Search results
Found 23637 matches for
Rationale and design of the HIP fracture Accelerated surgical TreaTment And Care tracK (HIP ATTACK) Trial: a protocol for an international randomised controlled trial evaluating early surgery for hip fracture patients
IntroductionAnnually, millions of adults suffer hip fractures. The mortality rate post a hip fracture is 7%–10% at 30 days and 10%–20% at 90 days. Observational data suggest that early surgery can improve these outcomes in hip fracture patients. We designed a clinical trial—HIP fracture Accelerated surgical TreaTment And Care tracK (HIP ATTACK) to determine the effect of accelerated surgery compared with standard care on the 90-day risk of all-cause mortality and major perioperative complications.Methods and analysisHIP ATTACK is a multicentre, international, parallel group randomised controlled trial (RCT) that will include patients ≥45 years of age and diagnosed with a hip fracture from a low-energy mechanism requiring surgery. Patients are randomised to accelerated medical assessment and surgical repair (goal within 6 h) or standard care. The co-primary outcomes are (1) all-cause mortality and (2) a composite of major perioperative complications (ie, mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, pneumonia, sepsis, stroke, and life-threatening and major bleeding) at 90 days after randomisation. All patients will be followed up for a period of 1 year. We will enrol 3000 patients.Ethics and disseminationAll centres had ethics approval before randomising patients. Written informed consent is required for all patients before randomisation. HIP ATTACK is the first large international trial designed to examine whether accelerated surgery can improve outcomes in patients with a hip fracture. The dissemination plan includes publishing the results in a policy-influencing journal, conference presentations, engagement of influential medical organisations, and providing public awareness through multimedia resources.Trial registration numberNCT02027896; Pre-results.
The developing world of pre‐operative optimisation: a systematic review of Cochrane reviews
SummaryPre‐operative optimisation is a heterogenous group of interventions aimed at improving peri‐operative outcomes. To understand the evidence for pre‐operative optimisation in the developing world, we systematically reviewed Cochrane reviews on the topic according to the Human Developmental Index (HDI) of the country where patient recruitment occurred. We used summary statistics and cartograms to describe the HDI, year of publication, timing of pre‐operative intervention and risk of bias associated with each included trial. We assessed the impact of multinational trials on the risk of bias introduced by countries of differing HDI. Four‐hundred and nine trials representing 51 countries and 89,389 randomly allocated participants were summarised in this review. Four‐hundred and nineteen out of 451 (93%) trial populations (i.e. a group of study participants from one country) were from high and very high HDI countries. The median (IQR [range]) HDI of countries were 0.862 (0.806–0.892 [0.445–0.949]). Three of the 409 included trials were multinational, representing 32 countries and 37,736 out of 89,389 (42.2%) included participants. Africa was the least represented continent, with only 4 included trials and 566 participants, of which 62.3% were from one multinational trial. The overall risk of bias was high or unclear in 381 out of 409 (93%) trials. Inclusion of multinational trials decreased the proportion of trial populations introducing high or unclear risk of bias by 9.4% (95%CI 5.1–13.7; p < 0.0001). Half of the world's population live in low‐ and middle‐HDI countries. This population is poorly represented in systematically reviewed evidence on pre‐operative optimisation. Multinational trials increase the knowledge contribution from low‐ and middle‐HDI countries and decrease risk of bias in systematic reviews.
