ORCID Profile
0000-0002-6505-1656
Current Organisations
Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
,
University of Leeds
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 09-03-2021
DOI: 10.1111/ANAE.15458
Abstract: Peri‐operative SARS‐CoV‐2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre‐operative SARS‐CoV‐2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30‐day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30‐day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre‐operative SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30‐day mortality in patients without SARS‐CoV‐2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4–1.5). In patients with a pre‐operative SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0–2 weeks, 3–4 weeks and 5–6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3–4.8), 3.9 (2.6–5.1) and 3.6 (2.0–5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9–2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2–8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4–3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6–2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.
Publisher: CRC Press
Date: 24-10-2017
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 24-08-2021
DOI: 10.1111/ANAE.15563
Abstract: SARS‐CoV‐2 has been associated with an increased rate of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. Since surgical patients are already at higher risk of venous thromboembolism than general populations, this study aimed to determine if patients with peri‐operative or prior SARS‐CoV‐2 were at further increased risk of venous thromboembolism. We conducted a planned sub‐study and analysis from an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of elective and emergency patients undergoing surgery during October 2020. Patients from all surgical specialties were included. The primary outcome measure was venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) within 30 days of surgery. SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnosis was defined as peri‐operative (7 days before to 30 days after surgery) recent (1–6 weeks before surgery) previous (≥7 weeks before surgery) or none. Information on prophylaxis regimens or pre‐operative anti‐coagulation for baseline comorbidities was not available. Postoperative venous thromboembolism rate was 0.5% (666/123,591) in patients without SARS‐CoV‐2 2.2% (50/2317) in patients with peri‐operative SARS‐CoV‐2 1.6% (15/953) in patients with recent SARS‐CoV‐2 and 1.0% (11/1148) in patients with previous SARS‐CoV‐2. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with peri‐operative (adjusted odds ratio 1.5 (95%CI 1.1–2.0)) and recent SARS‐CoV‐2 (1.9 (95%CI 1.2–3.3)) remained at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, with a borderline finding in previous SARS‐CoV‐2 (1.7 (95%CI 0.9–3.0)). Overall, venous thromboembolism was independently associated with 30‐day mortality (5.4 (95%CI 4.3–6.7)). In patients with SARS‐CoV‐2, mortality without venous thromboembolism was 7.4% (319/4342) and with venous thromboembolism was 40.8% (31/76). Patients undergoing surgery with peri‐operative or recent SARS‐CoV‐2 appear to be at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism compared with patients with no history of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment are unknown in this cohort of patients, and these data should be interpreted accordingly.
Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
Date: 10-04-2017
Abstract: We investigated the correlation between the number of examined lymph nodes (ELNs) and correct staging and long-term survival in non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by using large databases and determined the minimal threshold for the ELN count. Data from a Chinese multi-institutional registry and the US SEER database on stage I to IIIA resected NSCLC (2001 to 2008) were analyzed for the relationship between the ELN count and stage migration and overall survival (OS) by using multivariable models. The series of the mean positive LNs, odds ratios (ORs), and hazard ratios (HRs) were fitted with a LOWESS smoother, and the structural break points were determined by Chow test. The selected cut point was validated with the SEER 2009 cohort. Although the distribution of ELN count differed between the Chinese registry (n = 5,706) and the SEER database (n = 38,806 median, 15 versus seven, respectively), both cohorts exhibited significantly proportional increases from N0 to N1 and N2 disease (SEER OR, 1.038 China OR, 1.012 both P .001) and serial improvements in OS (N0 disease: SEER HR, 0.986 China HR, 0.981 both P .001 N1 and N2 disease: SEER HR, 0.989 China HR, 0.984 both P .001) as the ELN count increased after controlling for confounders. Cut point analysis showed a threshold ELN count of 16 in patients with declared node-negative disease, which were examined in the derivation cohorts (SEER 2001 to 2008 HR, 0.830 China HR, 0.738) and validated in the SEER 2009 cohort (HR, 0.837). A greater number of ELNs is associated with more-accurate node staging and better long-term survival of resected NSCLC. We recommend 16 ELNs as the cut point for evaluating the quality of LN examination or prognostic stratification postoperatively for patients with declared node-negative disease.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 11-2021
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2021-050830
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. Prospective, international, multicentre, observational cohort study. Patients 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). 30-day mortality. Multivariate modelling was performed to identify factors associated with 30-day mortality. This 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 .001), age 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). Patients 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 in idualised 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. NCT04323644
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 25-09-2020
DOI: 10.1002/BJS.12050
Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
Date: 2021
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.20.01933
Abstract: As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9% adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6% aOR, 0.53 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 24-03-2021
DOI: 10.1093/BJS/ZNAB101
Abstract: Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling. The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18–49, 50–69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty. NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351 best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733 best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840 best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year. As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 09-08-2021
DOI: 10.1111/ANAE.15560
Abstract: We aimed to determine the impact of pre‐operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery during the global SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic. We performed an international prospective cohort study including patients undergoing elective surgery in October 2020. Isolation was defined as the period before surgery during which patients did not leave their house or receive visitors from outside their household. The primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications, adjusted in multivariable models for measured confounders. Pre‐defined sub‐group analyses were performed for the primary outcome. A total of 96,454 patients from 114 countries were included and overall, 26,948 (27.9%) patients isolated before surgery. Postoperative pulmonary complications were recorded in 1947 (2.0%) patients of which 227 (11.7%) were associated with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Patients who isolated pre‐operatively were older, had more respiratory comorbidities and were more commonly from areas of high SARS‐CoV‐2 incidence and high‐income countries. Although the overall rates of postoperative pulmonary complications were similar in those that isolated and those that did not (2.1% vs 2.0%, respectively), isolation was associated with higher rates of postoperative pulmonary complications after adjustment (adjusted OR 1.20, 95%CI 1.05–1.36, p = 0.005). Sensitivity analyses revealed no further differences when patients were categorised by: pre‐operative testing use of COVID‐19‐free pathways or community SARS‐CoV‐2 prevalence. The rate of postoperative pulmonary complications increased with periods of isolation longer than 3 days, with an OR (95%CI) at 4–7 days or ≥ 8 days of 1.25 (1.04–1.48), p = 0.015 and 1.31 (1.11–1.55), p = 0.001, respectively. Isolation before elective surgery might be associated with a small but clinically important increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Longer periods of isolation showed no reduction in the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. These findings have significant implications for global provision of elective surgical care.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2021
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 24-04-2022
DOI: 10.1111/CODI.16117
Abstract: The SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non‐delayed surgery. This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January–April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90–1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69–1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID‐19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long‐term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro‐metastatic disease.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 03-2020
DOI: 10.1016/J.JTHO.2019.10.019
Abstract: Our aim was to validate the prognostic relevance in NSCLC of potential residual tumor (R) descriptors, including the proposed International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer definition for uncertain resection, referred to as R(un). A total of 14,712 patients undergoing resection with full R status and survival were analyzed. The following were also evaluated: whether fewer than three N2 stations were explored, lobe-specific nodal dissection, extracapsular extension, highest lymph node station status, carcinoma in situ at the bronchial resection margin, and pleural lavage cytologic examination result. Revised categories of R0, R(un), R1, and R2 were tested for survival impact. In all, 14,293 cases were R0, 263 were R1, and 156 were R2 (median survivals not reached, 33 months, and 29 months, respectively). R status correlated with T and N categories. A total of 9290 cases (63%) had three or more N2 stations explored and 6641 cases (45%) had lobe-specific nodal dissection, correlated with increasing pN2. Extracapsular extension was present in 62 of 364 cases with available data (17%). The highest station was positive in 942 cases (6.4%). The pleural lavage cytologic examination result was positive in 59 of 1705 cases (3.5%): 13 had carcinoma in situ at the bronchial resection margin. After reassignment because of inadequate nodal staging in 56% of cases, 6070 cases were R0, 8185 were R(un), 301 were R1, and 156 were R2. In node-positive cases, the median survival times were 70, 50, and 30 months for R0, R(un) (p < 0.0001), and R1 (p < 0.001), respectively, with no significant difference between R0 and R(un) in pN0 cases. R descriptors have prognostic relevance, with R(un) survival stratifying between R0 and R1. Therefore, a detailed evaluation of R factor is of particular importance in the design and analyses of clinical trials of adjuvant therapies.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: Italy
No related grants have been discovered for Alessandro Brunelli.