Safety and feasibility of colonoscopy in nonagenarians: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis.

AIM: The aim of this work was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of performing colonoscopy in patients aged 90 years or over. METHOD: In compliance with PRISMA statement standards, a systematic review of studies reporting the outcomes of colonoscopy in patients aged ≥90 years was conducted. A proportional meta-analysis model was constructed to quantify the risk of outcomes and a direct comparison meta-analysis model was constructed to compare outcomes between nonagenarians and patients aged between 50 and 89 years via random-effects models. RESULTS: Seven studies enrolling 1304 patients (1342 colonoscopies) were included. Analyses showed that complications related to bowel preparation occurred in 0.7% (95% CI 0.1%-1.6%), procedural complications in 0.6% (0.00%-1.7%), 30-day complications in 1.5% (0.6%-2.7%), procedural mortality in 0.3% (0.0%-1.1%) and 30-day mortality in 1.1% (0.3%-2.2%). Adequate bowel preparation and colonoscopy completion were achieved in 81.3% (73.8%-87.9%) and 92.1% (86.7%-96.3%), respectively. No difference was found in bowel preparation-related complications [risk difference (RD) 0.00, p = 0.78], procedural complications (RD 0.00, p = 0.60), 30-day complications (RD 0.01, p = 0.20), procedural mortality (RD 0.00, p = 1.00) or 30-day mortality (RD 0.01, p = 0.34) between nonagenarians and patients aged between 50 and 89 years. The colorectal cancer detection rate was 14.3% (9.8%-19.5%), resulting in therapeutic intervention in 65.9% (54.5%-76.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the evidence is limited to a selected group of nonagenarians, it may be fair to conclude that if a colonoscopy is indicated in a nonagenarian with good performance status (based on initial less-invasive investigations), the level 2 evidence supports its safety and feasibility. Age on its own should not be a reason for failing to offer colonoscopy to a nonagenarian.

Predictive value of Hajibandeh index in determining peritoneal contamination in acute abdomen: A cohort study and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hajibandeh index (HI), derived from combined levels of C-reactive protein, lactate, neutrophils, lymphocytes and albumin, is a modern predictor of peritoneal contamination and mortality in patients with acute abdominal pathology. AIM: To validate the performance of HI in predicting the presence and nature of peritoneal contamination in patients with acute abdominal pathology in a larger cohort study and to synthesis evidence in a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: The STROBE guidelines and the PRISMA statement standards were followed to conduct a cohort study (ChiCTR2200056183) and a meta-analysis (CRD42022306018), respectively. All adult patients undergoing emergency laparotomy for acute abdominal pathology were eligible. The accuracy of the HI was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis in the cohort study and using weighted summary area under the curve (AUC) under the fixed and random effects modelling in the meta-analysis. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 criteria were used for methodological quality assessment of the included studies. RESULTS: A total of 1437 patients were included (700 from the cohort study and 737 from the literature search). ROC curve analysis of the cohort study showed that the AUC of HI for presence of contamination, purulent contamination and feculent contamination were 0.79 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.76-0.82, P < 0.0001], 0.76 (95%CI: 0.72-0.80, P < 0.0001), and 0.83 (95%CI: 0.79-0.86, P < 0.0001), respectively. The meta-analysis showed that the pooled AUC of HI for presence of contamination, purulent contamination and feculent contamination were 0.79 (95%CI: 0.75-0.83), 0.78 (95%CI: 0.74-0.81), and 0.80 (95%CI: 0.77-0.83), respectively. CONCLUSION: The HI is a strong and accurate predictor of intraperitoneal contamination. Although the available evidence is robust, it is limited to the studies conducted by our evidence synthesis group. We encourage other researchers to validate performance of HI in predicting the presence of intraperitoneal contamination and more importantly in predicting mortality following emergency laparotomy.

Hajibandeh Index versus NELA score in predicting mortality following emergency laparotomy: A retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare performance of the Hajibandeh Index (HI) and National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) score in predicting postoperative mortality in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. METHODS: In compliance with STROCSS guidelines for observational studies a cohort study was conducted. All patients aged over 18 who underwent emergency laparotomy between January 2014 and January 2021 in our centre were considered eligible for inclusion. The HI and NELA indices in predicting 30-day and 90-day postoperative mortality were compared. The discrimination of each test was evaluated using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, classification using the classification table and calibration using a plotted diagram of the expected versus observed mortality rates. RESULTS: Analysis of 700 patients showed that the predictive performance of the HI and NELA models were comparable (30-day mortality: AUC: 0.86 vs 0.87, P = 0.557; 90-day mortality: AUC: 0.81 vs 0.84, P = 0.0607). In terms of 30-day mortality, HI was significantly better than the NELA model in predicting postoperative mortality in patients aged over 80 (AUC: 0.85 vs 0.72, P = 0.0174); however, the performances of both tools were comparable in patients with ASA status above 3 (AUC: 0.82 vs 0.82, P = 0.9775), patients with intraperitoneal contamination (AUC: 0.77 vs 0.85, P = 0.0728) and patients who needed a bowel resection (AUC: 0.85 vs 0.88, P = 0.2749). In terms of 90-day mortality, HI was significantly better than the NELA model in predicting mortality in patients aged over 80 (AUC: 0.82 vs 0.71, P = 0.0214); however, NELA had better predictive value in patients with intraperitoneal contamination (AUC: 0.76 vs 0.85, P = 0.0268); the performances of both tools were comparable in patients with ASA status above 3 (AUC: 0.77 vs 0.80, P = 0.2582), and patients who needed a bowel resection (AUC: 0.81 vs 0.86, P = 0.05). Both tools were comparable in terms of classification and calibration. CONCLUSIONS: Hajibandeh index was better than the NELA score in predicting postoperative 30-day and 90-day mortality in patients aged over 80 undergoing emergency laparotomy. Its performance in predicting 30-day and 90-day mortality was comparable with NELA score in other subgroups except 90-day mortality in patients with intraperitoneal contamination where the performance of NELA was better. We encourage other researchers to validate HI in predicting mortality following emergency laparotomy.

Impact of COVID-19 on Key Performance Indicators of the National Hip Fracture Database and the Management of Hip Fracture Patients.

BACKGROUND:  A hospital's performance regarding the management of hip fractures is based on six key performance indicators (KPIs) which are recorded onto the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD). The aim of this study was to assess the overall impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the management and outcomes of hip fracture patients against a similar period in 2019 by utilizing the KPIs. METHOD:  Retrospective data collection of hip fracture patients during a six-week (pre-COVID) period in 2019 and a six-week (COVID-19) period in a single orthopedic unit. The following parameters were compared; patient age, time to theater, surgeon operating time, total time in the operating room, time from ward to recovery, time from hospital presentation to theater, and total time from presentation to hospital discharge. RESULTS:  Some 38 patients in the pre-COVID-19 period vs. 27 patients with hip fractures in the COVID-19 period were included in the study. Time from diagnosis to theater and surgeon operating time were similar in both groups. The mean length of stay was 9.3 days vs. a mean of 31.34 days (p = 0.0004) in the COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 groups respectively. A 30-day mortality was 22.2% (n = 6) in the COVID-19 group vs. 5.3% (n = 2) in the pre-COVID-19 group. CONCLUSION:  Our study demonstrates that the combination of surgical stress and COVID-19 leads to higher mortality rates. Our hospital's structural reorganization during the pandemic has shown progress in achieving important KPIs and improved short-term outcomes for hip fracture and trauma patients.