Trauma Surgeons’ Perceptions of Resuscitating Lethally Injured Patients for Organ Preservation

Background Trauma surgeons face a challenge when deciding whether to resuscitate lethally injured patients whose organ donor status is unknown. Data suggests practice pattern variability in this setting, but little is known about why. Materials and Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with trauma surgeons practicing in Level 1 or 2 trauma centers in Tennessee. Interviews focused on ethical dilemmas and resource constraints. Analysis was performed using inductive thematic analysis. Results Response rate was 73% (11/15). Four key themes emerged. All described resuscitating patients to buy time to collect more definitive clinical information and to identify family. Some acknowledged this served the secondary purpose of organ preservation. 11/11 participants felt a primacy of obligation to the patient in front of them even after it became apparent, they could not personally benefit. For 9/11 (82%), the moral obligation to consider organ preservation was secondary/balancing; 2/11 (18%) felt it was irrelevant/immoral. Resource allocation was commonly considered. All participants expressed some limitation to resources they would allocate. All participants conveyed clear moral agency in determining resuscitation extent when the goal was to save the patient’s life, however this was less clear when resuscitating for organ preservation. Across themes, perceptions of a “standard practice” existed but the described practices were not consistent across interviewees. Discussion Widely ranging perceptions regarding ethical and resource considerations underlie practices resuscitating toward organ preservation. Common themes suggest a lack of consensus. Despite expressed beliefs, there is no identifiable standard of practice amongst trauma surgeons resuscitating in this setting.

Ibero-American Society of Interventionism (SIDI) and the Spanish Society of Vascular and Interventional Radiology (SERVEI) Standard of Practice (SOP) for the Management of Inferior Vena Cava Filters in the Treatment of Acute Venous Thromboembolism

Objectives: to present an interventional radiology standard of practice on the use of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) in patients with or at risk to develop venous thromboembolism (VTE) from the Iberoamerican Interventional Society (SIDI) and Spanish Vascular and Interventional Radiology Society (SERVEI). Methods: a group of twenty-two interventional radiologist experts, from the SIDI and SERVEI societies, attended online meetings to develop a current clinical practice guideline on the proper indication for the placement and retrieval of IVCFs. A broad review was undertaken to determine the participation of interventional radiologists in the current guidelines and a consensus on inferior vena cava filters. Twenty-two experts from both societies worked on a common draft and received a questionnaire where they had to assess, for IVCF placement, the absolute, relative, and prophylactic indications. The experts voted on the different indications and reasoned their decision. Results: a total of two-hundred-thirty-three articles were reviewed. Interventional radiologists participated in the development of just two of the eight guidelines. The threshold for inclusion was 100% agreement. Three absolute and four relative indications for the IVCF placement were identified. No indications for the prophylactic filter placement reached the threshold. Conclusion: interventional radiologists are highly involved in the management of IVCFs but have limited participation in the development of multidisciplinary clinical practice guidelines.

EP.TU.369Straight to Test (STT) vs. Traditional Colorectal Target Investigations Pathway - A Local Audit

Aims The STT pathway was borne out of the National Cancer Strategy 2015 and faster diagnosis standard to rule in, or out, cancer within 28 days of referral. We aimed to review local target standard of practice, including comparison of STT vs Traditional pathways towards reaching the national standards. Methods The Somerset Database for all target referrals to the department was accessed. We chose October 2019 as a period unaffected by COVID-19. Time to investigation, results and treatment were reviewed. SPSS v.16 was used to perform an unpaired T-test of Traditional vs. STT time to diagnosis. Results 212 patients were referred for target investigations. 53 declined, DNA-ed or were unfit. 159 proceeded to investigations of which 7 cancers were diagnosed: 4 colorectal, 1 gastric and 2 lung. Time to diagnosis averaged 45.8 days and only 47/159 (29.6%) had their definitive diagnosis in 28 days. 52 patients were streamed to STT and 107 traditional pathways. STT patients were diagnosed at 36.3 days (95% CI 28.1-44.6) and traditional patients 50.5 days (95% CI 45.4-55.7) (P = 0.005). Cancer treatment was received median day 59 (range 27-189) and 4/7 received this within 62 days. Conclusion Target investigations have low pick up rates of cancers with ever increasing referrals. Our centre did not meet aspirational national targets of time to treatment or diagnosis, although STT patients were diagnosed significantly faster. With COVID-19, rationalisation of patient contact with maintained diagnosis rates must be strategised. Stricter FIT testing with risk stratification and STT expansion is one strategy.

