Global patient outcomes after elective surgery: prospective cohort study in 27 low-, middle- and high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: As global initiatives increase patient access to surgical treatments, there remains a need to understand the adverse effects of surgery and define appropriate levels of perioperative care. METHODS: We designed a prospective international 7-day cohort study of outcomes following elective adult inpatient surgery in 27 countries. The primary outcome was in-hospital complications. Secondary outcomes were death following a complication (failure to rescue) and death in hospital. Process measures were admission to critical care immediately after surgery or to treat a complication and duration of hospital stay. A single definition of critical care was used for all countries. RESULTS: A total of 474 hospitals in 19 high-, 7 middle- and 1 low-income country were included in the primary analysis. Data included 44 814 patients with a median hospital stay of 4 (range 2-7) days. A total of 7508 patients (16.8%) developed one or more postoperative complication and 207 died (0.5%). The overall mortality among patients who developed complications was 2.8%. Mortality following complications ranged from 2.4% for pulmonary embolism to 43.9% for cardiac arrest. A total of 4360 (9.7%) patients were admitted to a critical care unit as routine immediately after surgery, of whom 2198 (50.4%) developed a complication, with 105 (2.4%) deaths. A total of 1233 patients (16.4%) were admitted to a critical care unit to treat complications, with 119 (9.7%) deaths. Despite lower baseline risk, outcomes were similar in low- and middle-income compared with high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Poor patient outcomes are common after inpatient surgery. Global initiatives to increase access to surgical treatments should also address the need for safe perioperative care. STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN5181700

Efficacy of lidocaine patch 5% in the treatment of focal peripheral neuropathic pain syndromes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Peripheral neuropathic pain syndromes (PNPS) are difficult to treat because commonly used analgesics are often ineffective when, for example, touch-evoked allodynia, hyperalgesia, and pain paroxysms are present. To investigate whether lidocaine patch 5% treatment is also effective in postherpetic neuropathy (PHN) and in other PNPS, 40 patients with various forms and localizations of PNPS completed a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, two-way, cross-over study in three medical hospitals. Patients suffering from pain in a localized skin area with intensity above 40 mm visual analog scale (VAS) and a stable consumption of pain medication were included in this study. The study was divided into four phases: 3-day run-in phase, treatment phase 1, wash-out period, and treatment phase 2, each lasting 1 week. At the discretion of the patients, up to four patches (covering a maximum of 560 cm2) were applied onto the maximally painful area for 12 consecutive hours daily, always either by day or at night. Throughout the four phases, ongoing pain, allodynia, quality of neuropathic symptoms, quality of sleep, and adverse events were assessed. When, after the wash-out period, the pain intensity scores did not return to the pre-treatment values (+/-20%), these patients were excluded from the study. The present study revealed that, as an add-on therapy, the lidocaine patch 5% was clearly effective in reducing ongoing pain (P=0.017) and allodynia (P=0.023) during the first 8 h after application and that the patches also worked well over a period of 7 days (P=0.018) in diverse focal PNPS. Calculation of the numbers needed to treat (NNT) to obtain one patient with more than 50% relief of ongoing pain revealed that the NNT of 4.4 in the present study compared reasonably well with other studies of PHN, such as topically applied capsaicin (NNT: 5.3-infinity) or systemic treatment with gabapentin (NNT: 3.2-5.0)

The Maturing of Hormesis as a Credible Dose-Response Model

Hormesis is a dose-response phenomenon that has received little recognition, credibility and acceptance as evidenced by its absence from major toxicological/risk assessment texts, governmental regulatory dose-response modeling for risk assessment, and non-visibility in major professional toxicological society national meetings. This paper traces the historical evolution of the hormetic dose-response hypothesis, why this model is not only credible but also more common than the widely accepted threshold model in direct comparative evaluation, and how the toxicological community made a critical error in rejecting hormesis, a rejection sustained over 70 years