Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

Mortality from gastrointestinal congenital anomalies at 264 hospitals in 74 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study

Summary Background Congenital anomalies are the fifth leading cause of mortality in children younger than 5 years globally. Many gastrointestinal congenital anomalies are fatal without timely access to neonatal surgical care, but few studies have been done on these conditions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared outcomes of the seven most common gastrointestinal congenital anomalies in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries globally, and identified factors associated with mortality. Methods We did a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of patients younger than 16 years, presenting to hospital for the first time with oesophageal atresia, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, intestinal atresia, gastroschisis, exomphalos, anorectal malformation, and Hirschsprung’s disease. Recruitment was of consecutive patients for a minimum of 1 month between October, 2018, and April, 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, clinical status, interventions, and outcomes using the REDCap platform. Patients were followed up for 30 days after primary intervention, or 30 days after admission if they did not receive an intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause, in-hospital mortality for all conditions combined and each condition individually, stratified by country income status. We did a complete case analysis. Findings We included 3849 patients with 3975 study conditions (560 with oesophageal atresia, 448 with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, 681 with intestinal atresia, 453 with gastroschisis, 325 with exomphalos, 991 with anorectal malformation, and 517 with Hirschsprung’s disease) from 264 hospitals (89 in high-income countries, 166 in middleincome countries, and nine in low-income countries) in 74 countries. Of the 3849 patients, 2231 (58·0%) were male. Median gestational age at birth was 38 weeks (IQR 36–39) and median bodyweight at presentation was 2·8 kg (2·3–3·3). Mortality among all patients was 37 (39·8%) of 93 in low-income countries, 583 (20·4%) of 2860 in middle-income countries, and 50 (5·6%) of 896 in high-income countries (p<0·0001 between all country income groups). Gastroschisis had the greatest difference in mortality between country income strata (nine [90·0%] of ten in lowincome countries, 97 [31·9%] of 304 in middle-income countries, and two [1·4%] of 139 in high-income countries; p≤0·0001 between all country income groups). Factors significantly associated with higher mortality for all patients combined included country income status (low-income vs high-income countries, risk ratio 2·78 [95% CI 1·88–4·11], p<0·0001; middle-income vs high-income countries, 2·11 [1·59–2·79], p<0·0001), sepsis at presentation (1·20 [1·04–1·40], p=0·016), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score at primary intervention (ASA 4–5 vs ASA 1–2, 1·82 [1·40–2·35], p<0·0001; ASA 3 vs ASA 1–2, 1·58, [1·30–1·92], p<0·0001]), surgical safety checklist not used (1·39 [1·02–1·90], p=0·035), and ventilation or parenteral nutrition unavailable when needed (ventilation 1·96, [1·41–2·71], p=0·0001; parenteral nutrition 1·35, [1·05–1·74], p=0·018). Administration of parenteral nutrition (0·61, [0·47–0·79], p=0·0002) and use of a peripherally inserted central catheter (0·65 [0·50–0·86], p=0·0024) or percutaneous central line (0·69 [0·48–1·00], p=0·049) were associated with lower mortality. Interpretation Unacceptable differences in mortality exist for gastrointestinal congenital anomalies between lowincome, middle-income, and high-income countries. Improving access to quality neonatal surgical care in LMICs will be vital to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 of ending preventable deaths in neonates and children younger than 5 years by 2030

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Immunogenicity, safety and reactogenicity of heterologous (third dose) booster vaccination with a full or fractional dose of two different COVID-19 vaccines: A phase 4, single-blind, randomized controlled trial in adults

