Graft Risk Index After Liver Transplant: Internal and External Validation of a New Spanish Indicator

OBJECTIVES: Scarcity of liver grafts has led to the use of marginal donors, consequently increasing the number of complications posttransplant. To prevent this situation, several indicators have been developed. However, important differences remain among countries. Here, we compared an early-risk liver transplant indicator based on the Spanish Liver Transplant Registry, called the Graft Risk Index, versus the US donor risk index and the Eurotransplant donor risk index. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The new indicator was based on prospectively collected data from 600 adult liver transplants performed in our center. We considered 2 events to compare the indexes: graft survival and rejection-free graft survival, with Cox proportional regression for analyses. Power to predict graft survival was evaluated by calculating the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve. RESULTS: We found no differences between the US and Eurotransplant donor risk indexes in prediction of patients with and without early graft failure. With regard to early survival, only the Graft Risk Index allowed better survival discrimination, in which survival progressively decreased with values = 3 (with probability of graft survival at 1 month of 68%; 95% confidence interval, 46.2-82.5). This increase in risk was significant compared with the standard group (hazard ratio of 10.15; 95% confidence interval, C 3.91- 26.32; P < .001). We calculated powers of prediction of 0.52 (95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.62), 0.54 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.65), and 0.69 (95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.77) for donor risk index, Eurotransplant donor risk index, and early Graft Risk Index, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Neither the US donor risk index nor the Eurotransplant donor risk index was valid for our Spanish liver donation and transplant program. Therefore, an indicator to predict posttransplant graft survival that is adapted to our environment is necessary. This national Graft Risk Index can be a useful tool to optimize donor-recipient matchin

A922 Sequential measurement of 1 hour creatinine clearance (1-CRCL) in critically ill patients at risk of acute kidney injury (AKI)

Meeting abstrac

Effects of 3% trehalose as an adjuvant treatment after LASIK

Antonio J Mateo Orobia,1&ndash;3 Paula Casas Pascual,1,4 Jos&eacute; &Aacute; Crist&oacute;bal Besc&oacute;s,1 Diana Perez Garc&iacute;a,1,4 Carlos Peiro Embid,1,4 M &Aacute;ngeles del Buey Sayas,1,4 Valentyna Korobko Kulikova,1 Noelia Lafuente Ojeda5 1Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital Quir&oacute;n, 2Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, 3Instituto de Investigaci&oacute;n Sanitaria de Arag&oacute;n (IIS), 4Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital Cl&iacute;nico Universitario Lozano-Blesa, 5Department of Anesthesiology, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain Purpose: To evaluate the effect of 3% trehalose as an adjuvant in the standard treatment after laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis.Design: Interventional prospective comparative single-blind study.Setting: Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital Quir&oacute;n Zaragoza, Spain.Methods: A total of 26 eyes (13 patients) were included, of which 12 eyes (group 1) received conventional treatment with lubricant drops of hyaluronic acid (0.15%) and 14 eyes (group 2) received, additionally, an ophthalmic solution of 3% trehalose. Pre- and postoperative quality-of-life tests and vital stains, tear breakup time, and osmolarity measurements were made.Results: We obtained statistically significant differences between the groups in the Symptom Assessment in Dry Eye test in all visits with respect to severity, and in the postoperative day&nbsp;1 visit with respect to frequency, in all cases favoring the trehalose treatment. The values of osmolarity were not significantly different between groups. However, we did find significant differences in the Oxford scale in day 90 for the trehalose treatment (P&lt;0.001), and in the National Eye Institute scale in day 30 (P=0.02).Conclusion: The results of this exploratory study indicate that the adjuvant treatment with 3% trehalose could be superior with respect to the standard treatment, with improvements in the objective and subjective parameters of tear quality. Keywords: dry eye syndrome, trehalose, hyaluronic acid, LASIK, osmolarit

