Efficacy and safety outcomes of recanalization procedures in patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background We aimed to review the efficacy and safety of recanalisation procedures for the treatment of PE. Methods We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, EBSCO, Web of Science and CINAHL databases from inception through 31 July 2015 and included randomised clinical trials that compared the effect of a recanalisation procedure versus each other or anticoagulant therapy in patients diagnosed with PE. We used network meta-analysis and multivariate randomeffects meta-regression to estimate pooled differences between each intervention and meta-regression to assess the association between trial characteristics and the reported effects of recanalisation procedures versus anticoagulation. Results For all-cause mortality, there were no significant differences in event rates between any of the recanalisation procedures and anticoagulant treatment (full-dose thrombolysis: OR 0.60; 95% CI0.36 to 1.01; low-dose thrombolysis: 0.47; 95%CI 0.14 to 1.59; and catheter-associated thrombolysis: 0.31; 95%CI 0.01 to 7.96). Full-dose thrombolysis increased the risk of major bleeding (2.00; 95%CI 1.06 to 3.78) compared with anticoagulation. Catheter-directed thrombolysis was associated with the lowest probability of dying (surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), 0.67), followed by low-dose thrombolysis (SUCRA, 0.66) and full-dose thrombolysis (SUCRA, 0.55). Similarly, low-dose thrombolysis was associated with the lowest probability of major bleeding (SUCRA, 0.61), followed by catheterdirected thrombolysis (SUCRA, 0.54) and full-dose thrombolysis (SUCRA, 0.17). The results were similar in sensitivity analyses based on restricting only to studies in haemodynamically stable patients with PE. Conclusions In the treatment of PE, recanalisation procedures do not seem to offer a clear advantage compared with standard anticoagulation. Low-dose thrombolysis was associated with the lowest probability of dying and bleedingpre-print549 K

Polygenic Risk Scores for Prediction of Breast Cancer and Breast Cancer Subtypes

Stratification of women according to their risk of breast cancer based on polygenic risk scores (PRSs) could improve screening and prevention strategies. Our aim was to develop PRSs, optimized for prediction of estrogen receptor (ER)-specific disease, from the largest available genome-wide association dataset and to empirically validate the PRSs in prospective studies. The development dataset comprised 94,075 case subjects and 75,017 control subjects of European ancestry from 69 studies, divided into training and validation sets. Samples were genotyped using genome-wide arrays, and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected by stepwise regression or lasso penalized regression. The best performing PRSs were validated in an independent test set comprising 11,428 case subjects and 18,323 control subjects from 10 prospective studies and 190,040 women from UK Biobank (3,215 incident breast cancers). For the best PRSs (313 SNPs), the odds ratio for overall disease per 1 standard deviation in ten prospective studies was 1.61 (95%CI: 1.57-1.65) with area under receiver-operator curve (AUC) = 0.630 (95%CI: 0.628-0.651). The lifetime risk of overall breast cancer in the top centile of the PRSs was 32.6%. Compared with women in the middle quintile, those in the highest 1% of risk had 4.37- and 2.78-fold risks, and those in the lowest 1% of risk had 0.16- and 0.27-fold risks, of developing ER-positive and ER-negative disease, respectively. Goodness-of-fit tests indicated that this PRS was well calibrated and predicts disease risk accurately in the tails of the distribution. This PRS is a powerful and reliable predictor of breast cancer risk that may improve breast cancer prevention programs.NovartisEli Lilly and CompanyAstraZenecaAbbViePfizer UKCelgeneEisaiGenentechMerck Sharp and DohmeRocheCancer Research UKGovernment of CanadaArray BioPharmaGenome CanadaNational Institutes of HealthEuropean CommissionMinistère de l'Économie, de l’Innovation et des Exportations du QuébecSeventh Framework ProgrammeCanadian Institutes of Health Researc

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

Efficacy and safety outcomes of recanalisation procedures in patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Thrombosis and Hemostasi

Treatment of Right Heart Thrombi Associated with Acute Pulmonary Embolism.

Evidence-based recommendations do not adequately address the treatment of right heart thrombi in patients who present with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism. This study included patients who had acute pulmonary embolism associated with right heart thrombi and participated in the Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad TromboEmbólica registry. We assessed the effectiveness of anticoagulation versus reperfusion treatment for the outcomes of all-cause mortality, pulmonary embolism-related mortality, recurrent venous thromboembolism, and major bleeding rates through 30 days after initiation of pulmonary embolism treatment. We used propensity score matching to adjust for the likelihood of receiving reperfusion treatment. Of 325 patients with pulmonary embolism and right heart thrombi, 255 (78%; 95% confidence interval, 74-83) received anticoagulation and 70 (22%; 95% confidence interval, 17-26) also received reperfusion treatment. Propensity score-matched pairs analyses did not detect a statistically lower risk of all-cause death (6.2% vs 14%, P = .15) or pulmonary embolism-related mortality (4.7% vs 7.8%; P = .47) for reperfusion compared with anticoagulation. Of the patients who received reperfusion treatment, 6.2% had a recurrence during the study follow-up period, compared with 0% of those who received anticoagulation (P = .049). The incidence of major bleeding events was not statistically different between the 2 treatment groups (3.1% vs 3.1%; P = 1.00). In patients with pulmonary embolism and right heart thrombi, no significant difference was found between reperfusion therapy and anticoagulant therapy for mortality and bleeding. The risk of recurrences was significantly higher for reperfusion therapy compared with anticoagulation. Right heart thrombi may not warrant riskier interventions than standard anticoagulation