Long-Term Echocardiographic and Clinical Outcomes After Invasive and Non-Invasive Therapies for Sub-Massive and Massive Acute Pulmonary Embolism.

AIM: Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a significant cause of mortality in the hospital setting. The objective of this study was to outline the long-term outcomes after surgical and non-surgical management for patients with massive and submassive PE. METHODS: Population cohort observational study evaluating all patients who presented to three tertiary hospitals in the state of Western Australia with access to cardiothoracic services over 5 years (2013-2018). Reviewed notes of all patients as well as radiology, linked mortality data and all available echocardiography studies at the primary hospital. RESULTS: In total, 245 patients were identified, of which 41 received surgical management and 204 non-surgical management; demographic data was similar. Clinically, the surgical group had higher rates of shock requiring vasopressors, severe bradycardia, or cardiopulmonary resuscitation prior to intervention. The 28-day mortality was not statistically significantly different between the surgical embolectomy group (2/41 [4.2%]) and the non-surgical group (17/201 [8.3%]) (p=0.382). There was no difference in 12-month mortality, including when this was adjusted for vasopressors, right ventricular (RV) strain, troponin, and brain natriuretic peptide. In the massive PE sub-group, 28-day mortality was not significantly different: 2/29 (6.9%) surgical group vs 7/34 (20.2%) non-surgical group (p=0.064). Higher rates of severe RV impairment and dilatation were present in the surgical group. All patients with available echocardiography studies at outpatient follow-up returned to normal or mild RV impairment. CONCLUSION: Patients who presented with massive or submassive PE had similar outcomes whether treated with surgical or non-surgical management. Surgical embolectomy is a safe option in a cardiothoracic centre setting.

Outcomes in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for imperative vs elective indications.

OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare peri-operative outcomes of patients undergoing robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for imperative vs elective indications. PATIENT AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a multinational database of 3802 adults who underwent RAPN for elective and imperative indications. Laparoscopic or open partial nephrectomy (PN) were excluded. Baseline data for age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anaesthesiologists score and PADUA score were examined. Patients undergoing RAPN for an imperative indication were matched to those having surgery for an elective indication using propensity scores in a 1:3 ratio. Primary outcomes included organ ischaemic time, operating time, estimated blood loss (EBL), rate of blood transfusions, Clavien-Dindo complications, conversion to radical nephrectomy (RN) and positive surgical margin (PSM) status. RESULTS: After propensity-score matching for baseline variables, a total of 304 patients (76 imperative vs 228 elective indications) were included in the final analysis. No significant differences were found between groups for ischaemia time (19.9 vs 19.8 min; P = 0.94), operating time (186 vs 180 min; P = 0.55), EBL (217 vs 190 mL; P = 0.43), rate of blood transfusions (2.7% vs 3.7%; P = 0.51), or Clavien-Dindo complications (P = 0.31). A 38.6% (SD 47.9) decrease in Day-1 postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate was observed in the imperative indication group and an 11.3% (SD 45.1) decrease was observed in the elective indication group (P < 0.005). There were no recorded cases of permanent or temporary dialysis. There were no conversions to RN in the imperative group, and seven conversions (5.6%) in the elective group (P = 0.69). PSMs were seen in 1.4% (1/76) of the imperative group and in 3.3% of the elective group (7/228; P = 0.69). CONCLUSION: We conclude that RAPN is feasible and safe for imperative indications and demonstrates similar outcomes to those achieved for elective indications.

Patient-centred pathology reporting improves patient experience and understanding of disease in prostate cancer care.

