Hispano-Americans in Europe: what do we know about their health status and determinants? A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Policy makers and health practitioners are in need of guidance to respond to the growing geographic mobility of Hispano-American migrants in Europe. Drawing from contributions from epidemiology, social sciences, demography, psychology, psychiatry and economy, this scoping review provides an up-to-date and comprehensive synthesis of studies addressing the health status and determinants of this population. We describe major research gaps and suggest specific avenues of further inquiry. METHODS: We identified systematically papers that addressed the concepts "health" and "Hispano Americans" indexed in five data bases from Jan 1990 to May 2014 with no language restrictions. We screened the 4,464 citations retrieved against exclusion criteria and classified 193 selected references in 12 thematic folders with the aid of the reference management software ENDNOTE X6. After reviewing the full text of all papers we extracted relevant data systematically into a table template to facilitate the synthesising process. RESULTS: Most studies focused on a particular disease, leaving unexplored the interlinkages between different health conditions and how these relate to legislative, health services, environmental, occupational, and other health determinants. We elucidated some consistent results but there were many heterogeneous findings and several popular beliefs were not fully supported by empirical evidence. Few studies adopted a trans-national perspective and many consisted of cross-sectional descriptions that considered "Hispano-Americans" as a homogeneous category, limiting our analysis. Our results are also constrained by the availability and varying quality of studies reviewed./nCONCLUSIONS:/nBurgeoning research has produced some consistent findings but there are huge gaps in knowledge. To prevent unhelpful generalisations we need a more holistic and nuanced understanding of how mobility, ethnicity, income, gender, legislative status, employment status, working conditions, neighbourhood characteristics and social status intersect with demographic variables and policy contexts to influence the health of the diverse Hispano-American populations present in Europe

30-Day Morbidity and Mortality of Bariatric Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Multinational Cohort Study of 7704 Patients from 42 Countries.

BACKGROUND There are data on the safety of cancer surgery and the efficacy of preventive strategies on the prevention of postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 in these patients. But there is little such data for any elective surgery. The main objectives of this study were to examine the safety of bariatric surgery (BS) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to determine the efficacy of perioperative COVID-19 protective strategies on postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 rates. METHODS We conducted an international cohort study to determine all-cause and COVID-19-specific 30-day morbidity and mortality of BS performed between 01/05/2020 and 31/10/2020. RESULTS Four hundred ninety-nine surgeons from 185 centres in 42 countries provided data on 7704 patients. Elective primary BS (n = 7084) was associated with a 30-day morbidity of 6.76% (n = 479) and a 30-day mortality of 0.14% (n = 10). Emergency BS, revisional BS, insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, and untreated obstructive sleep apnoea were associated with increased complications on multivariable analysis. Forty-three patients developed symptomatic COVID-19 postoperatively, with a higher risk in non-whites. Preoperative self-isolation, preoperative testing for SARS-CoV-2, and surgery in institutions not concurrently treating COVID-19 patients did not reduce the incidence of postoperative COVID-19. Postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 was more likely if the surgery was performed during a COVID-19 peak in that country. CONCLUSIONS BS can be performed safely during the COVID-19 pandemic with appropriate perioperative protocols. There was no relationship between preoperative testing for COVID-19 and self-isolation with symptomatic postoperative COVID-19. The risk of postoperative COVID-19 risk was greater in non-whites or if BS was performed during a local peak

