Aim The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer... Show moreAim The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. Methods This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. Results Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. Conclusion One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease. Show less
Background: Trauma patients are at a significant risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), with lower extremity fractures (LEF) being independent risk factors. Use of direct oral anticoagusants (DOACs)... Show moreBackground: Trauma patients are at a significant risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), with lower extremity fractures (LEF) being independent risk factors. Use of direct oral anticoagusants (DOACs) for VTE prophylaxis is effective in elective orthopedic surgery, but currently not approved for trauma patients. The primary objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of thromboprophylaxis of DOACs with lowmolecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in trauma patients sustaining LEF.Materials and methods: We included adult trauma patients admitted to trauma quality improvement program participating trauma centers (between 2013 and 2016), who sustained LEF and were started on DOACs or LMWH for thromboprophylaxis after admission. Propensity score matching was performed to compare symptomatic VTE and bleeding control interventions between the groups.Results: Of 1,009,922 patients in trauma quality improvement program, 167,640 met inclusion criteria (165,009 received LMWH and 2631 received DOACs). After propensity score matching, 2280 predominantly elderly (median age: 67 y) isolated femur fracture patients (median ISS: 10) were included in each group (4560 patients in total). Symptomatic VTE occurred in 1.4% of patients in both matched groups (P = 0.992). Bleeding control interventions occurred less often in the DOAC group, albeit statistically insignificant (5.8% versus 6.0%, P = 0.772).Conclusions: This study found similar rates of VTE and bleeding control measures for thromboprophylaxis with DOACs or LMWH in matched trauma patients with LEF. Further prospective research is warranted to consolidate the safety of DOAC thromboprophylaxis in trauma patients with LEF. Favorable oral administration and likely increased adherence could benefit this high-risk population. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. Show less
