Obesity is the strongest risk factor for endometrial cancer (EC). To inform targeted screening and prevention strategies, we assessed the impact of obesity and subsequent bariatric surgery‐induced weight loss on endometrial morphology and molecular pathways implicated in endometrial carcinogenesis. Blood and endometrial tissue were obtained from women with class III–IV obesity (body mass index ≥40 and ≥50 kg/m
2
, respectively) immediately prior to gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy, and at two and 12 months’ follow up. The endometrium underwent pathological examination and immunohistochemistry was used to quantify proliferation (Ki‐67), oncogenic signaling (PTEN, pAKT, pERK) and hormone receptor (ER, PR) expression status. Circulating biomarkers of insulin resistance, reproductive function and inflammation were also measured at each time point. Seventy‐two women underwent bariatric surgery. At 12 months, the mean change in total and excess body weight was −32.7 and −62.8%, respectively. Baseline endometrial biopsies revealed neoplastic change in 10 women (14%): four had EC, six had atypical hyperplasia (AH). After bariatric surgery, most cases of AH resolved (5/6) without intervention (3/6) or with intrauterine progestin (2/6). Biomarkers of endometrial proliferation (Ki‐67), oncogenic signaling (pAKT) and hormone receptor status (ER, PR) were significantly reduced, with restoration of glandular PTEN expression, at 2 and 12 months. There were reductions in circulating biomarkers of insulin resistance (HbA1c, HOMA‐IR) and inflammation (hsCRP, IL‐6), and increases in reproductive biomarkers (LH, FSH, SHBG). We found an unexpectedly high prevalence of occult neoplastic changes in the endometrium of women undergoing bariatric surgery. Their spontaneous reversal and accompanying down‐regulation of PI3K‐AKT–mTOR signaling with weight loss may have implications for screening, prevention and treatment of this disease.
The evidence in this review was assessed as generally low to moderate quality. The study sample sizes were small and underpowered to demonstrate differences in outcomes with low event rates. Clinical heterogeneity both between and within studies is a relatively fixed feature of surgical trials, and this also contributed to the need for caution in interpreting results.Considering these limitations, there was uncertainty of the effect on mortality or extracorporeal support times with upper hemi-sternotomy for aortic valve replacement compared to full median sternotomy. The evidence to support a reduction in total hospital length of stay or intensive care stay was low in quality. There was also uncertainty of any difference in the rates of other, secondary outcome measures or adverse events with minimally invasive limited sternotomy approaches to aortic valve replacement.There appears to be uncertainty between minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via upper hemi-sternotomy and conventional aortic valve replacement via a full median sternotomy. Before widespread adoption of the minimally invasive approach can be recommended, there is a need for a well-designed and adequately powered prospective randomised controlled trial. Such a study would benefit from performing a robust cost analysis. Growing patient preference for minimally invasive techniques merits thorough quality-of-life analyses to be included as end points, as well as quantitative measures of physiological reserve.
EuroSCORE II and STS both provide equivalent discrimination in predicting mortality in a British population, including those undergoing procedures for which the STS does not normally predict. Accounting for decile-grouped Hosmer-Lemeshow tests not being ideal for the assessment of calibration, both tools show good calibration for patients with low to moderate risk, with divergence from ~15% predicted risk.
Background
Early studies conclude patients with Covid-19 have a high risk of death, but no studies specifically explore cardiac surgery outcome. We investigate UK cardiac surgery outcomes during the early phase of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Methods
This retrospective observational study included all adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery between 1st March and 30th April 2020 in nine UK centres. Data was obtained and linked locally from the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Adult Cardiac Surgery database, the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre database and local electronic systems. The anonymised datasets were analysed by the lead centre. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, propensity score matching (PSM), conditional logistic regression and hierarchical quantile regression.
Results
Of 755 included individuals, 53 (7.0%) had Covid-19. Comparing those with and without Covid-19, those with Covid-19 had increased mortality (24.5% v 3.5%, p < 0.0001) and longer post-operative stay (11 days v 6 days, p = 0.001), both of which remained significant after PSM. Patients with a pre-operative Covid-19 diagnosis recovered in a similar way to non-Covid-19 patients. However, those with a post-operative Covid-19 diagnosis remained in hospital for an additional 5 days (12 days v 7 days, p = 0.024) and had a considerably higher mortality rate compared to those with a pre-operative diagnosis (37.1% v 0.0%, p = 0.005).
Conclusions
To mitigate against the risks of Covid-19, particularly the post-operative burden, robust and effective pre-surgery diagnosis protocols alongside effective strategies to maintain a Covid-19 free environment are needed. Dedicated cardiac surgery hubs could be valuable in achieving safe and continual delivery of cardiac surgery.
OPCAB is associated with similar long-term outcomes to CABG performed on CPB in our institution. Our low conversion rate to CPB, while training junior surgeons, demonstrates that OPCAB can be taught safely. The number of grafts performed between the 2 approaches is clinically comparable, if statistically different, and appears to provide equal benefits to survival and freedom from reintervention as on-pump CABG.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.