Is sterile exposure in perianal procedures necessary? A single-institution experience and results from a national survey.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSI) are the most common postoperative complications. To minimize the risk of SSI, there is a strict asepsis policy in the operating theatre. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk and cost-saving benefit of performing perianal surgery in a non-sterile setting. METHODS: All patients who had perianal surgery at our institution between January 2014 and December 2017 in a sterile (S) or non-sterile (NS) setting for an infectious or non-infectious cause were included. The primary outcome was the 30-day SSI rate. The secondary outcome was the reintervention rate. A questionnaire was sent to surgeons in the Netherlands to assess current policy with regard to asepsis in perianal procedures. Finally, a cost analysis was performed. RESULTS: In total, 376 patients were included. The rate of SSI in infectious procedures was 13% (S) versus 14% (NS, p = 0.853) and 5.1% (S) versus 0.9% (NS) in non-infectious procedures (p = 0.071). Reintervention rates in infectious procedures were 3.4% (S) versus 8.6% (NS, p = 0.187) and 1.3% (S) versus 0.0% (NS) in non-infectious procedures (p = 0.227). The questionnaire revealed that most surgeons perform perianal surgery in a sterile setting although they did not consider this useful. The potential national cost-saving benefit of a non-sterile setting is €124.61 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that it is safe to perform perianal surgery in a non-sterile setting with regard to the SSI and reintervention rate. Adjustment of the current practice will contribute to a reduction in healthcare expenses.

Effect of low-dose aspirin use on survival of patients with gastrointestinal malignancies; an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggested a relationship between aspirin use and mortality reduction. The mechanism for the effect of aspirin on cancer outcomes remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate aspirin use and survival in patients with gastrointestinal tract cancer. METHODS: Patients with gastrointestinal tract cancer diagnosed between 1998 and 2011 were included. The population-based Eindhoven Cancer Registry was linked to drug-dispensing data from the PHARMO Database Network. The association between aspirin use after diagnosis and overall survival was analysed using Cox regression models. RESULTS: In total, 13 715 patients were diagnosed with gastrointestinal cancer. A total of 1008 patients were identified as aspirin users, and 8278 patients were identified as nonusers. The adjusted hazard ratio for aspirin users vs nonusers was 0.52 (95% CI 0.44-0.63). A significant association between aspirin use and survival was observed for patients with oesophageal, hepatobiliary and colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Post-diagnosis use of aspirin in patients with gastrointestinal tract malignancies is associated with increased survival in cancers with different sites of origin and biology. This adds weight to the hypothesis that the anti-cancer effects of aspirin are not tumour-site specific and may be modulated through the tumour micro-environment.

The difference in association between aspirin use and other thrombocyte aggregation inhibitors and survival in patients with colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have suggested that the association between aspirin and improved cancer survival is mediated through the mechanism of aspirin as thrombocyte aggregation inhibitors (TAI). The aim of this study was to provide epidemiological evidence for this mechanism assessing the association between overall survival and the use of aspirin and non-aspirin TAI in patients with colorectal cancer. METHODS: In this observational study, data from the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation were linked to PHARMO Database Network. Patients using aspirin or aspirin in combination with non-aspirin TAI (dual users) were selected and compared with non-users. The association between overall survival and the use of (non-)aspirin TAI was analysed using Cox regression models with the use of (non-)aspirin TAI as a time-varying covariate. RESULTS: In total, 9196 patients were identified with colorectal cancer and 1766 patients used TAI after diagnosis. Non-aspirin TAI were mostly clopidogrel and dipyridamole. Aspirin use was associated with a significant increased overall survival and hazard ratio (HR) 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.47), and the use of non-aspirin TAI was not associated with survival of HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.70-1.22). Dual users did not have an improved overall survival when compared with patients using solely aspirin. CONCLUSIONS: Aspirin use after diagnosis of colorectal cancer was associated with significantly lower mortality rates and this effect remained significant after adjusting for potential confounders. No additional survival benefit was observed in patients using both aspirin and another TAI.