A risk-adjusted and anatomically stratified cohort comparison study of open surgery, endovascular techniques and medical management for juxtarenal aortic aneurysms-the UK COMPlex AneurySm Study (UK-COMPASS): a study protocol.

Funder: Health Technology Assessment Programme; Grant(s): Award ID: 15/153/02INTRODUCTION: In one-third of all abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), the aneurysm neck is short (juxtarenal) or shows other adverse anatomical features rendering operations more complex, hazardous and expensive. Surgical options include open surgical repair and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) techniques including fenestrated EVAR, EVAR with adjuncts (chimneys/endoanchors) and off-label standard EVAR. The aim of the UK COMPlex AneurySm Study (UK-COMPASS) is to answer the research question identified by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme: 'What is the clinical and cost-effectiveness of strategies for the management of juxtarenal AAA, including fenestrated endovascular repair?' METHODS AND ANALYSIS: UK-COMPASS is a cohort study comparing clinical and cost-effectiveness of different strategies used to manage complex AAAs with stratification of physiological fitness and anatomical complexity, with statistical correction for baseline risk and indication biases. There are two data streams. First, a stream of routinely collected data from Hospital Episode Statistics and National Vascular Registry (NVR). Preoperative CT scans of all patients who underwent elective AAA repair in England between 1 November 2017 and 31 October 2019 are subjected to Corelab analysis to accurately identify and include every complex aneurysm treated. Second, a site-reported data stream regarding quality of life and treatment costs from prospectively recruited patients across England. Site recruitment also includes patients with complex aneurysms larger than 55 mm diameter in whom an operation is deferred (medical management). The primary outcome measure is perioperative all-cause mortality. Follow-up will be to a median of 5 years. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received full regulatory approvals from a Research Ethics Committee, the Confidentiality Advisory Group and the Health Research Authority. Data sharing agreements are in place with National Health Service Digital and the NVR. Dissemination will be via NIHR HTA reporting, peer-reviewed journals and conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN85731188

Safety and efficacy of intraperitoneal drain placement after emergency colorectal surgery:An international, prospective cohort study

AIM: Intraperitoneal drains are often placed during emergency colorectal surgery. However, there is a lack of evidence supporting their use. This study aimed to describe the efficacy and safety of intraperitoneal drain placement after emergency colorectal surgery.METHOD: COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery (COMPASS) is a prospective, international, cohort study into which consecutive adult patients undergoing emergency colorectal surgery were enrolled (from 3 February 2020 to 8 March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included rate and time-to-diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections, rate of surgical site infections (SSIs), time to discharge and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo III-V). Multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to estimate the independent association of the outcomes with drain placement.RESULTS: Some 725 patients (median age 68.0 years; 349 [48.1%] women) from 22 countries were included. The drain insertion rate was 53.7% (389 patients). Following multivariable adjustment, drains were not significantly associated with reduced rates (odds ratio [OR] = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.48-5.02, p = 0.457) or earlier detection (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.61-1.90, p = 0.805) of collections. Drains were not significantly associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 0.67-2.36, p = 0.478), delayed hospital discharge (HR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.91-1.36, p = 0.303) or increased risk of SSIs (OR = 1.61, 95% CI: 0.87-2.99, p = 0.128).CONCLUSION: This is the first study investigating placement of intraperitoneal drains following emergency colorectal surgery. The safety and clinical benefit of drains remain uncertain. Equipoise exists for randomized trials to define the safety and efficacy of drains in emergency colorectal surgery.</p

A webinar series to educate applicants about the UK academic foundation programme: a longitudinal cross-sectional study

Abstract Background The UK academic foundation programme (AFP) is a competitive programme for medical graduates and forms the initial stage of the integrated clinical academic pathway. The application is complex and targeted education is beneficial. As online technologies improve, virtual medical education is becoming more common. Currently, webinar education, particularly that of webinar series, are poorly evidenced. An online course was created to investigate the acceptability and effectiveness of webinars for medical education. Methods A six-part, one-hour sessional webinar course was developed following a focus group with academic foundation doctors. A pre- and post-course cross-sectional questionnaire study evaluated participant demographics, webinar opinion and self-rated understanding of the AFP via Google Form (Google, USA). Where applicable a five-point Likert scale (1-Strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree) was utilised and analysis using non-parametric paired statistical analysis. Results Medical students (n=303) from 35 UK universities completed the pre-course questionnaire. Most students had not received targeted education on the AFP. They rated webinars useful for education (mean=4.2 s.d. 0.7). After the course, participants (n=66) expressed it was significantly convenient (mean=4.7), effective (mean=4.7) and suitably interactive (mean=4.4) (p<0.001 compared to neutral). Participants preferred short sessions over multiple days to the concept of a full-day event (mean=4.6 vs 3.1, p<0.001). Paired analysis of participants completing both forms (n=47) demonstrates a significant increase in self-rated understanding of AFP content, portfolio building, application process, acute clinical scenarios, interview technique and overall confidence in acquiring an AFP post (p<0.001). Follow-up identified 43 participants who completed the course were successful in their AFP application. This represents 7.8% of all successful AFP applicants in 2021. Conclusions This study evidences an accessible and effective webinar series for AFP education. Comprehensive webinar courses for similar topics and demographics may provide valuable utility in the provision of future medical education. Trial registration Ethics requirements were waived for this study by Bristol University Ethics Committee. All participants in this study consented for anonymous use of their data. As such the trial is not registered