Acute cholecystectomy in elderly - age is not a limit (2021)

Type of publication:
Conference abstract

Author(s):
*Gupta A.; *Rashid M.U.; *Rupasinghe N.; *Adjepong S.; *Rink J.; *Kirby G.; *Jain R.; *Riera M.; *Parampalli U.; *Pattar J.

Citation:
British Journal of Surgery. Conference: UGI Congress 2021. Belfast United Kingdom. 108 (SUPPL 9) pp. ix34

Abstract:
Background: Acute or hot cholecystectomy (AC) has been established as a safe and efficacious modality of managing acute biliary pathology. However, it has been performed with caution in the elderly (defined by the world health organisation as patients over the age of 65). The NICE guidance in this area does not preclude this practise on elderly patients. Our acute cholecystectomy service treats patients of all ages according to performance status and fitness for surgery rather than age we audited our results in this age group. Method(s): All patients over the age of 65 who underwent acute cholecystectomy in the dedicated emergency cholecystectomy lists were audited from the period starting 31st December 2019 to 31st June 2021. Patient demographics, co-morbidies and surgical factors were recorded. The primary outcomes measure was in hospital stay and readmission, secondary outcome were complications and perioperative mortality. Result(s): 41 elderly patients underwent AC during the audit period, (male 18: female 23). Majority of patients had acute cholecystitis 30(73%). The median inpatient stay following surgery was 2 days(range 2-5 days) and the median admission to surgery time was 6 days (range 5-12 days). Only 3(7%) patients had a subtotal cholecystectomy. There was only 3 complications from surgery which were all between a clavien-dindo score of 2 and 3. There were 3 readmission in the immediate post-operative period. There was one 30-day mortality which was from necrotising pancreatitis as a result of ERCP and not from the operation. Conclusion(s): Acute cholecystectomy in this age group appears to be safe and effective way to treat acute biliary pathology and compares similarly to the outcomes in the younger

Managing hypertension in type 2 diabetes – the basics (2021)

Type of publication:Interactive case study

Author(s):*Morris, David

Citation:Diabetes and Primary Care; 2021; 23(6)

Abstract:Brought to you by Diabetes & Primary Care, this interactive case study takes you through the basic considerations of managing hypertension in type 2 diabetes. The scenario is not unusual and is one that, as a primary healthcare worker, you could easily be confronted with. By actively engaging with this case history, you should feel more confident and empowered to manage effectively such a problem in the future.

Fatty liver disease and type 2 diabetes (2021)

Type of publication:Interactive case study

Author(s):*Morris, David

Citation:Diabetes and Primary Care; 2021; 23(5)

Abstract:This interactive case study, presented by Diabetes & Primary Care, takes you through the necessary considerations in managing fatty liver disease in an individual with type 2 diabetes. The scenario is not unusual and is one that, as a primary healthcare worker, you could easily be confronted with. By actively engaging with this case history, you should feel more confident and empowered to manage effectively such a problem in the future.

Steroid-induced hypoglycaemia (2021)

Type of publication:Interactive case study

Author(s):*Morris, David

Citation:Diabetes and Primary Care; 2021; 23(4)

Abstract:Brought to you by Diabetes & Primary Care, the three mini-case studies presented below take you through what it is necessary to consider in identifying and managing steroid-induced hyperglycaemia. Each scenario provides a different set of circumstances that you could meet in your everyday practice. By actively engaging with them, you will feel more confident and empowered to manage effectively such problems in the future.

Hypoglycaemia and type 2 diabetes (2021)

Type of publication:Interactive case study

Author(s):*Morris, David

Citation:Diabetes and Primary Care; 2021; 23(4)

Abstract:Brought to you by Diabetes & Primary Care, the four mini-case studies presented below will help you to consider what constitutes hypoglycaemia, what its causes and risk factors are in type 2 diabetes, how to detect and manage it in primary care, and strategies for minimising the risk. Each scenario provides a different set of circumstances that you could meet in your everyday practice. By actively engaging with them, you will feel more confident and empowered to manage effectively such problems in the future.

Making a diagnosis in type 2 diabetes (2021)

Type of publication:Interactive case study

Author(s):*Morris, David

Citation:Diabetes and Primary Care; 2021; 23(2)

Abstract:Brought to you by Diabetes & Primary Care, the three mini-case studies presented below take you through what it is necessary to consider in making an accurate diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. Each scenario provides a different set of circumstances that you could meet in your everyday practice. By actively engaging with them, you will feel more confident and empowered to manage effectively such problems in the future.

