Phenotypical, Clinical, and Molecular Aspects of Adults and Children With Homozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia in Iberoamerica

Fil: Alves, Ana Catarina. Instituto Nacional de Saúde Doutor Ricardo Jorge, Lisboa; Portugal.Fil: Alonso, Rodrigo. Center for Advanced Metabolic Medicine and Nutrition, Santiago; Chile.Fil: Diaz-Diaz, José Luís. Hospital Universitario A Coruña. Department of Internal Medicine; España.Fil: Medeiros, Ana Margarida. Instituto Nacional de Saúde Doutor Ricardo Jorge, Lisboa; Portugal.Fil: Jannes, Cinthia E. University of São Paulo. Medical School. Hospital São Paulo. Heart Institute (InCor); Brasil.Fil: Merchan, Alonso. Fundación Clinica SHAIO, Cardiología, Bogotá; Colombia.Fil: Vasques-Cardenas, Norma A. Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara. Facultad de Medicina Zapopan; México.Fil: Cuevas, Ada. Center for Advanced Metabolic Medicine and Nutrition, Santiago; Chile.Fil: Chacra, Ana Paula. University of São Paulo. Medical School. Hospital São Paulo. Heart Institute (InCor); Brasil.Fil: Krieger, Jose E. University of São Paulo. Medical School. Hospital São Paulo. Heart Institute (InCor); Brasil.Fil: Arroyo, Raquel. Fundación Hipercolesterolemia Familiar, Madrid; España.Fil: Arrieta, Francisco. Hospital Ramón y Cajal. Departamento de Endocrinología, Madrid; España.Fil: Schreier, Laura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica. Departamento de Bioquímica Clínica, Laboratorio de Lípidos y Aterosclerosis; Argentina.Fil: Corral, Pablo. Universidad FASTA. Facultad de Medicina. Cátedra Farmacología e Investigación, Mar del Plata; Argentina.Fil: Bañares, Virginia. ANLIS Dr.C.G.Malbrán. Centro Nacional de Genética Médica. Departamento de Genética Experimental; Argentina.Fil: Araujo, Maria B. Hospital Garrahan. Servicio de Nutrición; Argentina.Fil: Bustos, Paula. Universidad de Concepción. Facultad de Farmacia; Chile.Fil: Asenjo, Sylvia. Universidad de Concepción. Facultad de Medicina; Chile.Fil: Stoll, Mario. Programa GENYCO, Laboratorio de Genética Molecular. Comisión Honoraria de Salud Cardiovascular, Montevideo; Uruguay.Fil: Dell'Oca, Nicolás. Programa GENYCO, Laboratorio de Genética Molecular. Comisión Honoraria de Salud Cardiovascular, Montevideo; Uruguay.Fil: Reyes, Maria. Fundación Cardiovascular de Colombia. Cardiología; Bogotá.Fil: Ressia, Andrés. Fundación Cardiovascular de Colombia. Cardiología; Bogotá.Fil: Campo, Rafael. Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Centro de Investigación Biomédica del Occidente, Guadalajara; México.Fil: Magaña-Torres, Maria T. Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición. Unidad de Investigación de Enfermedades Metabólicas; México.Fil: Metha, Roopa. Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición. Unidad de Investigación de Enfermedades Metabólicas; México.Fil: Aguilar-Salinas, Carlos A. Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán. Departamento de Endocrinología y Metabolismo. Secretaría de la Defensa Nacional. Unidad de Especialidades Médicas. Servicio de Endocrinología; México.Fil: Ceballos-Macias, José J. Pontificia Universidad Javerina. Facultad de Medicina. Departamento de Medicina Interna, Bogotá; Colombia.Fil: Ruiz Morales, Álvaro J. Pontificia Universidad Javerina. Facultad de Medicina. Departamento de Medicina Interna, Bogotá; Colombia.Fil: Mata, Pedro. Fundación Hipercolesterolemia Familiar, Madrid; España.Fil: Bourbon, Mafalda. Instituto Nacional de Saúde Doutor Ricardo Jorge, Lisboa; Portugal.Fil: Santos, Raul D. University of São Paulo. Medical School. Hospital São Paulo. Heart Institute (InCor); Brasil.OBJECTIVE: Characterize homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) individuals from Iberoamerica. APPROACH AND RESULTS: In a cross-sectional retrospective evaluation 134 individuals with a HoFH phenotype, 71 adults (age 39.3±15.8 years, 38.0% males), and 63 children (age 8.8±4.0 years, 50.8% males) were studied. Genetic characterization was available in 129 (96%). The majority (91%) were true homozygotes (true HoFH, n=79, 43.0% children, 46.8% males) or compound heterozygotes (compound heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, n=39, 51.3% children, 46.2% males) with putative pathogenic variants in the LDLR. True HoFH due to LDLR variants had higher total (P=0.015) and LDL (low-density lipoprotein)-cholesterol (P=0.008) compared with compound heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Children with true HoFH (n=34) tended to be diagnosed earlier (P=0.051) and had a greater frequency of xanthomas (P=0.016) than those with compound heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (n=20). Previous major cardiovascular events were present in 25 (48%) of 52 children (missing information in 2 cases), and in 43 (67%) of 64 adults with LDLR variants. Children who are true HoFH had higher frequency of major cardiovascular events (P=0.02), coronary heart (P=0.013), and aortic/supra-aortic valve diseases (P=0.022) than compound heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. In adults, no differences were observed in major cardiovascular events according to type of LDLR variant. From 118 subjects with LDLR variants, 76 (64%) had 2 likely pathogenic or pathogenic variants. In 89 subjects with 2 LDLR variants, those with at least one null allele were younger (P=0.003) and had a greater frequency of major cardiovascular events (P=0.038) occurring at an earlier age (P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There was a high frequency of cardiovascular disease even in children. Phenotype and cardiovascular complications were heterogeneous and associated with the type of molecular defect

