A Simple Screening Tool to Predict Outcomes in Older Adults Undergoing Emergency General Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the Flemish version of the Triage Risk Screening Tool (fTRST) can be used to accurately assess frailty in an emergency setting. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: of a tertiary referral hospital. PATIENTS: All individuals aged 70 and older consecutively admitted to the emergency surgery unit with an urgent need for abdominal surgery between December 2015 and May 2016 who met inclusion criteria (N=110). MEASUREMENTS: Individuals were screened with the fTRST and additional metrics such as the age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index and American Society of Anesthesiology score. Thirty- and 90-day postoperative complications where recorded. Regression analyses were performed to identify possible preoperative predictors of adverse outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-day major complications (Clavien-Dindo Classification 3-5) occurred in 28.2% of participants (n=31). fTRST had the highest correlation with major complications (odds ratio (OR) = 7.42). All participants who died within 30 days of surgery has a fTRST score of 2 or greater (area under the receiver operating curve (AUC)=71.3). When risk factors for overall 90-day mortality were analyzed, a fTRST score of 2 or greater had sensitivity of 96% (95% confidence interval CI=79.6-99.9%), specificity of 43.5% (95% CI=32.8-54.7%) (AUC=69.8%; OR=18.50, 95% CI=2.39-143.11, p = .005). The average length of hospital stay was more than twice as long in the group with a fTRST score of 2 or greater (15.2 days) than in those with a score less than 2 (6.6 days) (p = .005). CONCLUSION: The fTRST is an effective tool to predict mortality, morbidity, and length of stay after emergency surgery and can therefore be used to anticipate postoperative course, determine care goals, and plan for involvement of a dedicated geriatric care team. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:309-316, 2019.

Evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms related to uncomplicated benign prostatic hyperplasia in Italy: updated summary from AURO.it.

BACKGROUND: The first Italian national guidelines were developed by the Italian Association of Urologists and published in 2007. Since then, a number of new drugs or classes of drugs have emerged for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) related to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), new data have emerged on medical therapy (monotherapies and combination therapies), new surgical techniques have come into practice, and our understanding of disease pathogenesis has increased. Consequently, a new update of the guidelines has become necessary. METHODS: A structured literature review was conducted to identify relevant papers published between 1 August 2006 and 12 December 2010. Publications before or after this timeframe were considered only if they were recognised as important milestones in the field or if the literature search did not identify publications within this timeframe. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were determined according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. MAIN FINDINGS: Decisions on therapeutic intervention should be based on the impact of symptoms on quality of life (QoL) rather than the severity of symptoms (International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) score). A threshold for intervention was therefore based on the IPSS Q8, with intervention recommended for patients with a score of at least 4. Several differences in clinical recommendations have emerged. For example, combination therapy with a 5α-reductase inhibitor plus α blocker is now the recommended option for the treatment of patients at risk of BPH progression. Other differences include the warning of potential worsening of cognitive disturbances with use of anticholinergics in older patients, the distinction between Serenoa repens preparations (according to the method of extraction), and the clearly defined threshold of prostate size for performing open surgery (>80 g). While the recommendations included in these guidelines are evidence based, clinical decisions should also be informed by patients' clinical and physical circumstances, as well as patients' preferences and actions. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are intended to assist physicians and patients in the decision-making process regarding the management of LUTS/BPH, and support the process of continuous improvement of the quality of care and services to patients.

[A clinical audit on the use of medications for pressure sores, after the implementation of guidelines]. / Un audit clinico sull'uso delle medicazioni per le lesioni da decubito, dopo l'introduzione di linee guida.

UNLABELLED: Although guidelines for the management of pressure sores are widely available, their implementation is not always easy and sometimes does not produce the desired changes. AIM: To describe the results of a clinical audit aiming at assessing the appropriate use of medications for pressure sores, after the implementation of guidelines. METHODS: The audit group, with an expert in assessment, a nurse expert in pressure sores, a microbiologist, a dermatologist and a chemist analysed the clinical and nursing records of all the patients with a pressure sore, discharged during the first trimester of 2005 and 2006, after the implementation of the guidelines, from wards with higher prevalence of pressure sores: geriatric, medical, intensive care, rehabilitation and post acute wards. Each documented treatment was classified as appropriate, not appropriate or "grey area", treatments inappropriate according to guidelines but not according to expert or current knowledge (e.g. poliurethane medications for heel pressure sores). After each stage, the results were returned and discussed with the involved wards. RESULTS: One hundred 74 patients were surveyed in 2005 and 199 in 2006, with a total of respectively 287 and 326 sores. The percentage of inappropriate treatments was 20% in 2005 and 12.8% in 2006 (OR 1.79 I.C. 95% 1.10- 2.91), while an increase of treatments considered grey area (from 7% to 13.5%) was observed. The medium number of medications used was 17.3 per lesion, in 2005 and 16.4 in 2006 with a cost respectively of 83.6 and 67.35 per lesion, but the two populations were not strictly comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical audit is a strategy that involving doctors and nurses, may promote positive changes. The rate of inappropriate treatments (higher in areas with high turnover of nurses) can be improved with educational interventions. The identification of treatments of the grey area highlights the need of periodically revising guidelines to update their contents according to new knowledge and technologies.