Association of Splanchnic Vein Thrombosis on Survival: 15-Year Institutional Experience With 1561 Cases.

Background Previous studies regarding survival in patients with splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) are limited. This study measured overall survival in a large cohort of SVTs through linkage to population-based data. Methods and Results Using a previously derived text-search algorithm, we screened the reports of all abdominal ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography studies at The Ottawa Hospital over 14 years. Screen-positive reports were manually reviewed by at least 2 authors to identify definite SVT cases by consensus. Images of uncertain studies were independently reviewed by 2 radiologists. One thousand five hundred sixty-one adults with SVT (annual incidence ranging from 2.8 to 5.9 cases/10 000 patients) were linked with population-based data sets to measure the presence of concomitant cancer and survival status. Thrombosis involved multiple veins in 314 patients (20.1%), most commonly the portal vein (n=1410, 90.3%). Compared with an age-sex-year matched population, patients with SVT had significantly reduced survival in particular with local cancer (adjusted relative excess risk for recent cases 12.0 [95% CI, 9.8-14.6] and for remote cases 9.7 [7.7-12.2]), distant cancer (relative excess risk for recent cases 5.7 [4.5-7.3] and for remote cases 5.4 [4.4-6.6]), cirrhosis (relative excess risk 8.2 [5.3-12.7]), and previous venous thromboembolism (relative excess risk 3.8 [2.4-6.0]). One hundred fifty (23.9%) of patients >65 years of age were anticoagulated within 1 month of diagnosis. Conclusions SVT is more common than expected. Most patients have cancer and the portal vein is by far the most common vein involved. Compared with the general population, patients with SVT had significantly reduced survival, particularly in patients with concomitant cancer, cirrhosis, and previous venous thromboembolic disease. Most elderly patients did not receive anticoagulant therapy.

Association of intraoperative anaesthesia handovers with patient morbidity and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Handover of anaesthesia patient care during surgery is common; however, its association with patient outcome is unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess the impact of anaesthesia handover during surgery on patient outcome. METHODS: All prospective and retrospective clinical studies specifically investigating the association of intraoperative transfer of anaesthesia care between anaesthesia providers in the operating room with patient morbidity and mortality were included. Searches were conducted from inception to April 24, 2019 in Medline, Medline in Process, CINAHL, and Embase. Reference lists of included studies were searched. Studies were assessed for eligibility and data were extracted by independent reviewers in duplicate with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. Risk of bias was assessed in duplicate using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Data were summarised narratively given substantial heterogeneity. An exploratory meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model for a subset of comparable studies. RESULTS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Six studies focused on patients as the unit of analysis (npatients=605 678) and two focused on anaesthesia providers as the unit of analysis (nproviders=307). Seven studies identified a relationship between anaesthesia handovers and adverse patient outcomes, whereas one suggested that handover may be beneficial to error detection or rectification. Included studies were of fair or good quality. Meta-analysis of four studies found a 40% increased risk of patients experiencing an adverse event when an anaesthesia handover occurs during the procedure (pooled risk ratio=1.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.19 to 1.65; P<0.001; I2=98%). CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative anaesthesia handovers generally increase morbidity and mortality for surgical patients but could have the potential to improve safety in certain contexts. Future research should determine the specific handover characteristics that impact safety.