Background This study aimed to determine the impact of preoperative exposure to intravenous contrast for CT and the risk of developing postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery. Methods This prospective, multicentre cohort study included adults undergoing gastrointestinal resection, stoma reversal or liver resection. Both elective and emergency procedures were included. Preoperative exposure to intravenous contrast was defined as exposure to contrast administered for the purposes of CT up to 7 days before surgery. The primary endpoint was the rate of AKI within 7 days. Propensity score‐matched models were adjusted for patient, disease and operative variables. In a sensitivity analysis, a propensity score‐matched model explored the association between preoperative exposure to contrast and AKI in the first 48 h after surgery. Results A total of 5378 patients were included across 173 centres. Overall, 1249 patients (23·2 per cent) received intravenous contrast. The overall rate of AKI within 7 days of surgery was 13·4 per cent (718 of 5378). In the propensity score‐matched model, preoperative exposure to contrast was not associated with AKI within 7 days (odds ratio (OR) 0·95, 95 per cent c.i. 0·73 to 1·21; P = 0·669). The sensitivity analysis showed no association between preoperative contrast administration and AKI within 48 h after operation (OR 1·09, 0·84 to 1·41; P = 0·498). Conclusion There was no association between preoperative intravenous contrast administered for CT up to 7 days before surgery and postoperative AKI. Risk of contrast‐induced nephropathy should not be used as a reason to avoid contrast‐enhanced CT.

The peri-operative use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-2 receptor blockers is thought to be associated with an increased risk of postoperative acute kidney injury. To reduce this risk, these agents are commonly withheld during the peri-operative period. This study aimed to investigate if withholding angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-2 receptor blockers peri-operatively reduces the risk of acute kidney injury following major non-cardiac surgery. Patients undergoing elective major surgery on the gastrointestinal tract and/or the liver were eligible for inclusion in this prospective study. The primary outcome was the development of acute kidney injury within seven days of operation. Adjusted multi-level models were used to account for centre-level effects and propensity score matching was used to reduce the effects of selection bias between treatment groups. A total of 949 patients were included from 160 centres across the UK and Republic of Ireland. From this population, 573 (60.4%) patients had their angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-2 receptor blockers withheld during the peri-operative period. One hundred and seventy-five (18.4%) patients developed acute kidney injury; there was no difference in the incidence of acute kidney injury between patients who had their angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-2 receptor blockers continued or withheld (107 (18.7%) vs. 68 (18.1%), respectively; p = 0.914). Following propensity matching, withholding angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-2 receptor blockers did not demonstrate a protective effect against the development of postoperative acute kidney injury (OR (95%CI) 0.89 (0.58-1.34); p = 0.567).

No abstract

After craniectomy, patients are generally advised to wear a helmet when mobilising to protect the unshielded brain from damage. However, there exists limited guidance regarding head protection for patients at rest and when being transferred or turned. Here, we emphasise the need for such protocols and utilise evidence from several sources to affirm our viewpoint. A literature search was first performed using MEDLINE and EMBASE, looking for published material relating to head protection for patients post-craniectomy during rest, transfer or turning. No articles were identified using a wide-ranging search strategy. Next, we surveyed and interviewed staff and patients from our neurosurgical centre to ascertain how often their craniectomy site was exposed to external pressure and the precautions taken to prevent this. 59% of patients admitted resting in contact with the craniectomy site, in agreement with the observations of 67% of staff. In 63% of these patients, this occurred on a daily basis and for some, was associated with symptoms suggestive of raised intracranial pressure. 44% of staff did not use a method to prevent craniectomy site contact while 65% utilised no additional precautions during transfer or turning. 63% of patients received no information about avoiding craniectomy site contact upon discharge, and almost all surveyed wished for resting head protection if it were available. We argue that pragmatic guidelines are needed and that our results support this perspective. As such, we offer a simple, practical protocol which can be adopted and iteratively improved as further evidence becomes available in this area.

No abstract