Search

Background: Delirium is an acute and fluctuating disturbance in attention, awareness, and cognition, commonly observed in hospital settings, particularly among older adults, critically ill and surgical patients. Delirium poses significant challenges in patient care, leading to increased morbidity, mortality, prolonged hospital stays, and functional decline. Aim: The aim of this review is to map existing evidence on delirium diagnostic tools suitable for use in patients treated surgically due to hip fracture, to inform clinical practice and enhance patient care protocols in the postoperative setting. Method: We will conduct a scoping review on delirium diagnostic tools used for adult patients in the postoperative setting according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR). Eligibility criteria encompass all languages, publications dates, and study designs, with exception of case‐reports. We will systematically search multiple databases and include unpublished trials, ensuring a comprehensive review based on a predefined protocol. Results: Results will be presented descriptively, with supplementary tables and graphs. Studies will be grouped by design, surgical specialties, and diagnostic tools to identify potential variations. Conclusion: This scoping review will provide an overview of existing delirium diagnostic tools used in the postoperative setting and highlight knowledge‐gaps to support future research. Due to the large number of patients affected by postoperative delirium, evidence mapping is much needed to facilitate evidence‐based practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Perioperative hypotension is common and associated with adverse patient outcomes. Vasoactive agents are often used to manage hypotension, but the ideal drug, dose and duration of treatment has not been established. With this scoping review, we aim to provide an overview of the current body of evidence regarding the vasoactive agents used to treat perioperative hypotension in non‐cardiac surgery. Methods: We included all studies describing the use of vasoactive agents for the treatment of perioperative hypotension in non‐cardiac surgery. We excluded literature reviews, case studies, and studies on animals and healthy subjects. We posed the following research questions: (1) in which surgical populations have vasoactive agents been studied? (2) which agents have been studied? (3) what doses have been assessed? (4) what is the duration of treatment? and (5) which desirable and undesirable outcomes have been assessed? Results: We included 124 studies representing 10 surgical specialties. Eighteen different agents were evaluated, predominantly phenylephrine, ephedrine, and noradrenaline. The agents were administered through six different routes, and numerous comparisons between agents, dosages and routes were included. Then, 88 distinct outcome measures were assessed, of which 54 were judged to be non‐patient‐centred. Conclusions: We found that studies concerning vasoactive agents for the treatment of perioperative hypotension varied considerably in all aspects. Populations were heterogeneous, interventions and exposures included multiple agents compared against themselves, each other, fluids or placebo, and studies reported primarily non‐patient‐centred outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Risk prediction models are used for many purposes in emergency surgery, including critical care triage and benchmarking. Several risk prediction models have been developed, and some are used for purposes other than those for which they were developed. We aim to provide an overview of the existing literature on risk prediction models used in emergency surgery and highlight knowledge gaps. Methods: We will conduct a scoping review on risk prediction models used for patients undergoing emergency surgery in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR). We will search Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library and include all study designs. We aim to answer the following questions: (1) What risk prediction models are used in emergency surgery? (2) Which variables are used in these models? (3) Which surgical specialties are the models used for? (4) Have the models been externally validated? (5) Where have the models been externally validated? (6) What purposes were the models developed for? (7) What are the strengths and limitations of the included models? We will summarize the results descriptively. The certainty of evidence will be evaluated using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Conclusion: The outlined scoping review will summarize the existing literature on risk prediction models used in emergency surgery and highlight knowledge gaps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Risk prediction models are frequently used to identify high‐risk patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. The National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) developed a risk prediction model specifically for emergency laparotomy patients, which was recently updated. In this study, we validated the updated NELA model in an external population. Furthermore, we compared it with three other risk prediction models: the original NELA model, the Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity (P‐POSSUM) model, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA‐PS). We included adult patients undergoing emergency laparotomy at Zealand University Hospital, from March 2017 to January 2019, and Herlev Hospital, from November 2017 to January 2020. Variables included in the risk prediction models were collected retrospectively from the electronic patient records. Discrimination of the risk prediction models was evaluated with area under the curve (AUC) statistics, and calibration was assessed with Cox calibration regression. The primary outcome was 30‐day mortality. Out of 1226 included patients, 146 patients (11.9%) died within 30 days. AUC (95% confidence interval) for 30‐day mortality was 0.85 (0.82–0.88) for the updated NELA model, 0.84 (0.81–0.87) for the original NELA model, 0.81 (0.77–0.84) for the P‐POSSUM model, and 0.76 (0.72–0.79) for the ASA‐PS model. Calibration showed underestimation of mortality risk for both the updated NELA, original NELA and P‐POSSUM models. The updated NELA risk prediction model performs well in this external validation study and may be used in similar settings. However, the model should only be used to discriminate between low‐ and high‐risk patients, and not for prediction of individual risk due to underestimation of mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence in perioperative care is insufficient. There is an urgent need for large perioperative research programmes, including pragmatic randomised trials, testing daily clinical treatments and unanswered question, thereby providing solid evidence for effects of interventions given to a large and growing number of patients undergoing surgery and anaesthesia. This may be achieved through large collaborations. Collaboration for Evidence‐based Practice and Research in Anaesthesia (CEPRA) is a novel collaborative research network founded to pursue evidence‐based answers to major clinical questions in perioperative medicine. The aims of CEPRA are to (1) improve clinical treatment and outcomes and optimise the use of resources for patients undergoing anaesthesia and perioperative care, and (2) disseminate results and inform caretakers, patients and relatives, and policymakers of evidence‐based treatments in anaesthesia and perioperative medicine. CEPRA is inclusive in its concept. We aim to extend our collaboration with all relevant clinical collaborators and patient associations and representatives. Although initiated in Denmark, CEPRA seeks to develop an international network infrastructure, for example, with other Nordic countries. The work of CEPRA will follow the highest methodological standards. The organisation aims to structure and optimise any element of the research collaboration to reduce economic costs and harness benefits from well‐functioning research infrastructure. This includes successive continuation of trials, harmonisation of outcomes, and alignment of data management systems. This paper presents the initiation and visions of the CEPRA network. CEPRA aims to be inclusive, patient‐focused, methodologically sound, and to optimise all aspects of research logistics. This will translate into faster research conduct, reliable results, and accelerated clinical implementation of results, thereby benefiting millions of patients whilst being cost and labour‐saving. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Epidural analgesia is an effective technique advocated worldwide for postoperative analgesia after a wide range of surgical procedures. Despite the benefits of epidural analgesia for pain management, systematic education of ward nurses in managing epidural analgesia appears to be lacking. Methods: The aim of the proposed scoping review is to map the body of evidence and identify training programmes for healthcare professionals in the safe management of postoperative epidural analgesia. The methodology will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta‐Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR). In addition, the five main steps set forth by Arksey and O'Malley and refined by Levac for guidance of the process will be used. The scoping review will include any study design of any date, design, setting and duration. Results: We will present results descriptively, accompanied with visual presentations as tables and graphs. Conclusion: The outlined scoping review will provide an overview of existing training programmes for healthcare professionals in the safe management of postoperative epidural analgesia and map the body of available evidence on the topic. The study may support the development of a training programme for ward nurses caring for patients receiving postoperative epidural analgesia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mortality following major emergency abdominal surgery is high. Surgical delay is regarded as an important modifiable prognostic factor. Current care-bundles aim at reducing surgical delay, most often using a six-hour cut-off. We aimed to investigate the evidence supporting the in-hospital delay cutoffs currently used. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched. We included studies assessing in-hospital surgical delay in major emergency abdominal surgery patients. Studies were only included if they performed adjusted analysis. Surgical delay beyond six hours was the primary cutfrom interest. The primary outcome was mortality at longest follow-up. Meta-analyses were conducted if possible. Eleven observational studies were included with 16,772 participants. Two studies evaluated delay in unselected major emergency abdominal surgery patients. Three studies applied a six-hour cutoff, but only a study on acute mesenteric ischemia showed an association between delay and mortality. Meta-analysis showed no association with mortality at this cutoff. An association was seen between hourly delay and mortality risk estimate, 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 − 1.03), and on subgroup analysis of hourly delay in perforated peptic ulcer patients, risk estimate, 1.02 (95% CI, 1.0 − 1.03). All risk estimates had a very low Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation score. Little evidence supports a six-hour cutoff in unselected major emergency abdominal surgical patients. We found an association between hourly delay and increased mortality; however, evidence supporting this was primarily in patients undergoing surgery for perforated peptic ulcer. This review is limited by the quality of the individual studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery are at high risk of post-operative complications. Although post-operative treatment at an intermediate care unit may improve early outcome, there is a lack of studies on the long-term effects of such therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term effect of intermediate care versus standard surgical ward care on mortality in the Intermediate Care After Emergency Abdominal Surgery (InCare) trial.Methods: We included adult patients undergoing emergency major laparoscopy or laparotomy with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score of 10 or more, who participated in the InCare trial from October 2010 to November 2012. In the InCare trial, patients were randomized to either post-operative intermediate care or standard surgical ward care. The primary outcome was time to death within 6 years after surgery. We assessed mortality with Coxregression analysis.Results: A total of 286 patients were included. The all-cause 6-year landmark mortality was 52.8% (76 of 144 patients) in the intermediate care group and 47.9% (68 of 142 patients) in the ward care group. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality risk between the two groups (hazard ratio 1.06 (95% confidence interval 0.76-1.47), P = .73).Conclusion: We found no statistically significant difference in 6-year mortality between patients randomized to post-operative intermediate care or ward care after emergency abdominal surgery. However, we detected an absolute mortality risk reduction of 5% in favour of ward care, possibly due to random error. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery occurs in a high number of patients, resulting in increased mortality in the post-operative period. The use of high inspiratory oxygen concentrations may cause hyperoxia, which is associated with impairment of coronary blood flow. Furthermore, the surgical stress response increases reactive oxygen species, which is involved in several perioperative complications including myocardial injury and death. Avoidance of hyperoxia and substitution of reactive oxygen species scavengers may be beneficial. Our primary objective is to examine the effect of oxygen and added antioxidants for prevention of myocardial injury assessed by area under the curve for troponin measurements during the first three post-operative days.Methods: The VIXIE trial (VitamIn and oXygen Interventions and cardiovascular Events) is an investigator-initiated, blinded, 2 × 2 factorial multicentre clinical trial. We include 600 patients with cardiovascular risk factors undergoing major non-cardiac surgery. Participants are randomised to an inspiratory oxygen fraction of 0.80 or 0.30 during and for 2 hours after surgery and either an intravenous bolus of vitamin C and an infusion of N-acetylcysteine or matching placebo of both. The primary outcome is the area under the curve for high-sensitive cardiac troponin release during the first three post-operative days as a marker of the extent of myocardial injury. Secondary outcomes are mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal serious adverse events within 30 days.Perspective: The current trial will provide further evidence for clinicians on optimal administration of perioperative oxygen in surgical patients with cardiovascular risks and the clinical effects of two common antioxidants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery are at high risk of morbidity and mortality. Accurate identification of high-risk patients is important. The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score needs to be validated in a larger heterogeneous population before implementation. We aimed to assess the predictive value of the APACHE II score in emergency abdominal surgical patients. Furthermore, we compared the APACHE II score with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status score and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI).Methods: We included adult patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery screened for enrolment in the InCare trial from October 2010 to November 2012. The APACHE II score was evaluated with area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) statistics. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality and admission to the intensive care unit.Results: We included a total of 885 patients. All-cause 30-day mortality was 5.0%, 90-day mortality was 8.9%, and a total of 7.9% of the patients were admitted to the intensive care unit. The AUROC (95% confidence interval) of the APACHE II score was 0.72 (0.65-0.80) for 30-day mortality, 0.70 (0.64-0.76) for 90-day mortality and 0.65 (0.59-0.71) for admission to the intensive care unit. The CCI performed better in prediction of 90-day mortality (P = .04). All other results for the ASA score and CCI were comparable with the APACHE II score.Conclusion: The APACHE II score predicted mortality moderately and admission to intensive care unit poorly in emergency abdominal surgical patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An increasing number of patients undergo surgical procedures worldwide each year, and despite advances in quality and care, morbidity and mortality rates remain high. Perioperative hypotension is a well‐described condition, and is associated with adverse outcomes. Both fluids and vasoactive agents are commonly used to treat hypotension, however, whether one vasoactive agent is preferable over another has yet to be explored. Methods: In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR) statement, we plan to conduct a scoping review of studies assessing the use of vasoactive agents in patients undergoing non‐cardiac surgery. We will provide an overview of indications, agents used and outcomes assessed. We will assess and report the certainty of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: We will provide descriptive analyses of the included studies accompanied by tabulated results. Conclusion: The outlined scoping review will provide a summary of the body of evidence on the use of vasoactive agents in the non‐cardiac surgical population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Emergency abdominal surgery carries a 15% to 20% short-term mortality rate. Postoperative medical complications are strongly associated with increased mortality. Recent research suggests that timely recognition and effective management of complications may reduce mortality. The aim of the present trial is to evaluate the effect of postoperative intermediate care following emergency major abdominal surgery in high-risk patients. Methods and design The InCare trial is a randomised, parallel-group, non-blinded clinical trial with 1:1 allocation. Patients undergoing emergency laparotomy or laparoscopic surgery with a perioperative Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 10 or above, who are ready to be transferred to the surgical ward within 24 h of surgery are allocated to either intermediate care for 48 h, or surgical ward care. The primary outcome measure is all-cause 30-day mortality. We aim to enrol 400 patients in seven Danish hospitals. The sample size allows us to detect or refute a 34% relative risk reduction of mortality with 80% power. Discussion This trial evaluates the benefits and possible harm of intermediate care. The results may potentially influence the survival of many high-risk surgical patients. As a pioneer trial in the area, it will provide important data on the feasibility of future large-scale randomised clinical trials evaluating different levels of postoperative care. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01209663

Background: Emergency abdominal surgery carries a high mortality, as patients are often frail with significant comorbidity. We aimed to evaluate the association between co‐existing ischaemic vascular disease (IVD) and long‐term mortality in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Methods: We included adult emergency abdominal surgical patients operated on 13 Danish hospitals between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2010. Appendectomies were excluded. Data were retrieved from the National Patient Registry (NPR) and the Danish Anaesthesia Database. Preoperative IVD status was retrieved from NPR. We used crude and adjusted Cox regression analysis. The primary outcome was mortality within eight years. The secondary outcome was mortality within 30 days. Results: We included 4864 patients, of which 2584 (53.7%) died within 8 years. Some 20.9% (1019/4864) had preoperative IVD. The adjusted association between preoperative IVD and mortality within 8 years was hazard ratio (HR) 1.10 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00‐1.20; P =.045). At 30 days, this association was HR 0.97 (95% CI, 0.84‐1.13). Conclusion: In adult major emergency abdominal surgical patients, preoperative IVD was prevalent and associated with a 10% relative increase in long‐term mortality, but not in short‐term mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Emergency abdominal surgery carries a considerable risk of mortality and post-operative complications, including pulmonary complications. In major elective surgery, epidural analgesia reduces mortality and pulmonary complications. We aimed to evaluate the association between epidural analgesia and mortality in emergency abdominal surgery.Methods: In this population-based cohort study with prospective data collection, we included adults undergoing emergency abdominal laparotomy or laparoscopy between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2010 at 13 Danish hospitals. Appendectomies were excluded. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and serious adverse events. We used binary logistic regression analyses (odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)).Results: We included 4920 patients, of whom 1134 (23.0%) died within 90 days. Overall, 27.9% of the patients were treated with epidural analgesia perioperatively. This increased to 34.0% among patients undergoing major laparotomy. The crude and adjusted association between epidural analgesia and 90-day mortality was OR 0.99 (95%CI: 0.86-1.15, P = .94) and OR 0.80 (95%CI: 0.67-0.94; P = .01), respectively. For 30-day mortality the corresponding estimates were OR 0.90 (95% CI: 0.76-1.06, P = .21) and OR 0.75 (95% CI: 0.62-0.90, P < .01), respectively. No serious adverse events were reported.Conclusion: In this population-based cohort study of adult patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery, we found that the use of epidural analgesia perioperatively was associated with a decreased risk of mortality in the adjusted analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective.In patients with perforated peptic ulcer, surgical delay has recently been shown to be a critical determinant of survival. The aim of the present population-based cohort study was to evaluate the association between surgical delay by hour and mortality in high-risk patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery in general.Material and methods.All in-patients aged ≥18 years having emergency abdominal laparotomy or laparoscopy performed within 48 h of admission between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2010 in 13 Danish hospitals were included. Baseline and clinical data, including surgical delay and 90-day mortality were collected. The crude and adjusted association between surgical delay by hour and 90-day mortality was assessed by binary logistic regression.Results.A total of 2803 patients were included. Median age (interquartile range [IQR]) was 66 (51–78) years, and 515 patients (18.4%) died within 90 days of surgery. Over the first 24 h after hospital admission, each hour of surgical delay beyond hospital admission was associated with a median (IQR) decrease in 90-day survival of 2.2% (1.9–3.3%). No statistically significant association between surgical delay by hour and 90-day mortality was shown; crude and adjusted odds ratio with 95% confidence interval 1.016 (1.004–1.027) and 1.003 (0.989–1.017), respectively. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the primary finding.Conclusions.In the present population-based cohort study of high-risk patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery, no statistically significant adjusted association between mortality and surgical delay was found. Additional research in diagnosis-specific subgroups of high-risk patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. Morbidity and mortality following perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) remain substantial. In the recently published PULP trial, 30-day mortality in patients surgically treated for PPU decreased from 27% to 17% following the implementation of a perioperative care protocol based on The Surviving Sepsis Guidelines. The objective of the present study was to evaluate long-term mortality in the PULP trial intervention and control cohort. Material and methods. Design: nationwide follow-up study of a multicenter, non-randomized, clinical trial with external controls. Setting: Danish patients surgically treated for PPU between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2009. Patients: 117 patients in the intervention group and 512 in the control group. Intervention: a perioperative care protocol based on The Surviving Sepsis Guidelines. Outcome measures: 60-day, 90-day, 180-day, 1-year, and 2-year mortality rates. Statistical analysis: survival statistics. Results. Baseline characteristics, clinical, and perioperative data were in general, similar in the intervention and control group. Sixty days postoperatively, the originally observed difference in 30-day mortality had diminished (25% vs. 30%, p = 0.268). After 180 days, the mortality difference was reduced additionally (31% vs. 33%, p = 0.645), and one year postoperatively, a mortality difference was no longer present (36% in both groups, p = 0.993). Two years postoperatively, the mortality rate in the intervention group was 44%, as compared to 40% in the control group ( p = 0.472). Conclusions. The survival benefit associated with a perioperative care protocol in patients treated for PPU decreases progressively after 30 days and is no longer present after one year. Registration number: NCT00624169 (). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. The aim of the present study was to compare the ability of four clinical prediction rules to predict adverse outcome in perforated peptic ulcer (PPU): the Boey score, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, and the sepsis score. Material and methods. Design: an observational multicenter study. Participants and settings: a total of 117 patients surgically treated for PPU between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2009 in seven gastrointestinal departments in Denmark were included. Pregnant and breastfeeding women, non-surgically treated patients, patients with malignant ulcers, and patients with perforation of other organs were excluded. Primary outcome measure: 30-day mortality rate. Statistical analysis: the ability of four clinical prediction rules to distinguish survivors from non-survivors (discrimination ability) was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), positive predictive values (PPVs), negative predictive values (NPVs), and adjusted relative risks. Results. Median age (range) was 70 years (25-92 years), 51% of the patients were females, and 73% of the patients had at least one co-existing disease. The 30-day mortality proportion was 17% (20/117). The AUCs: the Boey score, 0.63; the sepsis score, 0.69; the ASA score, 0.73; and the APACHE II score, 0.76. Overall, the PPVs of all four prediction rules were low and the NPVs