Evaluating the clinical effectiveness of the NHS Health Check programme: a prospective analysis in the Genetics and Vascular Health Check (GENVASC) study

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the clinical effectiveness of the national cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention programme-National Health Service Health Check (NHSHC) in reduction of CVD risk. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: 147 primary care practices in Leicestershire and Northamptonshire in England, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 27 888 individuals undergoing NHSHC with a minimum of 18 months of follow-up data. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were NHSHC attributed detection of CVD risk factors, prescription of medications, changes in values of individual risk factors and frequency of follow-up. RESULTS: At recruitment, 18% of participants had high CVD risk (10%-20% 10-year risk) and 4% very high CVD risk (>20% 10-year risk). New diagnoses or hypertension (HTN) was made in 2.3% participants, hypercholesterolaemia in 0.25% and diabetes mellitus in 0.9%. New prescription of stains and antihypertensive medications was observed in 5.4% and 5.4% of participants, respectively. Total cholesterol was decreased on average by 0.38 mmol/L (95% CI -0.34 to -0.41) and 1.71 mmol/L (-1.48 to -1.94) in patients with initial cholesterol >5 mmol/L and >7.5 mmol/L, respectively. Systolic blood pressure was decreased on average by 2.9 mm Hg (-2.3 to -3.7), 15.7 mm Hg (-14.1 to -17.5) and 33.4 mm Hg (-29.4 to -37.7), in patients with grade 1, 2 and 3 HTN, respectively. About one out of three patients with increased CVD risk had no record of follow-up or treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Majority of patients identified with increased CVD risk through the NHSHC were followed up and received effective clinical interventions. However, one-third of high CVD risk patients had no follow-up and therefore did not receive any treatment. Our study highlights areas of focus which could improve the effectiveness of the programme. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04417387

Elective surgery cancellations due to the COVID-19 pandemic: global predictive modelling to inform surgical recovery plans.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted routine hospital services globally. This study estimated the total number of adult elective operations that would be cancelled worldwide during the 12 weeks of peak disruption due to COVID-19. METHODS: A global expert response study was conducted to elicit projections for the proportion of elective surgery that would be cancelled or postponed during the 12 weeks of peak disruption. A Bayesian β-regression model was used to estimate 12-week cancellation rates for 190 countries. Elective surgical case-mix data, stratified by specialty and indication (surgery for cancer versus benign disease), were determined. This case mix was applied to country-level surgical volumes. The 12-week cancellation rates were then applied to these figures to calculate the total number of cancelled operations. RESULTS: The best estimate was that 28 404 603 operations would be cancelled or postponed during the peak 12 weeks of disruption due to COVID-19 (2 367 050 operations per week). Most would be operations for benign disease (90·2 per cent, 25 638 922 of 28 404 603). The overall 12-week cancellation rate would be 72·3 per cent. Globally, 81·7 per cent of operations for benign conditions (25 638 922 of 31 378 062), 37·7 per cent of cancer operations (2 324 070 of 6 162 311) and 25·4 per cent of elective caesarean sections (441 611 of 1 735 483) would be cancelled or postponed. If countries increased their normal surgical volume by 20 per cent after the pandemic, it would take a median of 45 weeks to clear the backlog of operations resulting from COVID-19 disruption. CONCLUSION: A very large number of operations will be cancelled or postponed owing to disruption caused by COVID-19. Governments should mitigate against this major burden on patients by developing recovery plans and implementing strategies to restore surgical activity safely

Global wealth disparities drive adherence to COVID-safe pathways in head and neck cancer surgery

Peer 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 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). 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

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

Timing of surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international prospective cohort study.

Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay

Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

Background Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis. Methods A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16–45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis). Results Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two‐thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut‐off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut‐off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent). Conclusion Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision‐making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified

Evaluating the clinical effectiveness of the NHS Health Check programme: a prospective analysis in the Genetics and Vascular Health Check (GENVASC) study

