Appetite for more exchange, connection and collaboration among senior health professionals.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the value of global exchange around knowledge, skills and attitudes among senior healthcare professionals (SHPs). It has also revealed the need for strong peer-led networks and mentorship to tackle the high levels of burnout and 'brain-drain' already plaguing the National Health Service (NHS). We designed a survey to gauge the appetite for exchange programmes among SHPs. METHODS: Data collection was carried out via an online qualitative survey generated by SurveyMonkey software and analysed by three independent authors. RESULTS: 155 responses were collected of which 87.7% were pre-COVID-19 pandemic. 74.2% had ideas to improve healthcare but could not take it forward. 86.6% felt frustrated/down-heartened about work. 74.3% wanted more sharing of teaching resources. 74.2% expressed interest in sabbatical programmes. CONCLUSION: Our survey confirms the desire for more connection, collaboration and exchange among SHPs who are at high risk of burnout, silo-working and leaving the profession early. Sabbaticals have been used successfully in other industries, especially academia, for many years and show long-term investment and value from employers in their employees. Almost 75% of the SHPs in this survey were interested in this but logistics precluded easy access to them. HealthProMatch (HPM) is a platform where SHPs can connect, collaborate and arrange exchanges/sabbaticals with logistical ease. It focuses on bringing leadership, mentorship and quality improvement back home. HPM will pilot in the NHS within anaesthesia and hopes to increase job satisfaction and retention in this precious workforce group.

Risk of Infection Associated With Administration of Intravenous Iron: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Intravenous iron is recommended by many clinical guidelines based largely on its effectiveness in reducing anemia. However, the association with important safety outcomes, such as infection, remains uncertain. Objective: To examine the risk of infection associated with intravenous iron compared with oral iron or no iron. Data Sources: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from 1966 to January 31, 2021. Ongoing trials were sought from ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Search Registry Platform. Study Selection: Pairs of reviewers identified RCTs that compared intravenous iron with oral iron or no iron across all patient populations, excluding healthy volunteers. Nonrandomized studies published since January 1, 2007, were also included. A total of 312 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane recommendations, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Two reviewers extracted data independently. A random-effects model was used to synthesize data from RCTs. A narrative synthesis was performed to characterize the reporting of infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was risk of infection. Secondary outcomes included mortality, hospital length of stay, and changes in hemoglobin and red blood cell transfusion requirements. Measures of association were reported as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences. Results: A total of 154 RCTs (32 920 participants) were included in the main analysis. Intravenous iron was associated with an increased risk of infection when compared with oral iron or no iron (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.31; I2 = 37%; moderate certainty of evidence). Intravenous iron also was associated with an increase in hemoglobin (mean difference, 0.57 g/dL; 95% CI, 0.50-0.64 g/dL; I2 = 94%) and a reduction in the risk of requiring a red blood cell transfusion (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-0.89; I2 = 15%) when compared with oral iron or no iron. There was no evidence of an effect on mortality or hospital length of stay. Conclusions and Relevance: In this large systematic review and meta-analysis, intravenous iron was associated with an increased risk of infection. Well-designed studies, using standardized definitions of infection, are required to understand the balance between this risk and the potential benefits.

Risk of infection associated with intravenous iron preparations: protocol for updating a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The benefits and risk of intravenous iron have been documented in previous systematic reviews and continue to be the subject of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). An ongoing issue that continues to be raised is the relationship between administering iron and developing infection. This is supported by biological plausibility from animal models. We propose an update of a previously published systematic review and meta-analysis with the primary focus being infection. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include RCTs and non-randomised studies (NRS) in this review update. We will search the relevant electronic databases. Two reviewers will independently extract data. Risk of bias for RCTs and NRS will be assessed using the relevant tools recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration. Data extracted from RCTs and NRS will be analysed and reported separately. Pooled data from RCTs will be analysed using a random effects model. We will also conduct subgroup analyses to identify any patient populations that may be at increased risk of developing infection. We will provide a narrative synthesis on the definitions, sources and responsible pathogens for infection in the included studies. Overall quality of evidence on the safety outcomes of mortality and infection will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review will only investigate published studies and therefore ethical approval is not required. The results will be broadly distributed through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO (CRD42018096023).

What is the effect of perioperative intravenous iron therapy in patients undergoing non-elective surgery? A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines to treat anaemia with intravenous (IV) iron have focused on elective surgical patients with little attention paid to those undergoing non-elective/emergency surgery. Whilst these patients may experience poor outcomes because of their presenting illness, observational data suggests that untreated anaemia may also be a contributing factor to poor outcomes. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the safety and efficacy of IV iron in patients undergoing non-elective surgery. METHODS: We followed a pre-defined review protocol and included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in patients undergoing non-elective surgery who received IV iron. Primary outcomes were all-cause infection and mean difference in haemoglobin (Hb) at follow-up. Secondary outcomes included transfusion requirements, hospital length of stay (LOS), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), mortality and adverse events. RESULTS: Three RCTs (605 participants) were included in this systematic review of which two, in both hip fracture (HF) patients, provided data for meta-analysis. Both of these RCTs were at low risk of bias. We found no evidence of a difference in the risk of infection (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.80, I 2 = 9%) or in the Hb concentration at 'short-term' (≤ 7 days) follow-up (mean difference - 0.32 g/L, 95% CI - 3.28 to 2.64, I 2 = 37%). IV iron did not reduce the risk of requiring a blood transfusion (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.11, p = 0.46, I 2 = 0%), and we observed no difference in mortality, LOS or adverse events. One RCT reported on HRQoL and found no difference between treatment arms. CONCLUSION: We found no conclusive evidence of an effect of IV iron on clinically important outcomes in patients undergoing non-elective surgery. Further adequately powered trials to evaluate its benefit in emergency surgical specialties with a high burden of anaemia are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018096288).

No increase in blood transfusions during liver transplantation since the withdrawal of aprotinin.

The aims of this study were to determine whether the withdrawal of aprotinin (APRO) led to an increased bleeding risk in patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). A retrospective analysis compared consecutive patients undergoing OLT and treated with aprotinin (APRO group; n = 100) with a group in which aprotinin was not used (no-APRO group; n = 100). Propensity score matching was then performed for each group to identify 2 matched cohorts. Patients were matched by their primary diagnoses and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores. This resulted in 2 matched cohorts with 55 patients in each group. None of the patients in the APRO group had significant fibrinolysis. In the no-APRO group, 23.6% of the patients developed fibrinolysis (P < 0.003). Tranexamic acid was used in 61.5% of the patients (n = 8) in the no-APRO group in whom lysis was present, and this resolved the fibrinolysis in all but 1 of these patients. There were no differences in red blood cell, fresh frozen plasma, platelet concentrate, or cryoprecipitate transfusions between the 2 groups. In conclusion, we have shown a significant increase in the prevalence of fibrinolysis during OLT since the withdrawal of APRO. However, there has been no increase in transfusion requirements.

Intraoperative hypercoagulability during liver transplantation as demonstrated by thromboelastography.

Thrombotic complications are more common in liver disease than might be expected because of the coagulopathy described by conventional coagulation tests. Some of these complications may be life-threatening. The phenomenon of hypercoagulation is associated with complications in many populations, but the incidence in liver transplant recipients is unclear. We performed a retrospective database review of intraoperative thromboelastography (TEG) for 124 liver transplant recipients. We assessed the prevalence of hypercoagulation in this group and investigated the relative frequency of both shortened TEG reaction times (R times) and increased net clot strength (G) values. These findings were correlated with thrombotic complications. At the baseline, the prevalence of high G values was 15.53% on native TEG, and the prevalence of shortened R times was 6.80% on native-heparinase TEG. Patients with cholestatic pathologies had particularly high rates of hypercoagulation (42.9% with primary biliary cirrhosis and 85.7% with primary sclerosing cholangitis), but hypercoagulation was also common in patients with fulminant hepatic failure (50%) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (37.5%). There was a poor correlation between the TEG R time and the international normalized (INR), with 37.7% of TEG analyses demonstrating a short R time with an INR > 2. Six of the patients developed early hepatic artery thrombosis (5%); 3 of these patients had TEG evidence of high G values (P = 0.25), and 4 had short R times (not significant). In conclusion, intraoperative TEG evidence of high G values and short R times is relatively common in liver transplantation. It is unclear what bearing this condition has on thrombotic complications. Conventional coagulation tests have no ability to diagnose this condition. It is conceivable that such patients may come to harm if hypercoagulability is unrecognized and, therefore, inappropriately managed.