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

Clinical Presentation and Outcomes of Pregnant Women with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION: Descriptions of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) have focused on the non-pregnant adult population. This study aims to describe the clinical characteristics and perinatal outcomes of COVID-19 in pregnancy. METHODS: We searched databases from December 2019 to April 30th, 2020. Eligible studies reported clinical characteristics, radiological findings and/or laboratory testing of pregnant women during infection. Data were pooled across studies using random-effects model. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies (136 women) were included. Most common symptoms were fever (62.9%) and cough (36.8%). Laboratory findings included elevated C-Reactive Protein (57%) and lymphocytopenia (50%). Ground-glass opacity was the most common radiological finding (81.7%). Preterm birth rate was 37.7% and cesarean delivery rate was 76%. There was one maternal death. There were two fetal COVID-19 cases. CONCLUSION: The clinical picture in pregnant women with COVID-19 did not differ from the non-pregnant population, however, the rate of preterm birth and cesarean delivery are considerably higher than international averages

Outcomes of patients with thromboembolic events following coronavirus disease 2019 AstraZeneca vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AstraZeneca coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations have recently been implicated in thromboembolism formations. Our aim was to investigate the outcomes of patients with thromboembolic events following the AstraZeneca vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AZD1222). A literature search was performed from December 2019 to September 2021. Eligible studies must report participants older than 18 years vaccinated with AstraZeneca and outcomes of thromboembolic events. Pooled mean or proportion were analyzed using a random-effects model. A total of 45 unique studies (number of patients = 144, 64.6% women, mean age 21-68 years) were included. The most common presenting adverse events were headache (12.1%), intracerebral hemorrhage (7.5%), and hemiparesis (7%). The most common thromboembolic adverse events were cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (38.5%) and deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (21.1%). The most common radiologic finding were intracerebral hemorrhage and cerebral venous thrombosis. Laboratory findings included thrombocytopenia (75%) and hypofibrinogenemia (41%). On admission, 64 patients tested positive for PF4-Heparin ELISA assay (80%). Seventy-four patients were hospitalized with 22 being admitted to the ICU. A total of 78 patients recovered while 39 patients died. This meta-analysis presents evidence to suggest vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) following AstraZeneca vaccine. Clinical practice must, therefore, account for the possibility of VITT and subsequent embolic events in certain individuals\u27 postvaccination with adenovirus-based COVID-19 vaccines. Serum anti-PF4 suggests diagnostic value for VITT and could subsequently inform treatment choices in such instances

Clinical Characteristics of Patients with Myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations have recently been implicated in causing myocarditis. Therefore, the primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the clinical characteristics of patients with myocarditis following mRNA vaccination. The secondary aims were to report common imaging and laboratory findings, as well as treatment regimes, in these patients. A literature search was performed from December 2019 to June 2022. Eligible studies reported patients older than 18 years vaccinated with mRNA, a diagnosis of myocarditis, and subsequent outcomes. Pooled mean or proportion were analyzed using a random-effects model. Seventy-five unique studies (patient n = 188, 89.4% male, mean age 18–67 years) were included. Eighty-six patients had Moderna vaccines while one hundred and two patients had Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. The most common presenting symptoms were chest pain (34.5%), fever (17.1%), myalgia (12.4%), and chills (12.1%). The most common radiologic findings were ST-related changes on an electrocardiogram (58.7%) and hypokinesia on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging or echocardiography (50.7%). Laboratory findings included elevated Troponin I levels (81.7%) and elevated C-reactive protein (71.5%). Seven patients were admitted to the intensive care unit. The most common treatment modality was non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (36.6%) followed by colchicine (28.5%). This meta-analysis presents novel evidence to suggest possible myocarditis post mRNA vaccination in certain individuals, especially young male patients. Clinical practice must therefore take appropriate pre-cautionary measures when administrating COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licenseBackground: 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation: Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit