A comparison of the warming capabilities of two Baragwanath rewarming appliances with the Hotline fluid warming device

Background. Accidental intraoperative hypothermia is a common and avoidable adverse event of the perioperative period and is associated with detrimental effects on multiple organ systems and postoperative patient outcomes. In a resource-limited environment, prevention of intraoperative hypothermia is often challenging. Resourceful clinicians overcome these challenges through creative devices and frugal innovations. Objective. To investigate the thermal performance of two Baragwanath Rewarming Appliances (BaRA) against that of the Hotline device to describe an optimal setup for these devices. Methods. This was a quasi-experimental laboratory study that measured the thermal performance of two BaRA devices and the Hotline device under a number of scenarios. Independent variables including fluid type, flow rate, warming temperature and warming transit distance were sequentially altered and temperatures measured along the fluid stream. Change in temperature (ΔT) was calculated as the difference between entry and exit temperature for each combination of variables for each warming device. Results. A total of 219 experiments were performed. At a temperature of 43.0°C and a transit distance of 200 cm, the BaRA A configuration either matched or exceeded the ΔT of the Hotline over all fluid type and flowrate combinations. The BaRA B configuration does not provide comparable thermal performance to the Hotline. Measured flowrates were noticeably slower than manufacturer-quoted values for all intravenous (IV) cannulae used. Conclusion. A warm-water bath at 43.0°C with 200 cm of submerged IV tubing provides thermal performance comparable to the Hotline device, with all fluid type and flowrate combinations

Polycystic kidney disease in patients on the renal transplant waiting list: trends in hematocrit and survival

BACKGROUND: The patient characteristics and mortality associated with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (PKD) have not been characterized for a national sample of end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients on the renal transplant waiting list. METHODS: 40,493 patients in the United States Renal Data System who were initiated on ESRD therapy between 1 April 1995 and 29 June 1999 and later enrolled on the renal transplant waiting list were analyzed in an historical cohort study of the relationship between hematocrit at the time of presentation to ESRD and survival (using Cox Regression) in patients with PKD as a cause of ESRD. RESULTS: Hematocrit levels at presentation to ESRD increased significantly over more recent years of the study. Hematocrit rose in parallel in patients with and without PKD, but patients with PKD had consistently higher hemoglobin. PKD was independently associated with higher hematocrit in multiple linear regression analysis (p < 0.0001). In logistic regression, higher hematocrit was independently associated with PKD. In Cox Regression analysis, PKD was associated with statistically significant improved survival both in comparison with diabetic (hazard ratio, 0.64, 95% CI 0.53–0.77, p < 0.001) and non-diabetic (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56–0.82, p = 0.001) ESRD patients, adjusted for all other factors. CONCLUSIONS: Hematocrit at presentation to ESRD was significantly higher in patients with PKD compared with patients with other causes of ESRD. The survival advantage of PKD in ESRD persisted even adjusted for differences in hematocrit and in comparison with patients on the renal transplant waiting list

Elective surgery system strengthening: development, measurement, and validation of the surgical preparedness index across 1632 hospitals in 119 countries

Background The 2015 Lancet Commission on global surgery identified surgery and anaesthesia as indispensable parts of holistic health-care systems. However, COVID-19 exposed the fragility of planned surgical services around the world, which have also been neglected in pandemic recovery planning. This study aimed to develop and validate a novel index to support local elective surgical system strengthening and address growing backlogs. Methods First, we performed an international consultation through a four-stage consensus process to develop a multidomain index for hospital-level assessment (surgical preparedness index; SPI). Second, we measured surgical preparedness across a global network of hospitals in high-income countries (HICs), middle-income countries (MICs), and low-income countries (LICs) to explore the distribution of the SPI at national, subnational, and hospital levels. Finally, using COVID-19 as an example of an external system shock, we compared hospitals' SPI to their planned surgical volume ratio (SVR; ie, operations for which the decision for surgery was made before hospital admission), calculated as the ratio of the observed surgical volume over a 1-month assessment period between June 6 and Aug 5, 2021, against the expected surgical volume based on hospital administrative data from the same period in 2019 (ie, a pre-pandemic baseline). A linear mixed-effects regression model was used to determine the effect of increasing SPI score. Findings In the first phase, from a longlist of 103 candidate indicators, 23 were prioritised as core indicators of elective surgical system preparedness by 69 clinicians (23 [33%] women; 46 [67%] men; 41 from HICs, 22 from MICs, and six from LICs) from 32 countries. The multidomain SPI included 11 indicators on facilities and consumables, two on staffing, two on prioritisation, and eight on systems. Hospitals were scored from 23 (least prepared) to 115 points (most prepared). In the second phase, surgical preparedness was measured in 1632 hospitals by 4714 clinicians from 119 countries. 745 (45·6%) of 1632 hospitals were in MICs or LICs. The mean SPI score was 84·5 (95% CI 84·1–84·9), which varied between HIC (88·5 [89·0–88·0]), MIC (81·8 [82·5–81·1]), and LIC (66·8 [64·9–68·7]) settings. In the third phase, 1217 (74·6%) hospitals did not maintain their expected SVR during the COVID-19 pandemic, of which 625 (51·4%) were from HIC, 538 (44·2%) from MIC, and 54 (4·4%) from LIC settings. In the mixed-effects model, a 10-point increase in SPI corresponded to a 3·6% (95% CI 3·0–4·1; p<0·0001) increase in SVR. This was consistent in HIC (4·8% [4·1–5·5]; p<0·0001), MIC (2·8 [2·0–3·7]; p<0·0001), and LIC (3·8 [1·3–6·7%]; p<0·0001) settings. Interpretation The SPI contains 23 indicators that are globally applicable, relevant across different system stressors, vary at a subnational level, and are collectable by front-line teams. In the case study of COVID-19, a higher SPI was associated with an increased planned surgical volume ratio independent of country income status, COVID-19 burden, and hospital type. Hospitals should perform annual self-assessment of their surgical preparedness to identify areas that can be improved, create resilience in local surgical systems, and upscale capacity to address elective surgery backlogs. Funding National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery, NIHR Academy, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel Research UK, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, and Medtronic.publishedVersio

