Implant-Based Reconstruction following Mastectomy in Patients Who Have Had a Previous Breast Augmentation:Lessons from the National Multicenter Implant Breast Reconstruction Evaluation Study

Background: Breast augmentation is the most commonly performed cosmetic procedure, and increasingly women in this group present with breast cancer or request risk-reducing surgery, but their optimal management is unclear. The authors explored the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of patients undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction following previous augmentation and compared these with outcomes of patients who had not had cosmetic implants in the Implant Breast Reconstruction Evaluation (iBRA) Study.   Methods: Patients undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction were prospectively recruited from breast and plastic surgical units across the United Kingdom. Demographic, operative, and oncologic data, and information regarding complications within 3 postoperative months were collected. Patient-reported outcomes at 18 months were assessed using the BREAST-Q. The clinical and patient-reported outcomes of patients undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without previous breast augmentation were compared.   Results: A total of 2108 women were included in the iBRA Study, of whom 49 had undergone a previous augmentation. Women in the augmentation group were younger (median age, 45 years versus 50 years; p = 0.01), had a lower body mass index (22.8 kg/m2 versus 24.9 kg/m2; p < 0.01), and had smaller tumors (15 mm versus 25 mm; p = 0.01) than patients without augmentation. No differences were seen in operative technique between the groups. Complications at 3 months were similar in both groups and there were no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes at 18 months.   Conclusions: The clinical and patient-reported outcomes of patients undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction following previous augmentation are consistent with those observed in the wider iBRA Study cohort, supporting the safety of this approach

Melatonin for the prevention of postoperative delirium in older adults:a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative delirium (POD) is a major cause of morbidity, particularly in elderly patients. Melatonin has been suggested as a low-risk pharmacological intervention to help prevent POD. A previous systematic review found limited high-quality evidence to support the use of melatonin in the prevention of POD. Several further randomised studies have since been published. This systematic review aims to synthesise the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of melatonin on the prevention of POD in older adults. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search of RCTs of melatonin (any dose and formulation) in POD will be run across Embase, Medline, CINAHL and PsychInfo. RCTs published from January 1990 until the end of February 2022 and reporting outcomes for melatonin use to prevent POD in patients will be included. Screening of search results and data extraction from included articles will be performed by two independent reviewers. The primary outcome will be incidence of POD in older adults undergoing surgery. Secondary outcomes are delirium duration and length of hospital stay. The review will also describe the dosage, timing and administration regimes of melatonin therapy and as well as the scales and definitions used to describe POD. A registry review of ongoing trials will be also be performed. For the meta-analysis, data will be pooled using a random effects model to generate a forest plot and obtain an odds ratio (OR) for the incidence of POD. Results will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required. This review will be disseminated via peer-reviewed manuscript and conferences. The results will be used as the basis of work to optimise this intervention for future trials in surgical populations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021285019)

Does melatonin administration reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium in adults? Systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective This systematic review provides an up-to-date synthesis of the evidence on the effect of melatonin in preventing POD.Design A systematic search of randomised controlled trials of melatonin in POD was run across multiple databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) and a clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.org) (1 January 1990 to 5 April 2022). Studies examining the effects of melatonin on POD incidence in adults are included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool.Outcome measures The primary outcome is POD incidence. Secondary outcomes are POD duration and length of hospital stay. Data synthesis was undertaken using a random-effects meta-analysis and presented using forest plots. A summary of methodology and outcome measures in included studies is also presented.Results Eleven studies, with 1244 patients from a range of surgical specialties were included. Seven studies used melatonin, in variable doses, and four used ramelteon. Eight different diagnostic tools were used to diagnose POD. Time points for assessment also varied. Six studies were assessed as low risk of bias and five as some concern. The combined OR of developing POD in the melatonin groups versus control was 0.41 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.80, p=0.01).Conclusion This review found that melatonin may reduce the incidence of POD in adults undergoing surgery. However, included studies displayed inconsistency in their methodology and outcome reporting. Further work to determine the optimum regime for melatonin administration, along with consensus of how best to evaluate results, would be beneficial.PROSPERO registration number CRD42021285019

Implant-based reconstruction following mastectomy in patients who have had a previous breast augmentation: Lessons from the National Multicenter Implant Breast Reconstruction Evaluation Study