Diabetic nephropathy and type 2 diabetes (2021)

Type of publication:Interactive case study

Author(s):*Morris, David

Citation:Diabetes and Primary Care; 2021; 23(1)

Abstract:This interactive case study, presented by Diabetes & Primary Care, takes you through the necessary considerations in managing diabetic nephropathy in an individual with type 2 diabetes. The scenario is not unusual and is one that, as a primary healthcare worker, you could easily be confronted with. By actively engaging with this case history, you should feel more confident and empowered to manage effectively such a problem in the future.

Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy in patients with pancreatic cancer: A national prospective study (2021)

Type of publication:Journal article

Author(s):Harvey P.R.; McKay S.C.; Wilkin R.J.W.; Layton G.R.; Powell-Brett S.; Okoth K.; Trudgill N.; Roberts K.J.; Baker G.; Brom M.K.; Brown Z.; Farrugia A.; Haldar D.; Kalisvaart M.; Marley A.; Pande R.; Patel R.; Stephenson B.T.F.; Baillie C.; Croitoru C.; Eddowes P.J.; Elshaer M.; Farhan-Alanie M.M.; Laing R.; Mann K.; Materacki L.; Nandi S.; Pericleous S.; Prasad P.; Rinkoff S.; Selvaraj E.; Shah J.; Sheel A.R.G.; Szatmary P.; Williams P.; Milburn J.; Bekheit M.; Ghazanfar M.; Curry H.; Persson P.; Rollo A.; Thomson R.; Harper S.; Varghese S.; Collins J.; Stupalkowska W.; Afzal Z.; Badran A.; Barker J.; Hakeem A.; Kader R.; Saji S.; Sheikh S.; Smith A.C.D.; Stasinos K.; Steinitz H.; Malik H.; Burston C.; Carrion-Alvarez L.; Shiwani M.; Ahmad G.; Allen T.; Darley E.; Patil S.; Brooks C.; Cresswell B.; Welsh F.; Cook C.; Smyth R.; Booth R.; West M.; King A.; Tucker O.; Phelan L.; Burahee A.; Devogel C.; Javed A.; Kay R.; Khan S.; Leet F.; Troth T.; Ward A.; Young J.; Murray E.; Gray T.; Johnson R.; Lockwood S.; Young R.; Zhou G.; Portal J.; Rees J.; Arnold B.; Scroggie D.; Abeysekera K.W.M.; Asif A.; Hay F.; Maccabe T.; Pathak S.; Robertson H.; Sandberg C.; Woodland H.; Charalabopoulos A.; Kordzadeh A.; Anderson J.; Napier D.; Hodges P.; Jones G.; Sheiybani G.; Archer T.; Khan A.; Kirk S.; Walker N.; Hassam U.; Wong I.; Silva M.; Jones K.; Allen J.; Abbas S.H.; Harborne M.; Majid Z.; Eardley N.; Reilly I.; Wadsworth P.; Bell C.; Holloway K.; Stockton W.; Thomas R.; Williams K.J.; Canelo R.; Tay Y.; Adnan M.; Aroori S.; Rajaretnam N.; Rekhraj S.; Wilkins A.; Nelapatia R.; Verebcean M.; Braithwaite S.; Apollos J.; Robertson N.; Belgaumkar A.; Brant A.; Shahdoost A.; French J.J.; Sen G.; Thakkar R.; Kanwar A.; Klaptocz J.; Rodham P.; O'Riordan B.; Maharaj G.; Davies M.; Higgs S.; Cutting J.; Joseph M.; Backhouse L.; Butler J.; Cooper J.; O'nions T.; Shaukat S.; Kumar A.; George V.; Ingmire J.; Saha A.; Coe P.; Noor R.; Lykoudis P.; Elshaer A.; Andreou A.; Clarke T.; Davies O.; Rimmer P.; Kanakala V.; Mitra V.; Akol G.; Burgess M.; Elzubier M.; Jones R.; Majumdar D.; Wescott H.; Bailey A.; Gomez M.; Herman O.; Deguara J.; Whitehead-Clarke T.; Gorard L.; Law R.; Leung L.Y.; Whitelaw D.; Adil