Prognostic value of left ventricular systolic function before vascular surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Vascular surgery carries a high risk of post-operative cardiac complications. Recent studies have shown an association between asymptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction and increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). This systematic review aims to evaluate the prognostic value of left ventricular function as determined by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) measured by resting echocardiography before vascular surgery.

METHODS

This review conformed to PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. PubMed, OVID Medline and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to 27 October 2022. Eligible studies assessed vascular surgery patients, with multivariable-adjusted or propensity-matched observational studies measuring LVEF via resting echocardiography and providing risk estimates for outcomes. The primary outcomes measures were all-cause mortality and congestive heart failure at 30 days. Secondary outcome included the composite outcome MACE.

RESULTS

Ten observational studies were included (4872 vascular surgery patients). Studies varied widely in degree of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, symptom status, and outcome reporting, precluding reliable meta-analysis. Available data demonstrated a trend towards increased incidence of all-cause mortality, congestive heart failure and MACE in patients with pre-operative LVEF <50%. Methodological quality of the included studies was found to be of moderate quality according to the Newcastle Ottawa Checklist.

CONCLUSION

The evidence surrounding the prognostic value of LVEF measurement before vascular surgery is currently weak and inconclusive. Larger scale, prospective studies are required to further refine cardiac risk prediction before vascular surgery.

Inflammatory bowel disease patients have an increased risk of acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Systemic inflammation is increasingly being recognised as a possible mechanism for acute arterial thrombotic events, including acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Despite this, there is conflicting data on the risk of ACS in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We performed a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the risk of ACS in patients with IBD.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and Web of Science were searched up to 27 October 2022. Multivariable-adjusted or propensity matched studies with a non-IBD control cohort were included. HRs were pooled using a random-effects model. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted in order to explore sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twelve retrospective cohort studies were included (225 248 IBD patients). Patients with IBD were associated with an increased risk of ACS in both adjusted (HR 1.23; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.41) and unadjusted analyses (HR 1.50; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.92). Substantial heterogeneity was observed (i2=88, p=0.002 and i2=98%, p=0.002, respectively). Subgroup analysis of age revealed a greater association of ACS in IBD patients <40 years of age (relative HR 1.50; 95 CI 1.15 to 1.96).

CONCLUSION

Patients with IBD demonstrated an independently increased risk of ACS. Prospective studies are required to explore the relationship with disease activity and duration, concomitant medication use and angiographic characteristics and outcomes.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022367846.

Lost in Translation: The Impact of Language Barriers on the Outcomes of Patients Receiving Coronary Artery Revascularization

INTRODUCTION

Clear and effective communication is vital in discussions regarding coronary revascularization. Language barriers may limit communication in healthcare settings. Previous studies on the influence of language barriers on the outcomes of patients receiving coronary revascularization have produced conflicting results. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate and synthesise the existing evidence regarding the effects of language barrier on the outcomes of patients receiving coronary revascularization.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted, including a search of the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases on 01/10/2022. The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. This review was also prospectively registered on PROSPERO.

RESULTS

Searches identified 3983 articles of which a total 12 studies were included in the review. Most studies describe that language barriers result in delayed presentation, but not delays in treatment following hospital arrival with respect to coronary revascularization. The findings with respect to the likelihood of receiving revascularization have varied significantly; however, some studies have indicated that those with language barriers may be less likely to receive revascularization. There have been some conflicting results with respect to the association between language barrier and mortality. However, most studies suggest that there is no association with increased mortality. In studies that evaluated length of stay variable results have been reported based on geographical location. Namely Australian studies have suggested no association between language barrier and length of stay, but Canadian studies support an association. Language barriers may also be associated with readmissions following discharge, and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that patients with language barriers may have poorer outcomes from coronary revascularization. Future interventional studies will be required to consider the sociocultural context of patients with language barriers, and may be targeted at timepoints including prior to, during, or after hospitalisation for coronary revascularization. Further examination of the adverse health outcomes of those with language barriers in fields outside of coronary revascularization are required in view of the stark inequities identified in this field.

892 Emergency General Surgical Practice at a District General Hospital during COVID-19 Pandemic: Implementing Royal College of Surgeons Guidance

Introduction

COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on surgical practice across NHS. RCS released guidance on altering surgical practise during the pandemic to deliver safe surgical care in March, 2020. We present an audit conducted at a DGH comparing practice of emergency general surgery (EGS) with RCS guidance at the peak of COVID-19 pandemic.

Method

Consecutive patients undergoing EGS from 1^st April to 15^th May,2020. Data of demographics, ASA grade, comorbidities, type of surgery, hospital stay, informed COVID-19 pneumonia consent, complications and 30-day mortality were collected. Pre- and post-operative COVID-19 status was determined.

Results

Forty-four (n = 44) patients, mean age 47.5 and IQR (26-69). Male (55.8%) and females (44.2%). Preoperative COVID19 status was confirmed in around 79.1% patients. All (100%) patients who underwent CT imaging preoperatively had CT chest performed. Informed consent for COVID19 pneumonia was taken in 4.7% patients. 30-day mortality risk was 7% and complications risk was 4.7%. RR of 30-day mortality in preoperative COVID19 status positive patients was RR = 0.92 (CI 0.85-1.01) and for complications was RR = 0.95 (CI 0.88-1.02).

Conclusions

RCS guidance on managing and altering practice in EGS during COVID-19 pandemic is reliable, implementable, and measurable in a DGH setting. Simple improvements in consent process can achieve full compliance with RCS guidelines.