Lung resection surgery in Jehovah’s Witness patients: A 20-year single-center experience

Background: The paucity of literature on surgical outcomes of Jehovah's Witness (JW) patients undergoing lung resection suggests some patients with operable lung cancers may be denied resection. The aim of this study is to better understand perioperative outcomes and long-term cancer survival of JW patients undergoing lung resection. Methods: All pulmonary resections in JW patients at one institution from 2000 through 2020 were examined. Demographics, comorbidities, operative parameters, and perioperative outcomes were reviewed. Among operations performed for primary non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), details regarding staging, extent of resection, additional therapies, recurrence, and survival were abstracted. Results: Seventeen lung resections were performed in fourteen patients. There were nine anatomic resections and eight wedge resections. Fourteen resections (82%) were approached thoracoscopically, of which 3 of 6 anatomic resections were converted to thoracotomy as compared to 1 of 8 wedge resections. There was one (6%) perioperative death. Ten resections in 8 patients were performed for primary pulmonary malignancies, and two patients underwent procedures for recurrent disease. Median survival for resected NSCLCs (N = 7) was 65 months. Three of 6 patients who survived the immediate perioperative period underwent additional procedures: 2 pulmonary wedge resections for diagnosis and one pleural biopsy. Conclusions: This series of JW patients undergoing lung resections demonstrates that resections for cancer and inflammatory etiologies can be performed safely in the setting of both primary and re-operative procedures.</p

The risk analysis index is an independent predictor of outcomes after lung cancer resection

Background: The Risk Analysis Index (RAI) is a frailty assessment tool based on an accumulation of deficits model. We mapped RAI to data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Database to determine whether RAI correlates with postoperative outcomes following lung cancer resection. Methodology/Principal findings: This was a national database retrospective observational study based on data from the STS Database. Study patients underwent surgery 2018 to 2020. RAI was divided into four increasing risk categories. The associations between RAI and each of postoperative complications and administrative outcomes were examined using logistic regression models. We also compared the performance of RAI to established risk indices (American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)) using areas under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves (AUC). Results: Of 29,420 candidate patients identified in the STS Database, RAI could be calculated for 22,848 (78%). Almost all outcome categories exhibited a progressive increase in marginal probability as RAI increased. On multivariable analyses, RAI was significantly associated with an incremental pattern with almost all outcomes. ROC analyses for RAI demonstrated “good” AUC values for mortality (0.785; 0.748) and discharge location (0.791), but only “fair” values for all other outcome categories (0.618 to 0.690). RAI performed similarly to ASA and CCI in terms of AUC score categories. Conclusions/Significance: RAI is associated with clinical and administrative outcomes following lung cancer resection. However, its overall accuracy as a surgical risk predictor is only moderate and similar to ASA and CCI. We do not recommend routine use of RAI for assessment of individual patient risk for major lung resection.</p

Prospective observational cohort study on grading the severity of postoperative complications in global surgery research

Background The Clavien–Dindo classification is perhaps the most widely used approach for reporting postoperative complications in clinical trials. This system classifies complication severity by the treatment provided. However, it is unclear whether the Clavien–Dindo system can be used internationally in studies across differing healthcare systems in high- (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods This was a secondary analysis of the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), a prospective observational cohort study of elective surgery in adults. Data collection occurred over a 7-day period. Severity of complications was graded using Clavien–Dindo and the simpler ISOS grading (mild, moderate or severe, based on guided investigator judgement). Severity grading was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data are presented as frequencies and ICC values (with 95 per cent c.i.). The analysis was stratified by income status of the country, comparing HICs with LMICs. Results A total of 44 814 patients were recruited from 474 hospitals in 27 countries (19 HICs and 8 LMICs). Some 7508 patients (16·8 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication, equivalent to 11 664 complications in total. Using the ISOS classification, 5504 of 11 664 complications (47·2 per cent) were graded as mild, 4244 (36·4 per cent) as moderate and 1916 (16·4 per cent) as severe. Using Clavien–Dindo, 6781 of 11 664 complications (58·1 per cent) were graded as I or II, 1740 (14·9 per cent) as III, 2408 (20·6 per cent) as IV and 735 (6·3 per cent) as V. Agreement between classification systems was poor overall (ICC 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·20 to 0·55), and in LMICs (ICC 0·23, 0·05 to 0·38) and HICs (ICC 0·46, 0·25 to 0·59). Conclusion Caution is recommended when using a treatment approach to grade complications in global surgery studies, as this may introduce bias unintentionally

Critical care admission following elective surgery was not associated with survival benefit: prospective analysis of data from 27 countries

This was an investigator initiated study funded by Nestle Health Sciences through an unrestricted research grant, and by a National Institute for Health Research (UK) Professorship held by RP. The study was sponsored by Queen Mary University of London

The surgical safety checklist and patient outcomes after surgery: a prospective observational cohort study, systematic review and meta-analysis

© 2017 British Journal of Anaesthesia Background: The surgical safety checklist is widely used to improve the quality of perioperative care. However, clinicians continue to debate the clinical effectiveness of this tool. Methods: Prospective analysis of data from the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), an international observational study of elective in-patient surgery, accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature. The exposure was surgical safety checklist use. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcome was postoperative complications. In the ISOS cohort, a multivariable multi-level generalized linear model was used to test associations. To further contextualise these findings, we included the results from the ISOS cohort in a meta-analysis. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Results: We included 44 814 patients from 497 hospitals in 27 countries in the ISOS analysis. There were 40 245 (89.8%) patients exposed to the checklist, whilst 7508 (16.8%) sustained ≥1 postoperative complications and 207 (0.5%) died before hospital discharge. Checklist exposure was associated with reduced mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.49 (0.32–0.77); P\u3c0.01], but no difference in complication rates [OR 1.02 (0.88–1.19); P=0.75]. In a systematic review, we screened 3732 records and identified 11 eligible studies of 453 292 patients including the ISOS cohort. Checklist exposure was associated with both reduced postoperative mortality [OR 0.75 (0.62–0.92); P\u3c0.01; I2=87%] and reduced complication rates [OR 0.73 (0.61–0.88); P\u3c0.01; I2=89%). Conclusions: Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine