Waking Up in Pain: a prospective unselected cohort study of pain in 3702 patients immediately after surgery in the Danish Realm

BackgroundAcute and persistent pain after surgery is well described. However, no large-scale studies on immediate postoperative pain in the operating room (OR) exist, hindering potential areas of research to improve clinical outcomes. Thus, we aimed to describe the occurrence and severity of immediate postoperative pain in a large, unselected cohort.MethodsThis was a prospective cohort study, encompassing all procedures in 31 public hospitals in the Danish Realm, during a 5-day period including the weekend. Data on procedures and anesthesia were collected and the main outcome was occurrence of moderate or severe pain in the OR. Secondary outcomes included pain, sedation and nausea in the OR or during the first 15 min in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) including relevant risk factors. Descriptive and logistic regression statistics were used.ResultsA total of 3675 procedures were included for analysis (87% inclusion rate). Moderate or severe pain occurred in 7.4% (95% CI 6.5% to 8.3%) of cases in the OR immediately after awakening, rising to 20.2% in the OR and/or PACU. Large intraprocedure and interprocedure variations occurred (0.0%–37.5%), and in 20% of cases with epidural-general anesthesia patients experienced moderate or severe pain. Independent risk factors were female sex, younger age, preoperative pain, daily opioid use and major surgical procedures.ConclusionModerate or severe pain in the immediate postoperative phase occurred in 20% of all cases with procedure and anesthesiological technique variations, suggesting a need for identification of relevant procedure-specific risk factors and development of preventive treatments.Trial registration numberRoPR ID 43191.

The Detection, Outcome, and Presentation of Twin-Twin Transfusion Syndrome in Monochorionic Diamniotic Twin Pregnancies Followed with a Protocol of Fortnightly Ultrasound Examination

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Evidence to support a fortnightly scan protocol for monochorionic diamniotic (MCDA) pregnancies to detect twin-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS) is scarce. Also, TTTS-related mortality in an unselected cohort is not well documented. Finally, common knowledge suggests that a more frequent follow-up may pick up the disease at a milder stage, but little is known on the ultrasound findings before the diagnosis. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> We examine if a fortnightly ultrasound scan from 16 weeks onward detects TTTS in time. Also, we document the outcomes in a large unselected cohort of MCDA twins and examine the ultrasound findings within 14 days before diagnosis. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Retrospective cohort of 675 MCDA twin pregnancies followed with a fortnightly scan protocol from 16 weeks onward. Timely detection of TTTS was defined as before fetal demise (stage V), ruptured membranes, or a dilated cervix. We compared the ultrasound findings before the diagnosis between stage I–II and stage III–IV. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 82/675 (12%) pregnancies developed TTTS, of which 74/82 (90%) were detected in time. In 8/82 (10%), TTTS was diagnosed in stage V: 5 before 16 weeks and 2 after 26 weeks. Fetoscopic laser photocoagulation (FLP) of the placental anastomoses was performed in 48/82 (59%). The survival of TTTS in the entire cohort was 105/164 (64%). In contrast, survival after FLP was 77/96 (80%). In 16/19 (84%) of stage III–IV TTTS, abnormal Doppler findings preceded the diagnosis of TTTS. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> A scheme of fortnightly ultrasound scans from 16 weeks onward detects 9 out of ten TTTS pregnancies in time. Most stage V cases presented outside the typical time window of 16 and 26 weeks. Survival rates after FLP underestimate the mortality of TTTS. Most stage III–IV cases have abnormal Doppler findings before the diagnosis of TTTS.

C-reactive protein guided use of procalcitonin in COVID-19

Low procalcitonin (PCT) concentrations (<0.5ng/mL) can facilitate exclusion of bacterial co-infection in viral infections, including COVID-19. However, costs associated with PCT measurement preclude universal adoption, indicating a need to identify settings where PCT provides clinical information beyond that offered by other inflammatory markers, such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and white cell count (WCC). In an unselected cohort of 299 COVID-19 patients, we tested the hypothesis that PCT<0.5ng/mL was associated with lower levels of CRP and WCC. We demonstrated that CRP values below the geometric mean of the entire patient population had a negative predictive value for PCT<0.5ng/mL of 97.6% and 100% at baseline and 48 hours into admission respectively, and that this relationship was not confounded by intensive care admission or microbiological findings. CRP-guided PCT testing algorithms can reduce costs and support antimicrobial stewardship strategies in COVID-19.

