Citations

Abstract Background The multicentre ALaCaRT and ACOSOG Z6051 randomized trials were unable to demonstrate non-inferiority of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer with respect to a composite pathology metric indicating successful resection. Neither trial was individually powered to detect differences in long-term recurrence or survival. This planned meta-analysis determined long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open proctectomy for rectal adenocarcinoma. Methods This prospective meta-analysis included individual patient data from patients with cT1–3 N0–2 M0 rectal adenocarcinoma enrolled in the ALaCaRT and ACOSOG Z6051 trials. Pathologically successful resection was defined as complete or near-complete total mesorectal excision, a clear circumferential resection margin (CRM; > 1 mm), and a clear distal resection margin (> 1 mm). The non-inferiority margin for disease-free survival (DFS) was an absolute difference of 5% at least 3 years after surgery. Results The combined data set included 935 patients (65.6% men, mean age 60.7 years, mean body mass index 26.7 kg/m2) randomized to open (457 patients) or laparoscopic (478 patients) proctectomy. Pathologically successful resection was lower in the laparoscopic than open group (85.1% versus 89.9%, respectively; pooled estimate 4.6% difference; 95% confidence interval (c.i.) −8.6% to −0.5%). The median follow-up was 60.2 (interquartile range 49.9–61.1) months. Three-year DFS was 75.2% (95% c.i. 71.1% to 79.2%) and 76.5% (95% c.i. 72.5% to 80.6%) for the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively (pooled estimate difference −1.5%; 95% c.i. −7.2% to 4.2%). Non-inferiority of laparoscopic surgery was not demonstrated because the lower one-sided 95% c.i. (−6.3% to 100%) crossed −5%. Three-year locoregional recurrence was higher in laparoscopic than open group (5.4% (95% c.i. 3.3% to 7.5%) versus 2.0% (95% c.i. 0.7% to 3.4%), respectively; pooled estimate 3.1% difference (95% c.i. 0.6% to 5.6%)). A clear CRM was the most significant and only pathological predictor of both DFS (P < 0.0001) and overall survival (P < 0.0001). Conclusion Laparoscopic proctectomy led to a lower rate of pathologically successful resection and a higher rate of locoregional recurrence at 3 years. The possibility of subsequent poorer DFS or overall survival rate requires further evaluation, because this analysis was not specifically powered for these endpoints.

