استكشف المجموعة الواسعة من العناوين المتاحة.

Longer times between diagnosis and treatments of cancer patients have been estimated as effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, relatively few studies attempted to estimate actual delay to treatment at the patient level. To assess changes in delays to first treatment and surgery among newly diagnosed patients with localized breast cancer (BC) during the COVID-19 pandemic. We used data from the PAPESCO-19 multicenter cohort study, which included patients from 4 French comprehensive cancer centers. We measured the delay to first treatment as the number of days between diagnosis and the first treatment regardless of whether this was neoadjuvant chemotherapy or surgery. COVID-19 pandemic exposure was estimated with a composite index that considered both the severity of the pandemic and the level of lockdown restrictions. We ran generalized linear models with a log link function and a gamma distribution to model the association between delay and the pandemic. Of the 187 patients included in the analysis, the median delay to first treatment was 42 (IQR:32-54) days for patients diagnosed before and after the start of the 1st lockdown (N = 99 and 88, respectively). After adjusting for age and centers of inclusion, a higher composite pandemic index (> = 50 V.S. <50) had only a small, non-significant effect on times to treatment. Longer delays were associated with factors other than the COVID-19 pandemic. We found evidence of no direct impact of the pandemic on the actual delay to treatment among patients with localized BC.

Background and purpose Patients with acute ischaemic stroke and a large vessel occlusion who present to a non‐endovascular‐capable centre often require inter‐hospital transfer for thrombectomy. Whether the inter‐hospital transfer time is associated with 3‐month functional outcome is poorly known. Methods Acute stroke patients enrolled between January 2015 and December 2022 in the prospective French multicentre Endovascular Treatment of Ischaemic Stroke registry were retrospectively analysed. Patients with an anterior circulation large vessel occlusion transferred from a non‐endovascular to a comprehensive stroke centre for thrombectomy were eligible. Inter‐hospital transfer time was defined as the time between imaging in the referring hospital and groin puncture for thrombectomy. The relationship between transfer time and favourable 3‐month functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale 0–2) was assessed through a mixed logistic regression model adjusting for centre and symptom‐onset‐to‐referring‐hospital imaging time, age, sex, diabetes, referring hospital National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, Alberta Stroke Programme Early Computed Tomography Score, occlusion site and intravenous thrombolysis use. Results Overall, 3769 patients were included (median inter‐hospital transfer time 161 min, interquartile range 128–195; 46% with favourable outcome). A longer transfer time was independently associated with lower rates of favourable outcome (p < 0.001). Compared to patients with transfer time below 120 min, there was a 15% reduction in the odds of achieving favourable outcome for transfer times between 120 and 180 min (adjusted odds ratio 0.85; 95% confidence interval 0.67–1.07), and a 36% reduction for transfer times beyond 180 min (adjusted odds ratio 0.64; 95% confidence interval 0.50–0.81). Conclusions A shorter inter‐hospital transfer time is strongly associated with favourable 3‐month functional outcome. A speedier inter‐hospital transfer is of critical importance to improve outcome.

Purpose The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has had a profound impact on cancer care in the US Guidelines focused on the management of COVID-19, rather than healthcare needs of breast cancer patients requiring access to crucial services. This US survey of breast cancer survivors characterizes treatment delays early period in the pandemic. Methods We developed a survey and administered it to 609 adult breast cancer survivors in the US. We used snowball sampling with invitations distributed via social media. We used logistic regression to select a model of delay from a pool of independent variables including race, cancer stage, site of care, health insurance, and age. We used descriptive statistics to characterize delay types. Results Forty-four percent of participants reported cancer care treatment delays during the pandemic. Delays in all aspects of cancer care and treatment were reported. The only variable which had a significant effect was age (97 (.95, 99), p  < 0.001) with younger respondents ( M  = 45.94, SD  = 10.31) reporting a higher incidence of delays than older respondents ( M  = 48.98, SD  = 11.10). There was no significant effect for race, insurance, site of care, or cancer stage. Conclusions Our findings reveal a pervasive impact of COVID-19 on breast cancer care and a gap in disaster preparedness that leaves cancer survivors at risk for poor outcomes. Delays are critical to capture and characterize to help cancer providers and healthcare systems develop effective and patient–tailored processes and strategies to manage cases during the current pandemic wave, subsequent waves, and future disasters.

