Citations

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of preoperative oral antibiotics alone compared with mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation in minimally invasive surgery is still a matter of debate. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the trend of surgical site infection rates in parallel to the utilization of bowel preparation modality over time for minimally invasive colorectal surgeries in the United States. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective analysis. SETTINGS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was the source of data for this study. PATIENTS: Adult patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery and reported bowel preparation modality were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the trends and the comparison of surgical site infection rates for mutually exclusive groups according to the underlying disease (colorectal cancer, IBD, and diverticular disease) who underwent bowel preparation using oral antibiotics or combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation. Patients who underwent rectal surgery were analyzed separately. RESULTS: A total of 30,939 patients were included. Of them, 12,417 (40%) had rectal resections. Over the 7-year study period, mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation utilization increased from 29.3% in 2012 to 64.0% in 2018; p < 0.0001 at the expense of no preparation and mechanical bowel preparation alone. Similarly, oral antibiotics utilization increased from 2.3% in 2012 to 5.5% in 2018; p < 0.0001. For patients with colon cancer, patients who had oral antibiotics alone had higher superficial surgical site infection rates than patients who had combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (1.9% vs 1.1%; p = 0.043). Superficial, deep, and organ space surgical site infection rates were similar for all other comparative colon surgery groups (cancer, IBD, and diverticular disease). Patients with rectal cancer who had oral antibiotics had higher rates of deep surgical site infection (0.9% vs 0.1%; p = 0.004). However, superficial, deep, and organ space surgical site infection rates were similar for all other comparative rectal surgery groups. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the retrospective nature of the analysis. CONCLUSION: This study revealed widespread adoption of mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation and increased adoption of oral antibiotics over the study period. Surgical site infection rates are similar from a clinical relevance standpoint among most comparative groups, questioning the systematic preoperative addition of mechanical bowel preparation to oral antibiotics alone in all patients for minimally invasive colorectal surgery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B828. PREPARACIÓN INTESTINAL CON ANTIBIÓTICOS ORALES SIN PREPARACIÓN MECÁNICA EN CIRUGÍAS COLORRECTALES MÍNIMAMENTE INVASIVAS: PRÁCTICA ACTUAL Y PERSPECTIVAS FUTURAS ANTECEDENTES: La eficacia de los antibióticos orales preoperatorios solos en comparación con la preparación intestinal mecánica mas antibióticos orales en la cirugía mínimamente invasiva es un tema de debate que todavía esta en curso. OBJETIVO: Este estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar la tendencia de las tasas de infección del sitio quirúrgico en relacion a la utilización de la modalidad de preparación intestinal a lo largo del tiempo en cirugías colorrectales mínimamente invasivas en los Estados Unidos. DISEÑO: Análisis retrospectivo. ENTORNO CLINICO: Base de datos del Programa Nacional de Mejoramiento de la Calidad Quirúrgica del Colegio Estadounidense de Cirujanos. PACIENTES: Pacientes adultos sometidos a cirugía colorrectal electiva y reportados con modalidad de preparación intestinal. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN: Tendencias y comparacion de las tasas de infección del sitio quirúrgico para grupos mutuamente excluyentes según la enfermedad subyacente (cáncer colorrectal, enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal y enfermedad diverticular) que se sometieron a preparación intestinal usando antibióticos orales exclusivamente o preparación intestinal mecánica combinada con antibióticos orales. Los pacientes que se sometieron a cirugía rectal se analizaron por separado. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron un total de 30.939 pacientes. De ellos, 12.417 (40%) se sometieron a resecciones rectales. Durante el período de estudio de siete años, la preparación mecánica del intestino y la utilización de antibióticos orales aumentó del 29,3% en 2012 al 64,0% en 2018; p < 0,0001 sobre la no preparación y de la preparación intestinal mecánica exclusivamente. De manera similar, la utilización de antibióticos orales ha aumentado del 2,3% en 2012 al 5,5% en 2018; p < 0,0001. Para los pacientes con cáncer de colon, los pacientes que recibieron antibióticos orales solos tuvieron mayores tasas de infección superficial del sitio quirúrgico en comparación con los pacientes que recibieron una preparación intestinal mecánica combinada con antibióticos orales (1,9% frente a 1,1%; p = 0,043). Las tasas de infección superficial, profundo del sitio quirúrgico y de los compartimientos intraabdominales fueron similares para todos los demás grupos de cirugía de colon (cáncer, enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal y enfermedad diverticular). Los pacientes con cáncer de recto que recibieron antibióticos orales tuvieron tasas más altas de infección profunda del sitio quirúrgico (0,9% frente a 0,1%; p = 0,004). Sin embargo, las tasas de infección del sitio quirúrgico superficial, profundo y de los compartimientos intraabdominales fueron similares comparativamente para todos los demás grupos de cirugía rectal. LIMITACIONES: Carácter retrospectivo del análisis. CONCLUSIONES: Este estudio reveló la adopción generalizada de preparación intestinal mecánica y antibióticos orales y una mayor aceptación de antibióticos orales durante el período de estudio. Las tasas de infección del sitio quirúrgico parecen ser similares desde un punto de vista de relevancia clínica entre la mayoría de los grupos comparados, lo que cuestiona la adición preoperatoria sistemática de preparación intestinal mecánica a antibióticos orales solos en todos los pacientes para cirugía colorrectal mínimamente invasiva. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B828. (Traducción— Dr. Ingrid Melo)