The African Surgical OutcomeS-2 (ASOS-2) Pilot Trial, a mixed-methods implementation study
Background: The African Surgical Outcomes Study (ASOS) showed that surgical patients in Africa have a mortality twice the global average. The working hypothesis is that patients die as a result of failure to rescue following complications in the postoperative period. The African Surgical OutcomeS-2 (ASOS-2) Trial plans to test the efficacy of increased postoperative surveillance in high risk patients for decreasing perioperative morbidity and mortality. This pilot trial aimed i) to evaluate the adequacy of data produced by the data collection strategies of the ASOS-2 Trial, ii) to evaluate the fidelity of implementation of the increased postoperative surveillance intervention, and iii) to understand the acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of the intervention and the trial processes. Methods: The ASOS-2 Pilot Trial was a mixed-methods (quantitative-qualitative) implementation study focusing on the intervention arm of the proposed ASOS-2 Trial. The intervention is increased postoperative surveillance for high-risk surgical patients. The intervention protocol was implemented at all sites for a seven-day period. A post pilot trial survey was used to collect data on the implementation outcomes. Results: 803 patients were recruited from 16 hospitals in eight African countries. The sampling and data collection strategies provided 98% complete data collection. Seventy-three percent of respondents believed that they truly provided increased postoperative surveillance to high risk patients. In reality 83/125 (66%) of high-risk patients received some form of increased postoperative surveillance. However, the individual components of the increased postoperative surveillance intervention were implemented in less than 50% of high-risk patients (excepting increasing nursing observations). The components most frequently unavailable were the ability to provide care in a higher care ward (32.1%) and assigning the patient to a bed in view of the nurses’ station (28.4%). Failure to comply with available components of the intervention ranged from 27.5% to 54.3%. The post pilot survey had a response rate of 30/40 (75%). In Likert scale questions about acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the ASOS-2 intervention, 63% to 87% of respondents indicated agreement. Respondents reported barriers related to resources, trial processes, teamwork and communication as reasons for disagreement. Conclusions: The proposed ASOS-2 Trial appears to be appropriate, acceptable and feasible in Africa. This pilot trial provides support for the proposed ASOS-2 Trial. It emphasises the need for establishing trial site teams which address the needs of all stakeholders during the trial. A concerted effort must be made to help participating hospitals to increase compliance with all the components of the proposed intervention of ‘increased postoperative surveillance’ during the ASOS-2 Trial.
Prospective observational cohort study on grading the severity of postoperative complications in global surgery research
AbstractBackgroundThe Clavien–Dindo classification is perhaps the most widely used approach for reporting postoperative complications in clinical trials. This system classifies complication severity by the treatment provided. However, it is unclear whether the Clavien–Dindo system can be used internationally in studies across differing healthcare systems in high- (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), a prospective observational cohort study of elective surgery in adults. Data collection occurred over a 7-day period. Severity of complications was graded using Clavien–Dindo and the simpler ISOS grading (mild, moderate or severe, based on guided investigator judgement). Severity grading was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data are presented as frequencies and ICC values (with 95 per cent c.i.). The analysis was stratified by income status of the country, comparing HICs with LMICs.ResultsA total of 44 814 patients were recruited from 474 hospitals in 27 countries (19 HICs and 8 LMICs). Some 7508 patients (16·8 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication, equivalent to 11 664 complications in total. Using the ISOS classification, 5504 of 11 664 complications (47·2 per cent) were graded as mild, 4244 (36·4 per cent) as moderate and 1916 (16·4 per cent) as severe. Using Clavien–Dindo, 6781 of 11 664 complications (58·1 per cent) were graded as I or II, 1740 (14·9 per cent) as III, 2408 (20·6 per cent) as IV and 735 (6·3 per cent) as V. Agreement between classification systems was poor overall (ICC 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·20 to 0·55), and in LMICs (ICC 0·23, 0·05 to 0·38) and HICs (ICC 0·46, 0·25 to 0·59).ConclusionCaution is recommended when using a treatment approach to grade complications in global surgery studies, as this may introduce bias unintentionally.
Prioritizing research for patients requiring surgery in low- and middle-income countries
Abstract Background The National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery is establishing research Hubs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The aim of this study was for the Hubs to prioritize future research into areas of unmet clinical need for patients in LMICs requiring surgery. Methods A modified Delphi process was overseen by the research Hub leads and engaged LMIC clinicians, patients and expert methodologists. A four-stage iterative process was delivered to prioritize research topics. This included anonymous electronic voting, teleconference discussions and a 2-day priority-setting workshop. Results In stage 1, Hub leads proposed 32 topics across six domains: access to surgery, cancer, perioperative care, research methods, acute care surgery and communicable disease. In stages 2 and 3, 40 LMICs and 20 high-income countries participated in online voting, leading to identification of three priority research topics: access to surgery; outcomes of cancer surgery; and perioperative care. During stage 4, specific research plans to address each topic were developed by Hub leads at a priority-setting workshop. Conclusion This process identified three priority areas for future research relevant to surgery in LMICs. It was driven by front-line LMIC clinicians, patients and other stakeholders representing a diverse range of settings. The results of the prioritization exercise provide a future framework for researchers and funders.
