Epidemiology, practice of ventilation and outcome for patients at increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications

BACKGROUND Limited information exists about the epidemiology and outcome of surgical patients at increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs), and how intraoperative ventilation was managed in these patients. OBJECTIVES To determine the incidence of surgical patients at increased risk of PPCs, and to compare the intraoperative ventilation management and postoperative outcomes with patients at low risk of PPCs. DESIGN This was a prospective international 1-week observational study using the ‘Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia risk score’ (ARISCAT score) for PPC for risk stratification. PATIENTS AND SETTING Adult patients requiring intraoperative ventilation during general anaesthesia for surgery in 146 hospitals across 29 countries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was the incidence of patients at increased risk of PPCs based on the ARISCAT score. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative ventilatory management and clinical outcomes. RESULTS A total of 9864 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The incidence of patients at increased risk was 28.4%. The most frequently chosen tidal volume (VT) size was 500 ml, or 7 to 9 ml kg1 predicted body weight, slightly lower in patients at increased risk of PPCs. Levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) were slightly higher in patients at increased risk of PPCs, with 14.3% receiving more than 5 cmH2O PEEP compared with 7.6% in patients at low risk of PPCs (P < 0.001). Patients with a predicted preoperative increased risk of PPCs developed PPCs more frequently: 19 versus 7%, relative risk (RR) 3.16 (95% confidence interval 2.76 to 3.61), P < 0.001) and had longer hospital stays. The only ventilatory factor associated with the occurrence of PPCs was the peak pressure. CONCLUSION The incidence of patients with a predicted increased risk of PPCs is high. A large proportion of patients receive high VT and low PEEP levels. PPCs occur frequently in patients at increased risk, with worse clinical outcome

Epidemiology, practice of ventilation and outcome for patients at increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications: LAS VEGAS - An observational study in 29 countries

BACKGROUND Limited information exists about the epidemiology and outcome of surgical patients at increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs), and how intraoperative ventilation was managed in these patients. OBJECTIVES To determine the incidence of surgical patients at increased risk of PPCs, and to compare the intraoperative ventilation management and postoperative outcomes with patients at low risk of PPCs. DESIGN This was a prospective international 1-week observational study using the ‘Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia risk score’ (ARISCAT score) for PPC for risk stratification. PATIENTS AND SETTING Adult patients requiring intraoperative ventilation during general anaesthesia for surgery in 146 hospitals across 29 countries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was the incidence of patients at increased risk of PPCs based on the ARISCAT score. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative ventilatory management and clinical outcomes. RESULTS A total of 9864 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The incidence of patients at increased risk was 28.4%. The most frequently chosen tidal volume (V T) size was 500 ml, or 7 to 9 ml kg−1 predicted body weight, slightly lower in patients at increased risk of PPCs. Levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) were slightly higher in patients at increased risk of PPCs, with 14.3% receiving more than 5 cmH2O PEEP compared with 7.6% in patients at low risk of PPCs (P ˂ 0.001). Patients with a predicted preoperative increased risk of PPCs developed PPCs more frequently: 19 versus 7%, relative risk (RR) 3.16 (95% confidence interval 2.76 to 3.61), P ˂ 0.001) and had longer hospital stays. The only ventilatory factor associated with the occurrence of PPCs was the peak pressure. CONCLUSION The incidence of patients with a predicted increased risk of PPCs is high. A large proportion of patients receive high V T and low PEEP levels. PPCs occur frequently in patients at increased risk, with worse clinical outcome.</p

Erratum: Risk factors associated with adverse fetal outcomes in pregnancies affected by Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A secondary analysis of the WAPM study on COVID-19 (Journal of Perinatal Medicine (2020) 48:9 (950-958) DOI: 10.1515/jpm-2020-0355)

