Use of a penicillin allergy clinical decision rule to enable direct oral penicillin provocation: an international multicentre randomised control trial in an adult population (PALACE): study protocol

Introduction Penicillin allergies are highly prevalent in the healthcare setting and associated with the prescription of second-line inferior antibiotics. More than 85% of all penicillin allergy labels can be removed by skin testing and 96%–99% of low-risk penicillin allergy labels can be removed by direct oral challenge. An internally and externally validated clinical assessment tool for penicillin allergy, PEN-FAST, can identify a low-risk penicillin allergy without the need for skin testing; a score of less than 3 has a negative predictive value of 96.3% (95% CI, 94.1 to 97.8) for the presence of a penicillin allergy. It is hypothesised that PEN-FAST is a safe and effective tool for assessing penicillin allergy in an outpatient clinic setting. Methods and analysis This is an international, multicentre randomised control trial using the PEN-FAST tool to risk-stratify penicillin allergy labels in adult outpatients. The study’s primary objective is to evaluate the non-inferiority of using PEN-FAST score-guided management with direct oral challenge compared with standard care (defined as prick and intradermal skin testing followed by oral penicillin challenge). Participants will be randomised 1:1 to the intervention arm (direct oral penicillin challenge) or standard of care arm (skin testing followed by oral penicillin challenge, if skin testing is negative). The sample size of 380 randomised patients (190 per treatment arm) is required to demonstrate non-inferiority. Ethics and dissemination The study will be performed according to the guidelines of the Helsinki Declaration and is approved by the Austin Health Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/62425/Austin-2020) in Melbourne Australia, Vanderbilt University Institutional Review Board (IRB #202174) in Tennessee, USA, Duke University Institutional Review Board (IRB #Pro00108461) in North Carolina, USA and McGill University Health Centre Research Ethics Board in Canada (PALACE/2022-7605). The results of this study will be published and presented in various scientific forums

Study protocol: Australasian Registry of Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions (AUS-SCAR)

Introduction Severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCAR) are a group of T cell-mediated hypersensitivities associated with significant morbidity, mortality and hospital costs. Clinical phenotypes include Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) and acute generalised exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP). In this Australasian, multicentre, prospective registry, we plan to examine the clinical presentation, drug causality, genomic predictors, potential diagnostic approaches, treatments and long-term outcomes of SCAR in Australia and New Zealand. Methods and analysis Adult and adolescent patients with SCAR including SJS, TEN, DRESS, AGEP and another T cell-mediated hypersensitivity, generalised bullous fixed drug eruption, will be prospectively recruited. A waiver of consent has been granted for some sites to retrospectively include cases which result in early mortality. DNA will be collected for all prospective cases. Blood, blister fluid and skin biopsy sampling is optional and subject to patient consent and site capacity. To develop culprit drug identification and prevention, genomic testing will be performed to confirm human leukocyte antigen (HLA) type and ex vivo testing will be performed via interferon-γ release enzyme linked immunospot assay using collected peripheral blood mononuclear cells. The long-term outcomes of SCAR will be investigated with a 12-month quality of life survey and examination of prescribing and mortality data. Ethics and dissemination This study was reviewed and approved by the Austin Health Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/50791/Austin-19). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences

EAES Recommendations for Recovery Plan in Minimally Invasive Surgery Amid COVID-19 Pandemic

Background: COVID-19 pandemic presented an unexpected challenge for the surgical community in general and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) specialists in particular. This document aims to summarize recent evidence and experts’ opinion and formulate recommendations to guide the surgical community on how to best organize the recovery plan for surgical activity across diferent sub-specialities after the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Recommendations were developed through a Delphi process for establishment of expert consensus. Domain topics were formulated and subsequently subdivided into questions pertinent to diferent surgical specialities following the COVID-19 crisis. Sixty-fve experts from 24 countries, representing the entire EAES board, were invited. Fifty clinicians and six engineers accepted the invitation and drafted statements based on specifc key questions. Anonymous voting on the statements was performed until consensus was achieved, defned by at least 70% agreement. Results: A total of 92 consensus statements were formulated with regard to safe resumption of surgery across eight domains, addressing general surgery, upper GI, lower GI, bariatrics, endocrine, HPB, abdominal wall and technology/research. The statements addressed elective and emergency services across all subspecialties with specifc attention to the role of MIS during the recovery plan. Eighty-four of the statements were approved during the frst round of Delphi voting (91.3%) and another 8 during the following round after substantial modifcation, resulting in a 100% consensus. Conclusion: The recommendations formulated by the EAES board establish a framework for resumption of surgery following COVID-19 pandemic with particular focus on the role of MIS across surgical specialities. The statements have the potential for wide application in the clinical setting, education activities and research work across diferent healthcare systems

Clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) on bariatric surgery: update 2020 endorsed by IFSO-EC, EASO and ESPCOP

Background: Surgery for obesity and metabolic diseases has been evolved in the light of new scientific evidence, long-term outcomes and accumulated experience. EAES has sponsored an update of previous guidelines on bariatric surgery. Methods: A multidisciplinary group of bariatric surgeons, obesity physicians, nutritional experts, psychologists, anesthetists and a patient representative comprised the guideline development panel. Development and reporting conformed to GRADE guidelines and AGREE II standards. Results: Systematic review of databases, record selection, data extraction and synthesis, evidence appraisal and evidence-to-decision frameworks were developed for 42 key questions in the domains Indication; Preoperative work-up; Perioperative management; Non-bypass, bypass and one-anastomosis procedures; Revisional surgery; Postoperative care; and Investigational procedures. A total of 36 recommendations and position statements were formed through a modified Delphi procedure. Conclusion: This document summarizes the latest evidence on bariatric surgery through state-of-the art guideline development, aiming to facilitate evidence-based clinical decisions

Fluorescence‐based bowel anastomosis perfusion evaluation: results from the IHU‐IRCAD‐EAES EURO‐FIGS registry

Background: Anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the dreaded complications following surgery in the digestive tract. Near-infrared fluorescence (NIRF) imaging is a means to intraoperatively visualize anastomotic perfusion, facilitating fluorescence image-guided surgery (FIGS) with the purpose to reduce the incidence of AL. The aim of this study was to analyze the current practices and results of NIRF imaging of the anastomosis in digestive tract surgery through the EURO-FIGS registry. Methods: Analysis of data prospectively collected by the registry members provided patient and procedural data along with the ICG dose, timing, and consequences of NIRF imaging. Among the included upper-GI, colorectal, and bariatric surgeries, subgroup analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with complications. Results: A total of 1240 patients were included in the study. The included patients, 74.8% of whom were operated on for cancer, originated from 8 European countries and 30 hospitals. A total of 54 surgeons performed the procedures. In 83.8% of cases, a pre-anastomotic ICG dose was administered, and in 60.1% of cases, a post-anastomotic ICG dose was administered. A significant difference (p < 0.001) was found in the ICG dose given in the four pathology groups registered (range: 0.013–0.89 mg/kg) and a significant (p < 0.001) negative correlation was found between the ICG dose and BMI. In 27.3% of the procedures, the choice of the anastomotic level was guided by means of NIRF imaging which means that in these cases NIRF imaging changed the level of anastomosis which was first decided based on visual findings in conventional white light imaging. In 98.7% of the procedures, the use of ICG partly or strongly provided a sense of confidence about the anastomosis. A total of 133 complications occurred, without any statistical significance in the incidence of complications in the anastomoses, whether they were ICG-guided or not. Conclusion: The EURO-FIGS registry provides an insight into the current clinical practice across Europe with respect to NIRF imaging of anastomotic perfusion during digestive tract surgery

30-day morbidity and mortality of sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and one anastomosis gastric bypass: a propensity score-matched analysis of the GENEVA data

Background: There is a paucity of data comparing 30-day morbidity and mortality of sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). This study aimed to compare the 30-day safety of SG, RYGB, and OAGB in propensity score-matched cohorts. Materials and methods: This analysis utilised data collected from the GENEVA study which was a multicentre observational cohort study of bariatric and metabolic surgery (BMS) in 185 centres across 42 countries between 01/05/2022 and 31/10/2020 during the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. 30-day complications were categorised according to the Clavien–Dindo classification. Patients receiving SG, RYGB, or OAGB were propensity-matched according to baseline characteristics and 30-day complications were compared between groups. Results: In total, 6770 patients (SG 3983; OAGB 702; RYGB 2085) were included in this analysis. Prior to matching, RYGB was associated with highest 30-day complication rate (SG 5.8%; OAGB 7.5%; RYGB 8.0% (p = 0.006)). On multivariate regression modelling, Insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolaemia were associated with increased 30-day complications. Being a non-smoker was associated with reduced complication rates. When compared to SG as a reference category, RYGB, but not OAGB, was associated with an increased rate of 30-day complications. A total of 702 pairs of SG and OAGB were propensity score-matched. The complication rate in the SG group was 7.3% (n = 51) as compared to 7.5% (n = 53) in the OAGB group (p = 0.68). Similarly, 2085 pairs of SG and RYGB were propensity score-matched. The complication rate in the SG group was 6.1% (n = 127) as compared to 7.9% (n = 166) in the RYGB group (p = 0.09). And, 702 pairs of OAGB and RYGB were matched. The complication rate in both groups was the same at 7.5 % (n = 53; p = 0.07). Conclusions: This global study found no significant difference in the 30-day morbidity and mortality of SG, RYGB, and OAGB in propensity score-matched cohorts