M.; Krivan S.; Waters J.; Fernandes R.; Mealey L.; Merh R.; Okaro A.; Shepherd J.; O'Reilly D.; Pilkington J.; Hussain Z.; Ingram S.; Stott M.C.; Abbott S.; Bhamra N.; Hirri F.; Lee K.; Murrell J.; Resool S.; Taylor M.; King M.; Madhotra R.; Ayubi H.; Ali J.; Chander N.; Mckune G.; Wothers T.; Shingler G.; Mortimer M.; Dykes K.; Edwards H.; Menon S.; Gautham A.; Ali I.; Anjum R.; Brookes M.; Wilkinson B.; Tait I.; Noaman I.; Wilson M.; Mogan S.; Rushbrook S.; Hyde S.; Baker S.; Hall P.; Lucas H.; Pease J.; Millar A.; Tariq Z.; Blad W.; Cunningham M.; Hall M.; Luthra P.; Seymour K.; Aawsaj Y.; Jones M.; Elliott D.; Finch J.G.; Rajjoub Y.; Gupta A.; Molloy P.; Mykoniatis I.; Atallah E.; Albraba E.; Asimba V.; Baxter A.; Chin A.; Vojtekova K.; Ong L.; Modi H.N.; Muscara F.; Perry M.; Katz C.; Shaban N.; Dichmont L.; Dissanayake T.; Mostafa W.; Ghosh D.; Hwang S.; Bajomo O.; Lloyd T.; Wye J.; Holt A.; Pathanki A.; Townsend S.; Babar N.; Giovinazzo F.; Kennedy L.; Kandathil M.; King D.; Pillai M.; Glen P.; Holroyd D.; Drozdzik S.; Kourounis G.; Thompson J.; McNally S.; Thomas I.; Reddy Y.; Subar D.; Heywood N.; Khoo E.; Austin A.; Awan A.; Tan H.; Kasi M.; Prasad S.; Baqai M.; Abd Alkoddus M.; Al-Allaf O.; Mitchell K.; Mole S.; Yoong A.; Fusai G.; Brown S.; Bulathsinhala S.; Gilliland J.; Boyce T.; Al-Ardah M.; Matthews E.; Wakefield C.; Hou D.; Thomasset S.; Guest R.; Falconer S.; Hughes M.; Johnston C.; Kung J.W.C.; Lee E.; McNally E.; Sherif A.E.; Stutchfield B.; Baron R.D.; Dunne D.F.J.; Dickerson L.D.; Exarchou K.E.; Knight E.; Whelan P.; Hutchins R.; Wilson P.; Phillpotts S.; Badrulhisham F.; Dawes A.; Derwa Y.; Rajagopal S.; Ramoutar S.; Vaik T.; Bhogal R.H.; McLaren N.; Policastro T.; *Butterworth J.; *Riera M.; *Ismail A.; *Ahmed A.; *Alame R.; *Alford K.; *Banerjee S.; *Bull C.; *Kirby G.; Athwal T.; Hebbar S.; Ishtiaq J.; Kamran U.; Abbasi A.; Kamarul-bahrin M.; Banks A.; Khalil A.; Karanjia N.; Trivedi D.; Chakravaratty S.; Frampton A.; Gabriella J.; Pinn G.; Colleypriest B.; Betteridge F.; Murugiah D.; Rossiter A.; Yong K.; Sellahewa C.; Chui K.; Ehsan A.; Fisher N.; Iyer S.; McMurtry H.; Garbutt G.; Mahgoub S.; Alleyne L.; Harvey J.; Johnson K.; Richards E.; Palaniyappan N.; Bowler C.; Inumerable R.; Abu M.; Suhool A.; Talbot T.; Westwood J.; Zumbo G.; Osborne A.; Botes A.; Dyer S.; Thomas-Jones I.; Merker L.; Przemioslo R.; Roderick M.; Valverde J.; Zerafa A.; Barker S.; Wan A.; Lalani R.; Barrett C.; Kapirial N.; McCarthney K.; Ramamoorthy R.; Yalchin M.; Huggett M.; Macutkiewicz C.; Smith A.; Buchanan A.; Burke J.; Goodchild G.; Keane M.G.; Potts J.; Disney B.; McFarlane M.; Baker E.; Bullock S.; Coleman S.; Mcardle C.; Morgan J.; Mozdiak E.; Obisesan A.; O'Flynn L.; Mowbray N.; de Berker H.T.; Driscoll P.; Alberts J.C.; Sadien I.D.; Webb K.; Khalil H.; Parmar C.; Sadigh D.; Seyed-Safi P.; Shala L.; Somasundaram M.; Bryce G.; McCormack K.; Jamieson W.; Mitchell L.; Cheung D.; Hicken B.; Abbas N.; Kurian A.; Tahir I.; Spearman J.; Johnston T.; Jones C.