Introduction and Objectives: Patient-centred (PC) and holistic care improves patient satisfaction and health outcomes. We sought to investigate the benefit of utilising a PC pathology report in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa). Our study aimed to evaluate and compare patient understanding of their PCa diagnosis after RP, upon receiving either a standard histopathology report or a personalised and PC report (PCR). Moreover, we evaluated knowledge retention at 4 weeks after the initial consultation. Methods: We invited patients undergoing RP at three metropolitan Urology clinics to participate in our randomised controlled study. Patients were randomised to receive either a PCR or standard pathology report. Patient satisfaction questionnaires (Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions [PEPPI], Consultation and Relational Empathy [CARE] and Communication Assessment Tool [CAT]) and a knowledge test were conducted within 72 h of the initial appointment and again at 4 weeks. Accurate recollection of Gleason grade group (GGG) and extracapsular extension (ECE) were classified as 'correct'. Baseline demographic data included age, education, marital and employment status, pre-op prostate specific antigen (PSA) and clinical stage. Baseline data were tested for differences between groups using the Student's t test, chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test depending on whether data were continuous, categorical or sparse. Comparison of correctly answered 'knowledge' questions was analysed using chi-squared test. A significance level of p ≤ 0.05 was used. Results: Data from 62 patients were analysed (30 standard vs. 32 PCR). No significant differences in baseline demographics were found between groups. Both groups reported high levels of satisfaction with their healthcare experiences in all domains of patient-physician rapport, empathy and communication. There were no significant differences between groups in PEPPI (p = 0.68), CAT (p = 0.39) and CARE (p = 0.66) scores, at baseline and 4 weeks. Ninety-three per cent of patients who received the PCR understood the report while 90% felt the report added to their understanding of their PCa. Regarding patient knowledge, the PCR group had significantly more correct answers on GGG and ECE as compared with the standard report group at baseline and 4 weeks (p < 0.001 and 0.001, respectively). Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that PC pathology reports improve patient knowledge and understanding of their PCa that is retained for at least 4 weeks after initial receipt of results.

Predictors of erectile dysfunction after transperineal template prostate biopsy.

PURPOSE: To investigate the incidence and possible contributing factors of erectile dysfunction (ED) after transperineal template prostate biopsy (TTPB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Males undergoing TTPB were prospectively administered a Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) questionnaire before biopsy and one month after. SHIM questionnaires were repeated at 3- and 9-months for males not receiving interventional treatment. Sexually inactive males were excluded. Interval change in SHIM categories based upon baseline characteristics were evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate predictors of change in SHIM score category. RESULTS: A total of 576 males were included in our sample. Of these, 450 (78%) males underwent their first biopsy. A decline in SHIM category within the immediate 4-weeks post-biopsy was reported by 167 males (31% of total eligible sample). Age was the strongest predictor of decline in SHIM category, the predicted probability of a decline in SHIM at age 50 was 10% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1%-19%), 32% at age 60 (95% CI, 25%-40%) and 36% at age 70 (95% CI, 29%-44%). For new onset ED, the predicted probability of ED within 4-weeks post-TTPB were 6.7% at age 50 (95% CI, 0%-15%), 26% at age 60 (95% CI, 17%-34%) and 31% at age 70 (95% CI, 21%-40%). CONCLUSIONS: Older age at biopsy is an independent predictor of immediate ED after TTPB in sexually active males. This association was observed in the subgroup with no pre-existing ED. These findings provide useful information when counselling males undergoing TTPB.

Comparison of perioperative, renal and oncologic outcomes in robotic-assisted versus open partial nephrectomy.

BACKGROUND: To compare perioperative, renal and oncological outcomes after robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) versus open partial nephrectomy (OPN) for the treatment of renal tumours. METHODS: All partial nephrectomies performed at a Metropolitan Urology Centre between 2010 and 2016 were analysed. Baseline data was collected for patient demographics, tumour characteristics (tumour size, laterality and polarity, RENAL scores), and perioperative variables (e.g. warm ischaemic time, operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay). Tumour characteristics included malignancy, clinical stage, Fuhrman nuclear grade and surgical margin status. Day-1 post-operative serum creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and 6-month eGFR stage were used for assessing renal function. RESULTS: Two hundred patients underwent partial nephrectomy between 2010 and 2016 (n = 200; 55 OPN versus 145 RAPN). Baseline data was similar between groups, except for lower age (P = 0.0001) and higher RENAL scores (P = 0.001) in the RAPN group. RAPN demonstrated significantly lower complication rates (P = 0.015), lesser EBL (P = <0.0001), shorter hospital stays (P = <0.001) and reduced positive tumour resection margins (P = 0.039). There was no significant difference in mean operation time between RAPN and OPN (137.2 (±48.0) OPN versus 146.07 (±35.91) RAPN; P = 0.16). No statistical difference was shown for post-operative eGFR stage between groups at Day-1 and 6-month post-surgery (P = 0.15 and P = 0.861, respectively). CONCLUSION: We present the largest reported Australian series on partial nephrectomy, confirming that a robotic-assisted approach is equivalent to OPN, with reduced complications, EBL, length of hospital stays and fewer positive margins, even when resecting more complex tumours.