Prevalence and Predictors of Quality of Recovery at Home After Day Surgery

Traditionally, major complications and unanticipated admission/readmission rates were used to assess outcome after day surgery. However, in view of the relative absence of major complications the quality of recovery (QOR) should be considered one of the principal endpoints after day surgery. In our study, the level of QOR is defined by a combination of the Global Surgical Recovery (GSR) Index and the Quality of Life (QOL).The aim of this study was to analyze prevalence and predictors of QOR after day surgery on the fourth postoperative day.Elective patients scheduled for day surgery from November 2008 to April 2010 were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Outcome parameters were measured by using questionnaire packages at 2 time points: 1 week preoperatively and 4 days postoperatively. Primary outcome parameter is the QOR and is defined as good if the GSR index >80% as well as the postoperative QOL is unchanged or improved as compared with baseline. QOR is defined as poor if both the GSR index ≤80% and if the postoperative QOL is decreased as compared with baseline. QOR is defined as intermediate in all other cases. Three logistic regression analyses were performed to determine predictors for poor QOR after day surgery.A total of 1118 patients were included. A good QOR was noted in 17.3% of patients, an intermediate QOR in 34.8%, and a poor QOR in 47.8% 4 days after day surgery. The best predictor for poor QOR after day surgery was type of surgery. Other predictors were younger age, work status, and longer duration of surgery. A history of previous surgery, expected pain (by the patient) and high long-term surgical fear were significant predictors of poor QOR in only 1 of 3 prediction models.The QOR at home 4 days after day surgery was poor in the majority of patients and showed a significant procedure-specific variation. Patients at risk for poor QOR can be identified during the preoperative period based on type of surgery, age, work status, and the duration of the surgery.     

The use of neoadjuvant lobar radioembolization prior to major hepatic resection for malignancy results in a low rate of post hepatectomy liver failure

BackgroundNeoadjuvant yttrium-90 transarterial radioembolization (TARE) is increasingly being used as a strategy to facilitate resection of otherwise unresectable tumors due to its ability to generate both tumor response and remnant liver hypertrophy. Perioperative outcomes after the use of neoadjuvant lobar TARE remain underinvestigated.MethodsA single center retrospective review of patients who underwent lobar TARE prior to major hepatectomy for primary or metastatic liver cancer between 2007 and 2018 was conducted. Baseline demographics, radioembolization parameters, pre- and post-radioembolization volumetrics, intra-operative surgical data, adverse events, and post-operative outcomes were analyzed.ResultsTwenty-six patients underwent major hepatectomy after neoadjuvant lobar TARE. The mean age was 58.3 years (17–88 years). 62% of patients (n=16) had primary liver malignancies while the remainder had metastatic disease. Liver resection included right hepatectomy or trisegmentectomy, left or extended left hepatectomy, and sectorectomy/segmentectomy in 77% (n=20), 8% (n=2), and 15% (n=4) of patients, respectively. The mean length of stay was 8.3 days (range, 3–33 days) and there were no grade IV morbidities or 90-day mortalities. The incidence of post hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) was 3.8% (n=1). The median time to progression after resection was 4.5 months (range, 3.3–10 months). Twenty-three percent (n=6) of patients had no recurrence. The median survival was 28.9 months (range, 16.9–46.8 months) from major hepatectomy and 37.6 months (range, 25.2–53.1 months) from TARE.ConclusionsMajor hepatectomy after neoadjuvant lobar radioembolization is safe with a low incidence of PHLF.     

Quality of Regional Nodal Irradiation Plans in Breast Cancer Patients Across a Large Network—Can We Translate Results From Randomized Trials Into the Clinic?