Intraperitoneal drain placement and outcomes after elective colorectal surgery: international matched, prospective, cohort study

Despite current guidelines, intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery remains widespread. Drains were not associated with earlier detection of intraperitoneal collections, but were associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased risk of surgical-site infections.Background Many surgeons routinely place intraperitoneal drains after elective colorectal surgery. However, enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines recommend against their routine use owing to a lack of clear clinical benefit. This study aimed to describe international variation in intraperitoneal drain placement and the safety of this practice. Methods COMPASS (COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery) was a prospective, international, cohort study which enrolled consecutive adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery (February to 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 grade at least III). After propensity score matching, multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to estimate the independent association of the secondary outcomes with drain placement. Results Overall, 1805 patients from 22 countries were included (798 women, 44.2 per cent; median age 67.0 years). The drain insertion rate was 51.9 per cent (937 patients). After matching, drains were not associated with reduced rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. 0.79 to 2.23; P = 0.287) or earlier detection (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 0.33 to 2.31; P = 0.780) of collections. Although not associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR 1.09, 0.68 to 1.75; P = 0.709), drains were associated with delayed hospital discharge (HR 0.58, 0.52 to 0.66; P < 0.001) and an increased risk of SSIs (OR 2.47, 1.50 to 4.05; P < 0.001). Conclusion Intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery is not associated with earlier detection of postoperative collections, but prolongs hospital stay and increases SSI risk

Outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p<0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p<0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p<0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery

Development and external validation of a post-discharge bleeding risk score in patients with acute coronary syndrome: The BleeMACS score

