Citations

Abstract Background Infective endocarditis (IE) secondary to Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) has high morbidity and mortality. The systematic use of echocardiography in SAB is controversial. We aimed to validate VIRSTA and Predicting Risk of Endocarditis Using a Clinical Tool (PREDICT) scores for predicting the risk of IE in Colombian patients with SAB and, consequently, to determine the need for echocardiography. Methods Cohort of patients hospitalized with SAB in 2 high complexity institutions in Medellin, Colombia, between 2012 and 2018. The diagnosis of IE was established based on the modified Duke criteria. The VIRSTA and PREDICT scores were calculated from the clinical records, and their operational performance was calculated. Results The final analysis included 922 patients, 62 (6.7%) of whom were diagnosed with IE. The frequency of IE in patients with a negative VIRSTA scale was 0.44% (2/454). The frequency of IE in patients with a negative PREDICT scale on day 5 was 4.8% (30/622). The sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) of the VIRSTA scale was 96.7% and 99.5%, respectively. For the PREDICT scale on day 5, the sensitivity and NPV were 51.6% and 95.1%, respectively. The discrimination, given by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, was 0.86 for VIRSTA and 0.64 for PREDICT. Conclusions In patients with negative VIRSTA, screening echocardiography may be unnecessary because of the low frequency of IE. In PREDICT-negative patients, despite the low frequency of IE, it is not safe to omit echocardiography.

AbstractBackgroundWhile parenchymal hepatic metastases were previously considered a contraindication to cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), liver resection (LR) is increasingly performed with CRS/HIPEC.MethodsPatients from the US HIPEC Collaborative (2000–2017) with invasive appendiceal or colorectal adenocarcinoma undergoing primary, curative intent CRS/HIPEC with CC0‐1 resection were included. LR was defined as a formal parenchymal resection. Primary endpoints were postoperative complications and overall survival (OS).ResultsA total of 658 patients were included. About 83 (15%) underwent LR of colorectal (58%) or invasive appendiceal (42%) metastases. LR patients had more complications (81% vs. 60%; p = .001), greater number of complications (2.3 vs. 1.5; p < .001) per patient and required more reoperations (22% vs. 11%; p = .007) and readmissions (39% vs. 25%; p = .014) than non‐LR patients. LR patients had decreased OS (2‐year OS 62% vs. 79%, p < .001), even when accounting for peritoneal carcinomatosis index and histology type. Preoperative factors associated with decreased OS on multivariable analysis in LR patients included age < 60 years (HR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.10–11.81), colorectal histology (HR, 3.84; 95% CI, 1.69–12.65), and multiple liver tumors (HR, 3.45; 95% CI, 1.21–9.85) (all p < .05). When assigning one point for each factor, there was an incremental decrease in 2‐year survival as the risk score increased from 0 to 3 (0: 100%; 1: 91%; 2: 58%; 3: 0%).ConclusionsAs CRS/HIPEC + LR has become more common, we created a simple risk score to stratify patients considered for CRS/HIPEC + LR. These data aid in striking the balance between an increased perioperative complication profile with the potential for improvement in OS.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on provision of endoscopy services globally as staff and real estate were repurposed. As we begin to recover from the pandemic, a cohesive international approach is needed, and guidance on how to resume endoscopy services safely to avoid unintended harm from diagnostic delays. The aim of these guidelines is to provide consensus recommendations that clinicians can use to facilitate the swift and safe resumption of endoscopy services. An evidence-based literature review was carried out on the various strategies used globally to manage endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic and control infection. A modified Delphi process involving international endoscopy experts was used to agree on the consensus statements. A threshold of 80% agreement was used to establish consensus for each statement. 27 of 30 statements achieved consensus after two rounds of voting by 34 experts. The statements were categorised as pre-endoscopy, during endoscopy and postendoscopy addressing relevant areas of practice, such as screening, personal protective equipment, appropriate environments for endoscopy and infection control precautions, particularly in areas of high disease prevalence. Recommendations for testing of patients and for healthcare workers, appropriate locations of donning and doffing areas and social distancing measures before endoscopy are unique and not dealt with by any other guidelines. This international consensus using a modified Delphi method to produce a series of best practice recommendations to aid the safe resumption of endoscopy services globally in the era of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Patients with IBD are at increased risk for developing colorectal cancer. However, overall survival and disease-free survival for rectal cancer alone in patients with IBD has not been reported. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine overall survival and disease-free survival for patients with rectal cancer in IBD versus non-IBD cohorts. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: This study was conducted at an IBD referral center. PATIENTS: All consecutive adult patients with IBD diagnosed with rectal cancer and at least 1 year of postsurgery follow-up were included and matched in a 1:2 fashion (age, sex, preoperative stage) with patients with rectal cancer who did not have IBD. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Five-year overall survival and disease-free survival, 30-day postoperative complication, readmission, reoperation, and mortality rates were measured. METHODS: Survival rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates. The association of risk factors and long-term outcomes was assessed using Cox proportion hazard models. RESULTS: A total of 107 study patients with IBD who had rectal cancer were matched to 215 control patients; preoperative stages were as follows: 31% with stage I, 19% with stage II, 40% with stage III, and 10% with stage IV. Differences were observed (IBD vs non-IBD) in neoadjuvant chemotherapy (33.6% vs 52.6%, p = 0.001) and preoperative radiotherapy (35.5% vs 53.5%, p = 0.003). Postoperative complication rates were similar. On surgical pathology, patients with IBD had more lymphovascular invasion (12.9% vs 5.6%, p = 0.04) and positive circumferential resection margins (5.4% vs 0.9%, p = 0.03). On multivariable analysis, the diagnosis of IBD did not significantly impact long-term mortality (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.53–1.57; p = 0.73) or disease-free survival (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.84–2.21; p = 0.22). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective design and the use of single-center data. CONCLUSIONS: Patients have rectal cancer with IBD and without IBD have similar long-term and disease-free survival, despite lower rates of neoadjuvant treatment and higher margin positivity in patients with IBD. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B271. ¿LA ENFERMEDAD INFLAMATORIA INTESTINAL ACARREA PEORES RESULTADOS EN PACIENTES CON CÁNCER RECTAL? UN ANÁLISIS DE CASOS-COINCIDENTES ANTECEDENTES: Los pacientes con enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal (EII) tienen un mayor riesgo de desarrollar cáncer colorrectal. Sin embargo, no se ha informado la supervivencia general y la supervivencia libre de enfermedad para el cáncer rectal solo en pacientes con EII. OBJETIVO: Determinar la supervivencia general y la supervivencia libre de enfermedad para pacientes con cáncer rectal en cohortes con EII versus sin EII. DISEÑO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. MARCO: Centro de referencia para enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal. PACIENTES: todos los pacientes adultos con EII diagnosticados con cáncer rectal, consecutives, y al menos un año de seguimiento postoperatorio se incluyeron y se emparejaron de manera 1: 2 (edad, sexo, etapa preoperatoria) con pacientes con cáncer rectal sin EII. MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO PRINCIPALES: Se midieron la supervivencia general a cinco años y la supervivencia libre de enfermedad, complicaciones postoperatorias a los 30 días, reingreso, reoperación y tasas de mortalidad. MÉTODOS: Las tasas de supervivencia se calcularon utilizando estimaciones de Kaplan-Meier. La asociación de factores de riesgo y resultados a largo plazo se evaluó mediante modelos de riesgo de proporción de Cox. RESULTADOS: Un total de 107 pacientes con EII y cáncer rectal se compararon con 215 pacientes de control; las etapas preoperatorias fueron las siguientes: 31% de Etapa I, 19% de Etapa II, 40% de Etapa III y 10% de Etapa IV. Se observaron diferencias (EII versus no EII) en quimioterapia neoadyuvante (33.6% frente a 52.6%, p = 0.001) y radioterapia preoperatoria (35.5% frente a 53.5%, p = 0.003). Las tasas de complicaciones postoperatorias fueron similares. En la patología quirúrgica, los pacientes con EII tuvieron más invasión linfovascular (12.9% frente a 5.6%, p = 0.04) y márgenes de resección circunferencial positivos (5.4% frente a 0.9%, p = 0.03). En el análisis multivariable, el diagnóstico de EII no tuvo un impacto significativo en la mortalidad a largo plazo (HR 0.91; IC del 95%: 0.53-1.57, p = 0.73) o la supervivencia libre de enfermedad (HR 1.36; IC del 95%: 0.84-2.21, p = 0.22) LIMITACIONES: Diseño retrospectivo, centro único de datos. CONCLUSIONES: Los pacientes con EII y sin EII con cáncer rectal tienen una supervivencia similar a largo plazo y libre de enfermedad, a pesar de las tasas más bajas de tratamiento sneoadyuvante y un mayor margen positivo en pacientes con EII. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B271.

