Predictive Power of the "Trigger Tool" for the detection of adverse events in general surgery: a multicenter observational validation study

Background In spite of the global implementation of standardized surgical safety checklists and evidence-based practices, general surgery remains associated with a high residual risk of preventable perioperative complications and adverse events. This study was designed to validate the hypothesis that a new “Trigger Tool” represents a sensitive predictor of adverse events in general surgery. Methods An observational multicenter validation study was performed among 31 hospitals in Spain. The previously described “Trigger Tool” based on 40 specific triggers was applied to validate the predictive power of predicting adverse events in the perioperative care of surgical patients. A prediction model was used by means of a binary logistic regression analysis. Results The prevalence of adverse events among a total of 1,132 surgical cases included in this study was 31.53%. The “Trigger Tool” had a sensitivity and specificity of 86.27% and 79.55% respectively for predicting these adverse events. A total of 12 selected triggers of overall 40 triggers were identified for optimizing the predictive power of the “Trigger Tool”. Conclusions The “Trigger Tool” has a high predictive capacity for predicting adverse events in surgical procedures. We recommend a revision of the original 40 triggers to 12 selected triggers to optimize the predictive power of this tool, which will have to be validated in future studies

Programa de Animación a la lectura (PAL)

Este material del Programa de Animación a la Lectura, aborda los siguientes aspectos: I. Propuestas Didácticas de animación a la lectura. II. Para Pensar. III. Libros Recomendados. IV. Experiencias didácticas. V. Actividades del Programa de Animación a la Lectura y VI. Banco de Recursos (Recursos que posibiliten la animación a la lectura).CanariasES

Plasma C24:0- and C26:0-lysophosphatidylcholines are reliable biomarkers for the diagnosis of peroxisomal β-oxidation disorders

The gold-standard diagnostic test for peroxisomal disorders (PDs) is plasma concentration analysis of very long-chain fatty acids (VLCFAs). However, this method’s time-consuming nature and limitations in cases which present normal VLCFA levels necessitates alternative approaches. The analysis of C26:0-lysophosphatydylcholine (C26:0-LPC) in dried blood spot samples by tandem-mass spectrometry (MS/MS) has successfully been implemented in certain newborn screening programs to diagnose X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD). However, the diagnostic potential of very long-chain LPCs concentrations in plasma remains poorly understood. This study sought to evaluate the diagnostic performance of C26:0-LPC and other very long-chain LPCs, comparing them to VLCFA analysis in plasma. The study, which included 330 individuals affected by a peroxisomal β-oxidation deficiency and 407 control individuals, revealed that C26:0- and C24:0-LPC concentrations demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy (98.8% and 98.4%, respectively), outperforming VLCFA when C26:0/C22:0 and C24:0/C22:0 ratios were combined (98.1%). Combining C24:0- and C26:0-LPC gave the highest sensitivity (99.7%), with ALD females exhibiting notably higher sensitivity compared with the VLCFA ratio combination (98.7% vs. 93.5%, respectively). In contrast, C22:0-LPC exhibited suboptimal performance, primarily due to its low sensitivity (75%), but we identified a potential use to help distinguish between ALD and Zellweger spectrum disorders. In summary, MS/MS analysis of plasma C24:0- and C26:0-LPC concentrations represents a rapid and straightforward approach to diagnose PDs, demonstrating superior diagnostic accuracy, particularly in ALD females, compared with conventional VLCFA biomarkers. We strongly recommend integrating very-long chain LPC plasma analysis in the diagnostic evaluation of individuals suspected of having a PD

Study protocol for a randomized clinical trial to assess 7 versus 14-days of treatment for Pseudomonas aeruginosa bloodstream infections (SHORTEN-2 trial)

Background Research priorities in Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) have rapidly evolved in the last decade. The need for a more efficient use of antimicrobials have fueled plenty of studies to define the optimal duration for antibiotic treatments, and yet, there still are large areas of uncertainty in common clinical scenarios. Pseudomonas aeruginosa has been pointed as a priority for clinical research, but it has been unattended by most randomized trials tackling the effectiveness of short treatments. The study protocol of the SHORTEN-2 trial is presented as a practical example of new ways to approach common obstacles for clinical research in AMS. Objective To determine whether a 7-day course of antibiotics is superior to 14-day schemes for treating bloodstream infections by P. aeruginosa (BSI-PA). Methods A superiority, open-label, randomized controlled trial will be performed across 30 Spanish hospitals. Adult patients with uncomplicated BSI-PA will be randomized to receive a 7 versus 14-day course of any active antibiotic. The primary endpoint will be the probability for the 7-day group of achieving better outcomes than the control group, assessing altogether clinical effectiveness, severe adverse events, and antibiotic exposure through a DOOR/RADAR analysis. Main secondary endpoints include treatment failure, BSI-PA relapses, and mortality. A superiority design was set for the primary endpoint and non-inferiority for treatment failure, resulting in a sample size of 304 patients. Conclusions SHORTEN-2 trial aligns with some of the priorities for clinical research in AMS. The implementation of several methodological innovations allowed overcoming common obstacles, like feasible sample sizes or measuring the clinical impact and unintended effects

Evaluation of a quality improvement intervention to reduce anastomotic leak following right colectomy (EAGLE): pragmatic, batched stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial in 64 countries

Background Anastomotic leak affects 8 per cent of patients after right colectomy with a 10-fold increased risk of postoperative death. The EAGLE study aimed to develop and test whether an international, standardized quality improvement intervention could reduce anastomotic leaks. Methods The internationally intended protocol, iteratively co-developed by a multistage Delphi process, comprised an online educational module introducing risk stratification, an intraoperative checklist, and harmonized surgical techniques. Clusters (hospital teams) were randomized to one of three arms with varied sequences of intervention/data collection by a derived stepped-wedge batch design (at least 18 hospital teams per batch). Patients were blinded to the study allocation. Low- and middle-income country enrolment was encouraged. The primary outcome (assessed by intention to treat) was anastomotic leak rate, and subgroup analyses by module completion (at least 80 per cent of surgeons, high engagement; less than 50 per cent, low engagement) were preplanned. Results A total 355 hospital teams registered, with 332 from 64 countries (39.2 per cent low and middle income) included in the final analysis. The online modules were completed by half of the surgeons (2143 of 4411). The primary analysis included 3039 of the 3268 patients recruited (206 patients had no anastomosis and 23 were lost to follow-up), with anastomotic leaks arising before and after the intervention in 10.1 and 9.6 per cent respectively (adjusted OR 0.87, 95 per cent c.i. 0.59 to 1.30; P = 0.498). The proportion of surgeons completing the educational modules was an influence: the leak rate decreased from 12.2 per cent (61 of 500) before intervention to 5.1 per cent (24 of 473) after intervention in high-engagement centres (adjusted OR 0.36, 0.20 to 0.64; P < 0.001), but this was not observed in low-engagement hospitals (8.3 per cent (59 of 714) and 13.8 per cent (61 of 443) respectively; adjusted OR 2.09, 1.31 to 3.31). Conclusion Completion of globally available digital training by engaged teams can alter anastomotic leak rates. Registration number: NCT04270721 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)