AimsTo review the effectiveness of the revised Vienna classification (rVC) at predicting histological outcome and defining the postendoscopic resection (ER) clinical management plan of gastro-oesophageal dysplasia and early neoplasia in a UK tertiary-centre population.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study between November 2011 and May 2018. 157 patients from Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust in the UK were included. The primary outcome was the histological results of postsurgical resection (SR) specimens compared with their post-ER rVC. The secondary outcome was overall survival rates of patients with category 4.4 and 5 of the rVC.ResultsOne-hundred and thirteen patients were diagnosed with category ≥4 of the rVC. 23 patients (20.4%) were referred for additional surgery, whereas 69 patients (61.1%) were on endoscopic surveillance only. 60.9% of post-SR specimens (14/23) revealed no residual neoplasia. 78.6% of these cancer-free specimens were classed as category 5 rVC. The overall 7-year survival rate of 25 patients with category ≥4.4 was 68% with causes of mortality not linked to upper gastrointestinal neoplasia. The overall 7-year and 3-year survival rates of category 4.4 and 5 were 73.6% and 50%, respectively, although age and comorbid state played a role.ConclusionsThis study provides evidence of outcomes comparable to other reported cohorts for cases after ER in a single-centre UK population even at rVC 4.4/5. It suggests surgery may not be necessary in all cases due to the lack of residual disease and further refinement of the rVC category 5 may help guide management.
Background
Emergency cholecystectomy (EC) has a low perioperative bleeding risk. There is no current national guideline to suggest routine preoperative Group and Save (G&S) is necessary. Our Trust guideline recommends preoperative G&S for all EC operations. In 2018, a Trust-wide policy was adopted based on an audit, which concluded that routine preoperative G&S is unnecessary for elective cholecystectomy. All G&S require 2samples taken separately, which can delay surgery. The cost to process one sample for G&S is £28. Therefore, a study was set up to assess the need for routine G&S in patients undergoing EC.
Methods
This retrospective observational study was based on a prospectively collected hospital database from March 2015 to March 2021 using MS-Excel. All patients who underwent EC (laparoscopic and/or open) within 10 days during index admission were included. All elective cholecystectomies were excluded. Patients were divided into GS-patients (patients with G&S) and NGS-patients (patients without G&S). The primary outcome is the difference between the incidence of ‘Perioperative blood transfusion’ (PBT) between the studied groups. The overall cost-effectiveness is considered as a secondary outcome. The categorical data were analysed using the Chi-square test; a p-value <0.05 is considered statistically significant.
Results
In this 6year period, 2210patients underwent cholecystectomy. Of these, 496patients (22.4%) who underwent EC were included. 447patients (90.1%) were in GS group and 49patients (9.9%) were in the NGS group. None from the NGS group required PBT, whereas 3patients (0.6%) in the GS group received blood transfusion. However, PBT was truly indicated in 1patient due to the associated cardiovascular comorbidities. On the contrary, 2patients did not fit the ‘restrictive transfusion threshold’ criteria of JPAC. There was no statistically significant difference in PBT requirement between the studied groups (p = 0.331). Deferring routine G&S for EC could have saved our institution £24,976.
Conclusions
Our study has demonstrated that preoperative G&S is not indicated for all emergency cholecystectomies. It takes approximately 1 hour for G&S to be processed unless crossmatching is required. Group O-negative or O-positive blood can be provided to patients when urgent blood transfusion is needed depending on their age and gender. Thus, we conclude that G&S should be restricted to patients with low preoperative haemoglobin, bleeding and clotting disorders, those known to have abnormal blood antibodies and significant cardiovascular comorbidities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.