Pooled analysis of WHO Surgical Safety Checklist use and mortality after emergency laparotomy

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist has fostered safe practice for 10 years, yet its place in emergency surgery has not been assessed on a global scale. The aim of this study was to evaluate reported checklist use in emergency settings and examine the relationship with perioperative mortality in patients who had emergency laparotomy. Methods In two multinational cohort studies, adults undergoing emergency laparotomy were compared with those having elective gastrointestinal surgery. Relationships between reported checklist use and mortality were determined using multivariable logistic regression and bootstrapped simulation. Results Of 12 296 patients included from 76 countries, 4843 underwent emergency laparotomy. After adjusting for patient and disease factors, checklist use before emergency laparotomy was more common in countries with a high Human Development Index (HDI) (2455 of 2741, 89.6 per cent) compared with that in countries with a middle (753 of 1242, 60.6 per cent; odds ratio (OR) 0.17, 95 per cent c.i. 0.14 to 0.21, P <0001) or low (363 of 860, 422 per cent; OR 008, 007 to 010, P <0.001) HDI. Checklist use was less common in elective surgery than for emergency laparotomy in high-HDI countries (risk difference -94 (95 per cent c.i. -11.9 to -6.9) per cent; P <0001), but the relationship was reversed in low-HDI countries (+121 (+7.0 to +173) per cent; P <0001). In multivariable models, checklist use was associated with a lower 30-day perioperative mortality (OR 0.60, 0.50 to 073; P <0.001). The greatest absolute benefit was seen for emergency surgery in low- and middle-HDI countries. Conclusion Checklist use in emergency laparotomy was associated with a significantly lower perioperative mortality rate. Checklist use in low-HDI countries was half that in high-HDI countries.Peer reviewe

Global variation in anastomosis and end colostomy formation following left-sided colorectal resection

Background End colostomy rates following colorectal resection vary across institutions in high-income settings, being influenced by patient, disease, surgeon and system factors. This study aimed to assess global variation in end colostomy rates after left-sided colorectal resection. Methods This study comprised an analysis of GlobalSurg-1 and -2 international, prospective, observational cohort studies (2014, 2016), including consecutive adult patients undergoing elective or emergency left-sided colorectal resection within discrete 2-week windows. Countries were grouped into high-, middle- and low-income tertiles according to the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI). Factors associated with colostomy formation versus primary anastomosis were explored using a multilevel, multivariable logistic regression model. Results In total, 1635 patients from 242 hospitals in 57 countries undergoing left-sided colorectal resection were included: 113 (6·9 per cent) from low-HDI, 254 (15·5 per cent) from middle-HDI and 1268 (77·6 per cent) from high-HDI countries. There was a higher proportion of patients with perforated disease (57·5, 40·9 and 35·4 per cent; P < 0·001) and subsequent use of end colostomy (52·2, 24·8 and 18·9 per cent; P < 0·001) in low- compared with middle- and high-HDI settings. The association with colostomy use in low-HDI settings persisted (odds ratio (OR) 3·20, 95 per cent c.i. 1·35 to 7·57; P = 0·008) after risk adjustment for malignant disease (OR 2·34, 1·65 to 3·32; P < 0·001), emergency surgery (OR 4·08, 2·73 to 6·10; P < 0·001), time to operation at least 48 h (OR 1·99, 1·28 to 3·09; P = 0·002) and disease perforation (OR 4·00, 2·81 to 5·69; P < 0·001). Conclusion Global differences existed in the proportion of patients receiving end stomas after left-sided colorectal resection based on income, which went beyond case mix alone

Biological Control of Postharvest Diseases by Microbial Antagonists

The postharvest phase has been considered a very suitable environment for successful application of biological control agents (BCAs), since the first work on the biological control of brown rot disease of stone fruit was reported by Pusey and Wilson [1]. Sure enough, the conditions of constant temperature and high humidity seem to offer more chances to BCAs, increasing their antifungal activity [2]. BCAs are living organisms and act following different antagonistic strategies depending on pathogens, host and environment. Knowledge of their modes of action is therefore essential to enhance their viability and increase their potentiality in disease control. In general, antagonists used for biocontrol of postharvest diseases are yeasts and bacteria, and to a lesser extent fungi, and they have been widely reviewed [3\u20137]. Antagonists can display a wide range of modes of action, at different stages of their activity, relating to different hosts, pathogens; sometimes-different modes act simultaneously, and it is therefore difficult to establish which individual mechanism has contributed to a specific antifungal action. Considerable information is available with respect to their efficacy, their application under storage conditions, and their mixture with safe substances or according to the formulation. However, the mechanisms by which BCAs exert their activity against pathogens have not yet been fully elucidated [5] and sometimes, in order to achieve maximum effectiveness in postharvest phase, were combined with physical and chemical methods including heat treatments, gamma or UV-C irradiation, and controlled atmosphere (CA). The bottleneck of the biocontrol matter remains the BCAs formulation often done in association with private companies, due to the high costs of production and the regulatory barriers to BCAs registration in different countries that often do not encourage their dissemination. Also, a formulation often could reduce the activity of antagonists with respect to the fresh cells [2]

Biological Control of Postharvest Diseases by Microbial Antagonists

The postharvest phase has been considered a very suitable environment for successful application of biological control agents (BCAs), since the first work on the biological control of brown rot disease of stone fruit was reported by Pusey and Wilson [1]. Sure enough, the conditions of constant temperature and high humidity seem to offer more chances to BCAs, increasing their antifungal activity [2]. BCAs are living organisms and act following different antagonistic strategies depending on pathogens, host and environment. Knowledge of their modes of action is therefore essential to enhance their viability and increase their potentiality in disease control. In general, antagonists used for biocontrol of postharvest diseases are yeasts and bacteria, and to a lesser extent fungi, and they have been widely reviewed [3–7]. Antagonists can display a wide range of modes of action, at different stages of their activity, relating to different hosts, pathogens; sometimes-different modes act simultaneously, and it is therefore difficult to establish which individual mechanism has contributed to a specific antifungal action. Considerable information is available with respect to their efficacy, their application under storage conditions, and their mixture with safe substances or according to the formulation. However, the mechanisms by which BCAs exert their activity against pathogens have not yet been fully elucidated [5] and sometimes, in order to achieve maximum effectiveness in postharvest phase, were combined with physical and chemical methods including heat treatments, gamma or UV-C irradiation, and controlled atmosphere (CA). The bottleneck of the biocontrol matter remains the BCAs formulation often done in association with private companies, due to the high costs of production and the regulatory barriers to BCAs registration in different countries that often do not encourage their dissemination. Also, a formulation often could reduce the activity of antagonists with respect to the fresh cells [2]

Drying of Exotic Tropical Fruits: A Comprehensive Review

10.1007/s11947-010-0323-7Food and Bioprocess Technology42163-18