Safety of Bariatric Surgery in ≥ 65-Year-Old Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background Age >= 65 years is regarded as a relative contraindication for bariatric surgery. Advanced age is also a recognised risk factor for adverse outcomes with Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) which continues to wreak havoc on global populations. This study aimed to assess the safety of bariatric surgery (BS) in this particular age group during the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison with the younger cohort.Methods We conducted a prospective international study of patients who underwent BS between 1/05/2020 and 31/10/2020. Patients were divided into two groups - patients >= 65-years-old (Group I) and patients < 65-years-old (Group II). The two groups were compared for 30-day morbidity and mortality.Results There were 149 patients in Group 1 and 6923 patients in Group II. The mean age, preoperative weight, and BMI were 67.6 +/- 2.5 years, 119.5 +/- 24.5 kg, and 43 +/- 7 in Group I and 39.8 +/- 11.3 years, 117.7 +/- 20.4 kg, and 43.7 +/- 7 in Group II, respectively. Approximately, 95% of patients in Group 1 had at least one co-morbidity compared to 68% of patients in Group 2 (p = < 0.001). The 30-day morbidity was significantly higher in Group I ( 11.4%) compared to Group II (6.6%) (p = 0.022). However, the 30-day mortality and COVID-19 infection rates were not significantly different between the two groups.Conclusions Bariatric surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with a higher complication rate in those >= 65 years of age compared to those < 65 years old. However, the mortality and postoperative COVID-19 infection rates are not significantly different between the two groups

Effect of BMI on safety of bariatric surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, procedure choice, and safety protocols - An analysis from the GENEVA Study

Background: It has been suggested that patients with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of > 60 kg/m2 should be offered expedited Bariatric Surgery (BS) during the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The main objective of this study was to assess the safety of this approach. Methods: We conducted a global study of patients who underwent BS between 1/05/2020 and 31/10/2020. Patients were divided into three groups according to their preoperative BMI -Group I (BMI < 50 kg/m2), Group II (BMI 50-60 kg/m2), and Group III (BMI > 60 kg/m2). The effect of preoperative BMI on 30-day morbidity and mortality, procedure choice, COVID-19 specific safety protocols, and comorbidities was assessed. Results: This study included 7084 patients (5197;73.4 % females). The mean preoperative weight and BMI were 119.49 & PLUSMN; 24.4 Kgs and 43.03 & PLUSMN; 6.9 Kg/m2, respectively. Group I included 6024 (85 %) patients, whereas Groups II and III included 905 (13 %) and 155 (2 %) patients, respectively.The 30-day mortality rate was higher in Group III (p = 0.001). The complication rate and COVID-19 infection were not different. Comorbidities were significantly more likely in Group III (p = < 0.001). A significantly higher proportion of patients in group III received Sleeve Gastrectomy or One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass compared to other groups. Patients with a BMI of > 70 kg/m2 had a 30-day mortality of 7.7 % (2/26). None of these patients underwent a Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass. Conclusion: The 30-day mortality rate was significantly higher in patients with BMI > 60 kg/m2. There was, however, no significant difference in complications rates in different BMI groups, probably due to differences in procedure selection

30-Day morbidity and mortality of bariatric metabolic surgery in adolescence during the COVID-19 pandemic – The GENEVA study

Background: Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is an effective treatment for adolescents with severe obesity. Objectives: This study examined the safety of MBS in adolescents during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: This was a global, multicentre and observational cohort study of MBS performed between May 01, 2020, and October 10,2020, in 68 centres from 24 countries. Data collection included in-hospital and 30-day COVID-19 and surgery-specific morbidity/mortality. Results: One hundred and seventy adolescent patients (mean age: 17.75 ± 1.30 years), mostly females (n = 122, 71.8%), underwent MBS during the study period. The mean pre-operative weight and body mass index were 122.16 ± 15.92 kg and 43.7 ± 7.11 kg/m2, respectively. Although majority of patients had pre-operative testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (n = 146; 85.9%), only 42.4% (n = 72) of the patients were asked to self-isolate pre-operatively. Two patients developed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection post-operatively (1.2%). The overall complication rate was 5.3% (n = 9). There was no mortality in this cohort. Conclusions: MBS in adolescents with obesity is safe during the COVID-19 pandemic when performed within the context of local precautionary procedures (such as pre-operative testing). The 30-day morbidity rates were similar to those reported pre-pandemic. These data will help facilitate the safe re-introduction of MBS services for this group of patients

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in stable cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=−4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events