Emergency Urology procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: A 3-month prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 resulted in Regional tiered restrictions being introduced across the UK with subsequent implications for planned and emergency surgical care. Specific to Merseyside, Tier 4, Tier 2 and Tier 5 restrictions were introduced in late 2020 and early 2021. The purpose of this study was to examine the nature and workload of emergency urological procedures during three different national lockdown Tiers in the North West of England. METHOD: A 3-month prospective study examining all emergency urological activity was conducted from November 2020 when Tier 4 restrictions were introduced and included Tier 2 restrictions in December and then concluded at the end of January 2021 when Tier 5 restrictions were in place. Data was obtained by identifying patients using the electronic theatre listing system. RESULTS: A total of 71 emergency cases were performed (24 in November (Tier 4), 28 in December (Tier 2), 19 in January 2021 (Tier 5)) with 15 different types of procedures performed. The most frequently performed procedure was stent insertion (36), followed by scrotal exploration (10). The least commonly performed procedure was suprapubic catheter insertion under general anaesthesia (1). One patient required transfer to a different hospital. In total 6 calls were made by general surgery and 3 by gynaecology for urgent urological assistance in theatre. Three urology patients returned to the theatre as emergencies following elective procedures. CONCLUSION: Unlike the Spring lockdown, acute urological presentations requiring operative intervention still presented daily. Of the 71 cases performed, most occurred in Tier 2. Stent insertion was the most commonly performed procedure, with the majority of the cases performed by registrars.

Growing small solid nodules in lung cancer screening: safety and efficacy of a 200 mm3 minimum size threshold for multidisciplinary team referral.

The optimal management of small but growing nodules remains unclear. The SUMMIT study nodule management algorithm uses a specific threshold volume of 200 mm3 before referral of growing solid nodules to the multidisciplinary team for further investigation is advised, with growing nodules below this threshold kept under observation within the screening programme. Malignancy risk of growing solid nodules of size >200 mm3 at initial 3-month interval scan was 58.3% at a per-nodule level, compared with 13.3% in growing nodules of size ≤200 mm3 (relative risk 4.4, 95% CI 2.17 to 8.83). The positive predictive value of a combination of nodule growth (defined as percentage volume change of ≥25%), and size >200 mm3 was 65.9% (29/44) at a cancer-per-nodule basis, or 60.5% (23/38) on a cancer-per-participant basis. False negative rate of the protocol was 1.9% (95% CI 0.33% to 9.94%). These findings support the use of a 200 mm3 minimum volume threshold for referral as effective at reducing unnecessary multidisciplinary team referrals for small growing nodules, while maintaining early-stage lung cancer diagnosis.

Uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening among an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse population at risk of lung cancer in the UK (SUMMIT): a prospective, longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT reduces lung cancer mortality, but screening requires equitable uptake from candidates at high risk of lung cancer across ethnic and socioeconomic groups that are under-represented in clinical studies. We aimed to assess the uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening in an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse cohort at high risk of lung cancer. METHODS: In this multicentre, prospective, longitudinal cohort study (SUMMIT), individuals aged 55-77 years with a history of smoking in the past 20 years were identified via National Health Service England primary care records at practices in northeast and north-central London, UK, using electronic searches. Eligible individuals were invited by letter to a lung health check offering lung cancer screening at one of four hospital sites, with non-responders re-invited after 4 months. Individuals were excluded if they had dementia or metastatic cancer, were receiving palliative care or were housebound, or declined research participation. The proportion of individuals invited who responded to the lung health check invitation by telephone was used to measure uptake. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to estimate associations between uptake of a lung health check invitation and re-invitation of non-responders, adjusted for sex, age, ethnicity, smoking, and deprivation score. This study was registered prospectively with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03934866. FINDINGS: Between March 20 and Dec 12, 2019, the records of 2 333 488 individuals from 251 primary care practices across northeast and north-central London were screened for eligibility; 1 974 919 (84·6%) individuals were outside the eligible age range, 7578 (2·1%) had pre-existing medical conditions, and 11 962 (3·3%) had opted out of particpation in research and thus were not invited. 95 297 individuals were eligible for invitation, of whom 29 545 (31·0%) responded. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, re-invitation letters were sent to only a subsample of 4594 non-responders, of whom 642 (14·0%) responded. Overall, uptake was lower among men than among women (odds ratio [OR] 0·91 [95% CI 0·88-0·94]; p<0·0001), and higher among older age groups (1·48 [1·42-1·54] among those aged 65-69 years vs those aged 55-59 years; p<0·0001), groups with less deprivation (1·89 [1·76-2·04] for the most vs the least deprived areas; p<0·0001), individuals of Asian ethnicity (1·14 [1·09-1·20] vs White ethnicity; p<0·0001), and individuals who were former smokers (1·89 [1·83-1·95] vs current smokers; p<0·0001). When ethnicity was subdivided into 16 groups, uptake was lower among individuals of other White ethnicity than among those with White British ethnicity (0·86 [0·83-0·90]), whereas uptake was higher among Chinese, Indian, and other Asian ethnicities than among those with White British ethnicity (1·33 [1·13-1·56] for Chinese ethnicity; 1·29 [1·19-1·40] for Indian ethnicity; and 1·19 [1·08-1·31] for other Asian ethnicity). INTERPRETATION: Inviting eligible adults for lung health checks in areas of socioeconomic and ethnic diversity should achieve favourable participation in lung cancer screening overall, but inequalities by smoking, deprivation, and ethnicity persist. Reminder and re-invitation strategies should be used to increase uptake and the equity of response. FUNDING: GRAIL.

Documentation of Do-Not-Attempt-Cardiopulmonary-Resuscitation orders amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: the COVID-19 pandemic has brought the decision-making process regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) into focus. The aim of this study is to compare rates of Do-Not-Attempt-CPR (DNACPR) documentation in older hospitalised patients before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: this was a retrospective repeated cross-sectional study. Data including co-morbidities and resuscitation status was collected on 300 patients with COVID-19 hospitalised from 1 March to 31 May 2020. DNACPR documentation rates in patients aged ≥65 years with a diagnosis of COVID-19 were compared to those without COVID-19 admitted during the same period and were also compared to the documentation rates pre-COVID-19 pandemic (1 March-31 May 2019). RESULTS: of 300 COVID-19-positive patients, 28% had a DNACPR order documented during their admission. Of 131 older (≥65 years) patients with COVID-19, 60.3% had a DNACPR order compared to 25.4% of 130 older patients without COVID-19 (P < 0.0001). During a comparable time period pre-pandemic, 15.4% of 130 older patients had a DNACPR order in place (P < 0.0001). Almost fifty percent of DNACPR orders were recorded within 24 h of a positive swab result for SARS-CoV-2. Of older COVID-19-positive patients, 39.2% were referred to palliative care services and 70.2% survived. CONCLUSION: the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted more widespread and earlier decision-making regarding resuscitation status. Although case fatality rates were higher for older hospitalised patients with COVID-19, many older patients survived the illness. Advance care planning should be prioritised in all patients and should remain as part of good clinical practice despite the pandemic.