Effect of Cardiac Arrest in Brain-dead Donors on Kidney Graft Function.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest (CA) causes renal ischemia in one-third of brain-dead kidney donors before procurement. We hypothesized that the graft function depends on the time interval between CA and organ procurement. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective population-based study on a prospectively curated database. We included 1469 kidney transplantations from donors with a history of resuscitated CA in 2015-2017 in France. CA was the cause of death (primary CA) or an intercurrent event (secondary CA). The main outcome was the percentage of delayed graft function, defined by the use of renal replacement therapy within the first week posttransplantation. RESULTS: Delayed graft function occurred in 31.7% of kidney transplantations and was associated with donor function, vasopressors, cardiovascular history, donor and recipient age, body mass index, cold ischemia time, and time to procurement after primary cardiac arrest. Short cold ischemia time, perfusion device use, and the absence of cardiovascular comorbidities were protected by multivariate analysis, whereas time <3 d from primary CA to procurement was associated with delayed graft function (odds ratio 1.38). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first description of time to procurement after a primary CA as a risk factor for delayed graft function. Delaying procurement after CA should be evaluated in interventional studies.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on publication dynamics and non-COVID-19 research production.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has severely affected health systems and medical research worldwide but its impact on the global publication dynamics and non-COVID-19 research has not been measured. We hypothesized that the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted the scientific production of non-COVID-19 research. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive meta-research on studies (original articles, research letters and case reports) published between 01/01/2019 and 01/01/2021 in 10 high-impact medical and infectious disease journals (New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, Nature Medicine, British Medical Journal, Annals of Internal Medicine, Lancet Global Health, Lancet Public Health, Lancet Infectious Disease and Clinical Infectious Disease). For each publication, we recorded publication date, publication type, number of authors, whether the publication was related to COVID-19, whether the publication was based on a case series, and the number of patients included in the study if the publication was based on a case report or a case series. We estimated the publication dynamics with a locally estimated scatterplot smoothing method. A Natural Language Processing algorithm was designed to calculate the number of authors for each publication. We simulated the number of non-COVID-19 studies that could have been published during the pandemic by extrapolating the publication dynamics of 2019 to 2020, and comparing the expected number to the observed number of studies. RESULTS: Among the 22,525 studies assessed, 6319 met the inclusion criteria, of which 1022 (16.2%) were related to COVID-19 research. A dramatic increase in the number of publications in general journals was observed from February to April 2020 from a weekly median number of publications of 4.0 (IQR: 2.8-5.5) to 19.5 (IQR: 15.8-24.8) (p < 0.001), followed afterwards by a pattern of stability with a weekly median number of publications of 10.0 (IQR: 6.0-14.0) until December 2020 (p = 0.045 in comparison with April). Two prototypical editorial strategies were found: 1) journals that maintained the volume of non-COVID-19 publications while integrating COVID-19 research and thus increased their overall scientific production, and 2) journals that decreased the volume of non-COVID-19 publications while integrating COVID-19 publications. We estimated using simulation models that the COVID pandemic was associated with a 18% decrease in the production of non-COVID-19 research. We also found a significant change of the publication type in COVID-19 research as compared with non-COVID-19 research illustrated by a decrease in the number of original articles, (47.9% in COVID-19 publications vs 71.3% in non-COVID-19 publications, p < 0.001). Last, COVID-19 publications showed a higher number of authors, especially for case reports with a median of 9.0 authors (IQR: 6.0-13.0) in COVID-19 publications, compared to a median of 4.0 authors (IQR: 3.0-6.0) in non-COVID-19 publications (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this meta-research gathering publications from high-impact medical journals, we have shown that the dramatic rise in COVID-19 publications was accompanied by a substantial decrease of non-COVID-19 research. META-RESEARCH REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/9vtzp/ .

COVID-19-related medical research: a meta-research and critical appraisal.

