Attributable Outcomes of Endemic Clostridium difficile–associated Disease in Nonsurgical Patients

CDAD led to significantly worse outcomes in these patients

Predicting death from surgery for lung cancer: a comparison of two scoring systems in two European countries

Objectives: Current British guidelines advocate the use of risk prediction scores such as Thoracoscore to estimate mortality prior to radical surgery for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A recent publication used the National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA) to produce a score to predict 90 day mortality (NLCA score). The aim of this study is to validate the NLCA score, and compare its performance with Thoracoscore. Materials and methods: We performed an internal validation using 2858 surgical patients from NLCA and an external validation using 3191 surgical patients from the Danish Lung Cancer Registry (DLCR). We calculated the proportion that died within 90 days of surgery. The discriminatory power of both scores was assessed by a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and an area under the curve (AUC) calculation. Results: Ninety day mortality was 5% in both groups. AUC values for internal and external validation of NLCA score and validation of Thoracoscore were 0.68 (95% CI 0.63–0.72), 0.60 (95% CI 0.56–0.65) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.54–0.66) respectively. Post-hoc analysis was performed using NLCA records on 15554 surgical patients to derive summary tables for 30 and 90 day mortality, stratified by procedure type, age and performance status. Conclusions: Neither score performs well enough to be advocated for individual risk stratification prior to lung cancer surgery. It may be that additional physiological parameters are required; however this is a further project. In the interim we propose the use of our summary tables that provide the real-life range of mortality for lobectomy and pneumonectomy

Non-randomised patients in a cholecystectomy trial: characteristics, procedures, and outcomes

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is now considered the first option for gallbladder surgery. However, 20% to 30% of cholecystectomies are completed as open operations often on elderly and fragile patients. The external validity of randomised trials comparing mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy has not been studied. The aim of this study is to analyse characteristics, procedures, and outcomes for all patients who underwent cholecystectomy without being included in such a trial. METHODS: Characteristics (age, sex, co-morbidity, and ASA-score), operation time, hospital stay, and mortality were compared for patients who underwent cholecystectomy outside and within a randomised controlled trial comparing mini-laparotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. RESULTS: During the inclusion period 1719 patients underwent cholecystectomy. 726 patients were randomised and 724 of them completed the trial; 993 patients underwent cholecystectomy outside the trial. The non-randomised patients were older – and had more complications from gallstone disease, higher co-morbidity, and higher ASA – score when compared with trial patients. They were also more likely to undergo acute surgery and they had a longer postoperative hospital stay, with a median 3 versus 2 days (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Standardised mortality ratio within 90 days of operation was 3.42 (mean) (95% CI 2.17 to 5.13) for non-randomised patients and 1.61 (mean) (95%CI 0.02 to 3.46) for trial patients. For non-randomised patients, operation time did not differ significantly between mini-laparotomy and open cholecystectomy in multivariate analysis. However, the operation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy lasted 20 minutes longer than open cholecystectomy. Hospital stay was significantly shorter for both mini-laparotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared to open cholecystectomy. CONCLUSION: Non-randomised patients were older and more sick than trial patients. The assignment of healthier patients to trials comparing mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy limits the external validity of conclusions reached in such trials

Home-administered transcranial direct current stimulation is a feasible intervention for depression: an observational cohort study

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is an emerging treatment for major depression. We recruited participants with moderate-to-severe major depressive episodes for an observational clinical trial using Soterix Medical's tDCS telehealth platform as a standard of care. The acute intervention consisted of 28 sessions (5 sessions/week, 6 weeks) of the left anodal dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) tDCS (2.0 mA × 30 min) followed by a tapering phase of weekly sessions for 4 weeks (weeks 7–10). The n = 16 completing participants had a significant reduction in depressive symptoms by week 2 of treatment [Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Baseline: 28.00 ± 4.35 vs. Week 2: 17.12 ± 5.32, p &lt; 0.001] with continual improvement across each biweekly timepoint. Acute intervention responder and remission rates were 75 and 63% and 88 and 81% following the taper period (week 10)