| 1. |
- Khatri, C, et al.
(författare)
-
Outcomes after perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with proximal femoral fractures: an international cohort study
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BMJ open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 11:11, s. e050830-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Studies have demonstrated high rates of mortality in people with proximal femoral fracture and SARS-CoV-2, but there is limited published data on the factors that influence mortality for clinicians to make informed treatment decisions. This study aims to report the 30-day mortality associated with perioperative infection of patients undergoing surgery for proximal femoral fractures and to examine the factors that influence mortality in a multivariate analysis.SettingProspective, international, multicentre, observational cohort study.ParticipantsPatients undergoing any operation for a proximal femoral fracture from 1 February to 30 April 2020 and with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection (either 7 days prior or 30-day postoperative).Primary outcome30-day mortality. Multivariate modelling was performed to identify factors associated with 30-day mortality.ResultsThis study reports included 1063 patients from 174 hospitals in 19 countries. Overall 30-day mortality was 29.4% (313/1063). In an adjusted model, 30-day mortality was associated with male gender (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.68 to 3.13, p<0.001), age >80 years (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.31, p=0.013), preoperative diagnosis of dementia (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.16, p=0.005), kidney disease (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.55, p=0.005) and congestive heart failure (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.48, p=0.025). Mortality at 30 days was lower in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.6 (0.42 to 0.85), p=0.004). There was no difference in mortality in patients with an increase to delay in surgery (p=0.220) or type of anaesthetic given (p=0.787).ConclusionsPatients undergoing surgery for a proximal femoral fracture with a perioperative infection of SARS-CoV-2 have a high rate of mortality. This study would support the need for providing these patients with individualised medical and anaesthetic care, including medical optimisation before theatre. Careful preoperative counselling is needed for those with a proximal femoral fracture and SARS-CoV-2, especially those in the highest risk groups.Trial registration numberNCT04323644
|
|
| 2. |
- Pearce, Neil E, et al.
(författare)
-
IARC Monographs : 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives. - : Environmental Health Perspectives. - 0091-6765 .- 1552-9924. ; 123:6, s. 507-514
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Recently the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that IARC Working Groups' failures to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.OBJECTIVES: The authors of this paper are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We have examined here criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. We review the history of IARC evaluations and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.DISCUSSION: We conclude that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various discipline and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.CONCLUSIONS: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public's health.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
