Patient characteristics,anaesthetic workload and techniques in the UK: an analysis from the 7th National Audit Project (NAP7) activity survey

Detailed contemporary knowledge of the characteristics of the surgical population, national anaesthetic workload, anaesthetic techniques and behaviours are essential to monitor productivity, inform policy and direct research themes. Every 3–4 years, the Royal College of Anaesthetists, as part of its National Audit Projects (NAP), performs a snapshot activity survey in all UK hospitals delivering anaesthesia, collecting patient-level encounter data from all cases under the care of an anaesthetist. During November 2021, as part of NAP7, anaesthetists recorded details of all cases undertaken over 4 days at their site through an online survey capturing anonymous patient characteristics and anaesthetic details. Of 416 hospital sites invited to participate, 352 (85%) completed the activity survey. From these, 24,177 reports were returned, of which 24,172 (99%) were included in the final dataset. The work patterns by day of the week, time of day and surgical specialty were similar to previous NAP activity surveys. However, in non-obstetric patients, between NAP5 (2013) and NAP7 (2021) activity surveys, the estimated median age of patients increased by 2.3 years from median (IQR) of 50.5 (28.4–69.1) to 52.8 (32.1–69.2) years. The median (IQR) BMI increased from 24.9 (21.5–29.5) to 26.7 (22.3–31.7) kg.m^–2. The proportion of patients who scored as ASA physical status 1 decreased from 37% in NAP5 to 24% in NAP7. The use of total intravenous anaesthesia increased from 8% of general anaesthesia cases to 26% between NAP5 and NAP7. Some changes may reflect the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the anaesthetic population, though patients with confirmed COVID-19 accounted for only 149 (1%) cases. These data show a rising burden of age, obesity and comorbidity in patients requiring anaesthesia care, likely to impact UK peri-operative services significantly.     

PAMAM versus PEI complexation for siRNA delivery: interaction with model lipid membranes and cellular uptake

Pharmaceutical Research - Cationic polymers have many advantages as vectors for mediated cellular entry and delivery of siRNA. However, toxicity related to their cationic charge has compromised...     

Bacterial and fungal co-infection is a major barrier in COVID-19 patients: A specific management and therapeutic strategy is required

Microbial co-infections are another primary concern in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), yet it is an untouched area among researchers. Preliminary data and systematic reviews only show the type of pathogens responsible for that, but its pathophysiology is still unknown. Studies show that these microbial co-infections are hospital-acquired/nosocomial infections, and patients admitted to intensive care units with invasive mechanical ventilation are highly susceptible to it. Patients with COVID-19 had elevated inflammatory cytokines and a weakened cell-mediated immune response, with lower CD4⁺ T and CD8⁺ T cell counts, indicating vulnerability to various co-infections. Despite this, there are only a few studies that recommend the management of co-infections.     

Machine learning to predict myocardial injury and death after non-cardiac surgery

Myocardial injury due to ischaemia within 30 days of non-cardiac surgery is prognostically relevant. We aimed to determine the discrimination, calibration, accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of single-layer and multiple-layer neural networks for myocardial injury and death within 30 postoperative days. We analysed data from 24,589 participants in the Vascular Events in Non-cardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation study. Validation was performed on a randomly selected subset of the study population. Discrimination for myocardial injury by single-layer vs. multiple-layer models generated areas (95%CI) under the receiver operating characteristic curve of: 0.70 (0.69–0.72) vs. 0.71 (0.70–0.73) with variables available before surgical referral, p < 0.001; 0.73 (0.72–0.75) vs. 0.75 (0.74–0.76) with additional variables available on admission, but before surgery, p < 0.001; and 0.76 (0.75–0.77) vs. 0.77 (0.76–0.78) with the addition of subsequent variables, p < 0.001. Discrimination for death by single-layer vs. multiple-layer models generated areas (95%CI) under the receiver operating characteristic curve of: 0.71 (0.66–0.76) vs. 0.74 (0.71–0.77) with variables available before surgical referral, p = 0.04; 0.78 (0.73–0.82) vs. 0.83 (0.79–0.86) with additional variables available on admission but before surgery, p = 0.01; and 0.87 (0.83–0.89) vs. 0.87 (0.85–0.90) with the addition of subsequent variables, p = 0.52. The accuracy of the multiple-layer model for myocardial injury and death with all variables was 70% and 89%, respectively.     

