Current practice of oral care for hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients: A survey of the eastern Mediterranean blood and marrow transplantation group

Introduction: The oral cavity is one of the most common sites impacted by hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) with acute complications including mucositis, bleeding, salivary gland dysfunction, infection, and taste alteration. These complications may result in significant morbidity and can negatively impact outcomes such as length of stay and overall costs. As such, oral care during HSCT for prevention and management of oral toxicities is a standard component of transplant protocols at all centers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the current oral care practices for patients during HSCT at different transplant centers within the Eastern Mediterranean region.Material and methods: An internet-based survey was directed to 30 transplant centers in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The survey included five sections asking questions related to (1) transplant center demographics; (2) current oral care protocol used at the center and type of collaboration (if any) with a dental service; (3) use of standardized oral assessment tools and grading systems for mucositis; (4) consultations for management of oral complications; and (5) oral health needs at each center. Data are presented as averages and percentages.Results: A total of 16 responses from 11 countries were collected and analyzed, indicating a response rate of 53%. Eight centers reported that a dentist was part of the HSCT team, with four reporting oral medicine specialists specifically being part of the team. Almost all centers (15/16; 93%) had an affiliated dental service to facilitate pre-HSCT dental clearance with an established dental clearance protocol at 14 centers (87%). Dental extraction was associated with the highest concern for bleeding and the need for platelet transfusion. With respect to infection risk, antibiotic prophylaxis was considered in the setting of low neutrophil counts with restorative dentistry and extraction. All centers provide daily reinforcement of oral hygiene regimen. The most frequently used mouth oral rinses included sodium bicarbonate (68%) and chlorhexidine gluconate (62%), in addition to ice chips for dry mouth (62%). The most frequently used mucositis assessment tools were the World Health Organization scale (7/16; 43%) and visual analogue scale for pain (6/16; 37%). Mucositis pain was managed with lidocaine solution (68.8%), magic mouth wash (68.8%) and/or systemic pain medications (75%).Conclusions: Scope and implementation of oral care protocols prior to and during HSCT varied between transplant centers. The lack of a universal protocol may contribute to gaps in oral healthcare needs and management for this group of patients. Further dissemination of and education around available oral care guidelines is warranted.Clinical relevance: Considering oral care during HSCT a standard component of transplant protocols, the current study highlights the common oral care practices for patients at centers within the Eastern Mediterranean region

Mortality of emergency abdominal surgery in high-, middle- and low-income countries

Background: Surgical mortality data are collected routinely in high-income countries, yet virtually no low- or middle-income countries have outcome surveillance in place. The aim was prospectively to collect worldwide mortality data following emergency abdominal surgery, comparing findings across countries with a low, middle or high Human Development Index (HDI). Methods: This was a prospective, multicentre, cohort study. Self-selected hospitals performing emergency surgery submitted prespecified data for consecutive patients from at least one 2-week interval during July to December 2014. Postoperative mortality was analysed by hierarchical multivariable logistic regression. Results: Data were obtained for 10 745 patients from 357 centres in 58 countries; 6538 were from high-, 2889 from middle- and 1318 from low-HDI settings. The overall mortality rate was 1⋅6 per cent at 24 h (high 1⋅1 per cent, middle 1⋅9 per cent, low 3⋅4 per cent; P < 0⋅001), increasing to 5⋅4 per cent by 30 days (high 4⋅5 per cent, middle 6⋅0 per cent, low 8⋅6 per cent; P < 0⋅001). Of the 578 patients who died, 404 (69⋅9 per cent) did so between 24 h and 30 days following surgery (high 74⋅2 per cent, middle 68⋅8 per cent, low 60⋅5 per cent). After adjustment, 30-day mortality remained higher in middle-income (odds ratio (OR) 2⋅78, 95 per cent c.i. 1⋅84 to 4⋅20) and low-income (OR 2⋅97, 1⋅84 to 4⋅81) countries. Surgical safety checklist use was less frequent in low- and middle-income countries, but when used was associated with reduced mortality at 30 days. Conclusion: Mortality is three times higher in low- compared with high-HDI countries even when adjusted for prognostic factors. Patient safety factors may have an important role. Registration number: NCT02179112 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)

Global economic burden of unmet surgical need for appendicitis

Background There is a substantial gap in provision of adequate surgical care in many low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to identify the economic burden of unmet surgical need for the common condition of appendicitis. Methods Data on the incidence of appendicitis from 170 countries and two different approaches were used to estimate numbers of patients who do not receive surgery: as a fixed proportion of the total unmet surgical need per country (approach 1); and based on country income status (approach 2). Indirect costs with current levels of access and local quality, and those if quality were at the standards of high-income countries, were estimated. A human capital approach was applied, focusing on the economic burden resulting from premature death and absenteeism. Results Excess mortality was 4185 per 100 000 cases of appendicitis using approach 1 and 3448 per 100 000 using approach 2. The economic burden of continuing current levels of access and local quality was US $92 492 million using approach 1 and$73 141 million using approach 2. The economic burden of not providing surgical care to the standards of high-income countries was $95 004 million using approach 1 and$75 666 million using approach 2. The largest share of these costs resulted from premature death (97.7 per cent) and lack of access (97.0 per cent) in contrast to lack of quality. Conclusion For a comparatively non-complex emergency condition such as appendicitis, increasing access to care should be prioritized. Although improving quality of care should not be neglected, increasing provision of care at current standards could reduce societal costs substantially

Global economic burden of unmet surgical need for appendicitis

Background There is a substantial gap in provision of adequate surgical care in many low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to identify the economic burden of unmet surgical need for the common condition of appendicitis. Methods Data on the incidence of appendicitis from 170 countries and two different approaches were used to estimate numbers of patients who do not receive surgery: as a fixed proportion of the total unmet surgical need per country (approach 1); and based on country income status (approach 2). Indirect costs with current levels of access and local quality, and those if quality were at the standards of high-income countries, were estimated. A human capital approach was applied, focusing on the economic burden resulting from premature death and absenteeism. Results Excess mortality was 4185 per 100 000 cases of appendicitis using approach 1 and 3448 per 100 000 using approach 2. The economic burden of continuing current levels of access and local quality was US $92 492 million using approach 1 and$73 141 million using approach 2. The economic burden of not providing surgical care to the standards of high-income countries was $95 004 million using approach 1 and$75 666 million using approach 2. The largest share of these costs resulted from premature death (97.7 per cent) and lack of access (97.0 per cent) in contrast to lack of quality. Conclusion For a comparatively non-complex emergency condition such as appendicitis, increasing access to care should be prioritized. Although improving quality of care should not be neglected, increasing provision of care at current standards could reduce societal costs substantially