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the implementation of an intraoperative standardized surgical site infection (SSI) prevention bundle. Methods: The multimodal, evidence-based care bundle included nine intraoperative items (antibiotic type, timing, and re-dosing; disinfection; induction temperature control > 36.5°; glove change; intra-cavity lavage; wound protection; and closure strategy). The bundle was applied to all consecutive patients undergoing colonic resections. The primary outcome, SSI, was independently assessed by the National Infection Surveillance Committee for up to 30 postoperative days. A historical, institutional pre-implementation control group (2012–2017) with an identical methodology was used for comparison. Findings: In total, 1516 patients were included, of which 1256 (82.8%) were in the control group and 260 (17.2%) were in the post-implementation group. After 2:1 propensity score matching, the groups were similar for all items (p > 0.05). Overall compliance with the care bundle was 77% (IQR 77–88). The lowest compliance rates were observed for temperature control (53% overall), intra-cavity lavage (64% overall), and wound protection and closure (68% and 63% in the SSI group, respectively). Surgical site infections were reported in 58 patients (22.2%) vs. 21.4% in the control group (p = 0.79). Infection rates were comparable throughout the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) categories: superficial, 12 patients (4.5%) vs. 4.2%, p = 0.82; deep incisional, 10 patients (3.7%) vs. 5.1%, p = 0.34; organ space, 36 (14%) vs. 12.4%, p = 0.48. After propensity score matching, rates remained comparable throughout all comparisons (all p > 0.05). Conclusions: The implementation of an intraoperative standardized care bundle had no impact on SSI rates. This may be explained by insufficient compliance with the individual measures.

Two adenovirus-based vaccines, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and Ad26.COV2.S, and two mRNA-based vaccines, BNT162b2 and mRNA.1273, have been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and are invaluable in preventing and reducing the incidence of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Recent reports have pointed to thrombosis with associated thrombocytopenia as an adverse effect occurring at a low frequency in some individuals after vaccination. The causes of such events may be related to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein interactions with different C-type lectin receptors, heparan sulfate proteoglycans (HSPGs) and the CD147 receptor, or to different soluble splice variants of the spike protein, adenovirus vector interactions with the CD46 receptor or platelet factor 4 antibodies. Similar findings have been reported for several viral diseases after vaccine administration. In addition, immunological mechanisms elicited by viral vectors related to cellular delivery could play a relevant role in individuals with certain genetic backgrounds. Although rare, the potential COVID-19 vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) requires immediate validation, especially in risk groups, such as the elderly, chronic smokers, and individuals with pre-existing incidences of thrombocytopenia; and if necessary, a reformulation of existing vaccines.

Phylogenetic analysis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is focused on a single isolate of bat coronaviruses (bat CoVs) which does not adequately represent genetically related coronaviruses (CoVs) [...]

There are limited and discordant results on the comparison between microwave ablation (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This meta-analysis aims to compare the two treatments in terms of efficacy and safety, based on a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs). A computerized bibliographic search was performed on the main databases throughout August 2020. The primary outcome was the complete response rate, while survival rate (at 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year), disease-free survival rate (at 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year), local and distant recurrence rate, adverse event rate, and number of treatment sessions were the secondary outcomes. Seven RCTs enrolling 921 patients were included. No difference in terms of complete response between the two treatments was observed (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.99–1.02). Survival rates were constantly similar, with RRs ranging from 1.05 (0.96–1.15) at 1 year to 0.91 (0.81–1.03) at 5 years. While local recurrence rate was similar between MWA and RFA (RR 0.70, 0.43–1.14), distant recurrence rate was significantly lower with MWA (RR 0.60, 0.39–0.92). Disease-free survival at 1, 2, and 3 years was similar between the two groups with RR 1.00 (0.96–1.04), 0.94 (0.84–1.06), and 1.06 (0.93–1.21), respectively. On the other hand, RR for disease-free survival at 5 years was significantly in favor of MWA (3.66, 1.32–42.27). Adverse event rate was similar between the two treatments (RR 1.06, 0.48–2.34), with bleeding and hematoma representing the most frequent complications. Our results indicate a similar efficacy and safety profile between the two techniques. MWA seems to decrease the rate of long-term recurrences, but this finding needs to be confirmed in further trials.

Despite the advances in screening protocols and treatment options, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is still considered to be the most lethal malignancy in patients with liver cirrhosis. Moreover, the survival outcomes after failure of first-line therapy for unresectable HCC is still poor with limited therapeutic options. One of these options is immune checkpoint inhibitors. The aim of this study is to comprehensively review the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors for patients with HCC.