Elective surgery system strengthening: development, measurement, and validation of the surgical preparedness index across 1632 hospitals in 119 countries

Background: The 2015 Lancet Commission on global surgery identified surgery and anaesthesia as indispensable parts of holistic health-care systems. However, COVID-19 exposed the fragility of planned surgical services around the world, which have also been neglected in pandemic recovery planning. This study aimed to develop and validate a novel index to support local elective surgical system strengthening and address growing backlogs. Methods: First, we performed an international consultation through a four-stage consensus process to develop a multidomain index for hospital-level assessment (surgical preparedness index; SPI). Second, we measured surgical preparedness across a global network of hospitals in high-income countries (HICs), middle-income countries (MICs), and low-income countries (LICs) to explore the distribution of the SPI at national, subnational, and hospital levels. Finally, using COVID-19 as an example of an external system shock, we compared hospitals' SPI to their planned surgical volume ratio (SVR; ie, operations for which the decision for surgery was made before hospital admission), calculated as the ratio of the observed surgical volume over a 1-month assessment period between June 6 and Aug 5, 2021, against the expected surgical volume based on hospital administrative data from the same period in 2019 (ie, a pre-pandemic baseline). A linear mixed-effects regression model was used to determine the effect of increasing SPI score. Findings: In the first phase, from a longlist of 103 candidate indicators, 23 were prioritised as core indicators of elective surgical system preparedness by 69 clinicians (23 [33%] women; 46 [67%] men; 41 from HICs, 22 from MICs, and six from LICs) from 32 countries. The multidomain SPI included 11 indicators on facilities and consumables, two on staffing, two on prioritisation, and eight on systems. Hospitals were scored from 23 (least prepared) to 115 points (most prepared). In the second phase, surgical preparedness was measured in 1632 hospitals by 4714 clinicians from 119 countries. 745 (45·6%) of 1632 hospitals were in MICs or LICs. The mean SPI score was 84·5 (95% CI 84·1–84·9), which varied between HIC (88·5 [89·0–88·0]), MIC (81·8 [82·5–81·1]), and LIC (66·8 [64·9–68·7]) settings. In the third phase, 1217 (74·6%) hospitals did not maintain their expected SVR during the COVID-19 pandemic, of which 625 (51·4%) were from HIC, 538 (44·2%) from MIC, and 54 (4·4%) from LIC settings. In the mixed-effects model, a 10-point increase in SPI corresponded to a 3·6% (95% CI 3·0–4·1; p<0·0001) increase in SVR. This was consistent in HIC (4·8% [4·1–5·5]; p<0·0001), MIC (2·8 [2·0–3·7]; p<0·0001), and LIC (3·8 [1·3–6·7%]; p<0·0001) settings. Interpretation: The SPI contains 23 indicators that are globally applicable, relevant across different system stressors, vary at a subnational level, and are collectable by front-line teams. In the case study of COVID-19, a higher SPI was associated with an increased planned surgical volume ratio independent of country income status, COVID-19 burden, and hospital type. Hospitals should perform annual self-assessment of their surgical preparedness to identify areas that can be improved, create resilience in local surgical systems, and upscale capacity to address elective surgery backlogs. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery, NIHR Academy, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel Research UK, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, and Medtronic

Awareness and Impact of Non-pharmaceutical Interventions During Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic in Renal Transplant Recipients

The concerns generated by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are having profound impact on solid organ transplantation (SOT). Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) are currently the only measures available to contain COVID-19 in the general population and in more vulnerable recipients of any organ transplant. In this cross-sectional case control study from a patient survey undertaken in 2 transplant centers (TxC) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Italy, we aimed to appraise awareness of the NPI implemented by respective these governments. We have also evaluated the impact of COVID-19 on our kidney transplant (KT) recipients and a control group of kidney living donors (KLD). In our series, there were zero cases of COVID-19 among 111 KT recipients and 70 KLD of the control group. Demography, transplant type, immunosuppression regimes, and, importantly, the different COVID-19 prevalence in the 2 regions of the TxC did not appear to influence incidence of COVID-19 in our KT recipients. The absence of COVID-19 cases in our series was unexpected. Our findings suggest that awareness of NPI is associated with a successful containment of COVID-19 in vulnerable, immunosuppressed KT recipients