SARS-CoV-2 infection in adult liver transplantation recipients: a systematic review of risk factors for mortality and immunosuppression role.

OBJECTIVE: Data on mortality, immunosuppression, and vaccination role regarding liver transplant (LT) recipients affected by COVID-19 are still under debate. This study aims to identify risk factors for mortality and the role of immunosuppression in COVID-19 LT recipients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of SARS-CoV-2 infection in LT recipients was performed. The primary outcomes were risk factors for mortality, the role of immunosuppression and vaccination. A meta-analysis was not performed as there was a different metric of the same outcome (mortality) and a lack of a control group in most studies. RESULTS: Overall, 1,343 LT recipients of 1,810 SOT were included, and data on mortality were available for 1,110 liver transplant recipients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mortality ranged between 0-37%. Risk factors of mortality were age >60 years, Mofetil (MMF) use, extra-hepatic solid tumour, Charlson Comorbidity Index, male sex, dyspnoea at diagnosis, higher baseline serum creatinine, congestive heart failure, chronic lung disease, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, BMI >30. Only 51% of 233 LT patients presented a positive response after vaccination, and older age (>65y) and MMF use were associated with lower antibodies. Tacrolimus (TAC) was identified as a protective factor for mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Liver transplant patients present additional risk factors of mortality related to immunosuppression. Immunosuppression role in the progression to severe infection and mortality may correlate with different drugs. Moreover, fully vaccinated patients have a lower risk of developing severe COVID-19. The present research suggests safely using TAC and reducing MMF use during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The impact of the multidisciplinary tumor board (MDTB) on the management of pancreatic diseases in a tertiary referral center.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of multidisciplinary tumor board (MDTB) meetings significantly ameliorated the management of oncological diseases. However, few evidences are currently present on their impact on pancreatic cancer (PC) management. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the MDTB on PC diagnosis, resectability and tumor response to oncological treatment compared with indications before discussion. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients with a suspected or proven diagnosis of PC presented at the MDTB from 2017 to 2019 were included in the study. Changes of diagnosis, resectability and tumor response to oncological/radiation treatment between pre- and post-MDTB discussion were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 438 cases were included in the study: 249 (56.8%) were presented as new diagnoses, 148 (33.8%) for resectability assessment and 41 (9.4%) for tumor response evaluation to oncological treatment. MDTB discussion led to a change in diagnosis in 54/249 cases (21.7%), with a consequent treatment strategy variation in 36 cases (14.5%). Change in resectability was documented in 44/148 cases (29.7%), with the highest discrepancy for borderline lesions. The treatment strategy was thus modified in 27 patients (18.2%). The MDTB brought a modification in the tumor response assessment in 6/41 cases (14.6%), with a consequent protocol modification in four (9.8%) cases. CONCLUSIONS: MDTB discussion significantly impacts on PC management, especially in high-volume centers, with consistent variations in terms of diagnosis, resectability and tumor response assessment compared with indications before discussion.

Atypical presentation of acute pancreatitis: a single center case-match analysis of clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Acute pancreatitis (AP) may present an aspecific clinical picture without abdominal symptoms (atypical AP). We compared clinical outcomes between typical and atypical AP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty out of 1163 patients (2.6%) presented an atypical AP. Demographic, clinical data, laboratory and radiological findings, management type, length of hospital stay (LOS) and mortality rate were retrospectively reviewed. A case match analysis 2:1 was performed. The final groups comprised 50 typical APs (TAP group) and 25 atypical APs (AAP group). RESULTS: The AAP patients presented fever (36%), syncope (32%) and dyspnea (16%) as the most frequent symptoms. Laboratory values showed similarity between the two groups. We noted a comparable edematous AP rate in both groups (p=0.36). Ten (20%) TAP and 3 (12%) AAP patients needed ERCP, respectively (p=0.38). Cholecystectomy was similarly performed in both cohorts (p=0.81). One TAP patient underwent a percutaneous drainage and subsequent surgical necrosectomy compared to none in the AAP cohort (p=0.47). LOS and mortality rate were comparable (p=0.76 and 0.3, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Similar outcomes have been reached in the two groups. Routine evaluation of the serum amylase values fundamentally contributed to early diagnosis and appropriate treatment.

The impact of preoperative ASA-physical status on postoperative complications and long-term survival outcomes in gastric cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the preoperative American Society of Anesthesiologists-Physical status (ASA-PS) on both the short-term and long-term outcomes in patients with Gastric Cancer (GC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective observational study, a total of 473 GC patients were divided into the following 3 groups: ASA 1, ASA 2, and ASA 3-4. RESULTS: The ASA 3-4 group included significantly older patients compared to the other groups (p<0.0001). In ASA 1 patients, there was a higher number of lymph nodes dissected (p=0.006), and more patients received adjuvant treatment (p<0.001). In the three groups, no difference regarding the postoperative surgical and medical complications (p=0.29 and p=0.1, respectively) nor in terms of mortality rate (p=0.17) were demonstrated. The multivariate analysis showed that age, tumor stage, number of lymph nodes dissected, positive lymph nodes, adjuvant treatments, and postoperative surgical complications were significant predictive factors for mortality. Five-year overall and disease-free survival for ASA 1, ASA 2, and ASA 3-4 groups was 56%, 57.6%, and 44%, respectively; and 37%, 44.3%, and 39.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative ASA-PS alone cannot serve as a direct operative risk indicator for GC patients.

Colonoscopy quality assessment and accuracy: analysis of the influencing factors and surgical sequelae on 216 colonoscopies.

OBJECTIVE: Colonoscopy is recognized as the primary screening test for colorectal cancer. However, its inaccuracy in identifying the exact tumor localization is still high. As a consequence, repeated colonoscopies and changes in the surgical management have been reported. This study aims to evaluate the quality of 216 colonoscopies, to define colonoscopy accuracy and to investigate the surgical sequelae of an incorrect localization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 216 colonoscopies has been conducted. Colonoscopy quality was assessed on: quality of bowel preparation, completeness of the examination, video and/or photographic documentation, and reported the distance of the lesion from the anal verge. Colonoscopy accuracy was evaluated in terms of correspondence between the endoscopic and intra-operative tumor localization. RESULTS: Bowel preparation adequateness was reported in 121 out of 216 (56%) colonoscopies, with an adequate grade in 68.6% of cases. A complete colonoscopy was accomplished in 86.9% of cases with photo documentation in only 59 colonoscopies (27.3%). The lesion distance from the anal verge was documented only in 93 out of 216 colonoscopies. Of the 157 lesions described at the colonoscopy, 117 matched with the intra-operative localization (accuracy 74.5%). Fifteen of the 40 incorrectly localized lesions (37.5%) required changes in the surgical management. At multivariate analysis, the colonoscopy completeness was the only influencing factor on the concordance between endoscopic and intra-operative localization. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy demonstrated adequate accuracy in localizing lesions. However, the incorrect tumor localization leads to a high rate of changes in surgical management. Increase in.