Pixelwise H-score: A novel digital image analysis-based metric to quantify membrane biomarker expression from immunohistochemistry images

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) assays play a central role in evaluating biomarker expression in tissue sections for diagnostic and research applications. Manual scoring of IHC images, which is the current standard of practice, is known to have several shortcomings in terms of reproducibility and scalability to large scale studies. Here, by using a digital image analysis-based approach, we introduce a new metric called the pixelwise H-score (pix H-score) that quantifies biomarker expression from whole-slide scanned IHC images. The pix H-score is an unsupervised algorithm that only requires the specification of intensity thresholds for the biomarker and the nuclear-counterstain channels. We present the detailed implementation of the pix H-score in two different whole-slide image analysis software packages Visiopharm and HALO. We consider three biomarkers P-cadherin, PD-L1, and 5T4, and show how the pix H-score exhibits tight concordance to multiple orthogonal measurements of biomarker abundance such as the biomarker mRNA transcript and the pathologist H-score. We also compare the pix H-score to existing automated image analysis algorithms and demonstrate that the pix H-score provides either comparable or significantly better performance over these methodologies. We also present results of an empirical resampling approach to assess the performance of the pix H-score in estimating biomarker abundance from select regions within the tumor tissue relative to the whole tumor resection. We anticipate that the new metric will be broadly applicable to quantify biomarker expression from a wide variety of IHC images. Moreover, these results underscore the benefit of digital image analysis-based approaches which offer an objective, reproducible, and highly scalable strategy to quantitatively analyze IHC images.

406 Audit of Current COVID-19 Consent Process

Aim Contracting COVID-19 increases the risk of serious peri-operative morbidity and mortality. The current best practice for informed consent is to make patients aware of the risk of contracting COVID-19. We aimed to determine if our local orthopaedic unit was meeting this standard of practice. Method We performed a single centre, retrospective, closed loop audit. Data was collected using Bluespeir© and Clinical Portal© software. We first audited all emergency and elective consent forms (n = 51) between September-October 2020; mean age 58 years old (range 17-87). Results were circulated to all orthopaedic departmental staff in poster format and given 2 weeks of educational awareness before re-audit of all consent forms (n = 59) in November 2020; mean age 54 years old (range 17-80). Any patient with an Adults With Incapacity (AWI) form in place was excluded. Results Initially, COVID-19 was included as a risk in 21/51 (41.2%) of all consent forms; elective procedures 10/24 (41.7%) and emergency procedures 11/27 (40.7%). On re-audit this increased to 32/59 (54.2%) of all consent forms; elective procedures 23/47 (48.9%) and emergency procedures 9/12 (75%). During the audit period, 1 patient tested positive for COVID-19 pre-operatively and 1 patient post-operatively. Conclusions This audit improved local adherence to COVID-19 consent guidelines. There remains significant room for improvement, especially in elective practice. Further research is required to determine the true impact of COVID-19 on morbidity and mortality.

Stress Echo 2030: The Novel ABCDE-(FGLPR) Protocol to Define the Future of Imaging

With stress echo (SE) 2020 study, a new standard of practice in stress imaging was developed and disseminated: the ABCDE protocol for functional testing within and beyond CAD. ABCDE protocol was the fruit of SE 2020, and is the seed of SE 2030, which is articulated in 12 projects: 1-SE in coronary artery disease (SECAD); 2-SE in diastolic heart failure (SEDIA); 3-SE in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (SEHCA); 4-SE post-chest radiotherapy and chemotherapy (SERA); 5-Artificial intelligence SE evaluation (AI-SEE); 6-Environmental stress echocardiography and air pollution (ESTER); 7-SE in repaired Tetralogy of Fallot (SETOF) ; 8-SE in post-COVID-19 (SECOV); 9: Recovery by stress echo of conventionally unfit donor good hearts (RESURGE); 10-SE for mitral ischemic regurgitation (SEMIR); 11-SE in valvular heart disease (SEVA); 12-SE for coronary vasospasm (SESPASM). The study aims to recruit in the next 5 years (2021–2025) ≥10,000 patients followed for ≥5 years (up to 2030) from ≥20 quality-controlled laboratories from ≥10 countries. In this COVID-19 era of sustainable health care delivery, SE2030 will provide the evidence to finally recommend SE as the optimal and versatile imaging modality for functional testing anywhere, any time, and in any patient.