REM technology to help fulfill the landing obligation in European fisheries towards more sustainable fishing

Póster.-- Iberian Symposium on Modeling and Assessment of Fishery Resources, 19-22 October, Vigo, SpainThe main control measures used in EU fisheries are the use of logbooks, monitoring of vessel geographic positions and the inspections of the vessels at sea (patrol vessel surveillance) and at the ports (inspection of the landings). Many studies indicate that this traditional control measures are not effective within the current Landing Obligation rules. The Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) is currently considered as one of the best future alternatives for the control of fishing activity. In fact, many fleets have already incorporated this technology into their activity to respond to the requirements of regional fishing organizations and control authorities in many countries of the world. The aim of this work was to test the implementation of innovative technologies based on artificial vision devices for catch composition determination and data management technologies installed on board. A study case including onboard observer trials and an automatic device was carried out to characterize discards and record unwanted species occurrence in commercial vessels. The “iObserver system” was implemented to improve the quality and availability of data and consequently to deepen knowledge on the status of the fisheries resources. This technology is aimed to be able to identify and quantify the catch (targeted and discarded) without interfering with the activity of fishermen. Once the data (species and biomass estimation) is acquired by iObserver, information is pre-processed and transmitted to land (to management servers). This system will allow real-time decision making for the fishing activity in order to eventually perform a more selective fishing. Automatic estimates of discards by species allow to take real-time decisions, avoid areas/times with high discards rates and potentially to comply with landing obligationN

Role of age and comorbidities in mortality of patients with infective endocarditis

Purpose: The aim of this study was to analyse the characteristics of patients with IE in three groups of age and to assess the ability of age and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) to predict mortality. Methods: Prospective cohort study of all patients with IE included in the GAMES Spanish database between 2008 and 2015. Patients were stratified into three age groups:<65 years, 65 to 80 years, and = 80 years.The area under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUROC) curve was calculated to quantify the diagnostic accuracy of the CCI to predict mortality risk. Results: A total of 3120 patients with IE (1327 < 65 years;1291 65-80 years;502 = 80 years) were enrolled.Fever and heart failure were the most common presentations of IE, with no differences among age groups.Patients =80 years who underwent surgery were significantly lower compared with other age groups (14.3%, 65 years; 20.5%, 65-79 years; 31.3%, =80 years). In-hospital mortality was lower in the <65-year group (20.3%, <65 years;30.1%, 65-79 years;34.7%, =80 years;p < 0.001) as well as 1-year mortality (3.2%, <65 years; 5.5%, 65-80 years;7.6%, =80 years; p = 0.003).Independent predictors of mortality were age = 80 years (hazard ratio [HR]:2.78;95% confidence interval [CI]:2.32–3.34), CCI = 3 (HR:1.62; 95% CI:1.39–1.88), and non-performed surgery (HR:1.64;95% CI:11.16–1.58).When the three age groups were compared, the AUROC curve for CCI was significantly larger for patients aged <65 years(p < 0.001) for both in-hospital and 1-year mortality. Conclusion: There were no differences in the clinical presentation of IE between the groups. Age = 80 years, high comorbidity (measured by CCI), and non-performance of surgery were independent predictors of mortality in patients with IE.CCI could help to identify those patients with IE and surgical indication who present a lower risk of in-hospital and 1-year mortality after surgery, especially in the <65-year group

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

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

Evaluation of a quality improvement intervention to reduce anastomotic leak following right colectomy (EAGLE): pragmatic, batched stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial in 64 countries

Background: Anastomotic leak affects 8 per cent of patients after right colectomy with a 10-fold increased risk of postoperative death. The EAGLE study aimed to develop and test whether an international, standardized quality improvement intervention could reduce anastomotic leaks. Methods: The internationally intended protocol, iteratively co-developed by a multistage Delphi process, comprised an online educational module introducing risk stratification, an intraoperative checklist, and harmonized surgical techniques. Clusters (hospital teams) were randomized to one of three arms with varied sequences of intervention/data collection by a derived stepped-wedge batch design (at least 18 hospital teams per batch). Patients were blinded to the study allocation. Low- and middle-income country enrolment was encouraged. The primary outcome (assessed by intention to treat) was anastomotic leak rate, and subgroup analyses by module completion (at least 80 per cent of surgeons, high engagement; less than 50 per cent, low engagement) were preplanned. Results: A total 355 hospital teams registered, with 332 from 64 countries (39.2 per cent low and middle income) included in the final analysis. The online modules were completed by half of the surgeons (2143 of 4411). The primary analysis included 3039 of the 3268 patients recruited (206 patients had no anastomosis and 23 were lost to follow-up), with anastomotic leaks arising before and after the intervention in 10.1 and 9.6 per cent respectively (adjusted OR 0.87, 95 per cent c.i. 0.59 to 1.30; P = 0.498). The proportion of surgeons completing the educational modules was an influence: the leak rate decreased from 12.2 per cent (61 of 500) before intervention to 5.1 per cent (24 of 473) after intervention in high-engagement centres (adjusted OR 0.36, 0.20 to 0.64; P < 0.001), but this was not observed in low-engagement hospitals (8.3 per cent (59 of 714) and 13.8 per cent (61 of 443) respectively; adjusted OR 2.09, 1.31 to 3.31). Conclusion: Completion of globally available digital training by engaged teams can alter anastomotic leak rates. Registration number: NCT04270721 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)

Safety of hospital discharge before return of bowel function after elective colorectal surgery

© 2020 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons LtdBackground: Ileus is common after colorectal surgery and is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications. Identifying features of normal bowel recovery and the appropriateness for hospital discharge is challenging. This study explored the safety of hospital discharge before the return of bowel function. Methods: A prospective, multicentre cohort study was undertaken across an international collaborative network. Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection between January and April 2018 were included. The main outcome of interest was readmission to hospital within 30 days of surgery. The impact of discharge timing according to the return of bowel function was explored using multivariable regression analysis. Other outcomes were postoperative complications within 30 days of surgery, measured using the Clavien–Dindo classification system. Results: A total of 3288 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 301 (9·2 per cent) were discharged before the return of bowel function. The median duration of hospital stay for patients discharged before and after return of bowel function was 5 (i.q.r. 4–7) and 7 (6–8) days respectively (P < 0·001). There were no significant differences in rates of readmission between these groups (6·6 versus 8·0 per cent; P = 0·499), and this remained the case after multivariable adjustment for baseline differences (odds ratio 0·90, 95 per cent c.i. 0·55 to 1·46; P = 0·659). Rates of postoperative complications were also similar in those discharged before versus after return of bowel function (minor: 34·7 versus 39·5 per cent; major 3·3 versus 3·4 per cent; P = 0·110). Conclusion: Discharge before return of bowel function after elective colorectal surgery appears to be safe in appropriately selected patients