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 development and validation of a scoring tool to predict the operative duration of elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background: The ability to accurately predict operative duration has the potential to optimise theatre efficiency and utilisation, thus reducing costs and increasing staff and patient satisfaction. With laparoscopic cholecystectomy being one of the most commonly performed procedures worldwide, a tool to predict operative duration could be extremely beneficial to healthcare organisations. Methods: Data collected from the CholeS study on patients undergoing cholecystectomy in UK and Irish hospitals between 04/2014 and 05/2014 were used to study operative duration. A multivariable binary logistic regression model was produced in order to identify significant independent predictors of long (> 90 min) operations. The resulting model was converted to a risk score, which was subsequently validated on second cohort of patients using ROC curves. Results: After exclusions, data were available for 7227 patients in the derivation (CholeS) cohort. The median operative duration was 60 min (interquartile range 45–85), with 17.7% of operations lasting longer than 90 min. Ten factors were found to be significant independent predictors of operative durations > 90 min, including ASA, age, previous surgical admissions, BMI, gallbladder wall thickness and CBD diameter. A risk score was then produced from these factors, and applied to a cohort of 2405 patients from a tertiary centre for external validation. This returned an area under the ROC curve of 0.708 (SE = 0.013, p  90 min increasing more than eightfold from 5.1 to 41.8% in the extremes of the score. Conclusion: The scoring tool produced in this study was found to be significantly predictive of long operative durations on validation in an external cohort. As such, the tool may have the potential to enable organisations to better organise theatre lists and deliver greater efficiencies in care

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