Citation:Pancreatology; Sep 2021; vol. 21 (no. 6); p. 1127-1134

Abstract:Objective: UK national guidelines recommend pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) in pancreatic cancer. Over 80% of pancreatic cancers are unresectable and managed in non-surgical units. The aim was to assess variation in PERT prescribing, determine factors associated with its use and identify potential actions to improve prescription rates. Design(s): RICOCHET was a national prospective audit of malignant pancreatic, peri-ampullary lesions or malignant biliary obstruction between April and August 2018. This analysis focuses on pancreatic cancer patients and is reported to STROBE guidelines. Multivariable regression analysis was undertaken to assess factors associated with PERT prescribing. Result(s): Rates of PERT prescribing varied among the 1350 patients included. 74.4% of patients with potentially resectable disease were prescribed PERT compared to 45.3% with unresectable disease. PERT prescription varied across surgical hospitals but high prescribing rates did not disseminate out to the respective referring network. PERT prescription appeared to be related to the treatment aim for the patient and the amount of clinician contact a patient has. PERT prescription in potentially resectable patients was positively associated with dietitian referral (p = 0.001) and management at hepaticopancreaticobiliary (p = 0.049) or pancreatic unit (p = 0.009). Prescription in unresectable patients also had a negative association with Charlson comorbidity score 5-7 (p = 0.045) or >7 (p = 0.010) and a positive association with clinical nurse specialist review (p = 0.028). Conclusion(s): Despite national guidance, wide variation and under-treatment with PERT exists. Given that most patients with pancreatic cancer have unresectable disease and are treated in non-surgical hospitals, where prescribing is lowest, strategies to disseminate best practice and overcome barriers to prescribing are urgently required.

Altmetrics:

CORONA (COre ultRasOund of covid in iNtensive care and Acute medicine) study: National service evaluation of lung and heart ultrasound in intensive care patients with suspected or proven COVID-19 (2022)

Type of publication:Journal article

Author(s):Parulekar P.; Powys-Lybbe J.; Aron J.; Knight T.; Lasserson D.; Smallwood N.; Rudge G.; *Miller A.; Peck M.

Citation:Journal of the Intensive Care Society; 2022 [epub ahead of print]

Abstract:Background: Combined Lung Ultrasound (LUS) and Focused UltraSound for Intensive Care heart (FUSIC Heart – formerly Focused Intensive Care Echocardiography, FICE) can aid diagnosis, risk stratification and management in COVID-19. However, data on its application and results are limited to small studies in varying countries and hospitals. This United Kingdom (UK) national service evaluation study assessed how combined LUS and FUSIC Heart were used in COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients during the first wave of the pandemic. Method(s): Twelve trusts across the UK registered for this prospective study. LUS and FUSIC Heart data were obtained, using a standardised data set including scoring of abnormalities, between 1st February 2020 to 30th July 2020. The scans were performed by intensivists with FUSIC Lung and Heart competency as a minimum standard. Data was anonymised locally prior to transfer to a central database. Result(s): 372 studies were performed on 265 patients. There was a small but significant relationship between LUS score >8 and 30-day mortality (OR 1.8). Progression of score was associated with an increase in 30-day mortality (OR 1.2). 30-day mortality was increased in patients with right ventricular (RV) dysfunction (49.4% vs 29.2%). Severity of LUS score correlated with RV dysfunction (p < 0.05). Change in management occurred in 65% of patients following a combined scan. Conclusion(s): In COVID-19 patients, there is an association between lung ultrasound score severity, RV dysfunction and mortality identifiable by combined LUS and FUSIC Heart. The use of 12-point LUS scanning resulted in similar risk score to 6-point imaging in the majority of cases. Our findings suggest that serial combined LUS and FUSIC Heart on COVID-19 ICU patients may aid in clinical decision making and prognostication.

Link to full-text [no password required]

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus placebo and misoprostol for resolution of miscarriage in women diagnosed with missed miscarriage: The MifeMiso RCT (2021)

Type of publication:Journal article

Author(s):Devall A.; Chu J.; Gallos I.; Coomarasamy A.; Beeson L.; Cheed V.; Sun Y.; Roberts T.; Ogwulu C.O.; Williams E.; Jones L.; La Fontaine Papadopoulos J.; Hardy P.; Bender-Atik R.; Brewin J.; Hinshaw K.; Ahmed A.; Choudhary M.; Naftalin J.; Nunes N.; Oliver A.; Izzat F.; Bhatia K.; Hassan I.; Jeve Y.; Hamilton J.; Deb S.; Bottomley C.; Ross J.; Watkins L.; *Underwood M.; Cheong Y.; Kumar C.; Gupta P.; Small R.; Pringle S.; Hodge F.; Shahid A.; Horne A.; Quenby S.

