COVID-19 infection is a significant risk factor for death in patients presenting with acute cholecystitis: a secondary analysis of the ChoCO-W cohort study

Background: During the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, there has been a surge in cases of acute cholecystitis. The ChoCO-W global prospective study reported a higher incidence of gangrenous cholecystitis and adverse outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Through this secondary analysis of the ChoCO-W study data, we aim to identify significant risk factors for mortality in patients with acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing the role of COVID-19 infection in patient outcomes and treatment efficacy.” Methods: The ChoCO-W global prospective study reported data from 2546 patients collected at 218 centers from 42 countries admitted with acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic, from October 1, 2020, to October 31, 2021. Sixty-four of them died. Nonparametric statistical univariate analysis was performed to compare patients who died and patients who survived. Significant factors were then entered into a logistic regression model to define factors predicting mortality. Results: The significant independent factors that predicted death in the logistic regression model with were COVID-19 infection (p < 0.001), postoperative complications (p < 0.001), and type (open/laparoscopic) of surgical intervention (p = 0.003). The odds of death increased 5 times with the COVID-19 infection, 6 times in the presence of complications, and it was reduced by 86% with adequate source control. Survivors predominantly underwent urgent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (52.3% vs. 23.4%). Conclusions: COVID-19 was an independent risk factor for death in patients with acute cholecystitis. Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy has emerged as the cornerstone of treatment for hemodynamically stable patients

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

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

untitled

The importance of malnutrition in elderly hip fracture patients has long been recognised. All patients operated upon for a hip fracture over a five-year period were assessed according to two nutritional markers : a) serum albumin levels and b) peripheral blood total lymphocyte count. Patients were subdivided into groups according to the four possible combinations of these results. Outcomes according to four clinical outcome parameters were validated : a) waiting time to operation b) length of hospitalisation, c) in-hospital mortality, and d) one-year postoperative mortality. Significant differences were found between malnourished patients and those with normal laboratory values with regard to surgical delay and one year postoperative mortality. Malnourished patients were also more likely to be hospitalised longer than a month and to die during their hospital stay, but the difference was not significant. The combination of serum albumin level and total lymphocyte count can be used as an independent prognostic factor in hip fracture patients