Management of Anticoagulation Around Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Surgery

The number of patients requiring cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED, e.g., pacemaker and defibrillator) surgery is increasing rapidly and at least a quarter of them are using chronic oral anticoagulation (OAC). Recently, the traditional approach of withholding anticoagulation and using heparin bridging has been challenged by studies showing safety of performing CIED surgery under anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists. Bridging with heparin is associated with incremental healthcare costs, prolonged hospital admission, and also with an augmented relative risk of pocket hematoma. The risk of embolic events seems to be low and similar with the use of two strategies (heparin bridging and continuous warfarin). Experience with novel oral anticoagulants is limited. Few studies suggest that withholding 48–72 hours before surgery and performing the procedure under anticoagulation are safe alternatives. However, larger randomized clinical trials are needed before definitive conclusions. In this chapter, we review the management of anticoagulation around cardiac implantable electronic device surgery under new conditions

Selinexor in Advanced, Metastatic Dedifferentiated Liposarcoma: A Multinational, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

PURPOSE Antitumor activity in preclinical models and a phase I study of patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DD-LPS) was observed with selinexor. We evaluated the clinical benefit of selinexor in patients with previously treated DD-LPS whose sarcoma progressed on approved agents. METHODS SEAL was a phase II-III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients age 12 years or older with advanced DD-LPS who had received two-five lines of therapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to selinexor (60 mg) or placebo twice weekly in 6-week cycles (crossover permitted). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: ). RESULTS Two hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled (selinexor, n = 188; placebo, n = 97). PFS was significantly longer with selinexor versus placebo: hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.95; one-sided P = .011; medians 2.8 v 2.1 months), as was time to next treatment: HR 0.50 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.66; one-sided P < .0001; medians 5.8 v 3.2 months). With crossover, no difference was observed in overall survival. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade versus grade 3 or 4 with selinexor were nausea (151 [80.7%] v 11 [5.9]), decreased appetite (113 [60.4%] v 14 [7.5%]), and fatigue (96 [51.3%] v 12 [6.4%]). Four (2.1%) and three (3.1%) patients died in the selinexor and placebo arms, respectively. Exploratory RNA sequencing analysis identified that the absence of CALB1 expression was associated with longer PFS with selinexor compared with placebo (median 6.9 v 2.2 months; HR, 0.19; P = .001). CONCLUSION Patients with advanced, refractory DD-LPS showed improved PFS and time to next treatment with selinexor compared with placebo. Supportive care and dose reductions mitigated side effects of selinexor. Prospective validation of CALB1 expression as a predictive biomarker for selinexor in DD-LPS is warranted. (C) 2022 by American Society of Clinical Oncolog

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

Drug prescription and delirium in older inpatients: Results from the nationwide multicenter Italian Delirium Day 2015-2016

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the association between polypharmacy and delirium, the association of specific drug categories with delirium, and the differences in drug-delirium association between medical and surgical units and according to dementia diagnosis. Methods: Data were collected during 2 waves of Delirium Day, a multicenter delirium prevalence study including patients (aged 65 years or older) admitted to acute and long-term care wards in Italy (2015-2016); in this study, only patients enrolled in acute hospital wards were selected (n = 4,133). Delirium was assessed according to score on the 4 "A's" Test. Prescriptions were classified by main drug categories; polypharmacy was defined as a prescription of drugs from 5 or more classes. Results: Of 4,133 participants, 969 (23.4%) had delirium. The general prevalence of polypharmacy was higher in patients with delirium (67.6% vs 63.0%, P =.009) but varied according to clinical settings. After adjustment for confounders, polypharmacy was associated with delirium only in patients admitted to surgical units (OR = 2.9; 95% CI, 1.4-6.1). Insulin, antibiotics, antiepileptics, antipsychotics, and atypical antidepressants were associated with delirium, whereas statins and angiotensin receptor blockers exhibited an inverse association. A stronger association was seen between typical and atypical antipsychotics and delirium in subjects free from dementia compared to individuals with dementia (typical: OR = 4.31; 95% CI, 2.94-6.31 without dementia vs OR = 1.64; 95% CI, 1.19-2.26 with dementia; atypical: OR = 5.32; 95% CI, 3.44-8.22 without dementia vs OR = 1.74; 95% CI, 1.26-2.40 with dementia). The absence of antipsychotics among the prescribed drugs was inversely associated with delirium in the whole sample and in both of the hospital settings, but only in patients without dementia. Conclusions: Polypharmacy is significantly associated with delirium only in surgical units, raising the issue of the relevance of medication review in different clinical settings. Specific drug classes are associated with delirium depending on the clinical setting and dementia diagnosis, suggesting the need to further explore this relationship

Drug Prescription and Delirium in Older Inpatients: Results From the Nationwide Multicenter Italian Delirium Day 2015-2016

