Search

Altres ajuts: Fondo de publicaciones de la Vicerrectoría de Investigación y Creación de la Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia; Departament d'Infermeria Fonamental i Medicoquirúrgica de la Universitat de Barcelona (UB). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en

ObjectivesTo determine preoperative factors associated to myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS) and to develop a prediction model of MINS.DesignRetrospective analysis.SettingTertiary hospital in Spain.ParticipantsPatients aged ≥45 years undergoing major non-cardiac surgery and with at least two measures of troponin levels within the first 3 days of the postoperative period. All patients were screened for the MANAGE trial.Primary and secondary outcome measuresWe used multivariable logistic regression analysis to study risk factors associated with MINS and created a score predicting the preoperative risk for MINS and a nomogram to facilitate bed-side use. We used Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator method to choose the factors included in the predictive model with MINS as dependent variable. The predictive ability of the model was evaluated. Discrimination was assessed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration was visually assessed using calibration plots representing deciles of predicted probability of MINS against the observed rate in each risk group and the calibration-in-the-large (CITL) and the calibration slope. We created a nomogram to facilitate obtaining risk estimates for patients at pre-anaesthesia evaluation.ResultsOur cohort included 3633 patients recruited from 9 September 2014 to 17 July 2017. The incidence of MINS was 9%. Preoperative risk factors that increased the risk of MINS were age, American Status Anaesthesiology classification and vascular surgery. The predictive model showed good performance in terms of discrimination (AUC=0.720; 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.75) and calibration slope=1.043 (95% CI: 0.90 to 1.18) and CITL=0.00 (95% CI: −0.12 to 0.12).ConclusionsOur predictive model based on routinely preoperative information is highly affordable and might be a useful tool to identify moderate-high risk patients before surgery. However, external validation is needed before implementation.

IntroductionSepsis is a leading cause of mortality in critically ill patients. Recently, it has been recognised that sex may contribute to a differential risk for developing sepsis and it remains uncertain if the prognosis of sepsis varies between the sexes. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the available evidence to assess the role of sex as a prognostic factor in patients with sepsis managed in the intensive care unit (ICU).Methods and analysisThis is a systematic review protocol of prognostic studies of sex in patients with sepsis managed in the ICU. The primary outcomes include all-cause hospital mortality and all-cause hospital mortality during the first 28 days. The secondary outcomes include all-cause hospital mortality during the first 7 days and all-cause mortality at 1 year. We will conduct a search strategy based on the population (sepsis), the prognostic factor (sex), the outcome of interest (mortality) and prognostic study methods. We will search in the following databases up to December 2019: MEDLINE Ovid (from 1976), Embase Elsevier (from 1974), Web of Science and two trial registries. We will impose no language restrictions. Two authors will independently screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles for eligibility of studies, and subsequently extract data. Two authors will independently assess the risk of bias of each study using the Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool. If possible, we will carry out a meta-analysis to provide a pooled prognostic effect estimate for each outcome. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system to assess the quality of evidence.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be required. Findings from this review will be reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Additionally, the results will be disseminated at conferences and in the mass media.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019145054.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious, sometimes life-threatening complication that can occur following spine surgery. The incidence of VTE, and the optimal type and timing of thromboprophylaxis for this complication in elective spine surgery is a matter of debate. To perform a systematic review with the aim of clarifying the efficacy and adverse effects of mechanical and chemical prophylaxis for preventing thromboembolic complications in elective spine surgery for conditions other than trauma and malignant disease. A search strategy of related articles up to March 2018 was designed and executed in Medline and Embase. Patients: adolescents (>10 years) and adults undergoing elective surgery for spinal deformity or degenerative disease (from C1 to S1). Intervention: Perioperative mechanical and chemical thromboprophylaxis. Studies could be randomized controlled trials or observational studies that reported data on any relevant clinical outcomes. In total, 2451 uniquecitations were identified and 35 studies were ultimately included in the systematic review. The overall mean incidence of complications was 3.7% for deep venous thrombosis, 0.0% for pulmonary embolism, and 3.7% for bleeding in chemoprophylaxis group; 2.9% for deep venous thrombosis, 0.4% for pulmonary embolism and 0.0% for bleeding in mechanoprophylaxis; and 0.7% for deep venous thrombosis, 0.1% for pulmonary embolism and 0.2% for bleeding in mixed prophylaxis group with no specific data on these rates for the type of patient and type and location of surgery. None of the articles retrieved provided information on the adolescent population. The poor design and high variability among the studies regarding characteristics of study population, details of interventions, and definitions of outcomes, determines a low quality of the available evidence and limits the interpretation of the results. We were unable to identify a clear advantage of one type of thromboprophylaxis over the other, although there was an increased risk of bleeding with chemoprophylaxis, which could favor the use of mechanoprophylaxis in this scenario.