Due to a technical error, the author list at the end of this article is unfortunately incorrect. Elif Gül Yapar Eyi is not a co-author, and therefore, his name and affiliation should not appear in the list. The correct author list and affiliations read as follows: Daniele Di Mascio, Cihat Sen, Gabriele Saccone, Alberto Galindo, Amos Grünebaum, Jun Yoshimatsu, Milan Stanojevic, AsimKurjak, Frank Chervenak, María Jos´e Rodríguez Suárez, Zita Maria Gambacorti-Passerini, María de los Angeles Anaya Baz, Esther Vanessa Aguilar Galán, Yolanda Cuñarro López, Juan Antonio De León Luis, Ignacio Cueto Hernández, Ignacio Herraiz, Cecilia Villalain, Roberta Venturella, Giuseppe Rizzo, Ilenia Mappa, Giovanni Gerosolima, Lars Hellmeyer, Josefine Königbauer, Giada Ameli, Tiziana Frusca, Nicola Volpe, Giovanni Battista Luca Schera, Stefania Fieni, Eutalia Esposito, Giuliana Simonazzi, Gaetana Di Donna, Aly Youssef, Anna Nunzia Della Gatta, Mariano Catello Di Donna, Vito Chiantera, Natalina Buono, Giulio Sozzi, Pantaleo Greco, Danila Morano, Beatrice Bianchi, Maria Giulia Lombana Marino, Federica Laraud, Arianna Ramone, Angelo Cagnacci, Fabio Barra, Claudio Gustavino, Simone Ferrero, Fabio Ghezzi, Antonella Cromi, Antonio Simone Laganá, Valentina Laurita Longo, Francesca Stollagli, Angelo Sirico, Antonio Lanzone, Lorenza Driul, Fabiana Cecchini D, Serena Xodo, Brian Rodriguez, Felipe Mercado-Olivares, Deena Elkafrawi, Giovanni Sisti, Rosanna Esposito, Antonio Coviello, Marco Cerbone, Maddalena Morlando, Antonio Schiattarella, Nicola Colacurci, Pasquale De Franciscis, Ilaria Cataneo, Marinella Lenzi, Fabrizio Sandri, Riccardo Buscemi, Giorgia Gattei, Francesca della Sala, Eleonora Valori, Maria Cristina Rovellotti, Elisa Done, Gilles Faron, Leonardo Gucciardo, Valentina Esposito, Flaminia Vena, Antonella Giancotti, Roberto Brunelli, Ludovico Muzii, Luigi Nappi, Felice Sorrentino, Lorenzo Vasciaveo, Marco Liberati, Danilo Buca, Martina Leombroni, Francesca Di Sebastiano, Luciano Di Tizio, Diego Gazzolo, Massimo Franchi, Quintino Cesare Ianniciello, Simone Garzon, Giuliano Petriglia, Leonardo Borrello, Albaro Jos´e Nieto-Calvache, Juan Manuel Burgos-Luna, Caroline Kadji, Andrew Carlin, Elisa Bevilacqua, Marina Moucho, Pedro Viana Pinto, Rita Figueiredo, Jos´e Morales Roselló, Gabriela Loscalzo, Alicia Martinez-Varea, Vincente Diago, Jesús S Jimenez Lopez, Alicia Yeliz Aykanat, Stefano Cosma, Andrea Carosso, Chiara Benedetto, Amanda Bermejo, Otto Henrique May Feuerschuette, Ozlem Uyaniklar, Sakine Rahimli Ocakouglu, Zeliha Atak, Reyhan Gündüz, Esra Tustas Haberal, Bernd Froessler, Anupam Parange, Peter Palm, Igor Samardjiski, Chiara Taccaliti, Erhan Okuyan, George Daskalakis, Renato Augusto Moreira de Sa, Alejandro Pittaro, Maria Luisa Gonzalez-Duran, Ana Concheiro Guisan, Serife Özlem Genç, Blanka Zlatohlávková, Anna Luengo Piqueras, Dolores Esteban Oliva, Aylin Pelin Cil, Olus Api, Panos Antsaklis, Liana Ples, Ioannis Kyvernitakis, Holger Maul, Marcel Malan, Albert Lila, Roberta Granese, Alfredo Ercoli, Giuseppe Zoccali, Andrea Villasco, Nicoletta Biglia, Ciuhodaru Madalina, Elena Costa, Caroline Daelemans, Axelle Pintiaux, Elisa Cueto, Eran Hadar, Sarah Dollinger, Noa A. Brzezinski Sinai, Erasmo Huertas, Pedro Arango, Amadeo Sanchez, Javier Alfonso Schvartzman, Liviu Cojocaru, Sifa Turan, Ozhan Turan, Maria Carmela Di Dedda, Rebeca Garrote Molpeceres, Snezana Zdjelar, Tanja Premru-Srsen, Lilijana Kornhauser Cerar, Mirjam Druškovic, Valentina De Robertis, Vedran Stefanovic, Irmeli Nupponen, Kaisa Nelskylä, Zulfiya Khodjaeva, Ksenia A. Gorina, Gennady T. Sukhikh, Giuseppe Maria Maruotti, Silvia Visentin, Erich Cosmi, Jacopo Ferrari, Alessandra Gatti, Daniela Luvero, Roberto Angioli, Ludovica Puri, Marco Palumbo, Giusella D’Urso, Francesco Colaleo, Agnese Maria Chiara Rapisarda, Ilma Floriana Carbone, Antonio Mollo, Giovanni Nazzaro, Mariavittoria Locci, Maurizio Guida, Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo, Pierluigi Benedetti Panici, Vincenzo Berghella, Maria Elena Flacco, Lamberto Manzoli, Giuseppe Bifulco, Giovanni Scambia, Fulvio Zullo and Francesco D’Antonio Flaminia Vena, Antonella Giancotti, Roberto Brunelli, Ludovico Muzii and Pierluigi Benedetti Panici, Department of Maternal and Child Health and Urological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy Rosanna Esposito, Antonio Coviello, Marco Cerbone, Giuseppe Maria Maruotti, Giovanni Nazzaro, Mariavittoria Locci, Maurizio Guida, Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo, Giuseppe Bifulco and Fulvio Zullo, Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy Ignacio Herraiz and Cecilia Villalain, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fetal Medicine Unit, Maternal and Child Health and Development Network, University Hospital 12 de Octubre, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain María Jos´e Rodríguez