Background/Objectives: The prevalence of malnutrition in hospitals is high. No nutritional screening tool is considered the gold standard for identifying nutritional risk. The aims of this study were to evaluate nutritional risk in hospitalized patients using four nutritional screening tools. Subjects/Methods: Four nutritional screening tools were evaluated: nutritional risk screening (NRS-2002), the malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST), the subjective global assessment (SGA) and the mini nutritional assessment (MNA). Patients were assessed within the first 36 h after hospital admission. Date of admission, diagnosis, complications and date of discharge were collected. To compare the tools, the results were reorganized into: patients at risk and patients with a good nutritional status. The statistical analysis included the w 2 -test to assess differences between the tests and the k statistic to assess agreement between the tests.

Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04384926 . Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include...

No abstract

Background: Myocardial injury is a common finding in COVID-19 strongly associated with severity. We analysed the prevalence and prognostic utility of myocardial injury, characterized by elevated cardiac troponin, in a large population of COVID-19 patients, and further evaluated separately the role of troponin T and I. Methods: This is a multicentre, retrospective observational study enrolling patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who were hospitalized in 32 Spanish hospitals. Elevated troponin levels were defined as values above the sex-specific 99th percentile upper reference limit, as recommended by international guidelines. Thirty-day mortality was defined as endpoint. Results: A total of 1280 COVID-19 patients were included in this study, of whom 187 (14.6%) died during the hospitalization. Using a nonspecific sex cut-off, elevated troponin levels were found in 344 patients (26.9%), increasing to 384 (30.0%) when a sex-specific cut-off was used. This prevalence was significantly higher (42.9% vs 21.9%; P < .001) in patients in whom troponin T was measured in comparison with troponin I. Sex-specific elevated troponin levels were significantly associated with 30-day mortality, with adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of 3.00 for total population, 3.20 for cardiac troponin T and 3.69 for cardiac troponin I. Conclusion:In this multicentre study, myocardial injury was a common finding in COVID-19 patients. Its prevalence increased when a sex-specific cut-off and cardiac troponin T were used. Elevated troponin was an independent predictor of 30-day

No abstract