This research was funded by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), grant number FraCT-CoV-005.University of Oxford. Department of Pediatrics. Oxford Vaccine Group. Oxford, UK / University of Siena. Institute for Global Health. Siena, Italy.University of Oxford. Department of Pediatrics. Oxford Vaccine Group. Oxford, UK / NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Oxford, UK.University of Oxford. Department of Pediatrics. Oxford Vaccine Group. Oxford, UK / NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Oxford, UK.University of Oxford. Department of Pediatrics. Oxford Vaccine Group. Oxford, UK / NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Oxford, UK.University of Oxford. Department of Pediatrics. Oxford Vaccine Group. Oxford, UK / NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Oxford, UK.University of Oxford. Department of Pediatrics. Oxford Vaccine Group. Oxford, UK / NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Oxford, UK.University of Oxford. Department of Pediatrics. Oxford Vaccine Group. Oxford, UK / NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Oxford, UK.University of Oxford. Department of Pediatrics. Oxford Vaccine Group. Oxford, UK / University of Oxford. Chinese Academy of Medical Science Oxford Institute. Oxford, UK.University of Oxford. Department of Pediatrics. Oxford Vaccine Group. Oxford, UK / NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Oxford, UK.University of Siena. Institute for Global Health. Siena, Italy.Centro de Estudos e Pesquisa em Moléstias Infecciosas Ltda. Natal, RN, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde e Ambiente. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.University of Oxford. Department of Pediatrics. Oxford Vaccine Group. Oxford, UK / NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Oxford, UK.University of Oxford. Department of Pediatrics. Oxford Vaccine Group. Oxford, UK / NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Oxford, UK.GRID RIO. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.University of Oxford. Department of Pediatrics. Oxford Vaccine Group. Oxford, UK / NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Oxford, UK.In this phase 4 study we assessed boosting with fractional doses of heterologous COVID-19 vaccines in Brazilian adults primed with two doses of CoronaVac (Sinovac/Butantan, São Paulo, Brazil) at least 4 months previously. Participants received either full-dose of ChAdOx1-S (Group 1, n = 232), a half dose of ChAdOx1-S (Group 2, n = 236), or a half dose of BNT162b2 (Group 3, n = 234). The primary objective was to show 80% seroresponse rates (SRR) 28 d after vaccination measured as IgG antibodies against a prototype SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein. Safety was assessed as solicited and unsolicited adverse events. At baseline all participants were seropositive, with high IgG titers overall. SRR at Day 28 were 34.3%, 27.1% and 71.2%, respectively, not meeting the primary objective of 80%, despite robust immune responses in all three groups with geometric mean-fold rise (GMFR) in IgG titers of 3.39, 2.99 and 7.42, respectively. IgG immune responses with similar GMFR were also observed against SARS-CoV-2 variants, Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma and D614G. In subsets (n = 35) of participants GMFR of neutralizing immune responses against live prototype SARS-CoV-2 virus and Omicron BA.2 were similar to the IgG responses as were pseudo-neutralizing responses against SARS-CoV-2 prototype and Omicron BA.4/5 variants. All vaccinations were well tolerated with no vaccine-related serious adverse events and mainly transient mild-to-moderate local and systemic reactogenicity. Heterologous boosting with full or half doses of ChAdOx1-S or a half dose of BNT162b2 was safe and immunogenic in CoronaVac-primed adults, but seroresponse rates were limited by high baseline immunity

Immunogenicity, safety and reactogenicity of heterologous (third dose) booster vaccination with a full or fractional dose of two different COVID-19 vaccines: A phase 4, single-blind, randomized controlled trial in adults

In this phase 4 study we assessed boosting with fractional doses of heterologous COVID-19 vaccines in Brazilian adults primed with two doses of CoronaVac (Sinovac/Butantan, São Paulo, Brazil) at least 4 months previously. Participants received either full-dose of ChAdOx1-S (Group 1, n = 232), a half dose of ChAdOx1-S (Group 2, n = 236), or a half dose of BNT162b2 (Group 3, n = 234). The primary objective was to show 80% seroresponse rates (SRR) 28 d after vaccination measured as IgG antibodies against a prototype SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein. Safety was assessed as solicited and unsolicited adverse events. At baseline all participants were seropositive, with high IgG titers overall. SRR at Day 28 were 34.3%, 27.1% and 71.2%, respectively, not meeting the primary objective of 80%, despite robust immune responses in all three groups with geometric mean-fold rise (GMFR) in IgG titers of 3.39, 2.99 and 7.42, respectively. IgG immune responses with similar GMFR were also observed against SARS-CoV-2 variants, Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma and D614G. In subsets (n = 35) of participants GMFR of neutralizing immune responses against live prototype SARS-CoV-2 virus and Omicron BA.2 were similar to the IgG responses as were pseudo-neutralizing responses against SARS-CoV-2 prototype and Omicron BA.4/5 variants. All vaccinations were well tolerated with no vaccine-related serious adverse events and mainly transient mild-to-moderate local and systemic reactogenicity. Heterologous boosting with full or half doses of ChAdOx1-S or a half dose of BNT162b2 was safe and immunogenic in CoronaVac-primed adults, but seroresponse rates were limited by high baseline immunity