MyMedR

Displaying all 7 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext Erratum to: IROA: International Register of Open Abdomen, preliminary results

Coccolini F, Montori G, Ceresoli M, Catena F, Ivatury R, Sugrue M, et al.

World J Emerg Surg, 2017;12:13.
PMID: 28286545 DOI: 10.1186/s13017-017-0127-4

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13017-017-0123-8.].
Fulltext IROA: International Register of Open Abdomen, preliminary results

Coccolini F, Montori G, Ceresoli M, Catena F, Ivatury R, Sugrue M, et al.

World J Emerg Surg, 2017;12:10.
PMID: 28239409 DOI: 10.1186/s13017-017-0123-8

BACKGROUND: No definitive data about open abdomen (OA) epidemiology and outcomes exist. The World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and the Panamerican Trauma Society (PTS) promoted the International Register of Open Abdomen (IROA).
METHODS: A prospective observational cohort study including patients with an OA treatment. Data were recorded on a web platform (Clinical Registers®) through a dedicated website: www.clinicalregisters.org.
RESULTS: Four hundred two patients enrolled. Adult patients: 369 patients; Mean age: 57.39±18.37; 56% male; Mean BMI: 36±5.6. OA indication: Peritonitis (48.7%), Trauma (20.5%), Vascular Emergencies/Hemorrhage (9.4%), Ischemia (9.1%), Pancreatitis (4.2%),Post-operative abdominal-compartment-syndrome (3.9%), Others (4.2%). The most adopted Temporary-abdominal-closure systems were the commercial negative pressure ones (44.2%). During OA 38% of patients had complications; among them 10.5% had fistula. Definitive closure: 82.8%; Mortality during treatment: 17.2%. Mean duration of OA: 5.39(±4.83) days; Mean number of dressing changes: 0.88(±0.88). After-closure complications: (49.5%) and Mortality: (9%). No significant associations among TACT, indications, mortality, complications and fistula. A linear correlationexists between days of OA and complications (Pearson linear correlation = 0.326 p<0.0001) and with the fistula development (Pearson = 0.146 p= 0.016). Pediatric patients: 33 patients. Mean age: 5.91±(3.68) years; 60% male. Mortality: 3.4%; Complications: 44.8%; Fistula: 3.4%. Mean duration of OA: 3.22(±3.09) days.
CONCLUSION: Temporary abdominal closure is reliable and safe. The different techniques account for different results according to the different indications. In peritonitis commercial negative pressure temporary closure seems to improve results. In trauma skin-closure and Bogotà-bag seem to improve results.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02382770.
Open abdomen and entero-atmospheric fistulae: An interim analysis from the International Register of Open Abdomen (IROA)

Coccolini F, Ceresoli M, Kluger Y, Kirkpatrick A, Montori G, Salvetti F, et al.

Injury, 2019 Jan;50(1):160-166.
PMID: 30274755 DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.09.040

INTRODUCTION: No definitive data describing associations between cases of Open Abdomen (OA) and Entero-atmospheric fistulae (EAF) exist. The World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and the Panamerican Trauma Society (PTS) thus analyzed the International Register of Open Abdomen (IROA) to assess this question.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective analysis of adult patients enrolled in the IROA.
RESULTS: Among 649 adult patients with OA 58 (8.9%) developed EAF. Indications for OA were peritonitis (51.2%) and traumatic-injury (16.8%). The most frequently utilized temporary abdominal closure techniques were Commercial-NPWT (46.8%) and Bogotà-bag (21.9%). Mean OA days were 7.9 ± 18.22. Overall mortality rate was 29.7%, with EAF having no impact on mortality. Multivariate analysis associated cancer (p = 0.018), days of OA (p = 0.003) and time to provision-of-nutrition (p = 0.016) with EAF occurrence.
CONCLUSION: Entero-atmospheric fistulas are influenced by the duration of open abdomen treatment and by the nutritional status of the patient. Peritonitis, intestinal anastomosis, negative pressure and oral or enteral nutrition were not risk factors for EAF during OA treatment.
Fulltext The management of intra-abdominal infections from a global perspective: 2017 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections

Sartelli M, Chichom-Mefire A, Labricciosa FM, Hardcastle T, Abu-Zidan FM, Adesunkanmi AK, et al.

World J Emerg Surg, 2017;12:29.
PMID: 28702076 DOI: 10.1186/s13017-017-0141-6

Intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) are common surgical emergencies and have been reported as major contributors to non-trauma deaths in the emergency departments worldwide. The cornerstones of effective treatment of IAIs are early recognition, adequate source control, and appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Prompt resuscitation of patients with ongoing sepsis is of utmost important. In hospitals worldwide, non-acceptance of, or lack of access to, accessible evidence-based practices and guidelines result in overall poorer outcome of patients suffering IAIs. The aim of this paper is to promote global standards of care in IAIs and update the 2013 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections.
Recovery of endoscopy services in the era of COVID-19: recommendations from an international Delphi consensus

Bhandari P, Subramaniam S, Bourke MJ, Alkandari A, Chiu PWY, Brown JF, et al.

Gut, 2020 11;69(11):1915-1924.
PMID: 32816921 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322329

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.
Fulltext The Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery: defining a model for antimicrobial stewardship-results from an international cross-sectional survey

Sartelli M, Labricciosa FM, Barbadoro P, Pagani L, Ansaloni L, Brink AJ, et al.

World J Emerg Surg, 2017;12:34.
PMID: 28775763 DOI: 10.1186/s13017-017-0145-2

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs (ASPs) have been promoted to optimize antimicrobial usage and patient outcomes, and to reduce the emergence of antimicrobial-resistant organisms. However, the best strategies for an ASP are not definitively established and are likely to vary based on local culture, policy, and routine clinical practice, and probably limited resources in middle-income countries. The aim of this study is to evaluate structures and resources of antimicrobial stewardship teams (ASTs) in surgical departments from different regions of the world.
METHODS: A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted in 2016 on 173 physicians who participated in the AGORA (Antimicrobials: A Global Alliance for Optimizing their Rational Use in Intra-Abdominal Infections) project and on 658 international experts in the fields of ASPs, infection control, and infections in surgery.
RESULTS: The response rate was 19.4%. One hundred fifty-six (98.7%) participants stated their hospital had a multidisciplinary AST. The median number of physicians working inside the team was five [interquartile range 4-6]. An infectious disease specialist, a microbiologist and an infection control specialist were, respectively, present in 80.1, 76.3, and 67.9% of the ASTs. A surgeon was a component in 59.0% of cases and was significantly more likely to be present in university hospitals (89.5%, p
Fulltext Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

Klionsky DJ, Abdelmohsen K, Abe A, Abedin MJ, Abeliovich H, Acevedo Arozena A, et al.

Autophagy, 2016;12(1):1-222.
PMID: 26799652 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356