Performance of the recommended ESC/EASD cardiovascular risk stratification model in comparison to SCORE and NT-proBNP as a single biomarker for risk prediction in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Background Recently, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Association for the Society of Diabetes (EASD) introduced a new cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk stratification model to aid further treatment decisions in individuals with diabetes. Our study aimed to investigate the prognostic performance of the ESC/EASD risk model in comparison to the Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) risk model and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in an unselected cohort of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods and results A total of 1690 T2DM patients with a 10-year follow up for fatal CVD and all-cause death and a 5-year follow up for CVD and all-cause hospitalizations were analyzed. According to ESC/EASD risk criteria 25 (1.5%) patients were classified as moderate, 252 (14.9%) high, 1125 (66.6%) very high risk and 288 (17.0%) were not classifiable. Both NT-proBNP and SCORE risk model were associated with 10-year CVD and all-cause death and 5-year CVD and all-cause hospitalizations while the ESC/EASD model was only associated with 10-year all-cause death and 5-year all-cause hospitalizations. NT-proBNP and SCORE showed significantly higher C-indices than the ESC/EASD risk model for CVD death [0.80 vs. 0.53, p < 0.001; 0.64 vs. 0.53, p = 0.001] and all-cause death [0.73, 0.66 vs. 0.52, p < 0.001 for both]. The performance of SCORE improved in a subgroup without CVD aged 40–64 years compared to the unselected cohort, while NT-proBNP performance was robust across all groups. Conclusion The new introduced ESC/EASD risk stratification model performed limited compared to SCORE and single NT-proBNP assessment for predicting 10-year CVD and all-cause fatal events in individuals with T2DM.

Performance of the recommended ESC/EASD cardiovascular risk stratification model in comparison to SCORE and NT-proBNP as a single biomarker for risk prediction in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Background. Recently, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Association for the Society of Diabetes (EASD) introduced a new cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk stratification model to aid further treatment decisions in individuals with diabetes. Our study aimed to investigate the prognostic performance of the ESC/EASD risk model in comparison to the Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) risk model and NT-proBNP in an unselected cohort of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).Methods & Results. A total of 1690 T2DM patients with a 10-year follow up for fatal CVD and all-cause death and a 5-year follow up for CVD and all-cause hospitalizations were analyzed. According to ESC/EASD risk criteria 25 (1.5%) patients were classified as moderate, 252 (14.9%) high, 1125 (66.6%) very high risk and 288 (17.0%) were not classifiable. Both, NT-proBNP and SCORE risk model were associated with 10-year CVD and all-cause death and 5-year CVD and all-cause hospitalizations while the ESC/EASD model was only associated with 10-year all-cause death and 5-year all-cause hospitalizations. NT-proBNP and SCORE showed significantly higher C-indices than the ESC/EASD risk model for CVD death [0.80 vs 0.53, p<0.001; 0.64 vs 0.53, p=0.001] and all-cause death [0.73, 0.66 vs 0.52, p<0.001 for both].The performance of SCORE improved in a subgroup without CVD aged 40-64 years compared to the unselected cohort, while NT-proBNP performance was robust across all groups.Conclusion. The new introduced ESC/EASD risk stratification model performed limited compared to SCORE and single NT-proBNP assessment for predicting 10-year CVD and all-cause fatal events in individuals with T2DM.

Performance of the recommended ESC/EASD cardiovascular risk stratification model and SCORE in comparison to NT-proBNP as a single biomarker for risk prediction in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Background. Recently, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Association for the Society of Diabetes (EASD) introduced a new cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk stratification model to aid further treatment decisions in individuals with diabetes. Our study aimed to investigate the prognostic performance of the ESC/EASD risk model and the Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) in comparison to NT-proBNP in an unselected cohort of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).Methods & Results. A total of 1690 T2DM patients with a 10-year follow up for fatal CVD and all-cause death and a 5-year follow up for CVD and all-cause hospitalizations were analyzed. According to ESC/EASD risk criteria 25 (1.5%) patients were classified as moderate, 252 (14.9%) high, 1125 (66.6%) very high risk and 288 (17.0%) were not classifiable. Both, NT-proBNP and SCORE risk model were associated with 10-year CVD and all-cause death and 5-year CVD and all-cause hospitalizations while the ESC/EASD model was only associated with 10-year all-cause death and 5-year all-cause hospitalizations. NT-proBNP showed significantly higher C-indices than the ESC/EASD and SCORE risk model for CVD death [0.80 vs 0.53 vs 0.64, p<0.001] and all-cause death [0.73 vs 0.52 vs 0.66, p<0.001]. The performance of SCORE improved in a subgroup without CVD aged 40-64 years compared to the unselected cohort, while NT-proBNP performance was robust across all groups.Conclusion. The new introduced ESC/EASD risk stratification model performed limited compared to SCORE and single NT-proBNP assessment for predicting 10-year CVD and all-cause fatal events in individuals with T2DM.