Implementation of a patient blood management in an Italian City Hospital: is it effective in reducing the use of red blood cells?

To evaluate the effect of patient blood management (PBM) since its introduction, we analyzed the need for transfusion and the outcomes in patients undergoing abdominal surgery for different types of tumor pre- and post-PBM. Patients undergoing elective gastric, liver, pancreatic, and colorectal surgery between 2017 and 2020 were included. The implementation of the PBM program was completed on May 1, 2018. The patients were grouped as follows: those who underwent surgery before the implementation of the program (pre-PBM) versus after the implementation (post-PBM). A total of 1302 patients were included in the analysis (445 pre-PBM vs. 857 post-PBM). The number of transfused patients per year decreased significantly after the introduction of PBM. A strong tendency for a decreased incidence of transfusion was evident in gastric and pancreatic surgery and a similar decrease was statistically significant in liver surgery. With regard to gastric surgery, a single-unit transfusion scheme was used more frequently in the post-PBM group (7.7% vs. 55% after PBM; p = 0.049); this was similar in liver surgery (17.6% vs. 58.3% after PBM; p = 0.04). Within the subgroup of patients undergoing liver surgery, a significant reduction in the use of blood transfusion (20.5% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.002) and a decrease in the Hb trigger for transfusion (8.5, 8.2-9.5 vs. 8.2, 7.7-8.4 g/dl; p = 0.039) was reported after the PBM introduction. After the implementation of a PBM protocol, a significant reduction in the number of patients receiving blood transfusion was demonstrated, with a strong tendency to minimize the use of blood products for most types of oncologic surgery

Preoperative Chemotherapy and Resection Margin Status in Colorectal Liver Metastasis Patients: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

In this article, we compared the early and long-term outcomes of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy followed by resection with those of patients undergoing surgery first, focusing our analysis on resection margin status. Patients who underwent liver resection with curative intent for colorectal liver metastases from July 2001 to January 2018 were included in the analysis. Propensity score matching was used to reduce treatment allocation bias. The cohort comprised 164 patients; 117 (71.3%) underwent liver resection first, whereas the remaining 47 (28.7%) had preoperative chemotherapy. After a 1:1 ratio of propensity score matching, 47 patients per group were evaluated. A positive resection margin was found in 13 patients in the surgery-first group (25.5%) versus 4 (8.5%) in the preoperative chemotherapy group (P = 0.029). Postmatched logistic regression analysis showed that only preoperative chemotherapy was significantly associated with the rate of positive resection margin (odds ratio 0.24, 95% confidence interval 0.07-0.81; P = 0.022). Median follow-up was 41 months (interquartile range 8-69). Cox proportional hazard regression analysis revealed that only positive resection margin was a significant negative prognostic factor (hazard ratio 2.2, 95% CI 1.18-4.11; P = 0.014). Within the preoperative chemotherapy group, median overall survival was 40 months in R0 patients and 10 months in R1 patients (P = 0.016). Although preoperative chemotherapy in colorectal liver metastasis patients may affect the rate of positive resection margin, its impact on survival seems to be limited. In the present study, the most important prognostic factor was the resection margin status

Microsatellite and RAS/RAF Mutational Status as Prognostic Factors in Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases Treated with Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC)

Background Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) leads to prolonged survival for selected patients with colorectal (CRC) peritoneal metastases (PM). This study aimed to analyze the prognostic role of micro-satellite (MS) status and RAS/RAF mutations for patients treated with CRS. Methods Data were collected from 13 Italian centers with PM expertise within a collaborative group of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology. Clinical and pathologic variables and KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutational and MS status were correlated with overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Results The study enrolled 437 patients treated with CRS-HIPEC. The median OS was 42.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 33.4-51.2 months], and the median DFS was 13.6 months (95% CI, 12.3-14.9 months). The local (peritoneal) DFS was 20.5 months (95% CI, 16.4-24.6 months). In addition to the known clinical factors, KRAS mutations (p = 0.005), BRAF mutations (p = 0.01), and MS status (p = 0.04) were related to survival. The KRAS- and BRAF-mutated patients had a shorter survival than the wild-type (WT) patients (5-year OS, 29.4% and 26.8% vs 51.5%, respectively). The patients with micro-satellite instability (MSI) had a longer survival than the patients with micro-satellite stability (MSS) (5-year OS, 58.3% vs 36.7%). The MSI/WT patients had the best prognosis. The MSS/WT and MSI/mutated patients had similar survivals, whereas the MSS/mutated patients showed the worst prognosis (5-year OS, 70.6%, 48.1%, 23.4%; p = 0.0001). In the multivariable analysis, OS was related to the Peritoneal Cancer Index [hazard ratio (HR), 1.05 per point], completeness of cytoreduction (CC) score (HR, 2.8), N status (HR, 1.6), signet-ring (HR, 2.4), MSI/WT (HR, 0.5), and MSS/WT-MSI/mutation (HR, 0.4). Similar results were obtained for DFS. Conclusion For patients affected by CRC-PM who are eligible for CRS, clinical and pathologic criteria need to be integrated with molecular features (KRAS/BRAF mutation). Micro-satellite status should be strongly considered because MSI confers a survival advantage over MSS, even for mutated patients