Suárez, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Asturias, Spain Zita Maria Gambacorti-Passerini, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ciudad Real University General Hospital, Ciudad Real, Spain María de los Angeles Anaya Baz and Esther Vanessa Aguilar Galán, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ciudad Real University General Hospital, Ciudad Real, Spain; University of Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain Yolanda Cuñarro López, Juan Antonio De León Luis and Ignacio Cueto Hernández, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fetal Medicine Unit, Maternal and Child Health and Development Network, Gregorio Marañón Hospital, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain Roberta Venturella, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, Magna Graecia University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy Giuseppe Rizzo, University of Roma Tor Vergata, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Ospedale Cristo Re Roma, Rome, Italy; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The First I.M. Sechenov Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia Ilenia Mappa, University of Roma Tor Vergata, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Ospedale Cristo Re Roma, Rome, Italy Giovanni Gerosolima, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ospedale AOSG Moscati, Avellino, Italy Lars Hellmeyer, Josefine Königbauer and Giada Ameli, Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Vivantes Klinikum im Friedrichshain, Berlin, Germany Tiziana Frusca, Nicola Volpe, Giovanni Battista Luca Schera and Stefania Fieni, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Parma, Parma, Italy Eutalia Esposito, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ospedale di San Leonardo, Castellammare di Stabia, Italy Giuliana Simonazzi, Gaetana Di Donna, Aly Youssef and Anna Nunzia Della Gatta, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Bologna, Sant’Orsola- Malpighi University Hospital, Bologna, Italy Mariano Catello Di Donna, Vito Chiantera, Natalina Buono and Giulio Sozzi, Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, University of Palermo, Palermo, Sicilia, Italy Pantaleo Greco, Danila Morano, Beatrice Bianchi and Maria Giulia Lombana Marino, Department ofMedical Sciences, Section of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria Sant’Anna, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy Federica Laraud, Arianna Ramone, Angelo Cagnacci, Fabio Barra, Claudio Gustavino and Simone Ferrero, Academic Unit of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico, San Martino, Genova, Italy Fabio Ghezzi, Antonella Cromi and Antonio Simone Laganà, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, “Filippo Del Ponte” Hospita University of Insubria, Varese, Italy Valentina Laurita Longo, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS – Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy; Istituto di Clinica Ostetrica e Ginecologica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy; and Queen Margaret University, Institute for Global Health and Development, Edinburgh, UK Francesca Stollagli and Ludovica Puri, Istituto di Clinica Ostetrica e Ginecologica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy Angelo Sirico and Giovanni Scambia, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS – Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy Antonio Lanzone, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS – Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy; Istituto di Clinica Ostetrica e Ginecologica, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy Lorenza Driul, Fabiana Cecchini D and Serena Xodo, Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Udine, Udine, Italy Brian Rodriguez, Felipe Mercado-Olivares, Deena Elkafrawi and Giovanni Sisti, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, New York Health and Hospitals/Lincoln Bronx, The Bronx, NY, USA Maddalena Morlando, Antonio Schiattarella, Nicola Colacurci and Pasquale De Franciscis, Department of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy Ilaria Cataneo, Marinella Lenzi and Fabrizio Sandri, Unit of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ospedale Maggiore, Bologna, Italy Riccardo Buscemi, Giorgia Gattei, Francesca della Sala and Maria Cristina Rovellotti, Department of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy Eleonora Valori, Department of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy; Hospital Castelli, Verbania, Italy Elisa Done, Gilles Faron and Leonardo Gucciardo, UZ Brussel, Universitair Ziekenhuis, Brussel, Belgium Valentina Esposito, University of Milan, Milan, Italy Luigi Nappi, Felice Sorrentino and Lorenzo Vasciaveo, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy. © 2021 De Gruyter. All rights reserved

