28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      An acute care surgery service expedites the treatment of emergency colorectal cancer: a retrospective case–control study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Emergency colorectal cancer (CRC) is a complex disease that requires multidisciplinary approaches for management. However, it is unclear whether acute care surgery (ACS) services can expedite the workup and treatment of complex surgical diseases such as emergency CRC. We sought to assess the impact of an Acute Care and Emergency Surgery Service (ACCESS) on wait-times for inpatient colonoscopy and surgical resection among emergency CRC patients.

          Methods

          This retrospective case–control study was conducted at a tertiary-care, university-affiliated, cancer centre in London, Ontario, Canada. All patients aged 18 or older who presented to the emergency department with a recent (within 48 hours) diagnosis of CRC, or were diagnosed with CRC after admission, were included in the study. Patients were either in the pre-ACCESS (July 1, 2007-June 31, 2010) or post-ACCESS (July 1, 2010-June 30, 2012) groups. A third group of emergency CRC patients treated at an adjacent cancer centre that lacked ACCESS (non-ACCESS) was evaluated separately. The primary outcome was time from admission to colonoscopy and surgery.

          Results

          A total of 149 patients (47 pre-ACCESS, 37 post-ACCESS, and 65 non-ACCESS) were identified. Only 19% (n = 9) of pre-ACCESS patients underwent inpatient colonoscopy, compared to 38% (n = 14) in the post-ACCESS group (p = 0.023). Additionally, 100% of patients in the post-ACCESS era underwent inpatient colonoscopy and surgery during the same admission, compared to only 44% of pre-ACCESS patients (p = 0.006). Median wait-times for inpatient colonoscopy (2.0 and 1.8 days for pre- and post-ACCESS groups respectively, p = 0.08) and surgical resection (1.6 and 2.3 days for pre- and post-ACCESS groups respectively, p = 0.40) were similar.

          Conclusions

          Patients admitted to ACCESS underwent more inpatient colonoscopies and were more likely to have definitive surgery on that admission. ACS services can facilitate the workup and management of complex surgical diseases such as emergency CRC without delaying treatment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Inflammatory bowel disease: clinical aspects and established and evolving therapies.

          Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis are two idiopathic inflammatory bowel disorders. In this paper we discuss the current diagnostic approach, their pathology, natural course, and common complications, the assessment of disease activity, extraintestinal manifestations, and medical and surgical management, and provide diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms. We critically review the evidence for established (5-aminosalicylic acid compounds, corticosteroids, immunomodulators, calcineurin inhibitors) and emerging novel therapies--including biological therapies--directed at cytokines (eg, infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol) and receptors (eg, visilizumab, abatacept) involved in T-cell activation, selective adhesion molecule blockers (eg, natalizumab, MLN-02, alicaforsen), anti-inflammatory cytokines (eg, interleukin 10), modulation of the intestinal flora (eg, antibiotics, prebiotics, probiotics), leucocyte apheresis and many more monoclonal antibodies, small molecules, recombinant growth factors, and MAP kinase inhibitors targeting various inflammatory cells and pathways. Finally, we summarise the practical aspects of standard therapies including dosing, precautions, and side-effects.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Colonic stenting versus emergency surgery for acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a multicentre randomised trial.