Abstract Background Presacral tumours are rare and heterogeneous lesions arising within a complex anatomical space, resulting in variability in diagnosis and management. Increasing incidental detection and evolving surgical and oncological strategies have highlighted the need for contemporary guidance. The aim of this study was to establish an international expert consensus on the optimal diagnosis and management of presacral tumours. Methods An international panel of colorectal surgeons from high-volume units was convened. Evidence- and practice-based statements were developed after domain-based literature reviews and refined through five online and two in-person meetings. Consensus was achieved using a modified Delphi process with anonymous voting. Results In total, 16 colorectal surgeons participated in the study. Ten domains were identified resulting in the development of 22 statements based on expert opinion and retrospective studies. After two rounds, unanimous (100%) agreement was achieved for all statements. High-resolution MRI with structured synoptic reporting is endorsed as central to risk stratification. Selective image-guided transperineal or parasacral biopsy is recommended for high-risk lesions where histology would alter management. Complete surgical resection is defined as the operative goal, with approach tailored to tumour biology and anatomy; minimally invasive surgery is considered appropriate in selected cases. Non-operative surveillance is supported for carefully selected asymptomatic, low-risk cystic lesions. Postoperative surveillance is recommended in a risk-adapted manner according to histopathology and margin status. Conclusion This international consensus provides a pragmatic, risk-stratified framework for the multidisciplinary diagnosis and management of presacral tumours. These recommendations aim to reduce practice variation, support decision-making in specialized centres, and inform future prospective collaborative research.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration is the treatment of choice for selected patients with locally advanced primary and recurrent rectal cancer. Involvement of major pelvic neurovascular structures and bone was historically considered a contraindication due to unacceptably high rates of morbidity and low R0 resection rates. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of these “high-complexity” exenterative resections to those of “conventional” pelvic exenteration. DESIGN: International multicenter retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: Sixteen specialized exenteration centers. PATIENTS: Those who underwent total pelvic exenteration for locally advanced primary and recurrent rectal cancer between 2018 and 2023 at participating centers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perioperative resource utilization, morbidity, mortality, and R0 resection rates were reported. RESULTS: Seven hundred sixty-three patients underwent total pelvic exenteration, of whom 478 (63%) and 285 (37%) required conventional and high-complexity procedures, respectively. High-complexity pelvic exenteration was associated with longer operating time (600 vs 480 minutes, p < 0.001 for locally advanced primary rectal cancer, 623 vs 480 minutes, p < 0.001 for locally recurrent rectal cancer), intensive care stay (2 vs 1 day, p < 0.001 and 3 vs 1 day, p < 0.001), hospital stay (19 vs 15 days, p = 0.008 and 23 vs 15 days, p < 0.001), and higher blood loss (2000 vs 1236 mL, p < 0.001 and 3000 vs 1600 mL, p < 0.001). Morbidity and mortality outcomes and R0 resection rates were similar between the groups. LIMITATIONS: Generalizability of findings outside of expert units. CONCLUSIONS: High-complexity pelvic exenteration for the treatment of rectal cancer is associated with similar morbidity, mortality, and R0 resection rates, but it has a significantly higher operative time, blood loss, and hospital resource utilization compared to conventional pelvic exenteration. In high-volume, specialized centers, these techniques are considered the standard of care for appropriately selected patients with tumors that involve major pelvic bone or neurovascular structures. See Video Abstract . EXENTERACIÓN PÉLVICA TOTAL CONVENCIONAL FRENTE A EXENTERACIÓN PÉLVICA TOTAL DE ALTA COMPLEJIDAD PARA EL CÁNCER RECTAL LOCALMENTE AVANZADO Y LOCALMENTE RECURRENTE: UN ESTUDIO MULTICÉNTRICO INTERNACIONAL ANTECEDENTES: La exenteración pélvica es el tratamiento de elección para determinados pacientes con cáncer rectal primario y recurrente localmente avanzado. La afectación de las principales estructuras neurovasculares y óseas pélvicas se consideraba históricamente una contraindicación debido a las tasas inaceptablemente altas de morbilidad y a las bajas tasas de resección R0. OBJETIVO: Comparar los resultados de estas resecciones exenteración «de alta complejidad» con los de la exenteración pélvica «convencional». DISEÑO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo multicéntrico internacional. ENTORNOS: Dieciséis centros especializados en exenteración. PACIENTES: Aquellos que se sometieron a una exenteración pélvica total por cáncer rectal primario y recurrente localmente avanzado entre 2018 y 2023 en los centros participantes. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS: Se informaron la utilización de recursos perioperatorios, la morbilidad, la mortalidad y las tasas de resección R0. RESULTADOS: 763 pacientes se sometieron a una exenteración pélvica total, de los cuales 478 (63 %) y 285 pacientes (37 %) requirieron procedimientos convencionales y de alta complejidad, respectivamente. La exenteración pélvica de alta complejidad se asoció con un tiempo quirúrgico más prolongado (600 frente a 480 minutos, p < 0,001 para el cáncer rectal primario localmente avanzado, 623 frente a 480 minutos, p < 0,001 para el cáncer rectal localmente recurrente), estancia en cuidados intensivos (2 frente a 1 día, p < 0,001 y 3 frente a 1 día, p < 0,001), estancia hospitalaria (19 frente a 15 días, p = 0,008 y 23 frente a 15 días, p < 0,001) y mayor pérdida de sangre (2000 frente a 1236 ml, p < 0,001 y 3000 frente a 1600 ml, p < 0,001). Los resultados de morbilidad y mortalidad, así como las tasas de resección R0, fueron similares entre los grupos. LIMITACIONES: Generalización de los resultados fuera de las unidades especializadas CONCLUSIONES: La exenteración pélvica de alta complejidad para el tratamiento del cáncer de recto se asocia con tasas similares de morbilidad, mortalidad y resección R0, pero con un tiempo quirúrgico, una pérdida de sangre y una utilización de recursos hospitalarios significativamente mayores en comparación con la exenteración pélvica convencional. En centros especializados con un gran volumen de casos, estas técnicas se consideran el tratamiento estándar para pacientes adecuadamente seleccionados con tumores que afectan a los huesos pélvicos principales o a las estructuras neurovasculares. ( AI-generated translation )

