The impact of age and comorbidity on the postoperative outcomes after emergency surgical management of complicated intra-abdominal infections

Age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (a-CCI) score has been used to weight comorbid conditions in predicting adverse outcomes. A retrospective cohort study on adult patients diagnosed with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI) requiring emergency surgery was conducted in order to elucidate the role of age and comorbidity in this scenario. Two main outcomes were evaluated: 90-day severe postoperative complications (grade ≥ 3 of Dindo-Clavien Classification), and 90-day all-cause mortality. 358 patients were analyzed. a-CCI score for each patient was calculated and then divided in two comorbid categories whether they were ≤ or > to percentile 75 (= 4): Grade-A (0–4) and Grade-B (≥ 5). Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed, and the predictive validity of the models was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve. Independent predictors of 90-day severe postoperative complications were Charlson Grade-B (Odds Ratio [OR] = 3.49, 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 1.86–6.52; p < 0.0001), healthcare-related infections (OR = 7.84, 95%CI: 3.99–15.39; p < 0.0001), diffuse peritonitis (OR = 2.64, 95%CI: 1.45–4.80; p < 0.01), and delay of surgery > 24 hours (OR = 2.28, 95%CI: 1.18–4.68; p < 0.02). The AUROC was 0.815 (95%CI: 0.758–0.872). Independent predictors of 90-day mortality were Charlson Grade-B (OR = 8.30, 95%CI: 3.58–19.21; p < 0.0001), healthcare-related infections (OR = 6.38, 95%CI: 2.72–14.95; p < 0.0001), sepsis status (OR = 3.98, 95%CI: 1.04–15.21; p < 0.04) and diffuse peritonitis (OR = 3.06, 95%CI: 1.29–7.27; p < 0.01). The AUROC for mortality was 0.887 (95%CI: 0.83–0.93). Post-hoc sensitivity analyses confirmed that the degree of comorbidity, estimated by using an age-adjusted score, has a critical impact on the postoperative course following emergency surgery for cIAI. Early assessment and management of patient’s comorbidity is mandatory at emergency setting

Outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

Background Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis. Methods A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16–45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis). Results Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two‐thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut‐off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut‐off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent). Conclusion Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision‐making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified

Predictors for prolonged length of stay after laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated acute appendicitis in adults

Background: Appendicitis-related hospitalizations linked with peritonitis or postoperative complications result in longer lengths of stay and higher costs. The aim of the present study was to assess the independent association between potential predictors and prolonged hospitalization after laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for complicated acute appendicitis (CAA). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on adult patients diagnosed with CAA in which LA was attempted. The primary outcome was a prolonged length of stay (LOS) after surgery, defined as hospitalizations longer than or equal to the 75th percentile for LOS, including the day of discharge. Hierarchical regression models were run to elucidate the independent predictors for the variable of interest. Results: The present study involved 160 patients with a mean age of 50.71 years. The conversion rate was 1.9%, and the overall postoperative morbidity rate was 23.8%. The median length of stay (LOS) was 5 days (75th percentile: 7 days). Multivariate analyses included nine variables that are statistically and/or clinically relevant to assess its relationship with a prolonged LOS: three preoperative (age, sex, and comorbidity), four intraoperative (appendix gangrene, perforation, degree of peritonitis, and drain placement), and two postoperative (immediate ICU admission and complications). The development of postoperative complications (OR 6.162, 95% CI 2.451–15.493; p = 0.000) and the placement of an abdominal drain (OR 3.438, 95% CI 1.107–10.683; p = 0.033) were found to be independent predictors for prolonged LOS. For patients not presenting postoperative complications, drain placement was the only independent predictor for the outcome (OR 7.853, 95% CI 1.520–40.558; p = 0.014). Sensitivity analyses showed confirmatory results. Conclusion: The intraoperative process of care has a clear impact on LOS after LA for CAA in adults; therefore, the decision of whether to drain in these situations should be made more restrictively yet with judicious caution

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

Not availabl

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

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