Soil: the great connector of our lives now and beyond COVID-19

Open Access Journal; Published online: 05 Nov 2020Humanity depends on the existence of healthy soils, both for the production of food and for ensuring a healthy, biodiverse environment, among other functions. COVID-19 is threatening food availability in many places of the world due to the disruption of food chains, lack of workforce, closed borders and national lockdowns. As a consequence, more emphasis is being placed on local food production, which may lead to more intensive cultivation of vulnerable areas and to soil degradation. In order to increase the resilience of populations facing this pandemic and future global crises, transitioning to a paradigm that relies more heavily on local food production on soils that are carefully tended and protected through sustainable management is necessary. To reach this goal, the Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils (ITPS) of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) recommends five active strategies: improved access to land, sound land use planning, sustainable soil management, enhanced research, and investments in education and extension. The soil is the great connector of lives, the source and destination of all. It is the healer and restorer and resurrector, by which disease passes into health, age into youth, death into life. Without proper care for it we can have no community, because without proper care for it we can have no life

Global Survey of Outcomes of Neurocritical Care Patients: Analysis of the PRINCE Study Part 2

BACKGROUND: Neurocritical care is devoted to the care of critically ill patients with acute neurological or neurosurgical emergencies. There is limited information regarding epidemiological data, disease characteristics, variability of clinical care, and in-hospital mortality of neurocritically ill patients worldwide. We addressed these issues in the Point PRevalence In Neurocritical CarE (PRINCE) study, a prospective, cross-sectional, observational study. METHODS: We recruited patients from various intensive care units (ICUs) admitted on a pre-specified date, and the investigators recorded specific clinical care activities they performed on the subjects during their first 7 days of admission or discharge (whichever came first) from their ICUs and at hospital discharge. In this manuscript, we analyzed the final data set of the study that included patient admission characteristics, disease type and severity, ICU resources, ICU and hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. We present descriptive statistics to summarize data from the case report form. We tested differences between geographically grouped data using parametric and nonparametric testing as appropriate. We used a multivariable logistic regression model to evaluate factors associated with in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 1545 patients admitted to 147 participating sites from 31 countries of which most were from North America (69%, N = 1063). Globally, there was variability in patient characteristics, admission diagnosis, ICU treatment team and resource allocation, and in-hospital mortality. Seventy-three percent of the participating centers were academic, and the most common admitting diagnosis was subarachnoid hemorrhage (13%). The majority of patients were male (59%), a half of whom had at least two comorbidities, and median Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 13. Factors associated with in-hospital mortality included age (OR 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.04); lower GCS (OR 1.20; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.16 for every point reduction in GCS); pupillary reactivity (OR 1.8; 95% CI, 1.09 to 3.23 for bilateral unreactive pupils); admission source (emergency room versus direct admission [OR 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.75]; admission from a general ward versus direct admission [OR 5.85; 95% CI, 2.75 to 12.45; and admission from another ICU versus direct admission [OR 3.34; 95% CI, 1.27 to 8.8]); and the absence of a dedicated neurocritical care unit (NCCU) (OR 1.7; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.47). CONCLUSION: PRINCE is the first study to evaluate care patterns of neurocritical patients worldwide. The data suggest that there is a wide variability in clinical care resources and patient characteristics. Neurological severity of illness and the absence of a dedicated NCCU are independent predictors of in-patient mortality.status: publishe

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

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. Methods: A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Interpretation: Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research