Is Systemic Chemotherapy Useful in Patients Treated with Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) for Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases? A Propensity-Score Analysis

Purpose: Multimodal treatment of colorectal (CRC) peritoneal metastases (PM) includes systemic chemotherapy (SC) and surgical cytoreduction (CRS), eventually with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), in select patients. Considering lack of clear guidelines, this study was designed to analyze the role of chemotherapy and its timing in patients treated with CRS-HIPEC. Methods: Data from 13 Italian centers with PM expertise were collected by a collaborative group of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology (SICO). Clinicopathological variables, SC use, and timing of administration were correlated with overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local (peritoneal) DFS (LDFS) after propensity-score (PS) weighting to reduce confounding factors. Results: A total of 367 patients treated with CRS-HIPEC were included in the propensity-score weighting. Of the total patients, 19.9% did not receive chemotherapy within 6 months of surgery, 32.4% received chemotherapy before surgery (pregroup), 28.9% after (post), and 18.8% received both pre- and post-CRS-HIPEC treatment (peri). SC was preferentially administered to younger (p = 0.02) and node-positive (p = 0.010) patients. Preoperative SC is associated with increased rate of major complications (26.9 vs. 11.3%, p = 0.0009). After PS weighting, there were no differences in OS, DFS, or LDFS (p = 0.56, 0.50, and 0.17) between chemotherapy-treated and untreated patients. Considering SC timing, the post CRS-HIPEC group had a longer DFS and LDFS than the pre-group (median DFS 15.4 vs. 9.8 m, p = 0.003; median LDFS 26.3 vs. 15.8 m, p = 0.026). Conclusions: In patients with CRC-PM treated with CRS-HIPEC, systemic chemotherapy was not associated with overall survival benefit. The adjuvant schedule was related to prolonged disease-free intervals. Additional, randomized studies are required to clarify the role and timing of systemic chemotherapy in this patient subset

Pediatric trauma and emergency surgery: an international cross-sectional survey among WSES members

Background: In contrast to adults, the situation for pediatric trauma care from an international point of view and the global management of severely injured children remain rather unclear. The current study investigates structural management of pediatric trauma in centers of different trauma levels as well as experiences with pediatric trauma management around the world. Methods: A web-survey had been distributed to the global mailing list of the World Society of Emergency Surgery from 10/2021-03/2022, investigating characteristics of respondents and affiliated hospitals, case-load of pediatric trauma patients, capacities and infrastructure for critical care in children, trauma team composition, clinical work-up and individual experiences with pediatric trauma management in response to patients´ age. The collaboration group was subdivided regarding sizes of affiliated hospitals to allow comparisons concerning hospital volumes. Comparable results were conducted to statistical analysis. Results: A total of 133 participants from 34 countries, i.e. 5 continents responded to the survey. They were most commonly affiliated with larger hospitals (> 500 beds in 72.9%) and with level I or II trauma centers (82.0%), respectively. 74.4% of hospitals offer unrestricted pediatric medical care, but only 63.2% and 42.9% of the participants had sufficient experiences with trauma care in children ≤ 10 and ≤ 5 years of age (p = 0.0014). This situation is aggravated in participants from smaller hospitals (p < 0.01). With regard to hospital size (≤ 500 versus > 500 in-hospital beds), larger hospitals were more likely affiliated with advanced trauma centers, more elaborated pediatric intensive care infrastructure (p < 0.0001), treated children at all ages more frequently (p = 0.0938) and have higher case-loads of severely injured children < 12 years of age (p = 0.0009). Therefore, the majority of larger hospitals reserve either pediatric surgery departments or board-certified pediatric surgeons (p < 0.0001) and in-hospital trauma management is conducted more multi-disciplinarily. However, the majority of respondents does not feel prepared for treatment of severe pediatric trauma and call for special educational and practical training courses (overall: 80.2% and 64.3%, respectively). Conclusions: Multi-professional management of pediatric trauma and individual experiences with severely injured children depend on volumes, level of trauma centers and infrastructure of the hospital. However, respondents from hospitals at all levels of trauma care complain about an alarming lack of knowledge on pediatric trauma management

