Delirium After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Under General Anesthesia: Incidence, Predictors, and Relation to Long-Term Survival

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Prospectively collected data on postoperative delirium (POD) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are scarce. The aim of this study was to report the incidence and risk factors of delirium after TAVI under general anesthesia and to assess the association of POD with clinical outcome and short- and long-term survival. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 703 subsequent patients undergoing TAVI under general anesthesia between 2008 and 2017. MEASUREMENTS: Delirium was assessed according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), criteria. Outcomes were postprocedural clinical outcome and short- and long-term survival (30 days and 5 years, respectively). RESULTS: POD was observed in 16.5% (116/703), was the strongest independent predictor of long-term mortality (hazard ratio = 1.91; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.36-2.70), and was associated with impaired 30-day and 5-year survival (92.2% vs 96.8% [P =.025] and 40.0% vs 50.0% [P =.007], respectively). Stroke and new onset of atrial fibrillation were more often observed in delirious patients (6.9% vs 1.9% and 12.1% vs 5.1%, respectively). Strongest independent predictors of POD were prior delirium (odds ratio [OR] = 2.56; 95% CI = 1.52-4.31) and aortic valve area less than 0.75 cm 2 (OR = 2.39; 95% CI = 1.53-3.74). CONCLUSION: One in six patients experienced POD after TAVI under general anesthesia. POD was the strongest predictor of long-term mortality and was associated with impaired short- and long-term survival. Prior delirium and a more calcified aortic valve were the strongest independent predictors of POD. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2325–2330, 2019

& xfeff;EASAPS/ESPRAS Considerations in getting back to work in Plastic Surgery with the COVID-19 Pandemic - A European point of view

The aim of this paper is to summarize the results of a consensus process and a European webinar of the two societies, European Association of Societies of Aesthetic Surgery (EASAPS) and the European Society of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Societies (ESPRAS) on what is considered safe practice based on the scientific knowledge we have today. This review of the current situations gives considerations which have to be taken into account when getting back to work in plastic surgery with COVID-19 in Europe. At all times, one should be familiar the local and regional infection rates in the community, with particular emphasis on the emergence of second and third waves of the pandemic. Due to the fast-evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic the recommendations aim to be rather considerations than fixed guidelines and might need to be revised in near future

A multidimensional approach to older patients during COVID-19 pandemic: a position paper of the Special Interest Group on Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment of the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS)

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic has been a dramatic trigger that has challenged the intrinsic capacity of older adults and of society. Due to the consequences for the older population worldwide, the Special Interest Group on Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) of the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS) took the initiative of collecting evidence on the usefulness of the CGA-based multidimensional approach to older people during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A narrative review of the most relevant articles published between January 2020 and November 2022 that focused on the multidimensional assessment of older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Current evidence supports the critical role of the multidimensional approach to identify older adults hospitalized with COVID-19 at higher risk of longer hospitalization, functional decline, and short-term mortality. This approach appears to also be pivotal for the adequate stratification and management of the post-COVID condition as well as for the adoption of preventive measures (e.g., vaccinations, healthy lifestyle) among non-infected individuals. Conclusion: Collecting information on multiple health domains (e.g., functional, cognitive, nutritional, social status, mobility, comorbidities, and polypharmacy) provides a better understanding of the intrinsic capacities and resilience of older adults affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection. The EuGMS SIG on CGA endorses the adoption of the multidimensional approach to guide the clinical management of older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic

Comprehensive geriatric assessment in older people : an umbrella review of health outcomes

Background: Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) has been in use for the last three decades. However, some doubts remain regarding its clinical use. Therefore, we aimed to capture the breadth of outcomes reported and assess the strength of evidence of the use of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) for health outcomes in older Methods: Umbrella review of systematic reviews of the use of CGA in older adults searching in Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane library and CINHAL until 05 November 2021. All possible health outcomes were eligible. Two independent reviewers extracted key data. The grading of evidence was carried out using the GRADE for intervention studies, whilst data regarding systematic reviews were reported as narrative findings. Results: Among 1,683 papers, 31 systematic reviews (19 with meta-analysis) were considered, including 279,744 subjects. Overall, 13/53 outcomes were statistically significant (P < 0.05). There was high certainty of evidence that CGA reduces nursing home admission (risk ratio [RR] = 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75–0.89), risk of falls (RR = 0.51; 95%CI: 0.29–0.89), and pressure sores (RR = 0.46; 95%CI: 0.24–0.89) in hospital medical setting; decreases the risk of delirium (OR = 0.71; 95%CI: 0.54–0.92) in hip fracture; decreases the risk of physical frailty in community-dwelling older adults (RR = 0.77; 95%CI: 0.64–0.93). Systematic reviews without meta-analysis indicate that CGA improves clinical outcomes in oncology, haematology, and in emergency department. Conclusions: CGA seems to be beneficial in the hospital medical setting for multiple health outcomes, with a high certainty of evidence. The evidence of benefits is less strong for the use of CGA in other settings