high. Conclusions. The Boey score, the ASA score, the APACHE II score, and the sepsis score predict mortality poorly in patients with PPU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Describe and compare incidences across age groups of rehospitalization, repeated aortic surgery, and death in patients who survived surgery and hospitalization for type A aortic dissection. Methods and results: From Danish nationwide registries, we identified patients hospitalized with Stanford type A aortic dissections (2006-2018). Survivors of hospitalization and surgery on the ascending aorta and/or aortic arch comprised the study population (n = 606, 36 (38.9%) <60 years old (group I), 194 (32.0%) 60-69 years old (group II), and 176 (29.1%) >69 years old (group III)). During the first year, 62.5% were re-hospitalized and 1.4% underwent repeated aortic surgery with no significant differences across age groups (P = 0.68 and P = 0.39, respectively). Further, 5.9% died (group I: 3.0%, group II: 8.3%, group III: 7.4%, P = 0.04). After 10 years, 8.0% had undergone repeated aortic surgery (group I: 11.5%, group II: 8.5%, group III: 1.6%, P = 0.04) and 10.2% (group I), 17.0% (group II), and 22.2% (group III) had died (P = 0.01). Using multivariable Cox regression analysis, we described long-term outcomes comparing age groups. No age differences were found in one-year outcomes, while age > 69 years compared with age < 60 years was associated with a lower rate of repeated aortic surgery [hazard ratio 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04-0.78] and a higher rate of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 2.44, 95% CI 1.37-4.34) in the 10-year analyses. Conclusion: Rehospitalisations in the first year after discharge were common in all age groups, but survival was high. Repeated aortic surgery was significantly more common among younger than older patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study on the use of low APACHE II and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score for the prediction of survival in patients with perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). The study showed that the 30-day mortality proportion was 17 %, the sepsis score, was 69 %, the APACHE II score was 76%. Moreover, the study concluded that all clinical scores predict mortality poorly in patients with PPU.

Background: Major emergency abdominal surgery is associated with postoperative complications and high mortality. Long-term outcomes in patients with perioperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) have recently received increased attention, especially POAF in non-thoracic surgery., Purpose: This study aimed to compare long-term AF related hospitalization and stroke in patients with POAF in relation to major emergency abdominal surgery and in patients with non-perioperative AF., Methods: We crosslinked data from Danish nationwide registries and identified all patients who underwent major emergency abdominal surgery (2000-2018) and were diagnosed with POAF, and patients who developed AF in a non-perioperative setting. Patients with POAF were matched in a 1:5 ratio on age, sex, year of AF diagnosis and oral anticoagulation (OAC) status at the beginning of follow-up with patients with non-perioperative AF. From discharge, we examined adjusted hazard ratios (HR) of stroke using multivariable Cox regression analysis., Results: The study population comprised 1,041 (out of 42,021 who underwent major emergency abdominal surgery) patients with POAF and 5,205 patients with non-perioperative AF. The median age was 78 years [interquartile range: 71-84] for those initiated on OAC therapy and 78 years [interquartile range: 71-85] for those not initiated on OAC therapy. During the first year of follow up, POAF was associated with similar rates of stroke as non-perioperative AF (patients initiated on OAC: HR 0.96 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-1.77) and patients not initiated on OAC: HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.41-1.15)., Conclusion: POAF in relation to major emergency abdominal surgery was associated with similar rates of stroke as non-perioperative AF. These results suggest that POAF not only carry an acute burden but also a long-term burden in patients undergoing major emergency abdominal surgery., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: An increasing number of patients undergo surgical procedures worldwide each year, and despite advances in quality and care, morbidity and mortality rates remain high. Perioperative hypotension is a well-described condition, and is associated with adverse outcomes. Both fluids and vasoactive agents are commonly used to treat hypotension, however, whether one vasoactive agent is preferable over another has yet to be explored., Methods: In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) statement, we plan to conduct a scoping review of studies assessing the use of vasoactive agents in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. We will provide an overview of indications, agents used and outcomes assessed. We will assess and report the certainty of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach., Results: We will provide descriptive analyses of the included studies accompanied by tabulated results., Conclusion: The outlined scoping review will provide a summary of the body of evidence on the use of vasoactive agents in the non-cardiac surgical population., (© 2022 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)