Multimorbidity and co-morbidity in atrial fibrillation and effects on survival: findings from UK Biobank cohort

Aims: To examine the number and type of co-morbid long-term health conditions (LTCs) and their associations with all-cause mortality in an atrial fibrillation (AF) population. Methods and results: Community cohort participants (UK Biobank n = 502 637) aged 37–73 years were recruited between 2006 and 2010. Self-reported LTCs (n = 42) identified in people with AF at baseline. All-cause mortality was available for a median follow-up of 7 years (interquartile range 76–93 months). Hazard ratios (HRs) examined associations between number and type of co-morbid LTC and all-cause mortality, adjusting for age, sex, socio-economic status, smoking, and anticoagulation status. Three thousand six hundred fifty-one participants (0.7% of the study population) reported AF; mean age was 61.9 years. The all-cause mortality rate was 6.7% (248 participants) at 7 years. Atrial fibrillation participants with ≥4 co-morbidities had a six-fold higher risk of mortality compared to participants without any LTC. Co-morbid heart failure was associated with higher risk of mortality [HR 2.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.83–4.80], whereas the presence of co-morbid stroke did not have a significant association. Among non-cardiometabolic conditions, presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 3.31, 95% CI 2.14–5.11) and osteoporosis (HR 3.13, 95% CI 1.63–6.01) was associated with a higher risk of mortality. Conclusion: Survival in middle-aged to older individuals with self-reported AF is strongly correlated with level of multimorbidity. This group should be targeted for interventions to optimize their management, which in turn may potentially reduce the impact of their co-morbidities on survival. Future AF clinical guidelines need to place greater emphasis on the issue of co-morbidity

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease