The 5-factor modified frailty index (mFI-5) predicts adverse outcomes after elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a reliable procedure commonly performed in older patients with degenerative diseases of the cervical spine. Over 130,000 procedures are performed every year with an annual increase of 5%, and overall morbidity rates can reach as high as 19.3%, indicating a need for surgeons to gauge their patients' risk for adverse outcomes. Frailty is an age-associated decline in functioning of multiple organ systems and has been shown to predict adverse outcomes following various spine procedures. There have been several proposed frailty indices of various factors including the 11-factor modified frailty index (mFI-11), which has been shown to be an effective tool for predicting complications in patients undergoing ACDF. However, there is a paucity of literature assessing the utility of the 5-factor modified frailty index (mFI-5) as a risk stratification tool for patients undergoing ACDF. The purpose of this study was to analyze the predictive capability of the mFI-5 score for 30-day postoperative adverse events following elective ACDF. Methods: A retrospective review was performed using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database from 2010 through 2019. Patients older than 50 years of age who underwent elective ACDF were identified using Current Procedural Terminology ([CPT] codes 22554, 22551, 22552, and 63075). Exclusion criteria removed patients under the age of 51, as well as those with fractures, sepsis, disseminated cancer, a prior operation in the last 30 days, ascites, wound infection, or an emergency surgery. Patients were grouped using mFI scores of 1, 2, and 3+. Univariate analysis, using chi-squared and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests, was conducted to compare demographics, comorbidities, and postoperative complications across the varying cohorts based on mFI-5 scores. Multivariate logistic regression, including patient demographics and preoperative comorbidities as covariates, was performed to evaluate if mFI-5 scores were independent predictors of 30-day postoperative adverse events. Covariates including race, BMI, sex, ASA, and comorbidities were included in regression models. Results: The 45,991 patients were identified and allocated in cohorts based on mFI-5 score. Rates for superficial surgical site infection (SSI), organ/deep space SSI, pneumonia, progressive renal insufficiency, acute renal failure (ARF), urinary tract infection (UTI), stroke/cardiovascular accident (CVA), cardiac arrest requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), myocardial infarction, bleeding requiring transfusions, deep vein thrombosis/thrombophlebitis, sepsis, septic shock, readmissions, reoperation, and mortality incrementally increased with mFI-5 scores from 0 to 3+. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that mFI-5 scores 1 to 3+ increased the odds, in a stepwise manner, of total complications, cardiac arrest requiring CPR, pneumonia and mortality. MFI-5 scores of 2 and 3+ were independent predictors of readmission (2: OR=1.5, p<.001; 3+: OR=2.0, p<.001) and myocardial infarction (2: OR=3.4, p=.001; 3+: OR=6.9, p<.001). A score of 3+ increased the odds of ARF (OR=9.7, p=.022), septic shock (OR=3.6, p=.036), UTI (OR=2.1, p=.007), bleeding requiring transfusions (OR=2.1, p=.016), and reoperations (OR=1.7, p=.004). Conclusion: mFI-5 score is a quick and viable option for surgeons to use as an assessment tool to stratify high risk patients undergoing elective ACDF, as increasing mFI-5 scores showed significantly higher rates of all adverse outcomes accounted for in this study, except for deep incisional SSI, wound disruption, and PE. Additionally, moderate to severe mFI-5 scores of 2 or 3+ were independent predictors for 30-day postoperative ARF, UTI, MI, bleeding requiring transfusions, septic shock, reoperation, and readmissions following elective ACDF surgery in adults over 50 years old.

Bariatric surgery, novel glucose-lowering agents, and insulin for type 2 diabetes and obesity: Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of bariatric surgery, novel glucose-lowering agents (SGLT2i, GLP1RA, DPP4i), and insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and obesity. METHODS: Four databases were searched from inception to April 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bariatric surgery, SGLT2i, GLP1RA, DPP4i, insulin, and/or placebo/usual care among patients with T2DM and obesity in the achievement of HbA1c < 7.0 per cent within one year, and 12-month changes in HbA1c and body weight. RESULTS: A total of 376 eligible RCTs (149 824 patients) were analysed. Bariatric surgery had significantly higher rates of achieving HbA1c < 7.0 per cent than SGLT2i (RR = 2.46, 95 per cent c.i. = 1.28, 4.92), DPP4i (RR = 2.59, 95 per cent c.i. = 1.36, 5.13), insulin (RR = 2.27, 95 per cent c.i. = 1.18, 4.58) and placebo/usual care (RR = 4.02, 95 per cent c.i. = 2.13, 7.93), but had no statistically significant difference from GLP1RA (RR = 1.73, 95 per cent c.i. = 0.91, 3.44), regardless of oral (RR = 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. = 0.66, 2.79) or injectable (RR = 1.75, 95 per cent c.i. = 0.92, 3.45) administration. Significantly more GLP1RA patients achieved HbA1c < 7.0 per cent than other non-surgical treatments. Bariatric surgery had the greatest reductions in HbA1c (∼1 per cent more) and body weight (∼15 kg more) at 12 months. Among novel glucose-lowering medications, GLP1RA was associated with greater reductions in HbA1c than SGLT2i (-0.39 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. = -0.55, -0.22) and DPP4i (-0.51 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. = -0.64, -0.39) at 12 months, while GLP1RA (-1.74 kg, 95 per cent c.i. = -2.48, -1.01) and SGLT2i (-2.23 kg, 95 per cent c.i. = -3.07, -1.39) showed greater reductions in body weight than DPP4i at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Bariatric surgery showed superiority in glycaemic control and weight management compared to non-surgical approaches. GLP1RA administered by oral or injectable form demonstrated reduced HbA1c and body weight at 12 months, and was preferable over other non-surgical treatments among patients with T2DM and obesity. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NO: CRD42020201507.

Remdesivir use and risks of acute kidney injury and acute liver injury among patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a self-controlled case series study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: To investigate and quantify the risks of AKI and ALI associated with remdesivir use, given the underlying diseases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: This self-controlled case series (SCCS) study was conducted using electronic hospital records between 23 January 2020 and 31 January 2021 as retrieved from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority which manages all laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases in Hong Kong. Outcomes of AKI and ALI were defined using the KDIGO Guideline and Asia Pacific Association of Study of Liver consensus guidelines. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) for AKI and ALI following the administration of remdesivir (exposure) in comparison to a non-exposure period were estimated using the conditional Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Of 860 COVID-19 patients administered remdesivir during hospitalisation, 334 (38.8%) and 137 (15.9%) had incident ALI and AKI, respectively. Compared with the baseline period, both ALI and AKI risks were increased significantly during the pre-exposure period (ALI: IRR = 6.169, 95% CI = 4.549-8.365; AKI: IRR = 7.074, 95% CI = 3.763-13.298) and remained elevated during remdesivir treatment. Compared to the pre-exposure period, risks of ALI and AKI were not significantly higher in the first 2 days of remdesivir initiation (ALI: IRR = 1.261, 95% CI = 0.915-1.737; AKI: IRR = 1.261, 95% CI = 0.889-1.789) and between days 2 and 5 of remdesivir treatment (ALI: IRR = 1.087, 95% CI = 0.793-1.489; AKI: IRR = 1.152, 95% CI = 0.821-1.616). CONCLUSION: The increased risks of AKI and ALI associated with intravenous remdesivir treatment for COVID-19 may be due to the underlying SARS-CoV-2 infection. The risks of AKI and ALI were elevated in the pre-exposure period, yet no such increased risks were observed following remdesivir initiation when compared to the pre-exposure period.

Optimal Timing of Remdesivir Initiation in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Administered With Dexamethasone.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is lacking about any additional benefits of introducing remdesivir on top of dexamethasone, and the optimal timing of initiation. METHODS: In a territory-wide cohort of 10 445 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients from Hong Kong who were hospitalized between 21 January 2020 and 31 January 2021, 1544 had received dexamethasone during hospitalization. The exposure group consisted of patients who had initiated remdesivir prior to dexamethasone (n = 93) or co-initiated the 2 drugs simultaneously (n = 373), whereas the nonexposure group included patients who were given remdesivir after dexamethasone (n = 149) or those without remdesivir use (n = 929). Multiple imputation and inverse probability of treatment weighting for propensity score were applied and hazard ratios (HRs) of event outcomes were estimated using Cox regression models. RESULTS: Time to clinical improvement (HR = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02-1.49; P = .032) and positive IgG antibody (HR = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.02-1.46; P = .029) were significantly shorter in the exposure group than that of nonexposure. The exposure group had a shorter hospital length of stay by 2.65 days among survivors, lower WHO clinical progression scale scores from 5 days of follow-up onwards, and lower risks of in-hospital death (HR = .59; 95% CI, .36-.98; P = .042) and composite outcomes; and without experiencing an increased risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Differences in the cumulative direct medical costs between groups were no longer significant from 17 days of follow-up onwards. CONCLUSIONS: Initiation of remdesivir prior to or simultaneously with dexamethasone was associated with significantly shorter time to clinical improvement and positive IgG antibody, lower risk of in-hospital death, in addition to shorter length of hospital stay in patients with moderate COVID-19.