Citation:Health Technology Assessment; 2021; vol. 25 (no. 68), p. 1-114

Abstract:Background Miscarriage is the most common complication of pregnancy. As many as 15-25% of pregnancies end in a miscarriage, and the number of miscarriages in England is estimated to be approximately 125,000 per year. Management of miscarriage can be expectant (i.e. waiting for natural miscarriage), medical (i.e. with drugs) or surgical. About 25% of women opt for medical management; however, there is uncertainty about the optimal drug regimens for medical management. Before National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline CG154 was published in 2012, it was common practice to use a combination of mifepristone (Mifegyne, Exelgyn, Paris, France) and misoprostol. The 2012 guideline, however, recommended that misoprostol alone should be given to women having medical management. This recommendation was based on very limited evidence, from one study of 115 women, which found no difference between a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol and misoprostol alone. Recognising the limited available evidence, NICE and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) called for a trial. Objectives The primary objective was to test the hypothesis that treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol is superior to treatment with misoprostol alone for the resolution of miscarriage within 7 days in women diagnosed by pelvic ultrasound scan with a missed miscarriage in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy. The key secondary objective aimed to test the hypothesis that the addition of mifepristone reduces the need for surgical intervention to resolve the miscarriage. Other secondary objectives aimed to evaluate if the addition of mifepristone reduces the need for further doses of misoprostol, to evaluate if the addition of mifepristone improves other clinical outcomes [including surgical intervention up to and including 7 days post randomisation and after 7 days post randomisation, duration of bleeding, infection, negative pregnancy test at 21 days post randomisation, time from randomisation to discharge from early pregnancy unit (EPU) care, side effects and complications], to evaluate if the addition of mifepristone improves patient satisfaction and acceptability of management and to assess the cost-effectiveness of the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol in the medical management of missed miscarriage. Methods Participants were randomised online in a 1: 1 ratio via a secure internet facility through an Integrated Trial Management System. Minimisation was implemented for maternal age (< 30 or >= 30 years), body mass index (< 35 or >= 35 kg/m2), previous parity (nulliparous or parous women), gestational age (< 70 or >= 70 days), amount of bleeding (Pictorial Blood loss Assessment Chart score; <= 2 or >= 3) and randomising centre. Clinical data were collected up to discharge from EPU care. Participants who agreed to participate in the qualitative study were interviewed by telephone or videoconference or face to face within approximately 6 weeks of their discharge date. The primary analysis was by intention to treat. A withintrial cost-effectiveness study and a nested qualitative study were also conducted as part of the trial. Results A total of 711 women, from 28 hospitals in the UK, received either mifepristone plus misoprostol (357 women) or placebo plus misoprostol (354 women). The follow-up rate for the primary outcome was 98% (696 of 711 women). The risk of failure to pass the gestational sac within 7 days was 17% (59 of 348 women) in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, compared with 24% (82 out of 348 women) in the placebo plus misoprostol group [risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.98; p = 0.04]. Surgical intervention to resolve the miscarriage was needed in 17% (62 out of 355 women) in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, compared with 25% (87 out of 353 women) in the placebo plus misoprostol group (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94; p = 0.02). There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. A total of 42 women, 19 in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group and 23 in the placebo plus misoprostol group, took part in an interview.Women appeared to have a preference for active management of their miscarriage, to help bring a timely resolution to the physical process. Overall, when women experienced care that supported their psychological well-being throughout the care pathway, and information was delivered in a skilled and sensitive manner such that women felt informed and in control, they were more likely to express satisfaction with medical management. The within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis found that the use of mifepristone and misoprostol resulted in an absolute effect difference of 6.6% (95% CI 0.7% to 12.5%). The average cost per woman was lower in the mifepristone and misoprostol (MifeMiso) group than in the placebo and misoprostol group, with a cost saving of 182 (95% CI 26 to 338). Hence the use of mifepristone and misoprostol for the medical management of a missed miscarriage dominated the use of misoprostol alone. The modelbased analysis, that compared the trial intervention with other existing possible interventions for the management of miscarriage not analysed in the trial, showed that the MifeMiso intervention is dominant when compared with expectant management and the current medical management strategy. However, the intervention is a less effective, although less costly, strategy than surgical management. Conclusions Our trial showed that pre-treatment with mifepristone followed by misoprostol resulted in a higher rate of resolution of missed miscarriage than misoprostol treatment alone. Women were largely satisfied with medical management of missed miscarriage and would choose it again.

Link to full-text [open access - no password required]

Altmetrics: