BackgroundThere is currently conflicting evidence surrounding the effects of obesity on postoperative outcomes. Previous studies have found obesity to be associated with adverse events, but others have found no association. The aim of this study was to determine whether increasing body mass index (BMI) is an independent risk factor for development of major postoperative complications.MethodsThis was a multicentre prospective cohort study across the UK and Republic of Ireland. Consecutive patients undergoing elective or emergency gastrointestinal surgery over a 4‐month interval (October–December 2014) were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was the 30‐day major complication rate (Clavien–Dindo grade III–V). BMI was grouped according to the World Health Organization classification. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to adjust for patient, operative and hospital‐level effects, creating odds ratios (ORs) and 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i.).ResultsOf 7965 patients, 2545 (32·0 per cent) were of normal weight, 2673 (33·6 per cent) were overweight and 2747 (34·5 per cent) were obese. Overall, 4925 (61·8 per cent) underwent elective and 3038 (38·1 per cent) emergency operations. The 30‐day major complication rate was 11·4 per cent (908 of 7965). In adjusted models, a significant interaction was found between BMI and diagnosis, with an association seen between BMI and major complications for patients with malignancy (overweight: OR 1·59, 95 per cent c.i. 1·12 to 2·29, P = 0·008; obese: OR 1·91, 1·31 to 2·83, P = 0·002; compared with normal weight) but not benign disease (overweight: OR 0·89, 0·71 to 1·12, P = 0·329; obese: OR 0·84, 0·66 to 1·06, P = 0·147).ConclusionOverweight and obese patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal malignancy are at increased risk of major postoperative complications compared with those of normal weight.
Prolonged antibiotic use did not have a statistically significant effect on reducing surgical-site infections or implant loss. There was significant heterogeneity between studies, and prolonged antibiotics may have increased the risk of implant loss in the randomized controlled trial. Definitive evidence may only be obtained with data from more prospective randomized controlled trials.
Background
In this two-site randomized trial, we investigated the effect of antiseptic drain care on bacterial colonization of surgical drains and infection after immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction.
Methods
With IRB approval, we randomized patients undergoing bilateral mastectomy and reconstruction to drain antisepsis (treatment) for one side, with standard drain care (control) for the other. Antisepsis care included both: 1) chlorhexidine disc dressing at drain exit site(s), and 2) irrigation of drain bulbs twice daily with dilute sodium hypochlorite solution. Cultures were obtained from bulb fluid at one week and at drain removal, and from the subcutaneous drain tubing at removal. Positive cultures were defined as ≥1+ growth for fluid and >50 CFU for tubing.
Results
Cultures of drain bulb fluid at one week (the primary endpoint) were positive in 9.9% of treatment sides (10/101) versus 20.8% (21/101) of control sides (p=0.02). Drain tubing cultures were positive in 0 treated drains versus 6.2% (6/97) of control drains (p=0.03). Surgical site infection occurred within 30 days in 0 antisepsis sides versus 3.8% (4/104) of control sides (p = 0.13), and within 1 year in 3/104 (2.9%) of antisepsis sides versus 6/104 (5.8%) of control sides (p = 0.45). Clinical infection occurred within one year in 9.7% (6/62) of colonized sides (tubing or fluid) versus 1.5% (2/136) of non-colonized sides (p = 0.03).
Conclusions
Simple and inexpensive local antiseptic interventions with a chlorhexidine disc and hypochlorite solution reduce bacterial colonization of drains, and reduced drain colonization was associated with fewer infections.
Background: Patient selection for critical care admission must balance patient safety with optimal resource allocation. This study aimed to determine the relationship between critical care admission, and postoperative mortality after abdominal surgery. Methods: This prespecified secondary analysis of a multicentre, prospective, observational study included consecutive patients enrolled in the DISCOVER study from UK and Republic of Ireland undergoing major gastrointestinal and liver surgery between October and December 2014. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Multivariate logistic regression was used to explore associations between critical care admission (planned and unplanned) and mortality, and intercentre variation in critical care admission after emergency laparotomy. Results: Of 4529 patients included, 37.8% (n¼1713) underwent planned critical care admissions from theatre. Some 3.1% (n¼86/2816) admitted to ward-level care subsequently underwent unplanned critical care admission. Overall 30-day mortality was 2.9% (n¼133/4519), and the risk-adjusted association between 30-day mortality and critical care admission was higher in unplanned [odds ratio (OR): 8.65, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.51e19.97) than planned admissions (OR: 2.32, 95% CI: 1.43e3.85). Some 26.7% of patients (n¼1210/4529) underwent emergency laparotomies. After adjustment, 49.3% (95% CI: 46.8e51.9%, P<0.001) were predicted to have planned critical care admissions, with 7% (n¼10/145) of centres outside the 95% CI. Conclusions: After risk adjustment, no 30-day survival benefit was identified for either planned or unplanned postoperative admissions to critical care within this cohort. This likely represents appropriate admission of the highest-risk patients. Planned admissions in selected, intermediate-risk patients may present a strategy to mitigate the risk of unplanned admission. Substantial inter-centre variation exists in planned critical care admissions after emergency laparotomies.
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.