Background: Accurate 1-year bleeding risk estimation after hospital discharge for acute coronary syndrome(ACS) may help clinicians guide the type and duration of antithrombotic therapy. Currently there are no predictive models for this purpose. The aim of this study was to derive and validate a simple clinical tool for bedside risk estimation of 1-year post-discharge serious bleeding in ACS patients. Methods: The risk score was derived and internally validated in the BleeMACS (Bleeding complications in a Multicenter registry of patients discharged with diagnosis of Acute Coronary Syndrome) registry, an observational international registry involving 15,401 patients surviving admission for ACS and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from 2003 to 2014, engaging 15 hospitals from 10 countries located in America, Europe and Asia. External validation was conducted in the SWEDEHEART population, with 96,239 ACS patients underwent PCI and 93,150 without PCI. Results: Seven independent predictors of bleeding were identified and included in the BleeMACS score: age, hypertension, vascular disease, history of bleeding, malignancy, creatinine and hemoglobin. The BleeMACS risk score exhibited a C-statistic value of 0.71 (95% CI 0.68-0.74) in the derivation cohort and 0.72 (95% CI 0.67-0.76) in the internal validation sample. In the SWEDEHEART external validation cohort, the C-statistic was 0.65 (95% CI 0.64-0.66) for PCI patients and 0.63 (95% CI 0.62-0.64) for non-PCI patients. The calibration was excellent in the derivation and validation cohorts. Conclusions: The BleeMACS bleeding risk score is a simple tool useful for identifying those ACS patients at higher risk of serious 1-year post-discharge bleeding. (c) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserve

An international assessment of the adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) principles across colorectal units in 2019–2020

AimThe Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guidelines aim to standardize perioperative care in colorectal surgery via 25 principles. We aimed to assess the variation in uptake of these principles across an international network of colorectal units.MethodAn online survey was circulated amongst European Society of Coloproctology members in 2019–2020. For each ERAS principle, respondents were asked to score how frequently the principle was implemented in their hospital, from 1 (‘rarely’) to 4 (‘always’). Respondents were also asked to recall whether practice had changed since 2017. Subgroup analyses based on hospital characteristics were conducted.ResultsOf hospitals approached, 58% responded to the survey (195/335), with 296 individual responses (multiple responses were received from some hospitals). The majority were European (163/195, 83.6%). Overall, respondents indicated they ‘most often’ or ‘always’ adhered to most individual ERAS principles (18/25, 72%). Variability in the uptake of principles was reported, with universal uptake of some principles (e.g., prophylactic antibiotics; early mobilization) and inconsistency from ‘rarely’ to ‘always’ in others (e.g., no nasogastric intubation; no preoperative fasting and carbohydrate drinks). In alignment with 2018 ERAS guideline updates, adherence to principles for prehabilitation, managing anaemia and postoperative nutrition appears to have increased since 2017.ConclusionsUptake of ERAS principles varied across hospitals, and not all 25 principles were equally adhered to. Whilst some principles exhibited a high level of acceptance, others had a wide variability in uptake indicative of controversy or barriers to uptake. Further research into specific principles is required to improve ERAS implementation.AimThe Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guidelines aim to standardize perioperative care in colorectal surgery via 25 principles. We aimed to assess the variation in uptake of these principles across an international network of colorectal units.MethodAn online survey was circulated amongst European Society of Coloproctology members in 2019–2020. For each ERAS principle, respondents were asked to score how frequently the principle was implemented in their hospital, from 1 (‘rarely’) to 4 (‘always’). Respondents were also asked to recall whether practice had changed since 2017. Subgroup analyses based on hospital characteristics were conducted.ResultsOf hospitals approached, 58% responded to the survey (195/335), with 296 individual responses (multiple responses were received from some hospitals). The majority were European (163/195, 83.6%). Overall, respondents indicated they ‘most often’ or ‘always’ adhered to most individual ERAS principles (18/25, 72%). Variability in the uptake of principles was reported, with universal uptake of some principles (e.g., prophylactic antibiotics; early mobilization) and inconsistency from ‘rarely’ to ‘always’ in others (e.g., no nasogastric intubation; no preoperative fasting and carbohydrate drinks). In alignment with 2018 ERAS guideline updates, adherence to principles for prehabilitation, managing anaemia and postoperative nutrition appears to have increased since 2017.ConclusionsUptake of ERAS principles varied across hospitals, and not all 25 principles were equally adhered to. Whilst some principles exhibited a high level of acceptance, others had a wide variability in uptake indicative of controversy or barriers to uptake. Further research into specific principles is required to improve ERAS implementation.A