Objective: To establish globally applicable benchmark outcomes for pelvic exenteration (PE) in patients with locally advanced primary rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), using outcomes achieved at highly specialised centres. Background: PE is established as the standard of care for selected patients with LARC and LRRC. There are currently no available benchmarks against which surgical performance in PE can be compared for audit and quality improvement. Methods: This international multicentre retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing PE for LARC or LRRC at 16 highly experienced centres between 2018 and 2023. Ten outcome benchmarks were established in a lower-risk subgroup. Benchmarks were defined by the 75th percentile of the results achieved at the individual centres. Results: Seven hundred sixty-three patients underwent PE, of which 464 patients (61%) had LARCs and 299 (39%) had LRRCs. Five hundred forty-four patients (71%) who met predefined lower-risk criteria formed the benchmark cohort. For patients with LARC, the calculated benchmark threshold for major complication rate was ≤44%; Comprehensive Complication Index: ≤30.2; 30-day mortality rate: 0%; 90-day mortality rate: ≤4.3%; R0 resection rate: ≥79%. For patients with LRRC, the calculated benchmark threshold for major complication rate was ≤53%; Comprehensive Complication Index: ≤34.1; 30-day mortality rate: 0%; 90-day mortality rate: ≤6%; R0 resection rate: ≥77%. Conclusions: The reported benchmarks for PE in patients with LARC and LRRC represent the best available care for this patient group globally and can be used for rigorous assessment of surgical quality and to facilitate quality improvement initiatives at international exenteration centres.

Abstract Aims Invasive haemodynamic assessment with a pulmonary artery catheter is often used to guide the management of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) and may provide important prognostic information. We aimed to assess prognostic associations and relationships to end-organ dysfunction of presenting haemodynamic parameters in CS. Methods and results The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is an investigator-initiated multicenter registry of cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) in North America coordinated by the TIMI Study Group. Patients with CS (2018–2022) who underwent invasive haemodynamic assessment within 24 h of CICU admission were included. Associations of haemodynamic parameters with in-hospital mortality were assessed using logistic regression, and associations with presenting serum lactate were assessed using least squares means regression. Sensitivity analyses were performed excluding patients on temporary mechanical circulatory support and adjusted for vasoactive-inotropic score. Among the 3603 admissions with CS, 1473 had haemodynamic data collected within 24 h of CICU admission. The median cardiac index was 1.9 (25th–75th percentile, 1.6–2.4) L/min/m2 and mean arterial pressure (MAP) was 74 (66–86) mmHg. Parameters associated with mortality included low MAP, low systolic blood pressure, low systemic vascular resistance, elevated right atrial pressure (RAP), elevated RAP/pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ratio, and low pulmonary artery pulsatility index. These associations were generally consistent when controlling for the intensity of background pharmacologic and mechanical haemodynamic support. These parameters were also associated with higher presenting serum lactate. Conclusion In a contemporary CS population, presenting haemodynamic parameters reflecting decreased systemic arterial tone and right ventricular dysfunction are associated with adverse outcomes and systemic hypoperfusion.

Background: Algorithmic application of the 2019 Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) shock stages effectively stratifies mortality risk for patients with cardiogenic shock. However, clinician assessment of SCAI staging may differ. Moreover, the implications of the 2022 SCAI criteria update remain incompletely defined. Methods: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter registry of cardiac intensive care units (CICUs). Between 2019 and 2021, participating centers (n=32) contributed at least a 2-month snapshot of consecutive medical CICU admissions. In-hospital mortality was assessed across 3 separate staging methods: clinician assessment, Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network algorithmic application of the 2019 SCAI criteria, and a revision of the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network application using the 2022 SCAI criteria. Results: Of 9612 admissions, 1340 (13.9%) presented with cardiogenic shock with in-hospital mortality of 35.2%. Both clinician and algorithm-based staging using the 2019 SCAI criteria identified a stepwise gradient of mortality risk (stage C–E: 19.0% to 83.7% and 14.6% to 52.2%, respectively; P trend <0.001 for each). Clinician assignment of SCAI stages identified higher risk patients compared with algorithm-based assignment (stage D: 49.9% versus 29.3%; stage E: 83.7% versus 52.2%). Algorithmic application of the 2022 SCAI criteria, with incorporation of the vasoactive-inotropic score, more closely approximated clinician staging (mortality for stage C-E: 21.9% to 70.5%; P trend <0.001). Conclusions: Both clinician and algorithm-based application of the 2019 SCAI stages identify a stepwise gradient of mortality risk, although clinician-staging may better allocate higher risk patients into advanced SCAI stages. Updated algorithmic staging using the 2022 SCAI criteria and vasoactive-inotropic score further refines risk stratification.

