Summary Background 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03471494 . Findings Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit.

Background Uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (un‐TBAD) has been managed conservatively with medical therapy to control the heart rate and blood pressure to limit disease progression, in addition to radiological follow‐up. However, several trials and observational studies have investigated the use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in un‐TBAD and suggested that TEVAR provides a survival benefit over medical therapy. Outcomes of TEVAR have also been linked with the timing of intervention. Aims The scope of this review is to collate and summarize all the evidence in the literature on the mid‐ and long‐term outcomes of TEVAR in un‐TBAD, confirming its superiority. We also aimed to investigate the relationship between the timing of TEVAR intervention and results. Methods We carried out a comprehensive literature search on multiple electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE to collate and summarize all research evidence on the mid‐ and long‐term outcomes of TEVAR in un‐TBAD, as well as its relationship with intervention timing. Results TEVAR has proven to be a safe and effective tool in un‐TBAD, offering superior mid‐ and long‐term outcomes including all‐cause and aorta‐related mortality, aortic‐specific adverse events, aortic remodeling, and need for reintervention. Additionally, performing TEVAR during the subacute phase of dissection seems to yield optimal results. Conclusion The evidence demonstrating a survival advantage in favor TEVAR over medical therapy in un‐TBAD means that with further research, particular trials and observational studies, TEVAR could become the gold‐standard treatment option for un‐TBAD patients.

No abstract

Background: There is emerging evidence to support pre-emptive thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) intervention for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (unTBAD). Pre-emptive intervention would be particularly beneficial in patients that have a higher baseline risk of progressing to complicated TBAD (coTBAD). There remain debate on the optimal clinical, laboratory, morphological, and radiological parameters, which would identify the highest-risk patients that would benefit most from pre-emptive TEVAR.Aim: This review summarizes evidence on the clinical, laboratory, and morphological parameters that increase the risk profiles of unTBAD patients.Methods: A comprehensive literature search was carried out on multiple electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, and Scopus to collate all research evidence on the clinical, laboratory, and morphological parameters that increase the risk profiles of unTBAD patients Results: At present, there are no clear clinical guidelines using risk-stratification to inform the selection of unTBAD patients for TEVAR. However, there are noticeable literature trends that can assist with the identification of the most at-risk unTBAD patients. Patients are at particular risk when they have refractory pain and/or hypertension, elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), larger aortic diameter, and larger entry tears. These risks should be considered alongside factors that increase the procedural risk of TEVAR to create a well-balanced approach. Advances in biomarkers and imaging are likely to identify more pertinent parameters in the future to optimize the development of balanced, risk-stratified treatment protocols. Conclusion:There are a variety of risk profiling parameters that can be used to identify the high-risk unTBAD patient, with novel biomarkers and imaging parameters emerging. Longer-term evidence verifying these parameters would be ideal. Further randomized controlled trials and multicentre registry analyses are also warranted to guide risk-stratified selection protocols.

Background Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is a life-threatening medical emergency that requires urgent surgical intervention. The mainstay surgical approach to treating ATAAD with aortic arch involvement is total arch replacement (TAR). The frozen elephant trunk (FET) procedure involves TAR with hybrid endovascular stenting of the DTA in a single step using a hybrid prosthesis (HP). The prime example of a FET HP is Thoraflex Hybrid Prosthesis (THP). Another treatment option is the novel Ascyrus Medical Dissection Stent (AMDS) that is deployed as a non-covered stent along with the aortic arch as an adjunct to prior hemi-arch replacement. Aims This comparative review highlights the clinical applications and outcomes of THP and AMDS in the treatment of ATAAD and discusses the main differences between both approaches. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted using multiple electronic databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, Ovid, Scopus and Embase. Results TAR with FET can be considered the superior approach to managing ATAAD with arch involvement relative to AMDS with hemi-arch replacement due to more optimal clinical outcomes. Upon comprehensively searching the literature, early mortality was substantially lower with FET ranging from 0–11% compared to 12.5–18.7% using AMDS, with more favourable long-term survival. The incidence of kidney injury and new stroke post-FET ranged from 3–20% and 5–16%, and 11–37.5% and 0–18.8% following AMDS implantation. However, evidence supporting the use of AMDS is extremely limited. Meanwhile, TAR with FET is a well-established and well-described procedure for ATAAD repair. Conclusion Despite the novel nature of AMDS, its clinical safety and effectiveness are yet to be proven. In conclusion, THP remains the best evidenced-based approach to treat ATAAD in this era.

