Early Warning Scores and Their Application in the Inpatient Oncology Settings

Early Warning Score (EWS) systems are tools that use alterations in vital signs to rapidly identify clinically deteriorating patients and escalate care accordingly. Since its conception in 1997, EWSs have been used in several settings, including the general inpatient ward, intensive care units, and the emergency department. Several iterations of EWSs have been developed with varying levels of sensitivity and specificity for use in different populations. There are multiple strengths of these tools, including their simplicity and their ability to standardize communication and to reduce inappropriate or delayed referrals to the intensive care unit. Although early identification of deteriorating patients in the oncology population is vital to reduce morbidity and mortality and to improve long-term prognosis, the application in the oncology setting has been limited. Patients with an oncological diagnosis are usually older, medically complex, and can have increased susceptibility to infections, end-organ damage, and death. A search using PubMed and Scopus was conducted for articles published between January 1997 and November 2020 pertaining to EWSs in the oncology setting. Seven relevant studies were identified and analyzed. The most commonly used EWS in this setting was the Modified Early Warning Score. Of the seven studies, only two included prospective validation of the EWS in the oncology population and the other five only included a retrospective assessment of the data. The majority of studies were limited by their small sample size, single-institution analysis, and retrospective nature. Future studies should assess dynamic changes in scores over time and evaluate balance measures to identify use of health care resources.

Impact of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic on the Care of Pediatric Acute Appendicitis

Background Appendicitis is the most common abdominal surgical emergency in children. With the rise of the Coronavirus-19 pandemic, quarantine measures have been enforced to limit the viral transmission of this disease. The purpose of this study was to identify differences in the clinical presentation and outcomes of pediatric acute appendicitis during the Coronavirus-19 pandemic. Methods A single-institution retrospective assessment of all pediatric patients (<18 years old) with acute appendicitis from December 2019 to June 2020 was performed at a tertiary care children’s hospital. Patients were divided into two groups: (1) the Pre-COVID group presented on or before March 15, 2020, and (2) the COVID group presented after March 15, 2020. Demographic, preoperative, and clinical outcomes data were analyzed. Results 45 patients were included with a median age of 13 years [IQR 9.9 - 16.2] and 35 males (78%). 28 patients were in the Pre-COVID group (62%) and 17 in the COVID group (38%). There were no differences in demographics or use of diagnostic imaging. The COVID group did have a significantly delayed presentation from symptom onset (36 vs 24 hours, P < .05), higher Pediatric Appendicitis Scores (8 vs 6, P = .003), and longer hospital stays (2.2 vs 1.3 days, P = .04). There were no significant differences for rates of re-admission, re-operation, surgical site infection, perforation, or abscess formation. Conclusion During the Coronavirus-19 pandemic, the incidence of pediatric acute appendicitis was approximately 40% lower. These children presented in a delayed fashion with longer hospital stays. No differences were noted for postoperative complications.

Subclinical Leaflets Thrombosis After Transcatheter Replacement of Bicuspid vs. Tricuspid Aortic Valve

Background: Subclinical leaflet thrombosis (SLT) is an important sequela that compromises the durability of the bioprosthetic valve.Objectives: To better determine the effect of SLT in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), we performed a retrospective assessment of CT-defined SLT in BAV and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenotic patients.Methods: We consecutively collected patients undergoing the TAVR between August 2015 and March 2020 in our center. A total of 170 BAV and 201 TAV cases were enrolled. Multidetector computed tomography was performed within 30 days and at 1-year.Results: Twenty cases in the BAV group and 19 cases in the TAV group had hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT) in 30 days (12.5 vs. 9.9%, p = 0.449), and 52 cases in BAV and 61 cases in TAV had the HALT (34.9 vs. 36.7%, p = 0.733) at 1-year follow-up. The mean aortic gradient (MAG) and effective orifice areas (EOA) values were comparable between the two groups at 30 days (HALT vs. no HALT; 10.8 ± 4.8 vs. 11.3 ± 6.0, p = 0.638; 1.6 ± 0.4 vs. 1.6 ± 0.3, p = 0.724), and still, no difference was observed in the MAG at 1-year (11.5 ± 5.6 vs. 10.6 ± 5.1, p = 0.164). However, the EOA at 1-year was statistically different between the two groups (1.5 ± 0.3 vs. 1.6 ± 0.4, p = 0.004). The multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated the anticoagulation and age as independent predictors both in the BAV and TAV groups at 1-year. There was no difference in clinical events between the HALT and no HALT group in relevant to BAV or TAV at 1-year follow-up.Conclusions: The presence of subclinical leaflet thrombosis defined by the CT was comparable between the BAV and TAV in the first year after the TAVR procedure. Age and anticoagulation were the independent predictors of the subclinical leaflet thrombosis at 1 year after the TAVR. There was no difference in relevant clinical events between the BAV and TAV groups at 1-year follow-up.

A Review of Explicit and Implicit Assumptions When Providing Personalized Feedback Based on Self-Report EMA Data

Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) in which participants report on their moment-to-moment experiences in their natural environment, is a hot topic. An emerging field in clinical psychology based on either EMA, or what we term Ecological Retrospective Assessment (ERA) as it requires retrospectivity, is the field of personalized feedback. In this field, EMA/ERA-data-driven summaries are presented to participants with the goal of promoting their insight in their experiences. Underlying this procedure are some fundamental assumptions about (i) the relation between true moment-to-moment experiences and retrospective evaluations of those experiences, (ii) the translation of these experiences and evaluations to different types of data, (iii) the comparison of these different types of data, and (iv) the impact of a summary of moment-to-moment experiences on retrospective evaluations of those experiences. We argue that these assumptions deserve further exploration, in order to create a strong evidence-based foundation for the personalized feedback procedure.

P-BN07 Identifying gallstones in acute pancreatitis. Are we undermanaging our patients?

Background Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common surgical presentation with a wide spectrum of severity and outcome. The most common cause of AP is gallstones, accounting for approximately 50% of cases, followed by alcohol excess. Reliable identification of gallstones is crucial as patients can be offered cholecystectomy to prevent recurrence. Current UK guidelines recommend a minimum of two negative ultrasounds to rule out gallstones. The aim of this study was to assess the pickup rate of gallstones on ultrasound for patients admitted with AP and audit our compliance with UK guidelines. Methods All patients admitted with acute pancreatitis between the start of January 2019 to the end of December 2020 were retrospectively analysed. All patients with a known pre-existing cause for pancreatitis such as alcohol excess, chronic pancreatitis, CBD stricture and pancreatic mass were excluded. Electronic records were examined to identify subsequent imaging investigations and final diagnosis. Particular interest was given to whether gallstones were identified, and adherence to UK guidelines. Results 206 patients were identified following the exclusion criteria. 189 underwent an ultrasound on admission, 111 were positive for gallstones. Of the negative ultrasounds (78), 15 underwent a further USS (4 positive), 29 underwent an MRCP (12 positive), 15 had a CT (3 positive) and 3 had an ERCP (3 positive). This left 16 with an unknown aetiology after 1 ultrasound and did not undergo further imaging and therefore did not comply with the current guidelines. Of the 11 patients who had 2 negative ultrasounds 5 had further imaging and all were negative for gallstones. Conclusions In conclusion Gallstone pancreatitis is a common acute surgical presentation of which morbidity and mortality can be significant. Following our retrospective assessment, we deem secondary imaging in the form of USS or MRCP to be necessary in the investigation of acute pancreatitis due to the high pickup rate. Compliance with current guidelines aids diagnostics and ensures appropriate and timely management of this condition leading to improved patient care.