American Society of Hematology 2019 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism : prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common source of perioperative morbidity and mortality. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support decision making about preventing VTE in patients undergoing surgery. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. Results: The panel agreed on 30 recommendations, including for major surgery in general (n = 8), orthopedic surgery (n = 7), major general surgery (n = 3), major neurosurgical procedures (n = 2), urological surgery (n = 4), cardiac surgery and major vascular surgery (n = 2), major trauma (n = 2), and major gynecological surgery (n = 2). Conclusions: For patients undergoing major surgery in general, the panel made conditional recommendations for mechanical prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, for pneumatic compression prophylaxis over graduated compression stockings, and against inferior vena cava filters. In patients undergoing total hip or total knee arthroplasty, conditional recommendations included using either aspirin or anticoagulants, as well as for a direct oral anticoagulant over low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). For major general surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, using LMWH or unfractionated heparin. For major neurosurgery, transurethral resection of the prostate, or radical prostatectomy, the panel suggested against pharmacological prophylaxis. For major trauma surgery or major gynecological surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis.Peer reviewe

Development of a prediction model for postoperative pneumonia A multicentre prospective observational study

BACKGROUND Postoperative pneumonia is associated with increased morbidity, mortality and costs. Prediction models of pneumonia that are currently available are based on retrospectively collected data and administrative coding systems. OBJECTIVE To identify independent variables associated with the occurrence of postoperative pneumonia. DESIGN A prospective observational study of a multicentre cohort (Prospective Evaluation of a RIsk Score for postoperative pulmonary COmPlications in Europe database). SETTING Sixty-three hospitals in Europe. PATIENTS Patients undergoing surgery under general and/or regional anaesthesia during a 7-day recruitment period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE The primary outcome was postoperative pneumonia. Definition: the need for treatment with antibiotics for a respiratory infection and at least one of the following criteria: new or changed sputum; new or changed lung opacities on a clinically indicated chest radiograph; temperature more than 38.3 degrees C; leucocyte count more than 12 000 mu l(-1). RESULTS Postoperative pneumonia occurred in 120 out of 5094 patients (2.4%). Eighty-two of the 120 (68.3%) patients with pneumonia required ICU admission, compared with 399 of the 4974 (8.0%) without pneumonia (P < 0.001). We identified five variables independently associated with postoperative pneumonia: functional status [odds ratio (OR) 2.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58 to 3.12], pre-operative SpO(2) values while breathing room air (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.84), intra-operative colloid administration (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.94 to 3.99), intra-operative blood transfusion (OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.41 to 4.71) and surgical site (open upper abdominal surgery OR 3.98, 95% CI 2.19 to 7.59). The model had good discrimination (c-statistic 0.89) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow P = 0.572). CONCLUSION We identified five variables independently associated with postoperative pneumonia. The model performed well and after external validation may be used for risk stratification and management of patients at risk of postoperative pneumonia

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

AimThe 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsOverall, 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 ConclusionOne 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