The Minimisation of Cardiovascular Disease Screening for Kidney Transplant Candidates.

Background: There is increasing evidence that cardiac screening prior to kidney transplantation does not improve its outcomes. However, risk aversion to perioperative events means that, in practice, testing remains common, limiting the availability of 'real-world' data to support any change. Our objective was to assess perioperative and 1-year post-transplant cardiovascular events in a kidney transplant candidate cohort who received minimal cardiovascular screening. Methods: The retrospective cohort study included all adult kidney-only transplant recipients in a single UK region between January 2015 and December 2021. Kidney transplant recipients asymptomatic of cardiac disease, even those with established risk factors, did not receive cardiac stress testing. The perioperative and 1-year post-transplant cardiovascular event incidences were examined. Logistic regression was used to identify variables of statistical significance that predicted cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events. Results: A total of 895 recipients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Prior to transplantation, 209 (23%) recipients had an established cardiac diagnosis, and 193 (22%) individuals had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 18 (2%) patients had a perioperative event, and there was a 5.7% incidence of cardiovascular events 1 year post-transplantation. The cardiovascular mortality rate was 0.0% perioperatively, 0.2% at 3 months post-transplant, and 0.2% at 1 year post-transplant. Conclusions: This study demonstrates comparable rates of cardiovascular events despite reduced screening in asymptomatic recipients. It included higher risk individuals who may, on the basis of screening results, have been excluded from transplantation in other programmes. It provides further evidence that extensive cardiac screening prior to kidney transplantation is unlikely to be offset by reduced rates of cardiovascular events.

Recurrence Kinetics after Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery in Colon Cancer. A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of mortality worldwide and in the UK. Surgical resection is the main curative treatment modality available and using a laparoscopic vs. an open approach may have a direct influence on the inflammatory response, influencing cancer biology and potentially the recurrence kinetics by promoting cancer growth. METHODS: This systematic review aims to compare laparoscopic with open surgery for the treatment of colon cancer with a specific focus on the moment of the recurrence. We included randomised controlled trials in intended curative surgery for colon cancer in adults. INTERVENTIONS: Studies investigating laparoscopic vs. open resection as an intended curative treatment for patients with confirmed carcinoma of the colon. The two co-primary outcomes were the time to recurrence and the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at three and five years. Meta-analyses were done on the mean differences. RESULTS: After selection, we reviewed ten randomised controlled trials. Most of the trials did not display a statistically significant difference in either DFS or OS at three or at five years when comparing laparoscopic to open surgery. Groups did not differ for the OS and DFS, especially regarding the time needed to observe the median recurrence rate. The quality of evidence (GRADE) was moderate to very low. CONCLUSION: We observed no difference in the recurrence kinetics, OS or DFS at three or five years when comparing laparoscopic to open surgery in colon cancer.

Improving fairness in coverage decisions: performance expectations for quality improvement.

Patients and physicians often perceive the current health care system to be unfair, in part because of the ways in which coverage decisions appear to be made. To address this problem the Ethical Force Program, a collaborative effort to create quality improvement tools for ethics in health care, has developed five content areas specifying ethical criteria for fair health care benefits design and administration. Each content area includes concrete recommendations and measurable expectations for performance improvement, which can be used by those organizations involved in the design and administration of health benefits packages, such as purchasers, health plans, benefits consultants, and practitioner groups.