30-Day morbidity and mortality of bariatric metabolic surgery in adolescence during the COVID-19 pandemic – The GENEVA study

Background: Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is an effective treatment for adolescents with severe obesity. Objectives: This study examined the safety of MBS in adolescents during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: This was a global, multicentre and observational cohort study of MBS performed between May 01, 2020, and October 10,2020, in 68 centres from 24 countries. Data collection included in-hospital and 30-day COVID-19 and surgery-specific morbidity/mortality. Results: One hundred and seventy adolescent patients (mean age: 17.75 ± 1.30 years), mostly females (n = 122, 71.8%), underwent MBS during the study period. The mean pre-operative weight and body mass index were 122.16 ± 15.92 kg and 43.7 ± 7.11 kg/m2, respectively. Although majority of patients had pre-operative testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (n = 146; 85.9%), only 42.4% (n = 72) of the patients were asked to self-isolate pre-operatively. Two patients developed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection post-operatively (1.2%). The overall complication rate was 5.3% (n = 9). There was no mortality in this cohort. Conclusions: MBS in adolescents with obesity is safe during the COVID-19 pandemic when performed within the context of local precautionary procedures (such as pre-operative testing). The 30-day morbidity rates were similar to those reported pre-pandemic. These data will help facilitate the safe re-introduction of MBS services for this group of patients

EAES Recommendations for Recovery Plan in Minimally Invasive Surgery Amid COVID-19 Pandemic

Background COVID-19 pandemic presented an unexpected challenge for the surgical community in general and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) specialists in particular. This document aims to summarize recent evidence and experts’ opinion and formulate recommendations to guide the surgical community on how to best organize the recovery plan for surgical activity across different sub-specialities after the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Recommendations were developed through a Delphi process for establishment of expert consensus. Domain topics were formulated and subsequently subdivided into questions pertinent to different surgical specialities following the COVID-19 crisis. Sixty-five experts from 24 countries, representing the entire EAES board, were invited. Fifty clinicians and six engineers accepted the invitation and drafted statements based on specific key questions. Anonymous voting on the statements was performed until consensus was achieved, defined by at least 70% agreement. Results A total of 92 consensus statements were formulated with regard to safe resumption of surgery across eight domains, addressing general surgery, upper GI, lower GI, bariatrics, endocrine, HPB, abdominal wall and technology/research. The statements addressed elective and emergency services across all subspecialties with specific attention to the role of MIS during the recovery plan. Eighty-four of the statements were approved during the first round of Delphi voting (91.3%) and another 8 during the following round after substantial modification, resulting in a 100% consensus. Conclusion The recommendations formulated by the EAES board establish a framework for resumption of surgery following COVID-19 pandemic with particular focus on the role of MIS across surgical specialities. The statements have the potential for wide application in the clinical setting, education activities and research work across different healthcare systems

Bariatric surgery evolution in Romania. Results during first year after a variety of bariatric procedures

Obesity is a worldwide public health problem (both in developed and developing countries), the most frequent nutritional disease in the world, with considerable morbidity-mortality and high costs for the public healthcare systems. Bariatric surgery has been found to be the only method capable of maintaining proper and long-lasting weight loss for morbid obesity. Laparoscopy is the gold standard for bariatric procedures. We studied a group of 341 patients who underwent different types of laparoscopic bariatric surgical procedures: laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), laparoscopic gastric bypass (LGB) and laparoscopic bilio-pancreatic diversion (LBPD). They were evaluated preoperative (weight, BMI, co-morbidities) and followed-up for 1 year: 238 patients LAGB, 46 LSG, 49 LGB and 8 LBPD. Mortality and conversion rate were nil for all groups. A significant reduction in patients' weight was shown at 12 months postoperatively. BMI decreased from 45.6 kg/m 2 to 37.9 for LAGB, from 54.12 to 40.8 kg/m 2 for LGB and from 49.1 to 31.2 kg/m 2 for LSG. The excess weight loss for LBPD was 63%. A significant improvement of co-morbidities was noticed; all patients with type 2 diabetes have normal serum glucose levels at 1 year after surgery. Bariatric surgery is safe with a low complication rate and the outcome was similar to literature data. Although we do not benefit of a long time follow-up, the favorable results allow us to state that minimally invasive surgical techniques deserve an important place in the efforts of struggling against obesity and its consequences