Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

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

Impact of postoperative cardiovascular complications on 30-day mortality after major abdominal surgery: an international prospective cohort study

Cardiovascular complications after major surgery are associated with increases in morbidity and mortality. There is confusion over definitions of cardiac injury or complications, and variability in the assessment and management of patients. This international prospective cohort study aimed to define the incidence and timing of these complications and to investigate their impact on 30-day all-cause mortality. We performed a prospective, international cohort study between January 2022 and May 2022. Data were collected on consecutive patients undergoing major abdominal surgery in 446 hospitals from 28 countries across Europe. The primary outcome measure was cardiovascular complications as defined by the Standardised Endpoints for Perioperative Medicine-Core Outcome Measures for Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care initiative up to 30 days after surgery. The secondary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. This study included 24,203 patients, of whom 611 (2.5%) developed cardiovascular complications. In total, 458 (1.9%) patients died within 30 days of surgery, of which 123 (26.9%) deaths were judged to be cardiac-related. Mortality rates were higher in patients who developed postoperative cardiovascular complications than in those who did not (19.8% vs. 1.4%), which persisted after risk adjustment (hazard ratio (95%CI) 4.15 (3.14–5.48)). We estimated an absolute risk reduction (95%CI) of 0.4 (0.3–0.5) in mortality in the absence of all cardiovascular complications. This would confer a relative risk reduction in mortality of 21.1% if all cardiovascular complications were prevented. Postoperative cardiovascular complications are relatively common and occur early after major abdominal surgery. However, over 1 in 5 postoperative deaths were attributable to these complications, highlighting an important area for future randomised trials. © 2024 Association of Anaesthetists

Outcomes and Their State-level Variation in Patients Undergoing Surgery With Perioperative SARS-CoV-2 Infection in the USA. A Prospective Multicenter Study

Objective: To report the 30-day outcomes of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing surgery in the USA. Background: Uncertainty regarding the postoperative risks of patients with SARS-CoV-2 exists. Methods: As part of the COVIDSurg multicenter study, all patients aged ≥17 years undergoing surgery between January 1 and June 30, 2020 with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection in 70 hospitals across 27 states were included. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and pulmonary complications. Multivariable analyses (adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and procedure characteristics) were performed to identify predictors of mortality. Results: A total of 1581 patients were included; more than half of them were males (n = 822, 52.0%) and older than 50 years (n = 835, 52.8%). Most procedures (n = 1261, 79.8%) were emergent, and laparotomies (n = 538, 34.1%). The mortality and pulmonary complication rates were 11.0 and 39.5%, respectively. Independent predictors of mortality included age ≥70 years (odds ratio 2.46, 95% confidence interval [1.65-3.69]), male sex (2.26 [1.53-3.35]), ASA grades 3-5 (3.08 [1.60-5.95]), emergent surgery (2.44 [1.31-4.54]), malignancy (2.97 [1.58-5.57]), respiratory comorbidities (2.08 [1.30-3.32]), and higher Revised Cardiac Risk Index (1.20 [1.02-1.41]). While statewide elective cancelation orders were not associated with a lower mortality, a sub-analysis showed it to be associated with lower mortality in those who underwent elective surgery (0.14 [0.03-0.61]). Conclusions: Patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection have a significantly high risk for postoperative complications, especially elderly males. Postponing elective surgery and adopting non-operative management, when reasonable, should be considered in the USA during the pandemic peaks

International Variation in Surgical Practices in Units Performing Oesophagectomy for Oesophageal Cancer: A Unit Survey from the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA).

Background: Anastomotic leaks are associated with significant risk of morbidity, mortality and treatment costs after oesophagectomy. The aim of this study was to evaluate international variation in unit-level clinical practice and resource availability for the prevention and management of anastomotic leak following oesophagectomy. Method: The Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA) is an international research collaboration focussed on improving the care and outcomes of patients undergoing oesophagectomy. Any unit performing oesophagectomy worldwide can register to participate in OGAA studies. An online unit survey was developed and disseminated to lead surgeons at each unit registered to participate in OGAA. High-income country (HIC) and low/middle-income country (LMIC) were defined according to the World Bank whilst unit volume were defined as < 20 versus 20\u201359 versus 6560 cases/year in the unit. Results: Responses were received from 141 units, a 77% (141/182) response rate. Median annual oesophagectomy caseload was reported to be 26 (inter-quartile range 12\u201350). Only 48% (68/141) and 22% (31/141) of units had an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program and ERAS nurse, respectively. HIC units had significantly higher rates of stapled anastomosis compared to LMIC units (66 vs 31%, p = 0.005). Routine post-operative contrast-swallow anastomotic assessment was performed in 52% (73/141) units. Stent placement and interventional radiology drainage for anastomotic leak management were more commonly available in HICs than LMICs (99 vs 59%, p < 0.001 and 99 vs 83%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: This international survey highlighted variation in surgical technique and management of anastomotic leak based on case volume and country income level. Further research is needed to understand the impact of this variation on patient outcomes. \ua9 2019, Soci\ue9t\ue9 Internationale de Chirurgie

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

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 coprioritized 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

Anastomotic leak following oesophagectomy: research priorities from an international Delphi consensus study

Background: The Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA) is an international collaborative group set up to study anastomotic leak outcomes after oesophagectomy for cancer. This Delphi study aimed to prioritize future research areas of unmet clinical need in RCTs to reduce anastomotic leaks.Methods: A modified Delphi process was overseen by the OGAA committee, national leads, and engaged clinicians from high-income countries (HICs) and low/middle-income countries (LMICs). A three-stage iterative process was used to prioritize research topics, including a scoping systematic review (stage 1), and two rounds of anonymous electronic voting (stages 2 and 3) addressing research priority and ability to recruit. Stratified analyses were performed by country income.Results: In stage 1, the steering committee proposed research topics across six domains: preoperative optimization, surgical oncology, technical approach, anastomotic technique, enhanced recovery and nutrition, and management of leaks. In stages 2 and stage 3, 192 and 171 respondents respectively participated in online voting. Prioritized research topics include prehabilitation, anastomotic technique, and timing of surgery after neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy. Stratified analyses by country income demonstrated no significant differences in research priorities between HICs and LMICs. However, for ability to recruit, there were significant differences between LMICs and HICs for themes related to the technical approach (minimally invasive, width of gastric tube, ischaemic preconditioning) and location of the anastomosis.Conclusion: Several areas of research priority are consistent across LMICs and HICs, but discrepancies in ability to recruit by country income will inform future study design