Background Despite recent advancements in the respiratory care (RC) profession, no single institution in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) offers a master’s degree program in RC. Methods A nationwide and validated survey was used to explore the current needs and interests in establishing RC master’s degree programs in the KSA. The process included representatives from the healthcare industry, universities, and professional societies. Results A total of 1250 stakeholders across the KSA completed the survey. The sample includes 722 (58%) males, 504 (40%) respiratory therapists, 547 (44%) students, 138 (11%) leaders, and 61 (5%) were academic respondents. Most respondents were from Central 491 (39%) and Eastern 307 (25%) regions, with 1003 (80%) of the total sample worked or studied in governmental sectors. A total of 574 (82%) of the leaders and RTs had Bachelor degree and 430 (61%) of them had 1–5 years working experience. According to 80% of the employers and employees, only 0–5% of the RTs in their organization had a master’s degree. The calculated mean % of the agreement (agree/strongly agree) on the needs was 83% in all needs’ assessment items, which shows a great support for establishing a master’s in RC to meet the personal, professional and society needs. The mean % of the agreement for the level of interests among all participants was 86%, indicating a great level of interests in establishing a master degree in RC. The agreement % on the needs assessment and level of interests in establishing a master degree in RC in KSA were ≥80% in each stakeholder group. Conclusion There are obvious needs and interests in establishing master’s degree programs in RC in the KSA. A master’s degree in RC should be established to address the growing needs for advanced RC services throughout the nation and enhance RC research.

Background Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has a prevalence of 4.8%. AAA rupture is associated with significant mortality, thus surgical intervention is generally required once the aneurysm diameter exceeds 5.5 cm. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the predominant repair modality for AAA. However, in patients with complex aortic anatomy, fenestrated or branched EVAR is a superior repair option vs standard EVAR. Fenestrated and branched endoprostheses can be off-the-shelf or custom-made, which offers a more individualised approach. Aim To summarise and evaluate the clinical outcomes achieved by fenestrated EVAR (FEVAR) and branched EVAR (BEVAR), and to explore the role of custom-made endoprostheses in contemporary AAA management. Methods A literature search using Ovid Medline and Google Scholar was conducted to identify literature pertaining to the use and outcomes of fenestrated, branched, fenestrated-branched and custom-made endoprostheses for AAA repair. Results FEVAR is an effective repair modality for patients with AAA that offers similar early survival, improved early morbidity but higher rates of reintervention in comparison to open surgical repair (OSR). Compared with standard EVAR, FEVAR is associated with similar in-hospital mortality yet higher rates of morbidity, especially regarding renal outcomes. BEVAR outcomes are rarely reported exclusively in the context of AAA repair. When reported, BEVAR is an acceptable alternative to EVAR in the treatment of complex aortic aneurysms and has similar reported complication issues to FEVAR. Custom-made grafts are a good alternative treatment option for complex aneurysms where hostile aneurysm anatomy precludes the use of conventional EVAR and sufficient time is available for the manufacturing of such devices. Conclusion FEVAR offers a very effective treatment for patients with complex aortic anatomy and has been well-characterised over the past decade. RCTs and longer-term studies are desirable for unbiased comparison of non-standard EVAR modalities.

Background: There is emerging evidence to support pre-emptive thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) intervention for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (unTBAD). Pre-emptive intervention would be particularly beneficial in patients that have a higher baseline risk of progressing to complicated TBAD (coTBAD). There remains debate on the optimal clinical, laboratory, morphological and radiological parameters which would identify the highest-risk patients that would benefit most from pre-emptive TEVAR. Aim: This review summarises evidence on the clinical, laboratory, and morphological parameters that increase the risk profiles of unTBAD patients. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was carried out on multiple electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid and Scopus in order to collate all research evidence on the the clinical, laboratory, and morphological parameters that increase the risk profiles of unTBAD patients Results: At present, there are no clear clinical guidelines using risk-stratification to inform the selection of unTBAD patients for TEVAR. However, there are noticeable literature trends that can assist with the identification of the most at-risk unTBAD patients. Patients are at particular risk when they have refractory pain and/or hypertension, elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), larger aortic diameter and larger entry tears. These risks should be considered alongside factors that increase the procedural risk of TEVAR to create a well-balanced approach. Advances in biomarkers and imaging are likely to identify more pertinent parameters in future to optimise the development of balanced, risk-stratified treatment protocols. Conclusion: There are a variety of risk profiling parameters that can be used to identify the high-risk unTBAD patient, with novel biomarkers and imaging parameter emerging. Longer-term evidence verifying these parameters would be ideal. Further randomized controlled trials and multicentre registry analyses are also warranted to guide risk-stratified selection protocols.