Process and outcome differences in the care of patients undergoing elective and emergency right hemicolectomy.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
J Banks, A Rashid, T R Wilson, C P Challand, M J Lee
{"title":"Process and outcome differences in the care of patients undergoing elective and emergency right hemicolectomy.","authors":"J Banks, A Rashid, T R Wilson, C P Challand, M J Lee","doi":"10.1308/rcsann.2024.0056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Up to 30% of patients with colorectal cancer present as an emergency and have worse outcomes than elective patients. Compared with left-sided cancers, malignancies arising in the right colon are significantly under-researched. We sought to compare cancer care quality and clinical outcomes between emergency and elective presentations of right-sided colon cancer (RCC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multicentre, retrospective study included all patients who underwent operative management for a RCC, from 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2022. Data were collected from electronic patient records, and host and tumour factors as well as outcomes between emergency and elective cohorts were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 806 patients (median age 72 years) were included. Some 175 patients (22%) presented as an emergency: 140 in obstruction and 35 with tumour perforation, compared with 1 patient with tumour perforation in the elective group (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The emergency group had higher rates of postoperative complications (59.1% vs 20.0%, <i>p</i> < 0.001), increased 90-day mortality (13.7% vs 1.3%, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and a longer hospital stay (5 vs 10 days, <i>p</i> < 0.001). From the emergency cohort only 29.2% of eligible patients received adjuvant chemotherapy and in multivariate regression analysis emergency presentation was associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (odds ratio 0.26 [0.14-0.47], <i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both short- and long-term outcomes after emergency presentation of RCC are poor, with inadequate access to subsequent chemotherapy. Strategies addressing emergency presentations of left-sided tumours have moved towards temporisation and elective surgery. Delaying major resectional surgery for optimisation may improve outcomes and access to adjuvant therapies for RCC.</p>","PeriodicalId":8088,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2024.0056","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Up to 30% of patients with colorectal cancer present as an emergency and have worse outcomes than elective patients. Compared with left-sided cancers, malignancies arising in the right colon are significantly under-researched. We sought to compare cancer care quality and clinical outcomes between emergency and elective presentations of right-sided colon cancer (RCC).

Methods: This multicentre, retrospective study included all patients who underwent operative management for a RCC, from 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2022. Data were collected from electronic patient records, and host and tumour factors as well as outcomes between emergency and elective cohorts were compared.

Results: Overall, 806 patients (median age 72 years) were included. Some 175 patients (22%) presented as an emergency: 140 in obstruction and 35 with tumour perforation, compared with 1 patient with tumour perforation in the elective group (p < 0.001). The emergency group had higher rates of postoperative complications (59.1% vs 20.0%, p < 0.001), increased 90-day mortality (13.7% vs 1.3%, p < 0.001) and a longer hospital stay (5 vs 10 days, p < 0.001). From the emergency cohort only 29.2% of eligible patients received adjuvant chemotherapy and in multivariate regression analysis emergency presentation was associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (odds ratio 0.26 [0.14-0.47], p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Both short- and long-term outcomes after emergency presentation of RCC are poor, with inadequate access to subsequent chemotherapy. Strategies addressing emergency presentations of left-sided tumours have moved towards temporisation and elective surgery. Delaying major resectional surgery for optimisation may improve outcomes and access to adjuvant therapies for RCC.

择期和急诊右半结肠切除术患者的护理过程和结果差异。
导言:多达 30% 的结直肠癌患者是急诊病人,其预后比择期手术病人差。与左侧结肠癌相比,对右侧结肠癌的研究明显不足。我们试图比较急诊和择期就诊的右侧结肠癌(RCC)患者的癌症护理质量和临床疗效:这项多中心回顾性研究纳入了 2017 年 4 月 1 日至 2022 年 3 月 31 日期间所有接受手术治疗的 RCC 患者。从电子病历中收集数据,并对急诊和择期手术组群的宿主和肿瘤因素以及结果进行比较:共纳入806名患者(中位年龄72岁)。约175名患者(22%)为急诊患者:140名患者出现梗阻,35名患者出现肿瘤穿孔,而择期手术组仅有1名患者出现肿瘤穿孔(P < 0.001)。急诊组的术后并发症发生率更高(59.1% 对 20.0%,p < 0.001),90 天死亡率更高(13.7% 对 1.3%,p < 0.001),住院时间更长(5 天对 10 天,p < 0.001)。在急诊队列中,只有29.2%的合格患者接受了辅助化疗,而在多变量回归分析中,急诊就诊与接受辅助化疗的可能性降低有关(几率比0.26 [0.14-0.47],P < 0.001):结论:RCC急诊就诊后的短期和长期疗效均不佳,且后续化疗机会不足。应对左侧肿瘤急诊的策略已转向暂时性和择期手术。推迟大部切除手术以进行优化可能会改善RCC的预后和获得辅助治疗的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
316
期刊介绍: The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England is the official scholarly research journal of the Royal College of Surgeons and is published eight times a year in January, February, March, April, May, July, September and November. The main aim of the journal is to publish high-quality, peer-reviewed papers that relate to all branches of surgery. The Annals also includes letters and comments, a regular technical section, controversial topics, CORESS feedback and book reviews. The editorial board is composed of experts from all the surgical specialties.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信