PurposeRegional nodal irradiation (RNI) improved disease-free survival by 3% to 5% in 2 large randomized trials, but this small absolute advantage relies on accurate contouring and dose delivery. We audited our network to determine compliance on regional nodal coverage, contouring, and dosimetric parameters with respect to accepted guidelines.Methods and MaterialsIn our network, we have established a clinical pathway for patients with node-positive breast cancer that guides indications for RNI and dosimetric goals. We reviewed records of 183 patients with nodal macrometastases after upfront surgery or involved nodes of any size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Radiation treatment plans were examined to determine lymph node volumes treated, whether nodes were contoured, quality of nodal contours, and whether target coverage and normal organ dosimetric constraints were met when RNI was delivered.ResultsDespite the presence of macrometastases on sentinel lymph node biopsy, no lymph nodes were treated in 2.2% (4 of 183). Of 179 patients who received nodal irradiation, 18 received radiation to axillary levels 1 and 2 only, and 161 patients received RNI. Overall, regional nodes were not treated despite strong indications in 7.6% (14 of 183). Treated nodes were not contoured for 2.2% (4 of 179), and lymph node contours were unacceptable in 15.4% (27 of 175). Of patients receiving RNI, 14.9% (24 of 161) did not have adequate nodal target volume coverage, mean heart dose was >4 Gy for 3.1% (5 of 161), and lung V20 Gy was >35% for 8.7% (14 of 161).ConclusionsAdherence to indications for regional nodal treatment was high, but nodes were either not contoured or had unacceptable contour quality in 18% of plans, and coverage was inadequate in 15%. Because the small disease-free survival advantage seen in trials may be decreased with these deviations, routine clinical practice requires detailed peer review to fully translate results of clinical trials.     

Manejo y seguimiento radiológico del paciente post-COVID-19

Most of the patients who overcome the SARS-CoV-2 infection do not present complications and do not require a specific follow-up, but a significant proportion (especially those with moderate / severe clinical forms of the disease) require clinicalradiological follow-up. Although there are hardly any references or clinical guidelines regarding the long-term follow-up of post-COVID-19 patients, radiological exams are being performed and monographic surveillance consultations are being set up in most of the hospitals to meet their needs. The purpose of this work is to share our experience in the management of the post-COVID-19 patient in two institutions thathave had a high incidence of COVID-19 and to propose general follow-uprecommendations from a clinical and radiological perspective.     

How does measurement of platelet P-selectin compare with other methods of measuring platelet function as a means of determining the effectiveness of antiplatelet therapy?

Measurement of P-selectin on activated platelets as a means of measuring platelet function utilizing the technology described here has the advantage of not requiring immediate access to specialist equipment and expertise. Blood samples are activated, fixed, stored, and transported to a central laboratory for flow cytometric analysis. Here we have compared P-selectin with other more traditional approaches to measuring platelet function in blood and/or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) from patients with acute coronary syndromes on treatment for at least 1 month with either aspirin and clopidogrel or aspirin with prasugrel. The comparators were light transmission aggregometry (LTA), VerifyNow and Multiplate aggregometry (for determining the effects of aspirin) and LTA, VerifyNow and Multiplate together with the BioCytex VASP phosphorylation assay (for the P2Y₁₂ antagonists). The P-selectin Aspirin Test revealed substantial inhibition of platelet function in all but three of 96 patients receiving aspirin with clopidogrel and in none of 51 patients receiving aspirin and prasugrel. The results were very similar to those obtained using LTA. There was only one patient with high residual platelet aggregation and low P-selectin expression. The same patients identified as “non-responders” to aspirin also presented with the highest residual platelet activity as measured using the VerifyNow system, although not quite as well separated from the other values. With the Multiplate test only one of these patients clearly stood out from the others. The results obtained using the P-selectin P2Y₁₂ Test in 102 patients taking aspirin and clopidogrel were similar to the more traditional approaches in that a wide scatter of results was obtained. Generally, high values seen with the P-selectin P2Y₁₂ Test were also high with the LTA, VerifyNow, Multiplate, and BioCytex VASP P2Y₁₂ Tests. Similarly, low residual platelet function using the P2Y₁₂ test was seen irrespective of the testing procedure used. However, there were differences in some patients. Prasugrel was always more effective than clopidogrel in inhibiting platelet function with none of 56 patients (P-selectin and VerifyNow), only 2 of 56 patients (Multiplate) and only 3 of 56 patients (Biocytex VASP) demonstrating high on-treatment residual platelet reactivity (HRPR) defined using previously published cut-off values. The exception was LTA where there were 11 of 56 patients with HRPR. It remains to be seen which experimental approach provides the most useful information regarding outcomes after adjusting therapies in treated patients.