The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

Mortality from gastrointestinal congenital anomalies at 264 hospitals in 74 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study

Summary Background Congenital anomalies are the fifth leading cause of mortality in children younger than 5 years globally. Many gastrointestinal congenital anomalies are fatal without timely access to neonatal surgical care, but few studies have been done on these conditions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared outcomes of the seven most common gastrointestinal congenital anomalies in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries globally, and identified factors associated with mortality. Methods We did a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of patients younger than 16 years, presenting to hospital for the first time with oesophageal atresia, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, intestinal atresia, gastroschisis, exomphalos, anorectal malformation, and Hirschsprung’s disease. Recruitment was of consecutive patients for a minimum of 1 month between October, 2018, and April, 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, clinical status, interventions, and outcomes using the REDCap platform. Patients were followed up for 30 days after primary intervention, or 30 days after admission if they did not receive an intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause, in-hospital mortality for all conditions combined and each condition individually, stratified by country income status. We did a complete case analysis. Findings We included 3849 patients with 3975 study conditions (560 with oesophageal atresia, 448 with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, 681 with intestinal atresia, 453 with gastroschisis, 325 with exomphalos, 991 with anorectal malformation, and 517 with Hirschsprung’s disease) from 264 hospitals (89 in high-income countries, 166 in middleincome countries, and nine in low-income countries) in 74 countries. Of the 3849 patients, 2231 (58·0%) were male. Median gestational age at birth was 38 weeks (IQR 36–39) and median bodyweight at presentation was 2·8 kg (2·3–3·3). Mortality among all patients was 37 (39·8%) of 93 in low-income countries, 583 (20·4%) of 2860 in middle-income countries, and 50 (5·6%) of 896 in high-income countries (p<0·0001 between all country income groups). Gastroschisis had the greatest difference in mortality between country income strata (nine [90·0%] of ten in lowincome countries, 97 [31·9%] of 304 in middle-income countries, and two [1·4%] of 139 in high-income countries; p≤0·0001 between all country income groups). Factors significantly associated with higher mortality for all patients combined included country income status (low-income vs high-income countries, risk ratio 2·78 [95% CI 1·88–4·11], p<0·0001; middle-income vs high-income countries, 2·11 [1·59–2·79], p<0·0001), sepsis at presentation (1·20 [1·04–1·40], p=0·016), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score at primary intervention (ASA 4–5 vs ASA 1–2, 1·82 [1·40–2·35], p<0·0001; ASA 3 vs ASA 1–2, 1·58, [1·30–1·92], p<0·0001]), surgical safety checklist not used (1·39 [1·02–1·90], p=0·035), and ventilation or parenteral nutrition unavailable when needed (ventilation 1·96, [1·41–2·71], p=0·0001; parenteral nutrition 1·35, [1·05–1·74], p=0·018). Administration of parenteral nutrition (0·61, [0·47–0·79], p=0·0002) and use of a peripherally inserted central catheter (0·65 [0·50–0·86], p=0·0024) or percutaneous central line (0·69 [0·48–1·00], p=0·049) were associated with lower mortality. Interpretation Unacceptable differences in mortality exist for gastrointestinal congenital anomalies between lowincome, middle-income, and high-income countries. Improving access to quality neonatal surgical care in LMICs will be vital to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 of ending preventable deaths in neonates and children younger than 5 years by 2030

Evaluation of novel metrics of symptom relief in acute heart failure: the worst symptom score

Objective: To characterize a novel "worst"-symptom visual analogue scale (WS-VAS) versus the traditional dyspnea visual analogue scale (DVAS) in an acute heart failure (AHF) trial.Background: AFT trials assess symptom relief as a pivotal endpoint with the use of dyspnea scores. However, many AHF patients' worst presenting symptom (WS) may not be dyspnea. We hypothesized that a WS VAS may reflect clinical improvement better than DVAS in AHF.Methods and Results: AHF patients (n = 232) enrolled in the Renal Optimization Strategies Evaluation in Acute Heart Failure (ROSE-AHF) Trial indicated their WS at enrollment and completed DVAS and WS VAS at enrollment and 24, 48, and 72 hours. Dyspnea was the WS in 61%, body swelling in 29%, and fatigue in 10% of patients. Clinical characteristics differed by WS. In all patients, DVAS scores were higher (less severe symptoms) than WS-VAS and the change in WS-VAS over 72 hours was greater than the change in DVAS (P < .001). Changes in DVAS were smaller in patients with body swelling and fatigue than in patients with dyspnea as their WS (P = .002), whereas changes in the WS-VAS were similar regardless of patients' WS. Neither score, nor its change, was associated with available decongestion markers (change in N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide, weight or cumulative 72-hour urine volume).Conclusions: Many AHF patients have symptoms other than dyspnea as their most bothersome symptom. The WS-VAS better reflects symptom improvement across the spectrum of AHF phenotypes. Symptom relief and decongestion were not correlated in this AHF study

