Risk factors for unfavourable postoperative outcome in patients with Crohn's disease undergoing right hemicolectomy or ileocaecal resection. An international audit by ESCP and S-ECCO

Aim: Patient- and disease-related factors, as well as operation technique, all have the potential to impact on postoperative outcome in Crohn's disease. The available evidence is based on small series and often displays conflicting results. The aim was to investigate the effect of preoperative and intra-operative risk factors on 30-day postoperative outcome in patients undergoing surgery for Crohn's disease. Method: This was an international prospective snapshot audit including consecutive patients undergoing right hemicolectomy or ileocaecal resection. The study analysed a subset of patients who underwent surgery for Crohn's disease. The primary outcome measure was the overall Clavien\u2013Dindo postoperative complication rate. The key secondary outcomes were anastomotic leak, reoperation, surgical site infection and length of stay in hospital. Multivariable binary logistic regression analyses were used to produce odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Results: In all, 375 resections in 375 patients were included. The median age was 37 and 57.1% were women. In multivariate analyses, postoperative complications were associated with preoperative parenteral nutrition (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.10\u20134.97), urgent/expedited surgical intervention (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.13\u20133.55) and unplanned intra-operative adverse events (OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.20\u20134.45). The postoperative length of stay in hospital was prolonged in patients who received preoperative parenteral nutrition (OR 31, 95% CI 1.08\u20131.61) and those who had urgent/expedited operations (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.07\u20131.37). Conclusion: Preoperative parenteral nutritional support, urgent/expedited operation and unplanned intra-operative adverse events were associated with unfavourable postoperative outcome. Enhanced preoperative optimization and improved planning of operation pathways and timings may improve outcomes for patients

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy.

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field