AbstractUtility of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II cancer remains a matter of debate. Clinical guidelines suggest adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II tumors with high‐risk features, in particular T4 tumors. However, limited consensus exists regarding the importance of other high‐risk features (lymphovascular or perineural invasion, microsatellite instability). Our study aimed to investigate the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage IIA (T3N0) colon cancer patients. Patients who underwent colectomy for stage IIA colon adenocarcinoma (2010‐2015) were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and divided in two groups based on receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy vs observation. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)‐adjusted Kaplan‐Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to compare overall survival between the two groups. Subgroup analysis of patients with specific high‐risk features LVI, PNI and MSI was performed. Among 46 688 surgical patients with stage IIA colon adenocarcinoma 5937 (12.7%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, while 40 751 (87.3%) were observed. Five‐year IPTW‐adjusted survival was higher in the adjuvant chemotherapy group (79.7% [95% CI 79.1, 80.2]) compared to the observation group (70.3% [95% CI 69.7, 70.9]). Patients with high‐risk pathological features showed an estimated 5‐year survival benefit of 11.3% (78.2% [95% CI 77.4, 79.1] vs 66.9% [95% CI 65.9, 67.8]) when treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. This NCDB analysis revealed a survival benefit for patients with stage IIA colon adenocarcinoma and high‐risk features that were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Hospital readmission rate is an important quality metric and has been recognized as a key measure of hospital value-based purchasing programs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the risk factors for hospital readmission with a focus on potentially preventable early readmissions within 48 hours of discharge. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a tertiary academic facility with a standardized enhanced recovery pathway. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients undergoing elective major colorectal resections between 2011 and 2016 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Univariable and multivariable risk factors for overall and early (<48 hours) readmissions were identified. Specific surgical and medical reasons for readmission were compared between early and late readmissions. RESULTS: In total, 526 of 4204 patients (12.5%) were readmitted within 30 days of discharge. Independent risk factors were ASA score (≥3; OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1–2), excess perioperative weight gain (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3–2.3), ileostomy (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1–2), and transfusion (OR, 2; 95% CI, 1.4–3), or reoperation (OR, 11.4; 95% CI, 7.4–17.5) during the index stay. No potentially preventable risk factor for early readmission (128 patients, 24.3% of all readmissions, 3% of total cohort) was identified, and index hospital stay of ≤3 days was not associated with increased readmission (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.7–1.2). Although ileus and small-bowel obstruction (early: 43.8% vs late: 15.5%, p < 0.001) were leading causes for early readmissions, deep infections (3.9% vs 16.3%, p < 0.001) and acute kidney injury (0% vs 5%, p = 0.006) were mainly observed during readmissions after 48 hours. LIMITATIONS: Risk of underreporting due to loss of follow-up and the potential co-occurrence of complications were limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Early hospital readmission was mainly due to ileus or bowel obstruction, whereas late readmissions were related to deep infections and acute kidney injury. A suspicious attitude toward potential ileus-related symptoms before discharge and dedicated education for ostomy patients are important. A short index hospital stay was not associated with increased readmission rates. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B237. REINGRESOS DENTRO DE LAS 48 HORAS POSTERIORES AL ALTA: RAZONES, FACTORES DE RIESGO Y POSIBLES MEJORAS ANTECEDENTES: La tasa de reingreso hospitalario es una métrica de calidad importante y ha sido reconocida como una medida clave de los programas hospitalarios de compras basadas en el valor. OBJETIVO: Evaluar los factores de riesgo para el reingreso hospitalario con énfasis en reingresos tempranos potencialmente prevenibles dentro de las 48 horas posteriores al alta. DISEÑO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. ESCENARIO: Institución académica terciaria con programa de recuperación mejorada estandarizado. PACIENTES: Pacientes consecutivos sometidos a resecciones colorrectales mayores electivas entre 2011 y 2016. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Se identificaron factores de riesgo uni y multivariables para reingresos totales y tempranos (<48 horas). Se compararon razones médicas y quirúrgicas específicas para el reingreso entre reingresos tempranos y tardíos. RESULTADOS: En total, 526/4204 pacientes (12,5%) fueron readmitidos dentro de los 30 días posteriores al alta. Los factores de riesgo independientes fueron puntuación ASA (≥3, OR 1.5; IC 95% 1.1–2), aumento de peso perioperatorio excesivo (OR 1.7; IC 95% 1.3–2.3), ileostomía (OR 1.4, IC 95%: 1–2) y transfusión (OR 2, IC 95% 1.4–3) o reoperación (OR 11.4; IC 95% 7.4–17.5) durante la estadía índice. No se identificó ningún factor de riesgo potencialmente prevenible para el reingreso temprano (128 pacientes, 24.3% de todos los reingresos, 3% de la cohorte total), y la estadía hospitalaria índice de ≤ 3 días no se asoció con un aumento en el reingreso (OR 0.9; IC 95% 0.7–1.2) Mientras que el íleo / obstrucción del intestino delgado (temprano: 43.8% vs. tardío: 15.5%, p < 0.001) fueron las principales causas de reingresos tempranos, infecciones profundas (3.9% vs 16.3%, p < 0.001) y lesión renal aguda (0 vs 5%, p = 0.006) se observaron principalmente durante los reingresos después de 48 horas. LIMITACIONES: Riesgo de subregistro debido a la pérdida en el seguimiento, posible co-ocurrencia de complicaciones. CONCLUSIONES: El reingreso hospitalario temprano se debió principalmente a íleo u obstrucción intestinal, mientras que los reingresos tardíos se relacionaron con infecciones profundas y lesión renal aguda. Es importante tener una actitud suspicaz hacia los posibles síntomas relacionados con el íleo antes del alta y una educación específica para los pacientes con ostomía. La estadía hospitalaria índice corta no se asoció con mayores tasas de reingreso. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B237.