AbstractAimsThe aims of the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) are to develop a registry to investigate the epidemiology of cardiac critical illness and to establish a multicentre research network to conduct randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in patients with cardiac critical illness.Methods and resultsThe CCCTN was founded in 2017 with 16 centres and has grown to a research network of over 40 academic and clinical centres in the United States and Canada. Each centre enters data for consecutive cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) admissions for at least 2 months of each calendar year. More than 20 000 unique CICU admissions are now included in the CCCTN Registry. To date, scientific observations from the CCCTN Registry include description of variations in care, the epidemiology and outcomes of all CICU patients, as well as subsets of patients with specific disease states, such as shock, heart failure, renal dysfunction, and respiratory failure. The CCCTN has also characterised utilization patterns, including use of mechanical circulatory support in response to changes in the heart transplantation allocation system, and the use and impact of multidisciplinary shock teams. Over years of multicentre collaboration, the CCCTN has established a robust research network to facilitate multicentre registry-based randomised trials in patients with cardiac critical illness.ConclusionThe CCCTN is a large, prospective registry dedicated to describing processes-of-care and expanding clinical knowledge in cardiac critical illness. The CCCTN will serve as an investigational platform from which to conduct randomised controlled trials in this important patient population.

Introduction: Pulmonary hypertension (PH), defined as an elevated mean pulmonary artery pressure, has been consistently associated with adverse outcomes in hospitalized patients. Limited epidemiologic data exist regarding PH in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) population. We used transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) to describe the prevalence, etiology, and outcomes of PH in the CICU. Hypothesis: PH will be associated with higher in-hospital mortality in CICU patients. Methods: CICU patients admitted from 2007 to 2018 who had right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) measured via TTE within 1 day of CICU admission were included. PH was defined as an estimated RVSP >35 mmHg. Predictors of in-hospital mortality were determined using multivariable logistic regression. Results: We included 5042 patients with a mean age of 69.4±14.8 (41% females); 81.1% had an admission diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome or heart failure. PH was present in 3085 (61%); the majority (68%) of patients with PH had left heart failure, and 29% had lung disease. In-hospital mortality occurred in 8% and was higher in patients with PH (11% vs. 4%, adjusted OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03-1.92, p =0.03). PH was associated with higher in-hospital mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome, heart failure or cardiac arrest (all p <0.01), but not in patients with cardiogenic shock, respiratory failure or sepsis ( Figure ). In-hospital mortality increased as a function of higher RVSP in each admission diagnosis group (adjusted 1.18 per 10 mmHg higher in the entire cohort, 95% CI 1.09-1.28, p <0.001). Conclusions: PH by TTE is very common in the CICU population and remains associated with a higher risk of death during hospitalization even after adjustment. TTE assessment of right heart hemodynamics can predict mortality in CICU patients, with variability across common admission diagnoses. This highlights the importance of PH determined by TTE in hospitalized patients with cardiac critical illness.

Abstract Aims Contemporary cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) outcomes remain highly heterogeneous. As such, a risk-stratification tool using readily available lab data at time of CICU admission may help inform clinical decision-making. Methods and results The primary derivation cohort included 4352 consecutive CICU admissions across 25 tertiary care CICUs included in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry. Candidate lab indicators were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. An integer risk score incorporating the top independent lab indicators associated with in-hospital mortality was developed. External validation was performed in a separate CICU cohort of 9716 patients from the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN, USA). On multivariable analysis, lower pH [odds ratio (OR) 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72–2.24], higher lactate (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.22–1.62), lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.10–1.45), and lower platelets (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05–1.32) were the top four independent lab indicators associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Incorporated into the CCCTN Lab-Based Risk Score, these four lab indicators identified a 20-fold gradient in mortality risk with very good discrimination (C-index 0.82, 95% CI 0.80–0.84) in the derivation cohort. Validation of the risk score in a separate cohort of 3888 patients from the Registry demonstrated good performance (C-index of 0.82; 95% CI 0.80–0.84). Performance remained consistent in the external validation cohort (C-index 0.79, 95% CI 0.77–0.80). Calibration was very good in both validation cohorts (r = 0.99). Conclusion A simple integer risk score utilizing readily available lab indicators at time of CICU admission may accurately stratify in-hospital mortality risk.