Background: Breast augmentation is the most commonly performed cosmetic procedure, and increasingly women in this group present with breast cancer or request risk-reducing surgery, but their optimal management is unclear. The authors explored the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of patients undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction following previous augmentation and compared these with outcomes of patients who had not had cosmetic implants in the Implant Breast Reconstruction Evaluation (iBRA) Study. Methods: Patients undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction were prospectively recruited from breast and plastic surgical units across the United Kingdom. Demographic, operative, and oncologic data, and information regarding complications within 3 postoperative months were collected. Patient-reported outcomes at 18 months were assessed using the BREAST-Q. The clinical and patient-reported outcomes of patients undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without previous breast augmentation were compared. Results: A total of 2108 women were included in the iBRA Study, of whom 49 had undergone a previous augmentation. Women in the augmentation group were younger (median age, 45 years versus 50 years; p = 0.01), had a lower body mass index (22.8 kg/m2 versus 24.9 kg/m2; p < 0.01), and had smaller tumors (15 mm versus 25 mm; p = 0.01) than patients without augmentation. No differences were seen in operative technique between the groups. Complications at 3 months were similar in both groups and there were no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes at 18 months. Conclusions: The clinical and patient-reported outcomes of patients undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction following previous augmentation are consistent with those observed in the wider iBRA Study cohort, supporting the safety of this approach

Implant-based reconstruction following mastectomy in patients who have had a previous breast augmentation: lessons from the national multicenter Implant Breast Reconstruction Evaluation Study

Background: breast augmentation is the most commonly performed cosmetic procedure, and increasingly women in this group present with breast cancer or request risk-reducing surgery, but their optimal management is unclear. The authors explored the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of patients undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction following previous augmentation and compared these with outcomes of patients who had not had cosmetic implants in the Implant Breast Reconstruction Evaluation (iBRA) Study. Methods: patients undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction were prospectively recruited from breast and plastic surgical units across the United Kingdom. Demographic, operative, and oncologic data, and information regarding complications within 3 postoperative months were collected. Patient-reported outcomes at 18 months were assessed using the BREAST-Q. The clinical and patient-reported outcomes of patients undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without previous breast augmentation were compared. Results: a total of 2108 women were included in the iBRA Study, of whom 49 had undergone a previous augmentation. Women in the augmentation group were younger (median age, 45 years versus 50 years; p = 0.01), had a lower body mass index (22.8 kg/m 2 versus 24.9 kg/m 2; p &lt; 0.01), and had smaller tumors (15 mm versus 25 mm; p = 0.01) than patients without augmentation. No differences were seen in operative technique between the groups. Complications at 3 months were similar in both groups and there were no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes at 18 months. Conclusions: the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of patients undergoing immediate implant-based breast reconstruction following previous augmentation are consistent with those observed in the wider iBRA Study cohort, supporting the safety of this approach. </p

Biomarkers Associated with Stroke Risk in Atrial Fibrillation

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an increased risk of cardioembolic stroke. The risk of cardioembolism is not adequately reduced with the administration of oral anticoagulants, since a number of patients continue to experience thromboembolic events despite receiving treatment. Therefore, identification of a circulating biomarker to identify these high-risk patients would be clinically beneficial. Objective: In the present article, we aim to review the available data regarding use of biomarkers to predict cardioembolic stroke in patients with AF. Methods: We performed a thorough search of the literature in order to analyze the biomarkers identified thus far and critically evaluate their clinical significance. Results: A number of biomarkers have been proposed to predict cardioembolic stroke in patients with AF. Some of them are already used in the clinical practice, such as d-dimers, troponins and brain natriuretic peptide. Novel biomarkers, such as the inflammatory growth differentiation factor-15, appear to be promising, while the role of micro-RNAs and genetics appear to be useful as well. Even though these biomarkers are associated with an increased risk for thromboembolism, they cannot accurately predict future events. In light of this, the use of a scoring system, that would incorporate both circulating biomarkers and clinical factors, might be more useful. Conclusions: Recent research has disclosed several biomarkers as potential predictors of cardioembolic stroke in patients with AF. However, further research is required to establish a multifactorial scoring system that will identify patients at high-risk of thromboembolism, who would benefit from more intensive treatment and monitoring