Timing of elective surgery and risk assessment after SARS-CoV-2 infection: an update

The impact of vaccination and new SARS-CoV-2 variants on peri-operative outcomes is unclear. We aimed to update previously published consensus recommendations on timing of elective surgery after SARS-CoV-2 infection to assist policymakers, administrative staff, clinicians and patients. The guidance remains that patients should avoid elective surgery within 7 weeks of infection, unless the benefits of doing so exceed the risk of waiting. We recommend individualised multidisciplinary risk assessment for patients requiring elective surgery within 7 weeks of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This should include baseline mortality risk calculation and assessment of risk modifiers (patient factors; SARS-CoV-2 infection; surgical factors). Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection with previous variants increased peri-operative mortality risk three-fold throughout the 6 weeks after infection, and assumptions that asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection does not add risk are currently unfounded. Patients with persistent symptoms and those with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 may require a longer delay than 7 weeks. Elective surgery should not take place within 10 days of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, predominantly because the patient may be infectious, which is a risk to surgical pathways, staff and other patients. We now emphasise that timing of surgery should include the assessment of baseline and increased risk, optimising vaccination and functional status, and shared decision-making. While these recommendations focus on the omicron variant and current evidence, the principles may also be of relevance to future variants. As further data emerge, these recommendations may be revised.     

Effect of iron deficiency without anaemia on days alive and out of hospital in patients undergoing valvular heart surgery

Comprehensive evidence regarding the treatment of non-anaemic iron deficiency in patients undergoing valvular heart surgery is lacking. This study aimed to investigate the association between non-anaemic iron deficiency and postoperative outcomes in these patients. We retrospectively analysed 321 patients of which 180 (56%) had iron deficiency (defined as serum ferritin < 100 ng.ml^-1 or < 300 ng.ml^-1 with transferrin saturation < 20%). While the iron-deficient group had lower pre-operative haemoglobin levels than the non-iron deficient group (median (IQR [range]) 134 (127–141 [120–172]) g.l^-1, 143 (133–150 [120–179]) g.l^-1, p = 0.001), there was no between-group difference in allogeneic red blood cell transfusion. Median (IQR [range]) days alive and out of hospital at postoperative day 90 was 1 day shorter in the iron-deficient group (80 (77–82 [9–85]) days vs. 81 (79–83 [0–85]) days, p = 0.026). In multivariable analysis, only cardiopulmonary bypass duration (p = 0.032) and intra-operative allogeneic red blood cell transfusion (p = 0.011) were significantly associated with reduced days alive and out of hospital at postoperative day 90. Iron deficiency did not exert any adverse influence on secondary outcomes except length of hospital stay. Our findings indicate that non-anaemic iron deficiency alone is not associated with adverse effects in patients undergoing valvular heart surgery when it does not translate into an increased risk of allogeneic transfusion.     

Method’s corner: Allergist’s guide to network meta-analysis

Network meta-analyses (NMAs) simultaneously estimate the effects of multiple possible treatment options for a given clinical presentation. For allergists to benefit optimally from NMAs, they must understand the process and be able to interpret the results. Through a worked example published in Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, we summarize how to identify credible NMAs and interpret them with a focus on recent innovations in the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). NMAs build on traditional systematic reviews and meta-analyses that consider only direct paired comparisons by including indirect evidence, thus allowing the simultaneous assessment of the relative effect of all pairs of competing alternatives. Our framework informs clinicians of how to identify credible NMAs and address the certainty of the evidence. Trustworthy NMAs fill a critical gap in providing key inferences using direct and indirect evidence to inform clinical decision making when faced with more than two competing courses of treatment options. This document will help allergists to identify trustworthy NMAs to enhance patient care.     

Fatigue performance of endodontically treated premolars restored with direct and indirect cuspal coverage restorations utilizing fiber-reinforced cores

Clinical Oral Investigations - The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the fatigue survival and fracture behavior of endodontically treated (ET) premolars restored with different types of...     

COVID-19-Impfintention von Eltern bezogen auf ihre Kinder

Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz - Mit Beginn der Impfkampagne hat eine neue Phase der Bewältigung der Coronapandemie begonnen. Zulassung und Empfehlung...