Recent reductions in average door-to-balloon (D2B) times have not been associated with decreases in mortality at the population level. We investigated this seemingly paradoxical finding by assessing components of this association at the individual and population levels simultaneously. We postulated that the changing population of patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) contributed to secular trends toward an increasing mortality risk, despite consistently decreased mortality in individual patients with shorter D2B times. This was a retrospective study of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients who underwent pPCI between Jan 1, 2005, and Dec 31, 2011, in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) CathPCI Registry. We looked for catheterisation laboratory visits associated with STEMI. We excluded patients not undergoing pPCI, transfer patients for pPCI, patients with D2B times less than 15 min or more than 3 h, and patients at hospitals that did not consistently report data across the study period. We assessed in-hospital mortality in the entire cohort and 6-month mortality in elderly patients aged 65 years or older matched to data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. We built multilevel models to assess the relation between D2B time and in-hospital and 6-month mortality, including both individual and population-level components of this association after adjusting for patient and procedural factors. 423 hospitals reported data on 150 116 procedures with a 55% increase in the number of patients undergoing pPCI at these facilities over time, as well as many changes in patient and procedural factors. Annual D2B times decreased significantly from a median of 86 min (IQR 65–109) in 2005 to 63 min (IQR 47–80) in 2011 (p<0·0001) with a concurrent rise in risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (from 4·7% to 5·3%; p=0·06) and risk-adjusted 6-month mortality (from 12·9% to 14·4%; p=0·001). In multilevel models, shorter patient-specific D2B times were consistently associated at the individual level with lower in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR for each 10 min decrease 0·92; 95% CI 0·91–0·93; p<0·0001) and 6-month mortality (adjusted OR for each 10 min decrease, 0·94; 95% CI 0·93–0·95; p<0·0001). By contrast, risk-adjusted in-hospital and 6-month mortality at the population level, independent of patient-specific D2B times, rose in the growing and changing population of patients undergoing pPCI during the study period. Shorter patient-specific D2B times were consistently associated with lower mortality over time, whereas secular trends suggest increased mortality risk in the growing and changing pPCI population. The absence of association of annual D2B time and changes in mortality at the population level should not be interpreted as an indication of its individual-level relation in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Background: It is unclear whether more timely cancer diagnosis brings favourable outcomes, with much of the previous evidence, in some cancers, being equivocal. We set out to determine whether there is an association between time to diagnosis, treatment and clinical outcomes, across all cancers for symptomatic presentations. Methods: Systematic review of the literature and narrative synthesis. Results: We included 177 articles reporting 209 studies. These studies varied in study design, the time intervals assessed and the outcomes reported. Study quality was variable, with a small number of higher-quality studies. Heterogeneity precluded definitive findings. The cancers with more reports of an association between shorter times to diagnosis and more favourable outcomes were breast, colorectal, head and neck, testicular and melanoma. Conclusions: This is the first review encompassing many cancer types, and we have demonstrated those cancers in which more evidence of an association between shorter times to diagnosis and more favourable outcomes exists, and where it is lacking. We believe that it is reasonable to assume that efforts to expedite the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer are likely to have benefits for patients in terms of improved survival, earlier-stage diagnosis and improved quality of life, although these benefits vary between cancers.

There are different patterns in the COVID-19 outbreak in the general population and amongst nursing home patients. We investigate the time from symptom onset to diagnosis and hospitalization or the length of stay (LoS) in the hospital, and whether there are differences in the population. Sciensano collected information on 14,618 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 admissions from 114 Belgian hospitals between 14 March and 12 June 2020. The distributions of different event times for different patient groups are estimated accounting for interval censoring and right truncation of the time intervals. The time between symptom onset and hospitalization or diagnosis are similar, with median length between symptom onset and hospitalization ranging between 3 and 10.4 days, depending on the age of the patient (longest delay in age group 20–60 years) and whether or not the patient lives in a nursing home (additional 2 days for patients from nursing home). The median LoS in hospital varies between 3 and 10.4 days, with the LoS increasing with age. The hospital LoS for patients that recover is shorter for patients living in a nursing home, but the time to death is longer for these patients. Over the course of the first wave, the LoS has decreased.

Sepsis is a common consequence of infection, associated with a mortality rate > 25%. Although community-acquired sepsis is more common, hospital-acquired infection is more lethal. The most common site of infection is the lung, followed by abdominal infection, catheter-associated blood steam infection and urinary tract infection. Gram-negative sepsis is more common than gram-positive infection, but sepsis can also be due to fungal and viral pathogens. To reduce mortality, it is necessary to give immediate, empiric, broad-spectrum therapy to those with severe sepsis and/or shock, but this approach can drive antimicrobial overuse and resistance and should be accompanied by a commitment to de-escalation and antimicrobial stewardship. Biomarkers such a procalcitonin can provide decision support for antibiotic use, and may identify patients with a low likelihood of infection, and in some settings, can guide duration of antibiotic therapy. Sepsis can involve drug-resistant pathogens, and this often necessitates consideration of newer antimicrobial agents.