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the association between polypharmacy and delirium, the association of specific drug categories with delirium, and the differences in drug-delirium association between medical and surgical units and according to dementia diagnosis. Methods: Data were collected during 2 waves of Delirium Day, a multicenter delirium prevalence study including patients (aged 65 years or older) admitted to acute and long-term care wards in Italy (2015-2016); in this study, only patients enrolled in acute hospital wards were selected (n = 4,133). Delirium was assessed according to score on the 4 "A's" Test. Prescriptions were classified by main drug categories; polypharmacy was defined as a prescription of drugs from 5 or more classes. Results: Of 4,133 participants, 969 (23.4%) had delirium. The general prevalence of polypharmacy was higher in patients with delirium (67.6% vs 63.0%, P =.009) but varied according to clinical settings. After adjustment for confounders, polypharmacy was associated with delirium only in patients admitted to surgical units (OR = 2.9; 95% CI, 1.4-6.1). Insulin, antibiotics, antiepileptics, antipsychotics, and atypical antidepressants were associated with delirium, whereas statins and angiotensin receptor blockers exhibited an inverse association. A stronger association was seen between typical and atypical antipsychotics and delirium in subjects free from dementia compared to individuals with dementia (typical: OR = 4.31; 95% CI, 2.94-6.31 without dementia vs OR = 1.64; 95% CI, 1.19-2.26 with dementia; atypical: OR = 5.32; 95% CI, 3.44-8.22 without dementia vs OR = 1.74; 95% CI, 1.26-2.40 with dementia). The absence of antipsychotics among the prescribed drugs was inversely associated with delirium in the whole sample and in both of the hospital settings, but only in patients without dementia. Conclusions: Polypharmacy is significantly associated with delirium only in surgical units, raising the issue of the relevance of medication review in different clinical settings. Specific drug classes are associated with delirium depending on the clinical setting and dementia diagnosis, suggesting the need to further explore this relationship

Understanding Factors Associated With Psychomotor Subtypes of Delirium in Older Inpatients With Dementia

Objectives: Few studies have analyzed factors associated with delirium subtypes. In this study, we investigate factors associated with subtypes of delirium only in patients with dementia to provide insights on the possible prevention and treatments. Design: This is a cross-sectional study nested in the \u201cDelirium Day\u201d study, a nationwide Italian point-prevalence study. Setting and Participants: Older patients admitted to 205 acute and 92 rehabilitation hospital wards. Measures: Delirium was evaluated with the 4-AT and the motor subtypes with the Delirium Motor Subtype Scale. Dementia was defined by the presence of a documented diagnosis in the medical records and/or prescription of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors or memantine prior to admission. Results: Of the 1057 patients with dementia, 35% had delirium, with 25.6% hyperactive, 33.1% hypoactive, 34.5% mixed, and 6.7% nonmotor subtype. There were higher odds of having venous catheters in the hypoactive (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.18-2.81) and mixed type of delirium (OR 2.23, CI 1.43-3.46), whereas higher odds of urinary catheters in the hypoactive (OR 2.91, CI 1.92-4.39), hyperactive (OR 1.99, CI 1.23-3.21), and mixed types of delirium (OR 2.05, CI 1.36-3.07). We found higher odds of antipsychotics both in the hyperactive (OR 2.87, CI 1.81-4.54) and mixed subtype (OR 1.84, CI 1.24-2.75), whereas higher odds of antibiotics was present only in the mixed subtype (OR 1.91, CI 1.26-2.87). Conclusions and Implications: In patients with dementia, the mixed delirium subtype is the most prevalent followed by the hypoactive, hyperactive, and nonmotor subtype. Motor subtypes of delirium may be triggered by clinical factors, including the use of venous and urinary catheters, and the use of antipsychotics. Future studies are necessary to provide further insights on the possible pathophysiology of delirium in patients with dementia and to address the optimization of the management of potential risk factors

An international observational study to assess the impact of the Omicron variant emergence on the clinical epidemiology of COVID-19 in hospitalised patients

Background: Whilst timely clinical characterisation of infections caused by novel SARS-CoV-2 variants is necessary for evidence-based policy response, individual-level data on infecting variants are typically only available for a minority of patients and settings. Methods: Here, we propose an innovative approach to study changes in COVID-19 hospital presentation and outcomes after the Omicron variant emergence using publicly available population-level data on variant relative frequency to infer SARS-CoV-2 variants likely responsible for clinical cases. We apply this method to data collected by a large international clinical consortium before and after the emergence of the Omicron variant in different countries. Results: Our analysis, that includes more than 100,000 patients from 28 countries, suggests that in many settings patients hospitalised with Omicron variant infection less often presented with commonly reported symptoms compared to patients infected with pre-Omicron variants. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital after Omicron variant emergence had lower mortality compared to patients admitted during the period when Omicron variant was responsible for only a minority of infections (odds ratio in a mixed-effects logistic regression adjusted for likely confounders, 0.67 [95% confidence interval 0.61-0.75]). Qualitatively similar findings were observed in sensitivity analyses with different assumptions on population-level Omicron variant relative frequencies, and in analyses using available individual-level data on infecting variant for a subset of the study population. Conclusions: Although clinical studies with matching viral genomic information should remain a priority, our approach combining publicly available data on variant frequency and a multi-country clinical characterisation dataset with more than 100,000 records allowed analysis of data from a wide range of settings and novel insights on real-world heterogeneity of COVID-19 presentation and clinical outcome

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83–7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97–2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14–1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25–1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable