The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

The role of central venous pressure and type of vascular control in blood loss during major liver resections

Background: Blood loss during liver resection constitutes the primary determinant of the postoperative outcome. Various techniques of vascular control and maintenance of a low central vein pressure (CVP) have been used in order to prevent intraoperative blood loss and postoperative complications. Our study aims at assessing the effects of different levels of CVP in relation to type of vascular control on perioperative blood loss and patient outcome. Methods: The records of 102 consecutive patients who underwent a major hepatectomy were retrospectively analyzed. Forty-two patients were operated on with a CVP of 6 mm Hg or more and 60 patients had a CVP of 5 mm Hg or less. The Pringle maneuver was used in 45 patients and selective hepatic vascular exclusion (SHVE) in 57 patients. Blood loss, complications, and mortality were analyzed comparing the two CVP groups in relation to type of vascular control. Results: The Pringle maneuver is associated with more blood loss when CVP is 6 mm Hg or more compared with CVP 5 mm Hg or less (1,250 mL [250 to 2,850] versus 780 mL [150 to 3,100]; P &lt; 0.05). Conversely, blood loss during SHVE is independent of the CVP levels. A significant difference in blood loss between the Pringle maneuver and SHVE was observed, only when CVP was 6 mm Ha or more (1,250 mL [250 to 2,850] versus 680 mL [150 to 1,260]; P &lt; 0.05). Hospital stay was also significantly longer in patients operated on with CVP 6 mm Hg or more (15 days [4 to 38] than in patients with CVP 5 mm Hg or less (10 days [4 to 32]; P &lt; 0.05). Conclusions: Elevated CVP during major liver resections results in greater blood loss and a longer hospital stay. The Pringle maneuver with CVP 5 mm Hg or less is associated with blood loss not significantly different from that with SHVE. The latter, though, has been shown not to be affected by CVP levels and should be used whenever CVP remains high despite adequate anesthetic management. (C) 2004 Excerpta Medica, Inc. All rights reserved

Total versus selective hepatic vascular exclusion in major liver resections

Background: Total hepatic vascular exclusion (THVE) and selective hepatic vascular exclusion (SHVE) are two effective techniques for bleeding control in major hepatic resections. Outcomes of the two procedures were compared. Methods: Patients undergoing major liver resection were randomly allocated to the THVE and SHVE groups. Intraoperative hemodynamic changes and the postoperative course of the two groups were compared. Results: During vascular clamping, the THVE group showed a significant elevation in pulmonary vascular resistance, systemic vascular resistance. intrapulmonary shunts, and a significant reduction in cardiac index, compared with the SHVE group (P &lt;0.05). Patients undergoing THVE received more crystalloids and blood, showed more severe liver, renal and pancreatic dysfunction, and had a longer hospital stay than the SHVE group (P &lt;0.05). Conclusions: Both techniques are equally effective in bleeding control in major liver resections. THVE is associated with cardiorespiratory and hemodynamic alterations and may be not tolerated by some patients. SHVE is well tolerated with fewer postoperative complications and shorter hospitalization time. (C) 2002 Excerpta Medica, Inc. All rights reserved

Selective hepatic vascular exclusion versus pringle maneuver in major liver resections: Prospective study

Selective hepatic vascular exclusion (SHVE) and the Pringle maneuver are two methods used to control bleeding during hepatectomy. They are compared in a prospective randomized study, where 110 patients undergoing major liver resection were randomly allocated to the SHVE group or the Pringle group. Data regarding the intraoperative and postoperative courses of the patients are analyzed. Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion requirements were significantly decreased in the SHVE group, and postoperative liver function was better in that group. Although there was no difference between the two groups regarding the postoperative complications rate, patients offered the Pringle maneuver had a significantly longer hospital stay. The application of SHVE did not prolong the warm ischemia time or the total operating time. It is evident from the present study that SHVE performed by experienced surgeons is as safe as the Pringle maneuver and is well tolerated by the patients. It is much more effective than the Pringle maneuver for controlling intraoperative bleeding, and it is associated with better postoperative liver function and shorter hospital stay

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

Aim 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. Method This was an international cohort study of patients undergoing elective resection of colon or rectal cancer without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Centres entered data from their first recorded case of COVID-19 until 19 April 2020. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included anastomotic leak, postoperative SARS-CoV-2 and a comparison with prepandemic European Society of Coloproctology cohort data. Results From 2073 patients in 40 countries, 1.3% (27/2073) had a defunctioning stoma and 3.0% (63/2073) had an end stoma instead of an anastomosis only. Thirty-day mortality was 1.8% (38/2073), the incidence of postoperative SARS-CoV-2 was 3.8% (78/2073) and the anastomotic leak rate was 4.9% (86/1738). Mortality was lowest in patients without a leak or SARS-CoV-2 (14/1601, 0.9%) and highest in patients with both a leak and SARS-CoV-2 (5/13, 38.5%). Mortality was independently associated with anastomotic leak (adjusted odds ratio 6.01, 95% confidence interval 2.58–14.06), postoperative SARS-CoV-2 (16.90, 7.86–36.38), male sex (2.46, 1.01–5.93), age >70 years (2.87, 1.32–6.20) and advanced cancer stage (3.43, 1.16–10.21). Compared with prepandemic data, there were fewer anastomotic leaks (4.9% versus 7.7%) and an overall shorter length of stay (6 versus 7 days) but higher mortality (1.7% versus 1.1%). Conclusion Surgeons need to further mitigate against both SARS-CoV-2 and anastomotic leak when offering surgery during current and future COVID-19 waves based on patient, operative and organizational risks

1013 Preoperative Nasopharyngeal Swab Testing and Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery During The SARS-Cov-2 Pandemic

Abstract Introduction This study aimed to evaluate the association between preoperative SARS-CoV-2 testing and postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing elective cancer surgery. Method International cohort study including adult patients undergoing elective surgery for cancer in areas affected by SARS-CoV-2 up to 19 April 2020 (NCT04384926). Patients suspected preoperatively of SARS-CoV-2 infection were excluded. The primary outcome measure was postoperative pulmonary complications at 30 days after surgery. Results Of 8784 patients (432 hospitals, 53 countries), 2303 patients (26.2%) underwent preoperative testing: 1458 (16.6%) had a swab test, 521 (5.9%) CT only, and 324 (3.7%) swab and CT. The overall pulmonary complication rate was 3.9% and SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was 2.6%. After risk adjustment, only a nasopharyngeal swab test (adjusted odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.68-0.98, p = 0.040) was associated with lower rates of pulmonary complications. Swab testing remained beneficial before major surgery and in high SARS-CoV-2 population risk areas but not before minor surgery in low incidence areas. Conclusions Preoperative nasopharyngeal swab testing was beneficial before major surgery and in high SARS-CoV-2 incidence areas. There was no proven benefit of swab testing before minor surgery in low incidence areas. </jats:sec