Surgical Site Infections During the Pandemic: The Impact of the "COVID Bundle".

BACKGROUND: A reduction in surgical site infections (SSIs) has been reported in several discrete patient populations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Herein, this study evaluates the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on SSI in a large patient cohort incorporating multiple surgical disciplines. We hypothesize that enhanced infection control and heightened awareness of such measures is analogous to an SSI care bundle, the hypothetical "COVID bundle", and may impact SSI rates. METHOD: Data collected for the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program between January 1, 2015, and April 1, 2021, were retrospectively analyzed. SSI rates were compared among time-dependent patient cohorts: Cohort A (pre-pandemic, N = 24,060, 87%) and Cohort B (pandemic, N = 3698, 13%). Time series and multivariable analyses predicted pre-pandemic and pandemic SSI trends and tested for association with timing of surgery. RESULTS: The overall SSI incidence was reduced in Cohort B versus Cohort A (2.8% vs. 4.5%, p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis indicated a downward SSI trend before pandemic onset (IRR 0.997, 95% CI 0.994, 1). At pandemic onset, the trend reduced by a relative factor of 39% (IRR 0.601, 95% CI 0.338, 1.069). SSI then trended upward during the pandemic (IRR 1.035, 95% CI 0.965, 1.111). SSI rates significantly trended downward in general surgical patients at pandemic onset (IRR 0.572, 95% CI 0.353, 0.928). CONCLUSION: Although overall SSI incidence was reduced during the pandemic, a statistically significant decrease in the predicted SSI rate only occurred in general surgical patients at pandemic onset. This trend may suggest a positive impact of the "COVID bundle" on SSI rates in these patients.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of unplanned hospital visits and re-admissions following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Unplanned visits (UPV) - re-admissions and emergency room (ER) visits - are markers of healthcare system quality. Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a commonly performed cancer procedure, where variation in UPV represents a gap in care for prostate cancer patients. Here, we systematically synthesize the rates, reasons, predictors, and interventions for UPV after RP to inform evidence-based quality improvement (QI) initiatives. METHODS: A systematic review was performed for studies from 2000-2020 using keywords: "re-admission," "emergency room/department," "unplanned visit," and "prostatectomy." Studies that focused on UPV following RP and that reported rates, reasons, predictors, or interventions, were included. Data was extracted via a standardized form. Meta-analysis was completed. RESULTS: Sixty studies, with 406 107 RP patients, were eligible; 16 028 UPV events (approximately 5%) were analyzed from 317 050 RP patients. UPV rates after RP varied between studies (ER visit range 6-24%; re-admissions range 0-56%). The 30-day and 90-day ER visit rates were 12% and 14%, respectively; the 30-day and 90-day re-admission rates were 4% and 9%, respectively. A total of 55% of all re-admissions after RP are directly due to postoperative genitourinary (GU)-related complications, such as strictures, obstructions, fistula, bladder-related, incontinence, urine leak, renal problems, and other unspecified urinary complications. The next most common re-admission reasons were anastomosis-related, infection-related, cardiovascular/pulmonary events, and wound-related issues. Thirty-four percent of all ER visits after RP are directly due to urine-related issues, such as retention, urinoma, obstruction, leak, and catheter problems. The next most common ER visit reasons were abdominal/gastrointestinal issues, infection-related, venous thromboembolic events, and wound-related issues. Predictors for increased re-admission included: open RP, lymph node dissection, Charlson comorbidity index ≥2, low surgeon/hospital case volume, and socioeconomic determinants of health. Of the 10 interventions evaluated, a 3.4% average reduction in UPV rate was observed, highlighting an approximate two-fold decrease. Meta-analysis demonstrated a significant benefit of interventions over controls, with odds ratio 0.62 (95% confidence interval 0.46-0.84). Interventions that used multidisciplinary, nurse-centered, programs, with patient self-care/empowerment were more beneficial than algorithmic patient care pathways and preoperative patient education. CONCLUSIONS: Twenty years of international, retrospective experience suggests UPV after RP are often related to GU complications and infection- or wound-related factors. QI interventions to reduce UPV should target these factors. While many re-admissions after RP appear to be unavoidable, ER visits have more opportunity for volume reduction by QI. The interventions evaluated herein have the potential to reduce UPV after RP.

Recombinant human erythropoietin in combination with chemotherapy increases breast cancer metastasis in preclinical mouse models.

PURPOSE: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) are used clinically for treating cancer-related anemia. Recent clinical trials have reported increased adverse events and reduced survival in ESA-treated breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, potentially related to erythropoietin (EPO)-induced cancer progression. However, minimal preclinical data are available about the impact of EPO on metastatic cell behavior and/or the metastatic process, and this was the goal of our study. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Breast cancer cell lines were treated with recombinant human EPO (rHuEPO) and screened for expression of EPO receptors (EPOR). MDA-MB-231 and MDA-MB-435 cell lines were used for functional assays in vitro (two-dimensional/three-dimensional growth and survival) and in vivo (tumorigenicity and metastasis), in the presence or absence of EPO and/or cytotoxic agents. RESULTS: A large variation in EPOR expression across cell lines was observed. In vitro, rHuEPO had a protective effect on radiation-treated MDA-MB-435 cells (P < 0.05); however, rHuEPO treatment alone or combined with chemotherapy or hypoxia did not influence cell survival. In vivo, rHuEPO increased lung metastases in immunocompromised mice injected with MDA-MB-231 or MDA-MB-435 cells and treated with chemotherapy relative to mice treated with chemotherapy alone (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The lack of an in vitro effect of rHuEPO highlights the importance of in vivo studies to delineate the effects of EPO on the metastatic process. These studies may begin to uncover the underlying functional explanation for the observed EPO-related adverse events and decreased survival in ESA-treated metastatic breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.