Background This study aimed to determine the impact of preoperative exposure to intravenous contrast for CT and the risk of developing postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery. Methods This prospective, multicentre cohort study included adults undergoing gastrointestinal resection, stoma reversal or liver resection. Both elective and emergency procedures were included. Preoperative exposure to intravenous contrast was defined as exposure to contrast administered for the purposes of CT up to 7 days before surgery. The primary endpoint was the rate of AKI within 7 days. Propensity score‐matched models were adjusted for patient, disease and operative variables. In a sensitivity analysis, a propensity score‐matched model explored the association between preoperative exposure to contrast and AKI in the first 48 h after surgery. Results A total of 5378 patients were included across 173 centres. Overall, 1249 patients (23·2 per cent) received intravenous contrast. The overall rate of AKI within 7 days of surgery was 13·4 per cent (718 of 5378). In the propensity score‐matched model, preoperative exposure to contrast was not associated with AKI within 7 days (odds ratio (OR) 0·95, 95 per cent c.i. 0·73 to 1·21; P = 0·669). The sensitivity analysis showed no association between preoperative contrast administration and AKI within 48 h after operation (OR 1·09, 0·84 to 1·41; P = 0·498). Conclusion There was no association between preoperative intravenous contrast administered for CT up to 7 days before surgery and postoperative AKI. Risk of contrast‐induced nephropathy should not be used as a reason to avoid contrast‐enhanced CT.
The peri-operative use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-2 receptor blockers is thought to be associated with an increased risk of postoperative acute kidney injury. To reduce this risk, these agents are commonly withheld during the peri-operative period. This study aimed to investigate if withholding angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-2 receptor blockers peri-operatively reduces the risk of acute kidney injury following major non-cardiac surgery. Patients undergoing elective major surgery on the gastrointestinal tract and/or the liver were eligible for inclusion in this prospective study. The primary outcome was the development of acute kidney injury within seven days of operation. Adjusted multi-level models were used to account for centre-level effects and propensity score matching was used to reduce the effects of selection bias between treatment groups. A total of 949 patients were included from 160 centres across the UK and Republic of Ireland. From this population, 573 (60.4%) patients had their angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-2 receptor blockers withheld during the peri-operative period. One hundred and seventy-five (18.4%) patients developed acute kidney injury; there was no difference in the incidence of acute kidney injury between patients who had their angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-2 receptor blockers continued or withheld (107 (18.7%) vs. 68 (18.1%), respectively; p = 0.914). Following propensity matching, withholding angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-2 receptor blockers did not demonstrate a protective effect against the development of postoperative acute kidney injury (OR (95%CI) 0.89 (0.58-1.34); p = 0.567).
Balai et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
No abstract
Introduction: On the 11th of March 2020, the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared a global pandemic following the upsurge of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Unprecedented global demand for personal protective equipment (PPE) resulted in restricted availability, as well as evolving guidance on use, the latter of which was complicated by conflicting guidance provided by numerous healthcare bodies. Aim: To assess perceived confidence and knowledge of PPE guidance as published by Public Health England (PHE) amongst doctors of varying specialties and grades.Method: A nationwide 11-point survey comprising of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and a 5-point Likert scale assessing perceived confidence was disseminated to UK-based doctors using multiple platforms. Statistical analysis using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey's honest significant difference (Tukey HSD) and Pearson's chi-squared test was undertaken to assess for statistical significance.Results: Data collated from 697 respondents revealed that average perceived confidence was low across all specialties and grades. Notably, 59% (n = 411) felt they had received insufficient education regarding up-to-date guidance, with 81% (n = 565) advocating further training. Anaesthetics and ophthalmology were highest and lowest scoring specialties in knowledge-based MCQs, achieving scores of 59% and 31%, respectively. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences between specialty, but not grade. Conclusion:Ensuring uniformity in published guidance, coupled with education may aid knowledge and subsequent confidence regarding the appropriate use of PPE. The absence of a unified consensus and sustained training not only poses significant ramifications for patient and healthcare professional (HCP) safety, but also risks further depletion of already sparse resources. Because of the novelty of COVID-19, appropriate PPE is continually evolving leaving an absence in formal training and education. This paper reveals insight into confidence and knowledge of PPE amongst doctors of various specialities/grades during a global pandemic, highlighting key deficits in education and training.
Background The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 extends far beyond the immediate burden on healthcare systems caused by hospitalisation of patients with the disease itself. Objective To investigate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on the referral rate of patients to the suspected head and neck cancer two-week-wait clinic. Methods A multicentre retrospective study was performed investigating data collected for all patients attending the suspected head and neck cancer two-week-wait clinic in ENT departments in the West Midlands. Results A total of 509 fast-track referrals were received from February to April in 2019, compared to 399 referrals in 2020. April 2020 saw a 62.4 per cent reduction in referral rate compared to April 2019. Conclusion The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has resulted in changes to health-seeking behaviours, and healthcare provision and delivery. Urgent policy interventions may be required to compensate for the hidden impact that the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has had on those with cancer.
Background: On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a global pandemic in the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. The unpredictable nature of transmission of COVID-19 requires a meticulous understanding of guidance on personal protective equipment (PPE) as published by WHO and Public Health England (PHE). Aim: To assess perceived confidence and knowledge of PHE guidance relating to PPE by nursing staff. Methods: A nationwide survey was disseminated between May and June 2020 through social media platforms as well as internal mail via regulatory bodies and individual hospital trusts. Results: Data were collated from 339 nurses. Perceived confidence as measured on a Likert scale was a mode score of 3/5, with the average score for knowledge-based questions being 5/10. Of the respondents, 47% cited insufficient training on PPE guidance, and 84% advocated further training. Conclusions: Unifying published PPE guidance and ensuring consistency in training can improve awareness, confidence, and knowledge among nursing staff.
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.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.