It is time to define an organizational model for the prevention and management of infections along the surgical pathway : a worldwide cross-sectional survey

Background The objectives of the study were to investigate the organizational characteristics of acute care facilities worldwide in preventing and managing infections in surgery; assess participants' perception regarding infection prevention and control (IPC) measures, antibiotic prescribing practices, and source control; describe awareness about the global burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and IPC measures; and determine the role of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic on said awareness. Methods A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted contacting 1432 health care workers (HCWs) belonging to a mailing list provided by the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery. The self-administered questionnaire was developed by a multidisciplinary team. The survey was open from May 22, 2021, and June 22, 2021. Three reminders were sent, after 7, 14, and 21 days. Results Three hundred four respondents from 72 countries returned a questionnaire, with an overall response rate of 21.2%. Respectively, 90.4% and 68.8% of participants stated their hospital had a multidisciplinary IPC team or a multidisciplinary antimicrobial stewardship team. Local protocols for antimicrobial therapy of surgical infections and protocols for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis were present in 76.6% and 90.8% of hospitals, respectively. In 23.4% and 24.0% of hospitals no surveillance systems for surgical site infections and no monitoring systems of used antimicrobials were implemented. Patient and family involvement in IPC management was considered to be slightly or not important in their hospital by the majority of respondents (65.1%). Awareness of the global burden of AMR among HCWs was considered very important or important by 54.6% of participants. The COVID-19 pandemic was considered by 80.3% of respondents as a very important or important factor in raising HCWs awareness of the IPC programs in their hospital. Based on the survey results, the authors developed 15 statements for several questions regarding the prevention and management of infections in surgery. The statements may be the starting point for designing future evidence-based recommendations. Conclusion Adequacy of prevention and management of infections in acute care facilities depends on HCWs behaviours and on the organizational characteristics of acute health care facilities to support best practices and promote behavioural change. Patient involvement in the implementation of IPC is still little considered. A debate on how operationalising a fundamental change to IPC, from being solely the HCWs responsibility to one that involves a collaborative relationship between HCWs and patients, should be opened.Peer reviewe

It is time to define an organizational model for the prevention and management of infections along the surgical pathway: a worldwide cross-sectional survey

Background The objectives of the study were to investigate the organizational characteristics of acute care facilities worldwide in preventing and managing infections in surgery; assess participants' perception regarding infection prevention and control (IPC) measures, antibiotic prescribing practices, and source control; describe awareness about the global burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and IPC measures; and determine the role of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic on said awareness. Methods A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted contacting 1432 health care workers (HCWs) belonging to a mailing list provided by the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery. The self-administered questionnaire was developed by a multidisciplinary team. The survey was open from May 22, 2021, and June 22, 2021. Three reminders were sent, after 7, 14, and 21 days. Results Three hundred four respondents from 72 countries returned a questionnaire, with an overall response rate of 21.2%. Respectively, 90.4% and 68.8% of participants stated their hospital had a multidisciplinary IPC team or a multidisciplinary antimicrobial stewardship team. Local protocols for antimicrobial therapy of surgical infections and protocols for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis were present in 76.6% and 90.8% of hospitals, respectively. In 23.4% and 24.0% of hospitals no surveillance systems for surgical site infections and no monitoring systems of used antimicrobials were implemented. Patient and family involvement in IPC management was considered to be slightly or not important in their hospital by the majority of respondents (65.1%). Awareness of the global burden of AMR among HCWs was considered very important or important by 54.6% of participants. The COVID-19 pandemic was considered by 80.3% of respondents as a very important or important factor in raising HCWs awareness of the IPC programs in their hospital. Based on the survey results, the authors developed 15 statements for several questions regarding the prevention and management of infections in surgery. The statements may be the starting point for designing future evidence-based recommendations. Conclusion Adequacy of prevention and management of infections in acute care facilities depends on HCWs behaviours and on the organizational characteristics of acute health care facilities to support best practices and promote behavioural change. Patient involvement in the implementation of IPC is still little considered. A debate on how operationalising a fundamental change to IPC, from being solely the HCWs responsibility to one that involves a collaborative relationship between HCWs and patients, should be opened

