Rivaroxaban Monotherapy in Patients with Pulmonary Embolism: Off-Label vs. Labeled Therapy

Oral anticoagulants; Rivaroxaban; Venpus thromboembolismAnticoagulantes orales; Rivaroxaban; Tromboembolismo de venpusAnticoagulants orals; Rivaroxaban; Tromboembolisme de venpusBackground: The use of rivaroxaban in clinical practice often deviates from manufacturer prescribing information. No studies have demonstrated an association between this practice and improved outcomes. Methods: We used the RIETE registry to assess the clinical characteristics of patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) who received off-label rivaroxaban, and to compare their 3-month outcomes with those receiving the labeled therapy. The patients were classified into four subgroups: (1) labeled therapy; (2) delayed start; (3) low doses and (4) both conditions. Results: From May 2013 to May 2022, 2490 patients with PE received rivaroxaban: labeled therapy—1485 (58.6%); delayed start—808 (32.5%); low doses—143 (5.7%); both conditions—54 (2.2%). Patients with a delayed start were more likely to present with syncope, hypotension, raised troponin levels and more severe abnormalities on the echocardiogram than those on labeled therapy. Patients receiving low doses were most likely to have cancer, recent bleeding, anemia, thrombocytopenia or renal insufficiency. During the first 3 months, 3 patients developed PE recurrence, 4 had deep-vein thrombosis, 11 had major bleeding and 16 died. The rates of major bleeding (11 vs. 0; p < 0.001) or death (15 vs. 1; OR: 22.5; 95% CI: 2.97–170.5) were higher in patients receiving off-label rivaroxaban than in those on labeled therapy, with no differences in VTE recurrence (OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.25–6.57). Conclusions: In patients with severe PE, the start of rivaroxaban administration was often delayed. In those at increased risk for bleeding, it was often prescribed at low doses. Both subgroups had a worse outcome than those on labeled rivaroxaban

Rapid colorimetric detection of wound infection with a fluidic paper device

Current procedures for the assessment of chronic wound infection are time-consuming and require complex instruments and trained personnel. The incidence of chronic wounds worldwide, and the associated economic burden, urge for simple and cheap point-of-care testing (PoCT) devices for fast on-site diagnosis to enable appropriate early treatment. The enzyme myeloperoxidase (MPO), whose activity in infected wounds is about ten times higher than in non-infected wounds, appears to be a suitable biomarker for wound infection diagnosis. Herein, we develop a single-component foldable paper-based device for the detection of MPO in wound fluids. The analyte detection is achieved in two steps: (i) selective immunocapture of MPO, and (ii) reaction of a specific dye with the captured MPO, yielding a purple color with increasing intensity as a function of the MPO activity in infected wounds in the range of 20–85 U/mL. Ex vivo experiments with wound fluids validated the analytic efficiency of the paper-based device, and the results strongly correlate with a spectrophotometric assay.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

Experimental Evaluation of a Team of Multiple Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for Cooperative Construction

This article presents a team of multiple Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to perform cooperative missions for autonomous construction. In particular, the UAVs have to build a wall made of bricks that need to be picked and transported from different locations. First, we propose a novel architecture for multi-robot systems operating in outdoor and unstructured environments, where robustness and reliability play a key role. Then, we describe the design of our aerial platforms and grasping mechanisms to pick, transport and place bricks. The system was particularly developed for the Mohamed Bin Zayed International Robotics Challenge (MBZIRC), where Challenge 2 consisted of building a wall cooperatively with multiple UAVs. However, our approach is more general and extensible to other multi-UAV applications involving physical interaction, like package delivery. We present not only our results in the final stage of MBZIRC, but also our simulations and field experiments throughout the previous months to the competition, where we tuned our system and assessed its performance

Comparison of seven prognostic tools to identify low-risk pulmonary embolism in patients aged <50 years

publishersversionPeer reviewe

Rate and duration of hospitalisation for acute pulmonary embolism in the real-world clinical practice of different countries : Analysis from the RIETE registry

publishersversionPeer reviewe

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative sars-cov-2 infection: An international cohort study

Background The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (740%) had emergency surgery and 280 (248%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (261%) patients. 30-day mortality was 238% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (512%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 380% (219 of 577), accounting for 817% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 175 [95% CI 128-240], p&lt;00001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (230 [165-322], p&lt;00001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3-5 versus grades 1-2 (235 [157-353], p&lt;00001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (155 [101-239], p=0046), emergency versus elective surgery (167 [106-263], p=0026), and major versus minor surgery (152 [101-231], p=0047). Interpretation Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: An international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19-Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS: Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION: Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

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