaecological Oncology Surgery: A Global Gynaecological Oncology Surgical Outcomes Collaborative Led Study (GO SOAR1)

Gynaecological malignancies affect women in low and middle income countries (LMICs) at disproportionately higher rates compared with high income countries (HICs) with little known about variations in access, quality, and outcomes in global cancer care. Our study aims to evaluate international variation in post-operative morbidity and mortality following gynaecological oncology surgery between HIC and LMIC settings. Study design consisted of a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of women undergoing surgery for gynaecological malignancies (NCT04579861). Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested-models of patients within hospitals/countries. We enrolled 1820 patients from 73 hospitals in 27 countries. Minor morbidity (Clavien-Dindo I-II) was 26.5% (178/672) and 26.5% (267/1009), whilst major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo III-V) was 8.2% (55/672) and 7% (71/1009) for LMICs/HICs, respectively. Higher minor morbidity was associated with pre-operative mechanical bowel preparation (OR = 1.474, 95%CI = 1.054-2.061, p = 0.023), longer surgeries (OR = 1.253, 95%CI = 1.066-1.472, p = 0.006), greater blood loss (OR = 1.274, 95%CI = 1.081-1.502, p = 0.004). Higher major morbidity was associated with longer surgeries (OR = 1.37, 95%CI = 1.128-1.664, p = 0.002), greater blood loss (OR = 1.398, 95%CI = 1.175-1.664, p ≤ 0.001), and seniority of lead surgeon, with junior surgeons three times more likely to have a major complication (OR = 2.982, 95%CI = 1.509-5.894, p = 0.002). Of all surgeries, 50% versus 25% were performed by junior surgeons in LMICs/HICs, respectively. We conclude that LMICs and HICs were associated with similar post-operative major morbidity. Capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention

Rivaroxaban in antiphospholipid syndrome (RAPS) protocol: a prospective, randomized controlled phase II/III clinical trial of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, with or without SLE

Introduction: The current mainstay of the treatment of thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is long-term anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin. Non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs), which include rivaroxaban, have been shown to be effective and safe compared with warfarin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in major phase III prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but the results may not be directly generalizable to patients with APS. Aims: The primary aim is to demonstrate, in patients with APS and previous VTE, with or without systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), that the intensity of anticoagulation achieved with rivaroxaban is not inferior to that of warfarin. Secondary aims are to compare rates of recurrent thrombosis, bleeding and the quality of life in patients on rivaroxaban with those on warfarin. Methods: Rivaroxaban in antiphospholipid syndrome (RAPS) is a phase II/III prospective non-inferiority RCT in which eligible patients with APS, with or without SLE, who are on warfarin, target international normalized ratio (INR) 2.5 for previous VTE, will be randomized either to continue warfarin (standard of care) or to switch to rivaroxaban. Intensity of anticoagulation will be assessed using thrombin generation (TG) testing, with the primary outcome the percentage change in endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) from randomization to day 42. Other TG parameters, markers of in vivo coagulation activation, prothrombin fragment 1.2, thrombin antithrombin complex and D-dimer, will also be assessed. Discussion: If RAPS demonstrates i) that the anticoagulant effect of rivaroxaban is not inferior to that of warfarin and ii) the absence of any adverse effects that cause concern with regard to the use of rivaroxaban, this would provide sufficient supporting evidence to make rivaroxaban a standard of care for the treatment of APS patients with previous VTE, requiring a target INR of 2.5

Lack of regional pathways impact on surgical delay: Analysis of the Orthopaedic Trauma Hospital Outcomes-Patient Operative Delays (ORTHOPOD) study.

INTRODUCTION: Current practice following injury within the United Kingdom is to receive surgery, at the institution of first contact regardless of ability to provide timely intervention and inconsiderate of neighbouring hospital resource and capacity. This can lead to a mismatch of demand and capacity, delayed surgery and stress within hospital systems, particularly with regards to elective services. We demonstrate through a multicentre, multinational study, the impact of this at scale. METHODOLOGY: ORTHOPOD data collection period was between 22/08/2022 and 16/10/2022 and consisted of two arms. Arm 1 captured orthopaedic trauma caseload and capacity in terms of sessions available per centre and patients awaiting surgery per centre per given week. Arm 2 recorded patient and injury demographics, time of decision making, outpatient and inpatient timeframes as well as time to surgery. Hand and spine cases were excluded. For this regional comparison, regional trauma networks with a minimum of four centres enroled onto the ORTHOPOD study were exclusively analysed. RESULTS: Following analysis of 11,202 patient episodes across 30 hospitals we found no movement of any patient between hospitals to enable prompt surgery. There is no current system to move patients, between regional centres despite clear discrepancies in workload per capacity across the United Kingdom. Many patients wait for days for surgery when simple transfer to a neighbouring hospital (within 10 miles in many instances) would result in prompt care within national guidelines. CONCLUSION: Most trauma patients in the United Kingdom are managed exclusively at the place of first presentation, with no consideration of alternative pathways to local hospitals that may, at that time, offer increased operative capacity and a shorter waiting time. There is no oversight of trauma workload per capacity at neighbouring hospitals within a regional trauma network. This leads to a marked disparity in waiting time to surgery, and subsequently it can be inferred but not proven, poorer patient experience and outcomes. This inevitably leads to a strain on the overall trauma system and across several centres can impact on elective surgery recovery. We propose the consideration of inter-regional network collaboration, aligned with the Major Trauma System

Global, regional, and national levels of maternal mortality, 1990–2015 : a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015

