Background It is imperative that an accurate assessment of risk of death is undertaken preoperatively on all patients undergoing an emergency laparotomy. Portsmouth-Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity (P-POSSUM) is one of the most widely used scores. National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) presents a novel, validated score, but no direct comparison with P-POSSUM exists. We aimed to determine which would be the best predictor of mortality. Methods We analysed all the entries on the online NELA database over a four-and-a-half-year period. The Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness of fit test was performed to assess model calibration. For the outcome of death and for each scoring system, a non-parametric receiver operator characteristic analysis was done. The sensitivity, specificity, area under receiver operator characteristic curve and their standard errors were calculated. Results Data pertaining to 650 patients were included. There were 59 deaths, giving an overall observed mortality rate of 9.1%. Predicted mortality rate for the P-POSSUM score and NELA score were 15.2% and 7.8%, respectively. The discriminative power for mortality was highest for the NELA score (C-index = 0.818, CI: 0.769–0.867, p < 0.001), when compared to P-POSSUM (C-index = 0.769, CI: 0.712–0.827, p < 0.001). Conclusions The NELA score showed good discrimination in predicting mortality in the entire cohort. The P-POSSUM over-predicted observed mortality and the NELA score under-predicted observed mortality.

Insufficient evidence of difference between dosage regimens of antibiotic prophylaxis in caesarean section.

No abstract

Introduction Adaptation is vital to ensure successful healthcare recovery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hand trauma represents the most common acute emergency department presentation internationally. This study prospectively evaluates the COVID-19 related patient risk, when undergoing management within one of the largest specialist tertiary referral centres in Europe, which rapidly implemented national COVID-19 safety guidelines. Materials and methods A prospective cohort study was undertaken in all patients referred to the integrated hand trauma service, during the UK COVID-19 pandemic peak (April–May 2020); all were evaluated for 30-day COVID-19 related death. Random selection was undertaken for patients with hand trauma who either underwent non-operative (control group) or operative (surgery group) management; these groups were prospectively followed-up within a controlled cohort study design and telephoned at 30 days following first intervention (control group) or postoperatively (surgery group). Results Of 731 referred patients (566 operations), there were no COVID-19 related deaths. Both groups were matched for sex, age, ethnicity, body mass index, comorbidities, smoking, preoperative/first assessment COVID-19 symptoms, pre- and postoperative/first assessment isolation and positive COVID-19 contact (p > 0.050). There were no differences in high service satisfaction (10/10 compared with 10/10; p = 0.067) and treatment outcome (10/10 compared with 10/10; p = 0.961) scores, postoperative/first assessment symptoms (1%, 1/100 compared with 0.8%, 2/250; p = 1.000) or proportion of positive tests (7.1%, 1/14 compared with 2.2%, 2/92; p = 0.349), between the control (n = 100) and surgery (n = 250) groups. Conclusion These data support continued and safe service provision and no increased risk to patients who require surgical management. Such findings are vital for healthcare providers when considering service adaptations to reinstate patient treatment.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background Serum dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) has drawn particular interest as a biomarker in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), as this protease inactivates several peptides that participate in the inflammatory cascade. Methods Two prospectively recruited cohorts consisting of 195 patients (101 had Crohn’s disease [CD] and 94 had ulcerative colitis [UC]) were evaluated using clinical indexes and followed up to assess for treatment escalation. Sixty-eight patients underwent endoscopic evaluation at baseline. In the second cohort of 46 biologically treated patients, treatment response was assessed. Serum DPP-4, C-reactive protein (CRP), and fecal calprotectin levels were quantified at baseline and during follow-up. Results Median DPP-4 levels were significantly lower in active IBD patients when compared with remitters (CD: 1043 [831–1412] vs 1589 [1255–1956] ng/mL; P &lt; 0.001; UC: 1317 [1058–1718] vs 1798 [1329–2305] ng/mL; P = 0.001) and healthy controls (2175 [1875–3371] ng/mL). In fact, DPP-4 was able to distinguish clinical and endoscopic activity from remission, with areas under the curve (AUC) of 0.81/0.93 (CD) and 0.71/0.79 (UC), along with the need for treatment escalation, with comparable AUCs of 0.79 (CD) and 0.77 (UC). Furthermore, DPP-4 levels were higher in responders to treatment and more pronounced among UC (1467 [1301–1641] vs 1211 [1011–1448] ng/mL; P &lt; 0.001) than CD patients (1385 [1185–1592] vs 1134 [975–1469] ng/mL; P = 0.015). Conclusions Our results suggest that serum DPP-4 can be used as a noninvasive biomarker of IBD activity and biological treatment response and a predictor of treatment escalation, particularly when combined with other biomarkers.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to analyze the decision-making process in emergency general surgery in an attempt to ascertain whether surgeons make the correct decision when decisions not to operate in high-risk acutely unwell surgical patients are taken. Background: A decision not to operate is sometimes associated with a certain degree of uncertainty as to the accuracy of the decision. Difficulty lies with the fact that the decisions are made on assumptions, and the tools available are not fool proof. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated “decisions not to operate” over a period of 32 months from April 2013 to August 2015 in a district general hospital in United Kingdom and compared with consecutive similar number of patients who had an operation as recorded in the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) database (from January 2014 to August 2015). We looked at the demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, Portsmouth–Physiological and Operative Severity Score for enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity (P-POSSUM) score, functional status, and 30-day mortality. Results: Two groups (operated [n = 43] and conservative [n = 42]) had similar characteristics. Patients for conservative management had a higher P-POSSUM score ( P < .001) and a poorer functional status ( P < .001) at the time of decision-making compared to those who had surgery. Mortality at 30 days was significantly higher for patients decided for conservative management when compared with those who had surgery (76.2% and 18.6%, respectively). Conclusions: Elderly patients with poorer functional status and predicted risks more often drive multidisciplinary discussions on whether to operate. Within the limitations of not knowing the outcome otherwise, it appears surgeons take a reasonable approach when deciding not to operate.

No abstract