CariesCare International adapted for the pandemic in children: Caries OUT multicentre single-group interventional study protocol

Background Comprehensive caries care has shown effectiveness in controlling caries progression and improving health outcomes by controlling caries risk, preventing initial-caries lesions progression, and patient satisfaction. To date, the caries-progression control effectiveness of the patient-centred risk-based CariesCare International (CCI) system, derived from ICCMS™ for the practice (2019), remains unproven. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic a previously planned multi-centre RCT shifted to this “Caries OUT” study, aiming to assess in a single-intervention group in children, the caries-control effectiveness of CCI adapted for the pandemic with non-aerosols generating procedures (non-AGP) and reducing in-office time. Methods In this 1-year multi-centre single-group interventional trial the adapted-CCI effectiveness will be assessed in one single group in terms of tooth-surface level caries progression control, and secondarily, individual-level caries progression control, children’s oral-health behaviour change, parents’ and dentists’ process acceptability, and costs exploration. A sample size of 258 3–5 and 6–8 years old patients was calculated after removing half from the previous RCT, allowing for a 25% dropout, including generally health children (27 per centre). The single-group intervention will be the adapted-CCI 4D-cycle caries care, with non-AGP and reduced in-office appointments’ time. A trained examiner per centre will conduct examinations at baseline, at 5–5.5 months (3 months after basic management), 8.5 and 12 months, assessing the child’s CCI caries risk and oral-health behaviour, visually staging and assessing caries-lesions severity and activity without air-drying (ICDAS-merged Epi); fillings/sealants; missing/dental-sepsis teeth, and tooth symptoms, synthetizing together with parent and external-trained dental practitioner (DP) the patient- and tooth-surface level diagnoses and personalised care plan. DP will deliver the adapted-CCI caries care. Parents’ and dentists’ process acceptability will be assessed via Treatment-Evaluation-Inventory questionnaires, and costs in terms of number of appointments and activities. Twenty-one centres in 13 countries will participate. Discussion The results of Caries OUT adapted for the pandemic will provide clinical data that could help support shifting the caries care in children towards individualised oral-health behaviour improvement and tooth-preserving care, improving health outcomes, and explore if the caries progression can be controlled during the pandemic by conducting non-AGP and reducing in-office time. Trial registration: Retrospectively-registered-ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT04666597-07/12/2020: https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S000AGM4&selectaction=Edit&uid=U00019IE&ts=2&cx=uwje3h. Protocol-version 2: 27/01/2021

The satisfaction of De La Salle University students of the customer service of window personnel

The satisfaction of 500 De La Salle University students towards the customer service rendered by the window personnel were gathered and measured. The sample population were taken through the use of incidental sampling. A 35-item customer service survey was constructed as an essential tool for data gathering. The weighted as whole and per category within each college were taken through the use of the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Comparison across variables were also obtained to find out which skills the students are satisfied with. Based on the results, there was significant difference in the level of satisfaction of the students with regard to the customer service rendered by the window personnel. The students were only satisfied with reliability and tangibles while unsatisfied with responsiveness, assurance and empathy. As a whole, the students were satisfied with the customer service they receive from the window personnel

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in stable cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=−4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events

Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licenseBackground: 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation: Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. Methods: A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Interpretation: Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research