VENOGRAPHY OF THE LOWER-LIMBS - PITFALLS OF THE DIAGNOSTIC STANDARD

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES. Phlebography is considered the diagnostic standard for suspected deep venous thrombosis. The authors studied the inter-observer variability of phlebogram interpretation in the setting of a multicenter therapeutic trial of the thrombolytic agent alteplase. METHODS. The interpretation of 31 pairs of venograms (before and after thrombolytic therapy) was studied by comparing the quantitative Marder's scores which were computed by three experts and the qualitative assessment of phlebographic changes induced by thrombolysis by the panel of experts and by the investigators. RESULTS. Although the scores of the three experts correlated fairly well (r = .67-.82; P <.001), they differed significantly from each other (P <.0001). Substantial differences also were found between local (by investigators) qualitative evaluation of the venographic changes induced by the treatment and central evaluation by the panel of experts (coefficient of agreement kappa = 0.19), local assessment being significantly more optimistic (P = .002) than central judgment. CONCLUSION. Significant differences were observed between assessment of changes in venographic scores after thrombolytic treatment both among three expert radiologists, and between the panel of experts and the local investigators of the multicenter trial. This observation points to the need for an a priori definition of well-characterized decision criteria to allow a valid interpretation of the effects of the therapeutic intervention

Pelvic Exenteration for Advanced Nonrectal Pelvic Malignancy

Objective: To determine factors associated with outcomes following pelvic exenteration for advanced nonrectal pelvic malignancy. Background: The PelvEx Collaborative provides large volume data from specialist centers to ascertain factors associated with improved outcomes. Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent pelvic exenteration for nonrectal pelvic malignancy between 2006 and 2017 were identified from 22 tertiary centers. Patient demographics, neoadjuvant therapy, histopathological assessment, length of stay, 30-day major complication/mortality rate were recorded. The primary endpoints were factors associated with survival. The secondary endpoints included the difference in margin rates across the cohorts, impact of neoadjuvant treatment on survival, associated morbidity, and mortality. Results: One thousand two hundred ninety-three patients were identified. 40.4% (n ¼ 523) had gynecological malignancies (endometrial, ovarian, cervical, and vaginal), 35.7% (n ¼ 462) urological (bladder), 18.1% (n ¼ 234) anal, and 5.7% had sarcoma (n ¼ 74). The median age across the cohort was 63 years (range, 23–85). The median 30-day mortality rate was 1.7%, with the highest rates occurring following exenteration for recurrent sarcoma or locally advanced cervical cancer (3.3% each). The median length of hospital stay was 17.5 days. 34.5% of patients experienced a major complication, with highest rate occurring in those having salvage surgery for anal cancer. Multivariable analysis showed R0 resection was the main factor associated with long-term survival. The 3-year overall-survival rate for R0 resection was 48% for endometrial malignancy, 40.6% for ovarian, 49.4% for cervical, 43.8% for vaginal, 59% for bladder, 48.3% for anal, and 48.1% for sarcoma. Conclusion: Pelvic exenteration remains an important treatment in selected patients with advanced or recurrent nonrectal pelvic malignancy. The range in 3-year overall survival following R0 resection (40%–59%) reflects the diversity of tumor types

Machine learning risk prediction of mortality for patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2: the COVIDSurg mortality score

To support the global restart of elective surgery, data from an international prospective cohort study of 8492 patients (69 countries) was analysed using artificial intelligence (machine learning techniques) to develop a predictive score for mortality in surgical patients with SARS-CoV-2. We found that patient rather than operation factors were the best predictors and used these to create the COVIDsurg Mortality Score (https://covidsurgrisk.app). Our data demonstrates that it is safe to restart a wide range of surgical services for selected patients.</jats:p