Objective The aim of the study was to assess the clinical effectiveness of the national cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention programme—National Health Service Health Check (NHSHC) in reduction of CVD risk.Design Prospective cohort study.Setting 147 primary care practices in Leicestershire and Northamptonshire in England, UK.Participants 27 888 individuals undergoing NHSHC with a minimum of 18 months of follow-up data.Outcome measures The primary outcomes were NHSHC attributed detection of CVD risk factors, prescription of medications, changes in values of individual risk factors and frequency of follow-up.Results At recruitment, 18% of participants had high CVD risk (10%–20% 10-year risk) and 4% very high CVD risk (&gt;20% 10-year risk). New diagnoses or hypertension (HTN) was made in 2.3% participants, hypercholesterolaemia in 0.25% and diabetes mellitus in 0.9%. New prescription of stains and antihypertensive medications was observed in 5.4% and 5.4% of participants, respectively. Total cholesterol was decreased on average by 0.38 mmol/L (95% CI −0.34 to −0.41) and 1.71 mmol/L (−1.48 to −1.94) in patients with initial cholesterol &gt;5 mmol/L and &gt;7.5 mmol/L, respectively. Systolic blood pressure was decreased on average by 2.9 mm Hg (−2.3 to −3.7), 15.7 mm Hg (−14.1 to −17.5) and 33.4 mm Hg (−29.4 to −37.7), in patients with grade 1, 2 and 3 HTN, respectively. About one out of three patients with increased CVD risk had no record of follow-up or treatment.Conclusions Majority of patients identified with increased CVD risk through the NHSHC were followed up and received effective clinical interventions. However, one-third of high CVD risk patients had no follow-up and therefore did not receive any treatment. Our study highlights areas of focus which could improve the effectiveness of the programme.Trial registration number NCT04417387

Polygenic risk score adds to a clinical risk score in the prediction of cardiovascular disease in a clinical setting

Background and Aims A cardiovascular disease polygenic risk score (CVD-PRS) can stratify individuals into different categories of cardiovascular risk, but whether the addition of a CVD-PRS to clinical risk scores improves the identification of individuals at increased risk in a real-world clinical setting is unknown. Methods The Genetics and the Vascular Health Check Study (GENVASC) was embedded within the UK National Health Service Health Check (NHSHC) programme which invites individuals between 40–74 years of age without known CVD to attend an assessment in a UK general practice where CVD risk factors are measured and a CVD risk score (QRISK2) is calculated. Between 2012–2020, 44,141 individuals (55.7% females, 15.8% non-white) who attended an NHSHC in 147 participating practices across two counties in England were recruited and followed. When 195 individuals (cases) had suffered a major CVD event (CVD death, myocardial infarction or acute coronary syndrome, coronary revascularisation, stroke), 396 propensity-matched controls with a similar risk profile were identified, and a nested case-control genetic study undertaken to see if the addition of a CVD-PRS to QRISK2 in the form of an integrated risk tool (IRT) combined with QRISK2 would have identified more individuals at the time of their NHSHC as at high risk (QRISK2 10-year CVD risk of ≥10%), compared with QRISK2 alone. Results The distribution of the standardised CVD-PRS was significantly different in cases compared with controls (cases mean score .32; controls, −.18, P = 8.28×10−9). QRISK2 identified 61.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 54.3%–68.4%) of individuals who subsequently developed a major CVD event as being at high risk at their NHSHC, while the combination of QRISK2 and IRT identified 68.7% (95% CI: 61.7%–75.2%), a relative increase of 11.7% (P = 1×10−4). The odds ratio (OR) of being up-classified was 2.41 (95% CI: 1.03–5.64, P = .031) for cases compared with controls. In individuals aged 40–54 years, QRISK2 identified 26.0% (95% CI: 16.5%–37.6%) of those who developed a major CVD event, while the combination of QRISK2 and IRT identified 38.4% (95% CI: 27.2%–50.5%), indicating a stronger relative increase of 47.7% in the younger age group (P = .001). The combination of QRISK2 and IRT increased the proportion of additional cases identified similarly in women as in men, and in non-white ethnicities compared with white ethnicity. The findings were similar when the CVD-PRS was added to the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease pooled cohort equations (ASCVD-PCE) or SCORE2 clinical scores. Conclusions In a clinical setting, the addition of genetic information to clinical risk assessment significantly improved the identification of individuals who went on to have a major CVD event as being at high risk, especially among younger individuals. The findings provide important real-world evidence of the potential value of implementing a CVD-PRS into health systems.</p

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

AimThis 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.MethodThis 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.ResultsFrom 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 &gt;70&nbsp;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&nbsp;days) but higher mortality (1.7% versus 1.1%).ConclusionSurgeons 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