IOTA simple rules for discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses: prospective external validation.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic performance of International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) 'simple' rules for discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses. METHODS: A prospective study was performed between January 2011 and June 2012. Eligible patients were women diagnosed with a persistent adnexal mass who presented to the participating centers. Four trainees evaluated the adnexal mass by transvaginal ultrasound under the supervision of an expert examiner. The trainee analyzed the mass according to IOTA simple rules and provided a diagnosis of benign, malignant or inconclusive. All women included in the study underwent surgery and tumor removal in the center of recruitment. Diagnostic performance was assessed by calculating sensitivity, specificity and positive (LR+) and negative (LR-) likelihood ratios. RESULTS: A total of 340 women were included (mean patient age, 42.1 (range, 13-79) years). Of the tumors, 55 (16.2%) were malignant and 285 (83.8%) were benign. The IOTA simple rules could be applied in 270 (79.4%) cases. In these cases, sensitivity was 87.9% (95% CI, 72.4-95.2), specificity 97.5% (95% CI, 94.6-98.8), LR+ 34.7 (95% CI, 15.6-77.3) and LR- 0.12 (95% CI, 0.05-0.31). CONCLUSIONS: Application of the IOTA simple rules yielded acceptable results in terms of specificity in the hands of non-expert examiners. However, with non-expert examiners there was a 12% false-negative rate, which is relatively hig

Head and neck cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international, multicenter, observational cohort study

Background: The aims of this study were to provide data on the safety of head and neck cancer surgery currently being undertaken during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: This international, observational cohort study comprised 1137 consecutive patients with head and neck cancer undergoing primary surgery with curative intent in 26 countries. Factors associated with severe pulmonary complications in COVID-19–positive patients and infections in the surgical team were determined by univariate analysis. Results: Among the 1137 patients, the commonest sites were the oral cavity (38%) and the thyroid (21%). For oropharynx and larynx tumors, nonsurgical therapy was favored in most cases. There was evidence of surgical de-escalation of neck management and reconstruction. Overall 30-day mortality was 1.2%. Twenty-nine patients (3%) tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within 30 days of surgery; 13 of these patients (44.8%) developed severe respiratory complications, and 3.51 (10.3%) died. There were significant correlations with an advanced tumor stage and admission to critical care. Members of the surgical team tested positive within 30 days of surgery in 40 cases (3%). There were significant associations with operations in which the patients also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 30 days, with a high community incidence of SARS-CoV-2, with screened patients, with oral tumor sites, and with tracheostomy. Conclusions: Head and neck cancer surgery in the COVID-19 era appears safe even when surgery is prolonged and complex. The overlap in COVID-19 between patients and members of the surgical team raises the suspicion of failures in cross-infection measures or the use of personal protective equipment. Lay Summary: Head and neck surgery is safe for patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic even when it is lengthy and complex. This is significant because concerns over patient safety raised in many guidelines appear not to be reflected by outcomes, even for those who have other serious illnesses or require complex reconstructions. Patients subjected to suboptimal or nonstandard treatments should be carefully followed up to optimize their cancer outcomes. The overlap between patients and surgeons testing positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is notable and emphasizes the need for fastidious cross-infection controls and effective personal protective equipment

Mortality after surgery in Europe: a 7 day cohort study

Background: Clinical outcomes after major surgery are poorly described at the national level. Evidence of heterogeneity between hospitals and health-care systems suggests potential to improve care for patients but this potential remains unconfirmed. The European Surgical Outcomes Study was an international study designed to assess outcomes after non-cardiac surgery in Europe.Methods: We did this 7 day cohort study between April 4 and April 11, 2011. We collected data describing consecutive patients aged 16 years and older undergoing inpatient non-cardiac surgery in 498 hospitals across 28 European nations. Patients were followed up for a maximum of 60 days. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcome measures were duration of hospital stay and admission to critical care. We used χ² and Fisher’s exact tests to compare categorical variables and the t test or the Mann-Whitney U test to compare continuous variables. Significance was set at p&lt;0·05. We constructed multilevel logistic regression models to adjust for the differences in mortality rates between countries.Findings: We included 46 539 patients, of whom 1855 (4%) died before hospital discharge. 3599 (8%) patients were admitted to critical care after surgery with a median length of stay of 1·2 days (IQR 0·9–3·6). 1358 (73%) patients who died were not admitted to critical care at any stage after surgery. Crude mortality rates varied widely between countries (from 1·2% [95% CI 0·0–3·0] for Iceland to 21·5% [16·9–26·2] for Latvia). After adjustment for confounding variables, important differences remained between countries when compared with the UK, the country with the largest dataset (OR range from 0·44 [95% CI 0·19 1·05; p=0·06] for Finland to 6·92 [2·37–20·27; p=0·0004] for Poland).Interpretation: The mortality rate for patients undergoing inpatient non-cardiac surgery was higher than anticipated. Variations in mortality between countries suggest the need for national and international strategies to improve care for this group of patients.Funding: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, European Society of Anaesthesiology