Clinical utility and diagnostic accuracy of faecal calprotectin for IBD at first presentation to gastroenterology services in adults aged 16–50 years

BACKGROUND: Distinguishing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from functional gastrointestinal (GI) disease remains an important issue for gastroenterologists and primary care physicians, and may be difficult on the basis of symptoms alone. Faecal calprotectin (FC) is a surrogate marker for intestinal inflammation but not cancer. AIM: This large retrospective study aimed to determine the most effective use of FC in patients aged 16–50 presenting with GI symptoms. METHODS: FC results were obtained for patients presenting to the GI clinics in Edinburgh between 2005 and 2009 from the Edinburgh Faecal Calprotectin Registry containing FCs from >16,000 patients. Case notes were interrogated to identify demographics, subsequent investigations and diagnoses. RESULTS: 895 patients were included in the main analysis, 65% female and with a median age of 33 years. 10.2% were diagnosed with IBD, 7.3% with another GI condition associated with an abnormal GI tract and 63.2% had functional GI disease. Median FC in these three groups were 1251, 50 and 20 μg/g (p < 0.0001). On ROC analysis, the AUC for FC as a predictor of IBD vs. functional disease was 0.97. Using a threshold of ≥ 50 μg/g for IBD vs. functional disease yielded a sensitivity of 0.97, specificity of 0.74, positive predictive value of 0.37 and negative predictive value of 0.99. Combined with alarm symptoms, the sensitivity was 1.00. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of FC in the initial diagnostic workup of young patients with GI symptoms, particularly those without alarm symptoms, is highly accurate in the exclusion of IBD, and can provide reassurance to patients and physicians

Predictors of adverse events and early mortality after esophageal stent placement in a low resource setting: a series of 3823 patients in Kenya

Abstract Background and study aims Dysphagia from esophageal cancer may be palliated with self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS). Controversy exists about the use of dilation before SEMS deployment. Patients and methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who had SEMS placement without fluoroscopy for palliation at Tenwek Hospital in Bomet, Kenya between January 1999 and April 2019. The primary outcome was any serious adverse event (AE) (chest pain, stent migration, perforation, bleeding, or all-cause mortality) within 30 days of the procedure. Various demographic and clinical characteristics, and procedural details, were examined as risk factors. Technical success, defined as correct SEMS placement, and clinical success, defined as dysphagia score improvement without 30-day mortality, were examined. Results A total of 3823 patients underwent SEMS placement, with 2844 (74.4 %) placed in the second decade of the study. Technical and clinical success were achieved in 97.2 % and 95.5 %, respectively, with mean dysphagia scores improving from 3.4 (SD 0.6) to 0.9 (SD 1.3) post-stent placement. AEs occurred in 169 patients (4.4 %). AEs, specifically perforations, were associated with dilation to greater than 36F in the first decade. Perforation rates decreased from the first (4.1 %) to the second decade (0.2 %). Only 30% had complete 30-day follow-up data. Conclusions SEMS placement is a safe, effective method of palliating malignant dysphagia, with low rates of AEs and 30-day mortality and high rates of clinical and technical success. Dilation can facilitate placement of SEMS without fluoroscopy but should not be performed above 36F due to the risk of perforation.</jats:p

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