ORCID Profile
0000-0002-1765-6765
Current Organisations
University of Bristol
,
Universiti Putra Malaysia
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: Elsevier BV
Date: 07-2022
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 06-2022
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2021-059309
Abstract: To provide estimates for how different treatment pathways for the management of severe aortic stenosis (AS) may affect National Health Service (NHS) England waiting list duration and associated mortality. We constructed a mathematical model of the excess waiting list and found the closed-form analytic solution to that model. From published data, we calculated estimates for how the strategies listed under Interventions may affect the time to clear the backlog of patients waiting for treatment and the associated waiting list mortality. The NHS in England. Estimated patients with AS in England. (1) Increasing the capacity for the treatment of severe AS, (2) converting proportions of cases from surgery to transcatheter aortic valve implantation and (3) a combination of these two. In a capacitated system, clearing the backlog by returning to pre-COVID-19 capacity is not possible. A conversion rate of 50% would clear the backlog within 666 (533–848) days with 1419 (597–2189) deaths while waiting during this time. A 20% capacity increase would require 535 (434–666) days, with an associated mortality of 1172 (466–1859). A combination of converting 40% cases and increasing capacity by 20% would clear the backlog within a year (343 (281–410) days) with 784 (292–1324) deaths while awaiting treatment. A strategy change to the management of severe AS is required to reduce the NHS backlog and waiting list deaths during the post-COVID-19 ‘recovery’ period. However, plausible adaptations will still incur a substantial wait to treatment and many hundreds dying while waiting.
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: Massachusetts Medical Society
Date: 19-07-2100
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 02-2022
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 05-2023
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 05-2021
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 02-2021
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 05-2021
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2018
DOI: 10.1016/J.BJA.2018.07.002
Abstract: Cancellation of planned surgery impacts substantially on patients and health systems. This study describes the incidence and reasons for cancellation of inpatient surgery in the UK NHS. We conducted a prospective observational cohort study over 7 consecutive days in March 2017 in 245 NHS hospitals. Occurrences and reasons for previous surgical cancellations were recorded. Using multilevel logistic regression, we identified patient- and hospital-level factors associated with cancellation due to inadequate bed capacity. We analysed data from 14 936 patients undergoing planned surgery. A total of 1499 patients (10.0%) reported previous cancellation for the same procedure contemporaneous hospital census data indicated that 13.9% patients attending inpatient operations were cancelled on the day of surgery. Non-clinical reasons, predominantly inadequate bed capacity, accounted for a large proportion of previous cancellations. Independent risk factors for cancellation due to inadequate bed capacity included requirement for postoperative critical care [odds ratio (OR)=2.92 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.12-4.02 P<0.001] and the presence of an emergency department in the treating hospital (OR=4.18 95% CI, 2.22-7.89 P<0.001). Patients undergoing cancer surgery (OR=0.32 95% CI, 0.22-0.46 P<0.001), obstetric procedures (OR=0.17 95% CI, 0.08-0.32 P<0.001), and expedited surgery (OR=0.39 95% CI, 0.27-0.56 P<0.001) were less likely to be cancelled. A significant proportion of patients presenting for surgery have experienced a previous cancellation for the same procedure. Cancer surgery is relatively protected, but bed capacity, including postoperative critical care requirements, are significant risk factors for previous cancellations.
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: Massachusetts Medical Society
Date: 25-02-2021
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2022
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2021
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Ahmad Shuib Yahaya.