BACKGROUND: Since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, a large number of COVID-19-related papers have been published. However, concerns about the risk of expedited science have been raised. We aimed at reviewing and categorizing COVID-19-related medical research and to critically appraise peer-reviewed original articles. METHODS: The data sources were Pubmed, Cochrane COVID-19 register study, arXiv, medRxiv and bioRxiv, from 01/11/2019 to 01/05/2020. Peer-reviewed and preprints publications related to COVID-19 were included, written in English or Chinese. No limitations were placed on study design. Reviewers screened and categorized studies according to i) publication type, ii) country of publication, and iii) topics covered. Original articles were critically appraised using validated quality assessment tools. RESULTS: Among the 11,452 publications identified, 10,516 met the inclusion criteria, among which 7468 (71.0%) were peer-reviewed articles. Among these, 4190 publications (56.1%) did not include any data or analytics (comprising expert opinion pieces). Overall, the most represented topics were infectious disease (n = 2326, 22.1%), epidemiology (n = 1802, 17.1%), and global health (n = 1602, 15.2%). The top five publishing countries were China (25.8%), United States (22.3%), United Kingdom (8.8%), Italy (8.1%) and India (3.4%). The dynamic of publication showed that the exponential growth of COVID-19 peer-reviewed articles was mainly driven by publications without original data (mean 261.5 articles ± 51.1 per week) as compared with original articles (mean of 69.3 ± 22.3 articles per week). Original articles including patient data accounted for 713 (9.5%) of peer-reviewed studies. A total of 576 original articles (80.8%) showed intermediate to high risk of bias. Last, except for simulation studies that mainly used large-scale open data, the median number of patients enrolled was of 102 (IQR = 37-337). CONCLUSIONS: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of research is composed by publications without original data. Peer-reviewed original articles with data showed a high risk of bias and included a limited number of patients. Together, these findings underscore the urgent need to strike a balance between the velocity and quality of research, and to cautiously consider medical information and clinical applicability in a pressing, pandemic context. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/5zjyx/.

Tumor burden and location as prognostic factors in patients treated by iodine seed implant brachytherapy for localized prostate cancers.

BACKGROUND: Iodine seed implant brachytherapy is indicated for low risk and selected favorable intermediate risk prostate cancers. A percentage of positive biopsies > 50% is usually considered as a contra-indication, and the tumor location could also influence the treatment efficacy. We studied the association of the percentage of positive biopsy cores, and tumor location, with progression-free survival. METHODS: Among the 382 patients treated at our center by permanent implant iodine seed brachytherapy for a localized prostate cancer between 2006 and 2013, 282 had accessible detailed pathology reports, a minimum follow-up of 6 months, and were included. Progression was defined as a biochemical, local, nodal, or distant metastatic relapse. We studied cancer location on biopsies (base, midgland or apex of the prostate) and percentage of positive biopsy cores, as well as potential confounders (pre-treatment PSA, tumor stage, Gleason score, risk group according to D'Amico's classification modified by Zumsteg, adjunction of androgen deprivation therapy, and dosimetric data). RESULTS: Most patients (197; 69.9%) had a low risk, 67 (23.8%) a favorable intermediate risk, 16 (5.7%) an unfavorable intermediate risk, and 1 (0.3%) a high-risk prostate cancer. An involvement of the apex was found for 131 patients (46,5%), of the midgland for 149 (52,8%), and of the base for 145 (51,4%). The median percentage of positive biopsy cores was 17% [3-75%]. The median follow-up was 64 months [12-140]. Twenty patients (7%) progressed: 4 progressions (20%) were biochemical only, 7 (35%) were prostatic or seminal, 6 (30%) were nodal, and 3 (15%) were metastatic. The median time to failure was 39.5 months [9-108]. There were more Gleason scores ≥7 among patients who progressed (40% vs 19%; p = 0.042). None of the studied covariates (including tumor location, and percentage of positive biopsy cores), were significantly associated with progression-free survival. The risk group showed a trend towards an association (p = 0.055). CONCLUSIONS: Brachytherapy is an efficient treatment (5-year control rate of 93%) for patients carefully selected with classical criteria. The percentage and location of positive biopsies were not significantly associated with progression-free survival. A Gleason score ≥ 7 was more frequent in case of progression.