1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Delay to surgery in acute perforated and ischaemic gastrointestinal pathology: a systematic review

      review-article
      1 , 2 , 3 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5
      BJS Open
      Oxford University Press

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Patients with acute abdominal pathology requiring emergency laparotomy who experience a delay to theatre have an increased risk of morbidity, mortality and complications. The timeline between symptom onset and operation is ill defined with international variance in assessment and management. This systematic review aims to define where delays to surgery occur and assess the evidence for interventions trialled across Europe.

          Methods

          A systematic review was performed searching MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (1 January 2005 to 6 May 2020). All studies assessing the impact of time to theatre in patients with acute abdominal pathology requiring emergency laparotomy were considered.

          Results

          Sixteen papers, involving 50 653 patients, were included in the analysis. Fifteen unique timepoints were identified in the patient pathway between symptom onset and operation which are classified into four distinct phases. Time from admission to theatre (1–72 hours) and mortality rate (10.6–74.5 per cent) varied greatly between studies. Mean time to surgery was significantly higher in deceased patients compared with that in survivors. Delays were related to imaging, diagnosis, decision making, theatre availability and staffing. Four of five interventional studies showed a reduced mortality rate following introduction of an acute laparotomy pathway.

          Conclusion

          Given the heterogeneous nature of the patient population and pathologies, an assessment and management framework from onset of symptoms to operation is proposed. This could be incorporated into mortality prediction and audit tools and assist in the assessment of interventions.

          Abstract

          Whilst delay to theatre in patients with acute abdominal pathology requiring emergency laparotomy is associated with an increased risk of mortality, there is wide variation in the definition and measurement of time delays prior to emergency surgery with few studies exploring interventions to reduce delays. An assessment and management framework from onset of symptoms to operation is proposed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Surviving Sepsis Campaign

            To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008. A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Some recommendations were ungraded (UG). Recommendations were classified into three groups: 1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; 2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and 3) pediatric considerations. Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 hr of recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 hrs of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1C); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients) (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement, as based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO2/FIO2 ratio of ≤ 100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 hrs) for patients with early ARDS and a Pao2/Fio2 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 hrs after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 hrs of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5 to 10 mins (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C). Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Reviewing studies with diverse designs: the development and evaluation of a new tool.

              RATIONALE, AIMS & OBJECTIVE: Tools for the assessment of the quality of research studies tend to be specific to a particular research design (e.g. randomized controlled trials, or qualitative interviews). This makes it difficult to assess the quality of a body of research that addresses the same or a similar research question but using different approaches. The aim of this paper is to describe the development and preliminary evaluation of a quality assessment tool that can be applied to a methodologically diverse set of research articles. The 16-item quality assessment tool (QATSDD) was assessed to determine its reliability and validity when used by health services researchers in the disciplines of psychology, sociology and nursing. Qualitative feedback was also gathered from mixed-methods health researchers regarding the comprehension, content, perceived value and usability of the tool. Reference to existing widely used quality assessment tools and experts in systematic review confirmed that the components of the tool represented the construct of 'good research technique' being assessed. Face validity was subsequently established through feedback from a sample of nine health researchers. Inter-rater reliability was established through substantial agreement between three reviewers when applying the tool to a set of three research papers (κ = 71.5%), and good to substantial agreement between their scores at time 1 and after a 6-week interval at time 2 confirmed test-retest reliability. The QATSDD shows good reliability and validity for use in the quality assessment of a diversity of studies, and may be an extremely useful tool for reviewers to standardize and increase the rigour of their assessments in reviews of the published papers which include qualitative and quantitative work. © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BJS Open
                BJS Open
                bjsopen
                BJS Open
                Oxford University Press
                2474-9842
                October 2021
                03 September 2021
                03 September 2021
                : 5
                : 5
                : zrab072
                Affiliations
                [1 ]The University of Leeds Medical School , Leeds, UK
                [2 ]The John Golligher Colorectal Surgery Unit, St. James’s University Hospital , Leeds, UK
                [3 ]Leeds Institute of Biomedical & Clinical Sciences, Clinical Sciences Building, St James’s University Hospital , Leeds, UK
                [4 ]Department of Anaesthetics, St James’s University Hospital , Leeds, UK
                [5 ]Department of Pancreatic Surgery, St James’s University Hospital , Leeds, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: 7.19 Clinical Sciences Building, St. James’s Teaching Hospital, Beckett Street, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK (e-mail: joshburke@ 123456doctors.org.uk )
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5893-3899
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4027-747X
                Article
                zrab072
                10.1093/bjsopen/zrab072
                8413368
                34476466
                ded9e807-035a-47c1-91fb-3e07f551969d
                © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 20 May 2021
                : 24 June 2021
                : 29 June 2021
                Page count
                Pages: 9
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) infrastructure at Leeds Teaching Hospital Trust and The University of Leeds;
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                AcademicSubjects/MED00010
                AcademicSubjects/MED00910

                Comments

                Comment on this article