AbstractObjectiveTo determine outcomes and safety of endovascular treatment for acute ischaemic stroke, due to proximal intracranial vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation, in routine clinical practice.DesignOngoing, prospective, observational cohort study.Setting16 centres that perform endovascular treatment in the Netherlands.Participants1488 patients included in the Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischaemic Stroke in the Netherlands (MR CLEAN) Registry who had received endovascular treatment, including stent retriever thrombectomy, aspiration, and all alternative methods for acute ischaemic stroke within 6.5 hours from onset of symptoms between March 2014 and June 2016.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, ranging from 0 (no symptoms) to 6 (death) at 90 days after the onset of symptoms. Secondary outcomes were excellent functional outcome (mRS score 0-1), good functional outcome (mRS score 0-2), and favourable functional outcome (mRS score 0-3) at 90 days; score on the extended thrombolysis in cerebral infarction scale at the end of the intervention procedure; National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score 24-48 hours after intervention; and complications that occurred during intervention, hospital admission, or three months’ follow up period. Outcomes and safety variables in the MR CLEAN Registry were compared with the MR CLEAN trial intervention and control arms.ResultsA statistically significant shift was observed towards better functional outcome in patients in the MR CLEAN Registry compared with the MR CLEAN trial intervention arm (adjusted common odds ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.67) and the MR CLEAN trial control arm (1.85, 1.46 to 2.34). The reperfusion rate, with successful reperfusion defined as a score of 2B-3 on the extended thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score, was 58.7%, the same as for patients in the MR CLEAN trial. Duration from onset of stroke to start of endovascular treatment and from onset of stroke to successful reperfusion or last contrast bolus was one hour shorter for patients in the MR CLEAN Registry. Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred in 5.8% of patients in the MR CLEAN Registry compared with 7.7% in the MR CLEAN trial intervention arm and 6.4% in the MR CLEAN trial control arm.ConclusionIn routine clinical practice, endovascular treatment for patients with acute ischaemic stroke is at least as effective and safe as in the setting of a randomised controlled trial.

Observational studies have suggested that accelerated surgery is associated with improved outcomes in patients with a hip fracture. The HIP ATTACK trial assessed whether accelerated surgery could reduce mortality and major complications. HIP ATTACK was an international, randomised, controlled trial done at 69 hospitals in 17 countries. Patients with a hip fracture that required surgery and were aged 45 years or older were eligible. Research personnel randomly assigned patients (1:1) through a central computerised randomisation system using randomly varying block sizes to either accelerated surgery (goal of surgery within 6 h of diagnosis) or standard care. The coprimary outcomes were mortality and a composite of major complications (ie, mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, life-threatening bleeding, and major bleeding) at 90 days after randomisation. Patients, health-care providers, and study staff were aware of treatment assignment, but outcome adjudicators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02027896). Between March 14, 2014, and May 24, 2019, 27 701 patients were screened, of whom 7780 were eligible. 2970 of these were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive accelerated surgery (n=1487) or standard care (n=1483). The median time from hip fracture diagnosis to surgery was 6 h (IQR 4–9) in the accelerated-surgery group and 24 h (10–42) in the standard-care group (p<0·0001). 140 (9%) patients assigned to accelerated surgery and 154 (10%) assigned to standard care died, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·91 (95% CI 0·72 to 1·14) and absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 1% (−1 to 3; p=0·40). Major complications occurred in 321 (22%) patients assigned to accelerated surgery and 331 (22%) assigned to standard care, with an HR of 0·97 (0·83 to 1·13) and an ARR of 1% (−2 to 4; p=0·71). Among patients with a hip fracture, accelerated surgery did not significantly lower the risk of mortality or a composite of major complications compared with standard care. Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

The timing of renal replacement therapy (RRT) for severe acute kidney injury is highly debated when no life-threatening complications are present. We assessed whether a strategy of delayed versus early RRT initiation affects 28-day survival in critically ill adults with severe acute kidney injury. In this systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised trials published from April 1, 2008, to Dec 20, 2019, that compared delayed and early RRT initiation strategies in patients with severe acute kidney injury. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they included critically ill patients aged 18 years or older with acute kidney injury (defined as a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes [KDIGO] acute kidney injury stage 2 or 3, or, where KDIGO was unavailable, a renal Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 3 or higher). We contacted the principal investigator of each eligible trial to request individual patient data. From the included trials, any patients without acute kidney injury or who were not randomly allocated were not included in the individual patient data meta-analysis. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at day 28 after randomisation. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019125025). Among the 1031 studies identified, one study that met the eligibility criteria was excluded because the recruitment period was not recent enough, and ten (including 2143 patients) were included in the analysis. Individual patient data were available for nine studies (2083 patients), from which 1879 patients had severe acute kidney injury and were randomly allocated: 946 (50%) to the delayed RRT group and 933 (50%) to the early RRT group. 390 (42%) of 929 patients allocated to the delayed RRT group and who had available data did not receive RRT. The proportion of patients who died by day 28 did not significantly differ between the delayed RRT group (366 [44%] of 837) and the early RRT group (355 [43%] of 827; risk ratio 1·01 [95% CI 0·91 to 1·13], p=0·80), corresponding to an overall risk difference of 0·01 (95% CI −0·04 to 0·06). There was no heterogeneity across studies (I2=0%; τ2=0), and most studies had a low risk of bias. The timing of RRT initiation does not affect survival in critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury in the absence of urgent indications for RRT. Delaying RRT initiation, with close patient monitoring, might lead to a reduced use of RRT, thereby saving health resources. None.