Is perioperative COVID-19 really associated with worse surgical outcomes? A nationwide COVIDSurg propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing surgery with perioperative COVID-19 are suggested to have worse outcomes, but whether this is COVID-related or due to selection bias remains unclear. We aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes of patients with and without perioperative COVID-19. METHODS: Patients with perioperative COVID-19 diagnosed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery between February and July 2020 from 68 US hospitals in COVIDSurg, an international multicenter database, were 1:1 propensity score matched to patients without COVID-19 undergoing similar procedures in the 2012 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. The matching criteria included demographics (e.g., age, sex), comorbidities (e.g., diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease), and operation characteristics (e.g., type, urgency, complexity). The primary outcome was 30-day hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay and 13 postoperative complications (e.g., pneumonia, renal failure, surgical site infection). RESULTS: A total of 97,936 patients were included, 1,054 with and 96,882 without COVID-19. Prematching, COVID-19 patients more often underwent emergency surgery (76.1% vs. 10.3%, p &lt; 0.001). A total of 843 COVID-19 and 843 non-COVID-19 patients were successfully matched based on demographics, comorbidities, and operative characteristics. Postmatching, COVID-19 patients had a higher mortality (12.0% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.007), longer length of stay (6 [2-15] vs. 5 [1-12] days), and higher rates of acute renal failure (19.3% vs. 3.0%, p &lt; 0.001), sepsis (13.5% vs. 9.0%, p = 0.003), and septic shock (11.8% vs. 6.0%, p &lt; 0.001). They also had higher rates of thromboembolic complications such as deep vein thrombosis (4.4% vs. 1.5%, p &lt; 0.001) and pulmonary embolism (2.5% vs. 0.4%, p &lt; 0.001) but lower rates of bleeding (11.6% vs. 26.1%, p &lt; 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing surgery with perioperative COVID-19 have higher rates of 30-day mortality and postoperative complications, especially thromboembolic, compared with similar patients without COVID-19 undergoing similar surgeries. Such information is crucial for the complex surgical decision making and counseling of these patients. (J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2023;94: 513-524. Copyright (C) 2023 American Association for the Surgery of Trauma.)LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level IV

Outcomes and Their State-level Variation in Patients Undergoing Surgery With Perioperative SARS-CoV-2 Infection in the USA. A Prospective Multicenter Study

Objective: To report the 30-day outcomes of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing surgery in the USA. Background: Uncertainty regarding the postoperative risks of patients with SARS-CoV-2 exists. Methods: As part of the COVIDSurg multicenter study, all patients aged ≥17 years undergoing surgery between January 1 and June 30, 2020 with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection in 70 hospitals across 27 states were included. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and pulmonary complications. Multivariable analyses (adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and procedure characteristics) were performed to identify predictors of mortality. Results: A total of 1581 patients were included; more than half of them were males (n = 822, 52.0%) and older than 50 years (n = 835, 52.8%). Most procedures (n = 1261, 79.8%) were emergent, and laparotomies (n = 538, 34.1%). The mortality and pulmonary complication rates were 11.0 and 39.5%, respectively. Independent predictors of mortality included age ≥70 years (odds ratio 2.46, 95% confidence interval [1.65-3.69]), male sex (2.26 [1.53-3.35]), ASA grades 3-5 (3.08 [1.60-5.95]), emergent surgery (2.44 [1.31-4.54]), malignancy (2.97 [1.58-5.57]), respiratory comorbidities (2.08 [1.30-3.32]), and higher Revised Cardiac Risk Index (1.20 [1.02-1.41]). While statewide elective cancelation orders were not associated with a lower mortality, a sub-analysis showed it to be associated with lower mortality in those who underwent elective surgery (0.14 [0.03-0.61]). Conclusions: Patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection have a significantly high risk for postoperative complications, especially elderly males. Postponing elective surgery and adopting non-operative management, when reasonable, should be considered in the USA during the pandemic peaks

Y Machine learning risk prediction of mortality for patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2: the COVIDSurg mortality score

To support the global restart of elective surgery, data from an international prospective cohort study of 8492 patients (69 countries) was analysed using artificial intelligence (machine learning techniques) to develop a predictive score for mortality in surgical patients with SARS-CoV-2. We found that patient rather than operation factors were the best predictors and used these to create the COVIDsurg Mortality Score (https://covidsurgrisk.app). Our data demonstrates that it is safe to restart a wide range of surgical services for selected patients