Colorectal Cancer Stage at Diagnosis Before vs During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy

IMPORTANCE Delays in screening programs and the reluctance of patients to seek medical attention because of the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 could be associated with the risk of more advanced colorectal cancers at diagnosis. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was associated with more advanced oncologic stage and change in clinical presentation for patients with colorectal cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included all 17 938 adult patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021 (pandemic period), and from January 1, 2018, to February 29, 2020 (prepandemic period), in 81 participating centers in Italy, including tertiary centers and community hospitals. Follow-up was 30 days from surgery. EXPOSURES Any type of surgical procedure for colorectal cancer, including explorative surgery, palliative procedures, and atypical or segmental resections. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was advanced stage of colorectal cancer at diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were distant metastasis, T4 stage, aggressive biology (defined as cancer with at least 1 of the following characteristics: signet ring cells, mucinous tumor, budding, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and lymphangitis), stenotic lesion, emergency surgery, and palliative surgery. The independent association between the pandemic period and the outcomes was assessed using multivariate random-effects logistic regression, with hospital as the cluster variable. RESULTS A total of 17 938 patients (10 007 men [55.8%]; mean [SD] age, 70.6 [12.2] years) underwent surgery for colorectal cancer: 7796 (43.5%) during the pandemic period and 10 142 (56.5%) during the prepandemic period. Logistic regression indicated that the pandemic period was significantly associated with an increased rate of advanced-stage colorectal cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95%CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .03), aggressive biology (OR, 1.32; 95%CI, 1.15-1.53; P < .001), and stenotic lesions (OR, 1.15; 95%CI, 1.01-1.31; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This cohort study suggests a significant association between the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the risk of a more advanced oncologic stage at diagnosis among patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer and might indicate a potential reduction of survival for these patients

Infected pancreatic necrosis: outcomes and clinical predictors of mortality. A post hoc analysis of the MANCTRA-1 international study

: The identification of high-risk patients in the early stages of infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) is critical, because it could help the clinicians to adopt more effective management strategies. We conducted a post hoc analysis of the MANCTRA-1 international study to assess the association between clinical risk factors and mortality among adult patients with IPN. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify prognostic factors of mortality. We identified 247 consecutive patients with IPN hospitalised between January 2019 and December 2020. History of uncontrolled arterial hypertension (p = 0.032; 95% CI 1.135-15.882; aOR 4.245), qSOFA (p = 0.005; 95% CI 1.359-5.879; aOR 2.828), renal failure (p = 0.022; 95% CI 1.138-5.442; aOR 2.489), and haemodynamic failure (p = 0.018; 95% CI 1.184-5.978; aOR 2.661), were identified as independent predictors of mortality in IPN patients. Cholangitis (p = 0.003; 95% CI 1.598-9.930; aOR 3.983), abdominal compartment syndrome (p = 0.032; 95% CI 1.090-6.967; aOR 2.735), and gastrointestinal/intra-abdominal bleeding (p = 0.009; 95% CI 1.286-5.712; aOR 2.710) were independently associated with the risk of mortality. Upfront open surgical necrosectomy was strongly associated with the risk of mortality (p < 0.001; 95% CI 1.912-7.442; aOR 3.772), whereas endoscopic drainage of pancreatic necrosis (p = 0.018; 95% CI 0.138-0.834; aOR 0.339) and enteral nutrition (p = 0.003; 95% CI 0.143-0.716; aOR 0.320) were found as protective factors. Organ failure, acute cholangitis, and upfront open surgical necrosectomy were the most significant predictors of mortality. Our study confirmed that, even in a subgroup of particularly ill patients such as those with IPN, upfront open surgery should be avoided as much as possible. Study protocol registered in ClinicalTrials.Gov (I.D. Number NCT04747990)

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