Urinary tract cancer survival in Europe 1999-2007: Results of the population-based study EUROCARE-5

Background This work presents relative survival estimates regarding urinary tract tumours among adult patients (age 65 15 years) diagnosed in Europe. It reports on survival estimates of cases diagnosed in 2000-2007, and on survival time trends from 1999-2001 to 2005-2007. Methods Data on 677,340 adult urinary tract tumour patients, (429,154 cases of invasive and non-invasive bladder and 248,186 cases of invasive kidney cancers) diagnosed between 2000 and 2007 were provided by 86 population-based cancer registries from 29 European countries. The complete approach was used to estimate survival in 2000-2007; the period approach was used to estimate survival over time. Results The age-standardised 5-year relative survival for patients with kidney tumours diagnosed in Europe during 2000-2007 was 60%. The best prognosis was observed in Southern and Central Europe and prognosis improved in all regions along the time period. For invasive and non-invasive patients with bladder tumours combined the age-standardised 5-year relative survival in Europe was 68%. The best prognosis was observed in Southern and Northern Europe. However, in Scotland and The Netherlands the relative survival was significantly lower, although the survival estimates for these two countries were based on invasive tumours only. Conclusions Differences in registration practices affect comparisons of survival values between European countries, especially in patients with urinary bladder cancers. The between-country variation in survival is influenced by the varying use of diagnostic investigation in urinary tract tumours. Further data on stage at diagnosis can help to elucidate the influence of diagnostic intensity or early diagnosis on the survival patterns

The EUROCARE-5 study on cancer survival in Europe 1999-2007: Database, quality checks and statistical analysis methods

Background Since 25 years the EUROCARE study monitors the survival of cancer patients in Europe through centralised collection, quality check and statistical analysis of population-based cancer registries (CRs) data. The European population covered by the study increased remarkably in the latest round. The study design and statistical methods were also changed to improve timeliness and comparability of survival estimates. To interpret the EUROCARE-5 results on adult cancer patients better here we assess the impact of these changes on data quality and on survival comparisons. Methods In EUROCARE-5 the survival differences by area were studied applying the complete cohort approach to data on nearly nine million cancer patients diagnosed in 2000-2007 and followed up to 2008. Survival time trends were analysed applying the period approach to data on about 10 million cancer cases diagnosed from 1995 to 2007 and followed up to 2008. Differently from EUROCARE-4, multiple primary cancers were included and relative survival was estimated with the Ederer II method. Results EUROCARE-5 covered a population of 232 million resident persons, corresponding to 50% of the 29 participating countries. The population coverage increased particularly in Eastern Europe. Cases identified from death certificate only (DCO) were on average 2.9%, range 0-12%. Microscopically confirmed cases amounted to over 85% in most CRs. Compared to previous methods, including multiple cancers and using the Ederer II estimator reduced survival estimates by 0.4 and 0.3 absolute percentage points, on average. Conclusions The increased population size and registration coverage of the EUROCARE-5 study ensures more robust and comparable estimates across European countries. This enlargement did not impact on data quality, which was generally satisfactory. Estimates may be slightly inflated in countries with high or null DCO proportions, especially for poor prognosis cancers. The updated methods improved the comparability of survival estimates between recently and long-term established registries and reduced biases due to informative censoring

Survival in patients with primary liver cancer, gallbladder and extrahepatic biliary tract cancer and pancreatic cancer in Europe 1999-2007: Results of EUROCARE-5

Background The EUROCARE study collects and analyses survival data from population-based cancer registries (CRs) in Europe in order to provide data on between-country differences in survival and time trends in survival. Methods This study analyses data on liver cancer, gallbladder and extrahepatic biliary tract cancers ("biliary tract cancers"), and pancreatic cancer diagnosed in 2000-2007 from 88 CRs in 29 countries. Relative survival (RS) was estimated overall, by region, sex, age and period of diagnosis using the complete approach. Time trends in 5-year RS over 1999-2007 were also analysed using the period approach. Results The prognosis of the studied cancers was poor. Age-standardised 5-year RS was 12% for liver cancer, 17% for biliary tract cancers and 7% for pancreatic cancer. There were some between-country differences in survival. In general, RS was low in Eastern Europe and high in Central and Southern Europe. For all sites, 5-year RS was similar in men and women and decreased with advancing age. No substantial changes in survival were reported for pancreatic cancer over the period 1999-2007. On average, there was a crude increase in 5-year RS of 3 percentage points between the periods 1999-2001 and 2005-2007 for liver cancer and biliary tract cancers. Conclusions The major changes in imaging techniques over the study period for the diagnosis of the three studied cancers did not result in an improvement in the prognosis of these cancers. In the near future, new innovative treatments might be the best way to improve the prognosis in these cancers