Global consortium for the classification of fungi and fungus-like taxa

The Global Consortium for the Classification of Fungi and fungus-like taxa is an international initiative of more than 550 mycologists to develop an electronic structure for the classification of these organisms. The members of the Consortium originate from 55 countries/regions worldwide, from a wide range of disciplines, and include senior, mid-career and early-career mycologists and plant pathologists. The Consortium will publish a biannual update of the Outline of Fungi and fungus-like taxa, to act as an international scheme for other scientists. Notes on all newly published taxa at or above the level of species will be prepared and published online on the Outline of Fungi website (https://www.outlineoffungi.org/), and these will be finally published in the biannual edition of the Outline of Fungi and fungus-like taxa. Comments on recent important taxonomic opinions on controversial topics will be included in the biannual outline. For example, 'to promote a more stable taxonomy in Fusarium given the divergences over its generic delimitation', or 'are there too many genera in the Boletales?' and even more importantly, 'what should be done with the tremendously diverse 'dark fungal taxa?' There are undeniable differences in mycologists' perceptions and opinions regarding species classification as well as the establishment of new species. Given the pluralistic nature of fungal taxonomy and its implications for species concepts and the nature of species, this consortium aims to provide a platform to better refine and stabilise fungal classification, taking into consideration views from different parties. In the future, a confidential voting system will be set up to gauge the opinions of all mycologists in the Consortium on important topics. The results of such surveys will be presented to the International Commission on the Taxonomy of Fungi (ICTF) and the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi (NCF) with opinions and percentages of votes for and against. Criticisms based on scientific evidence with regards to nomenclature, classifications, and taxonomic concepts will be welcomed, and any recommendations on specific taxonomic issues will also be encouraged; however, we will encourage professionally and ethically responsible criticisms of others' work. This biannual ongoing project will provide an outlet for advances in various topics of fungal classification, nomenclature, and taxonomic concepts and lead to a community-agreed classification scheme for the fungi and fungus-like taxa. Interested parties should contact the lead author if they would like to be involved in future outlines. </div

Is perioperative COVID-19 really associated with worse surgical outcomes? A nationwide COVIDSurg propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing surgery with perioperative COVID-19 are suggested to have worse outcomes, but whether this is COVID-related or due to selection bias remains unclear. We aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes of patients with and without perioperative COVID-19. METHODS: Patients with perioperative COVID-19 diagnosed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery between February and July 2020 from 68 US hospitals in COVIDSurg, an international multicenter database, were 1:1 propensity score matched to patients without COVID-19 undergoing similar procedures in the 2012 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. The matching criteria included demographics (e.g., age, sex), comorbidities (e.g., diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease), and operation characteristics (e.g., type, urgency, complexity). The primary outcome was 30-day hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay and 13 postoperative complications (e.g., pneumonia, renal failure, surgical site infection). RESULTS: A total of 97,936 patients were included, 1,054 with and 96,882 without COVID-19. Prematching, COVID-19 patients more often underwent emergency surgery (76.1% vs. 10.3%, p &lt; 0.001). A total of 843 COVID-19 and 843 non-COVID-19 patients were successfully matched based on demographics, comorbidities, and operative characteristics. Postmatching, COVID-19 patients had a higher mortality (12.0% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.007), longer length of stay (6 [2-15] vs. 5 [1-12] days), and higher rates of acute renal failure (19.3% vs. 3.0%, p &lt; 0.001), sepsis (13.5% vs. 9.0%, p = 0.003), and septic shock (11.8% vs. 6.0%, p &lt; 0.001). They also had higher rates of thromboembolic complications such as deep vein thrombosis (4.4% vs. 1.5%, p &lt; 0.001) and pulmonary embolism (2.5% vs. 0.4%, p &lt; 0.001) but lower rates of bleeding (11.6% vs. 26.1%, p &lt; 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing surgery with perioperative COVID-19 have higher rates of 30-day mortality and postoperative complications, especially thromboembolic, compared with similar patients without COVID-19 undergoing similar surgeries. Such information is crucial for the complex surgical decision making and counseling of these patients. (J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2023;94: 513-524. Copyright (C) 2023 American Association for the Surgery of Trauma.)LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level IV