Background In transitioning from the Millennium Development Goal to the Sustainable Development Goal era, it is imperative to comprehensively assess progress toward reducing maternal mortality to identify areas of success, remaining challenges, and frame policy discussions. We aimed to quantify maternal mortality throughout the world by underlying cause and age from 1990 to 2015. Methods We estimated maternal mortality at the global, regional, and national levels from 1990 to 2015 for ages 10–54 years by systematically compiling and processing all available data sources from 186 of 195 countries and territories, 11 of which were analysed at the subnational level. We quantifi ed eight underlying causes of maternal death and four timing categories, improving estimation methods since GBD 2013 for adult all-cause mortality, HIVrelated maternal mortality, and late maternal death. Secondary analyses then allowed systematic examination of drivers of trends, including the relation between maternal mortality and coverage of specifi c reproductive health-care services as well as assessment of observed versus expected maternal mortality as a function of Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary indicator derived from measures of income per capita, educational attainment, and fertility. Findings Only ten countries achieved MDG 5, but 122 of 195 countries have already met SDG 3.1. Geographical disparities widened between 1990 and 2015 and, in 2015, 24 countries still had a maternal mortality ratio greater than 400. The proportion of all maternal deaths occurring in the bottom two SDI quintiles, where haemorrhage is the dominant cause of maternal death, increased from roughly 68% in 1990 to more than 80% in 2015. The middle SDI quintile improved the most from 1990 to 2015, but also has the most complicated causal profi le. Maternal mortality in the highest SDI quintile is mostly due to other direct maternal disorders, indirect maternal disorders, and abortion, ectopic pregnancy, and/or miscarriage. Historical patterns suggest achievement of SDG 3.1 will require 91% coverage of one antenatal care visit, 78% of four antenatal care visits, 81% of in-facility delivery, and 87% of skilled birth attendance. Interpretation Several challenges to improving reproductive health lie ahead in the SDG era. Countries should establish or renew systems for collection and timely dissemination of health data; expand coverage and improve quality of family planning services, including access to contraception and safe abortion to address high adolescent fertility; invest in improving health system capacity, including coverage of routine reproductive health care and of more advanced obstetric care—including EmOC; adapt health systems and data collection systems to monitor and reverse the increase in indirect, other direct, and late maternal deaths, especially in high SDI locations; and examine their own performance with respect to their SDI level, using that information to formulate strategies to improve performance and ensure optimum reproductive health of their population.GBD 2015 Maternal Mortality Collaborators ...Nicholas J Kassebaum ... Azmeraw T Amare ... Liliana G Ciobanu ... James Hancock ... Ratilal Lalloo ... Yohannes Adama Melaku ... John Nelson Opio ... G A Tessema ... et.al

Exploring variation in surgical practice : does the surgeon's personality influence anastomotic decision-making?'

Funding This work was kindly supported by Bowel Research UK and the Ileostomy and Internal Pouch Association. The funders had no influence in the design, delivery, or interpretation of this study. Acknowledgements The study authors are grateful to all participants who took part, as well as those individuals and professional bodies who shared the Plato Project survey, including: the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, the COVIDSurg Collaborative Group, the Turkish Society of Colon and Rectal Surgery and the Italian Surgical Research Group.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Mapping Routine Measles Vaccination in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

The safe, highly effective measles vaccine has been recommended globally since 1974, yet in 2017 there were more than 17 million cases of measles and 83,400 deaths in children under 5 years old, and more than 99% of both occurred in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Globally comparable, annual, local estimates of routine first-dose measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) coverage are critical for understanding geographically precise immunity patterns, progress towards the targets of the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP), and high-risk areas amid disruptions to vaccination programmes caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Here we generated annual estimates of routine childhood MCV1 coverage at 5 × 5-km2 pixel and second administrative levels from 2000 to 2019 in 101 LMICs, quantified geographical inequality and assessed vaccination status by geographical remoteness. After widespread MCV1 gains from 2000 to 2010, coverage regressed in more than half of the districts between 2010 and 2019, leaving many LMICs far from the GVAP goal of 80% coverage in all districts by 2019. MCV1 coverage was lower in rural than in urban locations, although a larger proportion of unvaccinated children overall lived in urban locations; strategies to provide essential vaccination services should address both geographical contexts. These results provide a tool for decision-makers to strengthen routine MCV1 immunization programmes and provide equitable disease protection for all children

Mix methods approach to explore patients' perspectives on the acceptability of a urinary biomarker test in replacement of cystoscopy in bladder cancer surveillance

OBJECTIVE: To determine the minimal accepted sensitivity (MAS) of a urine biomarker that patients are willing to accept to replace cystoscopy and to qualitatively assess their views and reasons. PATIENT AND METHODS: Patients were part of a prospective multi-center observational study recruiting patients with bladder cancer for a urine biomarker study (DETECT II; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02781428). A mix methods approach comprising of 1) Questionnaire to assess patients' experience with cystoscopy and patients' preference for cystoscopy vs urinary biomarker and 2). Semi-structured interviews to understand patient views, choice and reasons for their preference. RESULTS: A urine biomarker with MAS of 90% would be accepted by 75.8% of patients. This is despite a high self-reported prevalence of hematuria (51.0%), dysuria/ lower urinary tract symptoms (69.1%) and urinary tract infection requiring antibiotics (25.8%). There was no association between MAS with patient demographics, adverse events experienced, cancer characteristics and distance of patients' home to hospital. Qualitative analysis suggest that patients acknowledge that cystoscopy is invasive, embarrassing and associated with adverse events but are willing to tolerate the procedure due to a high sensitivity. Patients have confidence in cystoscopy and appreciate the visual diagnosis of cancer. Both low and high-risk patients would consider a biomarker with a reported sensitivity similar to cystoscopy. CONCLUSION: Patients value the high sensitivity cystoscopy accords despite the reported discomfort and adverse events experienced following cystoscopy. The sensitivity of a urinary biomarker must be close to cystoscopy before patients' acceptance