            Colonic stenting as a bridge to elective surgery is an alternative for emergency surgery in patients with acute malignant colonic obstruction, but its benefits are uncertain. We aimed to establish whether colonic stenting has better health outcomes than does emergency surgery. Patients with acute obstructive left-sided colorectal cancer were enrolled from 25 hospitals in the Netherlands and randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive colonic stenting as a bridge to elective surgery or emergency surgery. The randomisation sequence was computer generated with permuted blocks and was stratified by centre; treatment allocation was concealed by use of a web-based application. Investigators and patients were unmasked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was mean global health status during a 6-month follow-up, which was assessed with the QL2 subscale of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN46462267. Between March 9, 2007, and Aug 27, 2009, 98 patients were assigned to receive colonic stenting (n=47 patients) or emergency surgery (n=51). Two successive interim analyses showed increased 30-day morbidity in the colonic stenting group, with an absolute risk increase of 0.19 (95% CI -0.06 to 0.41) in analysis of the first 60 patients (14 of 28 patients receiving colonic stenting vs 10 of 32 receiving emergency surgery), and an absolute risk increase of 0.19 (-0.01 to 0.37) in analysis of the first 90 patients (23 of 47 patients vs 13 of 43). In accordance with the advice of the data safety monitoring committee, the study was suspended on Sept 18, 2009, and ended on March 12, 2010. At the final analysis of 98 patients, mean global health status during follow-up was 63.0 (SD 23.8) in the colonic stenting group and 61.4 (SD 21.9) in the emergency surgery group; after adjustment for baseline values, mean global health status did not differ between treatment groups (-4.7, 95% CI -14.8 to 5.5, p=0.36). No difference was recorded between treatment groups in 30-day mortality (absolute risk difference -0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.12, p=0.89), overall mortality (-0.02, -0.17 to 0.14, p=0.84), morbidity (-0.08, -0.27 to 0.11, p=0.43), and stoma rates at latest follow-up (0.09, -0.10 to 0.27, p=0.35). However, the emergency surgery group had an increased stoma rate directly after initial intervention (0.23, 0.04 to 0.40, p=0.016) and a reduced frequency of stoma-related problems (between-group difference -12.0, -23.7 to -0.2, p=0.046). The most common serious adverse events were abscess (three in the colonic stenting group vs four in the emergency surgery group), perforations (six vs none), and anastomotic leakage (five vs one), and the most common adverse events were pneumonia (three vs one) and wound infection (one vs three). Colonic stenting has no decisive clinical advantages to emergency surgery. It could be used as an alternative treatment in as yet undefined subsets of patients, although with caution because of concerns about tumour spread caused by perforations. None. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Time to diagnosis and mortality in colorectal cancer: a cohort study in primary care

              Background: The relationship between the diagnostic interval and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) is unclear. This association was examined by taking account of important confounding factors at the time of first presentation of symptoms in primary care. Methods: A total of 268 patients with CRC were included in a prospective, population-based study in a Danish county. The diagnostic interval was defined as the time from first presentation of symptoms until diagnosis. We analysed patients separately according to the general practitioner's interpretation of symptoms. Logistic regression was used to estimate 3-year mortality odds ratios as a function of the diagnostic interval using restricted cubic splines and adjusting for tumour site, comorbidity, age, and sex. Results: In patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of cancer or any other serious illness, the risk of dying within 3 years decreased with diagnostic intervals up to 5 weeks and then increased (P=0.002). In patients presenting with vague symptoms, the association was reverse, although not statistically significant. Conclusion: Detecting cancer in primary care is two sided: aimed at expediting ill patients while preventing healthy people from going to hospital. This likely explains the counterintuitive findings; but it does not explain the increasing mortality with longer diagnostic intervals. Thus, this study provides evidence for the hypothesis that the length of the diagnostic interval affects mortality in CRC patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                World J Emerg Surg
                World J Emerg Surg
                World Journal of Emergency Surgery : WJES
                BioMed Central
                1749-7922
                2014
                21 March 2014
                : 9
                : 19
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
                [2 ]Division of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
                [3 ]Trauma Program, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada
                [4 ]London Health Sciences Centre, Victoria Hospital, Room E2-217, 800 Commissioners Road East, London, Ontario N6A 5 W9, Canada
                Article
                1749-7922-9-19
                10.1186/1749-7922-9-19
                3994420
                24656174
                5e32b120-40dd-4ca9-bf5d-5094473d6eb4
                Copyright © 2014 Anantha et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 13 January 2014
                : 18 March 2014
                Categories
                Research Article

                Surgery
                colorectal/anal neoplasia,colonoscopy,acute care surgery,health outcomes
                Surgery
                colorectal/anal neoplasia, colonoscopy, acute care surgery, health outcomes

                Comments

                Comment on this article