Programas de optimización del uso de antimicrobianos en hospitales: guía de recomendaciones de expertos para actividades en poblaciones específicas, síndromes y otros aspectos (PROA-2) de la SEIMC, SEFH, SEMPSPGS, SEMICYUC y SEIP

[EN] In 2012, The Spanish Societies of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC), Hospital Pharmacy (SEFH), and Preventive Medicine, Public Health and Healthcare Management (SEMPSGS) lead a consensus document including recommendations for the implementation of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs (AMSP; PROA in Spanish) in acute care hospitals in Spain. While these recommendations were critical for the development of these programs in many centres, there is a need for guidance in the development of AMS activities for specific patient populations, syndromes or other specific aspects which were not included in the previous document or have developed significantly since then. The objective of this expert recommendation guidance document is to review the available information about these activities in these patient populations or circumstances, and to provide guidance recommendations about them. With this objective the SEIMC, SEFH, SEMPSPGS, the Spanish Society of Intensive Care Medicine (SEMICYUC) and the Spanish Pediatric Infectious Disease Society (SEIP) selected a panel of experts who chose the different aspects to include in the document. Because of the lack of high-level evidence in the implementation of the activities, the panel opted to perform a narrative review of the literature for the different topics for which recommendations were agreed by consensus. The document was open to public consultation for the members of these societies for their comments and suggestions, which were reviewed and considered by the panel.[ES] En 2012, las Sociedades Españolas de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica (SEIMC), Farmacia Hospitalaria (SEFH) y Medicina Preventiva, Salud Pública y Gestión Sanitaria (SEMPSPGS) lideraron un documento de consenso que incluía recomendaciones para la implementación de Programas de optimización del uso de antimicrobianos (PROA) en hospitales de agudos en España. Si bien estas recomendaciones fueron críticas para el desarrollo de estos programas en muchos centros, actualmente es necesario establecer unas guías para la implementación de las actividades de los PROA en determinadas poblaciones de pacientes, síndromes clínicos y otros aspectos específicos que no se incluyeron en el documento previo o que desde entonces se han desarrollado significativamente. El objetivo de esta guía de recomendaciones de expertos es revisar la información disponible acerca de esas actividades en estas poblaciones o circunstancias de pacientes y proporcionar unas recomendaciones que sirvan de guía sobre ellas. Con este objetivo, la SEIMC, la SEFH y la SEMPSPGS, así como la Sociedad Española de Medicina Intensiva, Crítica y Unidades Coronarias (SEMICYUC) y la Sociedad Española de Infectología Pediátrica (SEIP), seleccionaron un panel de expertos que eligieron los diferentes aspectos a incluir en el documento. Debido a la ausencia de evidencia de alto nivel en la implementación de las diferentes actividades, el panel optó por realizar una revisión narrativa de la literatura de los diferentes aspectos, en los que las recomendaciones se acordaron por consenso. El documento se abrió para consulta pública a los miembros de estas sociedades para sus comentarios y sugerencias, que fueron revisadas y consideradas por el panel.Peer reviewe

Global wealth disparities drive adherence to COVID-safe pathways in head and neck cancer surgery

Peer reviewe

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic : an international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

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

AimThe 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsOverall, 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 ConclusionOne 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

Delaying surgery for patients with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection

Not availabl