Effect of aspirin in vascular surgery in patients from a randomized clinical trial (POISE-2)
Abstract Background In the POISE-2 (PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation 2) trial, perioperative aspirin did not reduce cardiovascular events, but increased major bleeding. There remains uncertainty regarding the effect of perioperative aspirin in patients undergoing vascular surgery. The aim of this substudy was to determine whether there is a subgroup effect of initiating or continuing aspirin in patients undergoing vascular surgery. Methods POISE-2 was a blinded, randomized trial of patients having non-cardiac surgery. Patients were assigned to perioperative aspirin or placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of death or myocardial infarction at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included: vascular occlusive complications (a composite of amputation and peripheral arterial thrombosis) and major or life-threatening bleeding. Results Of 10 010 patients in POISE-2, 603 underwent vascular surgery, 319 in the continuation and 284 in the initiation stratum. Some 272 patients had vascular surgery for occlusive disease and 265 had aneurysm surgery. The primary outcome occurred in 13·7 per cent of patients having aneurysm repair allocated to aspirin and 9·0 per cent who had placebo (hazard ratio (HR) 1·48, 95 per cent c.i. 0·71 to 3·09). Among patients who had surgery for occlusive vascular disease, 15·8 per cent allocated to aspirin and 13·6 per cent on placebo had the primary outcome (HR 1·16, 0·62 to 2·17). There was no interaction with the primary outcome for type of surgery (P = 0·294) or aspirin stratum (P = 0·623). There was no interaction for vascular occlusive complications (P = 0·413) or bleeding (P = 0·900) for vascular compared with non-vascular surgery. Conclusion This study suggests that the overall POISE-2 results apply to vascular surgery. Perioperative withdrawal of chronic aspirin therapy did not increase cardiovascular or vascular occlusive complications. Registration number: NCT01082874 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).
A Systematic Review of Outcomes Associated With Withholding or Continuing Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Before Noncardiac Surgery
BACKGROUND: The global rate of major noncardiac surgical procedures is increasing annually, and of those patients presenting for surgery, increasing numbers are taking either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I) or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB). The current recommendations of whether to continue or withhold ACE-I and ARB in the perioperative period are conflicting. Previous meta-analyses have linked preoperative ACE-I/ARB therapy to the increased incidence of postinduction hypotension; however, they have failed to correlate this with adverse patient outcomes. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine whether continuation or withholding ACE-I or ARB therapy in the perioperative period is associated with mortality and major morbidity. METHODS: This meta-analysis was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017055291). A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCO host), ProQuest, Cochrane database, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted on December 6, 2016. We included adult patients >18 years of age on chronic ACE-I or ARB therapy who underwent noncardiac surgery in which ACE-I or ARB was either withheld or continued on the morning of surgery. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality and major cardiac events (MACE). Secondary outcomes included the risk of congestive heart failure, acute kidney injury, stroke, intraoperative/postoperative hypotension, and the length of hospital stay. RESULTS: After abstract review, the full text of 25 studies was retrieved, of which 9 fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 5 were randomized control trials, and 4 were cohort studies. These studies included a total of 6022 patients on chronic ACE-I/ARB therapy before noncardiac surgery. A total of 1816 patients withheld treatment the morning of surgery and 4206 continued their ACE-I/ARB. Preoperative demographics were similar between the 2 groups. Withholding ACE-I/ARB therapy was not associated with a difference in mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62–1.52; I 2 = 0%) or MACE (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.82–1.52; I 2 = 0%). However, withholding therapy was associated with significantly less intraoperative hypotension (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47–0.85; I 2 = 71%). No effect estimate could be pooled concerning length of hospital stay and congestive heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis did not demonstrate an association between perioperative administration of ACE-I/ARB and mortality or MACE. It did, however, confirm the current observation that perioperative continuation of ACE-I/ARBs is associated with an increased incidence of intraoperative hypotension. A large randomized control trial is necessary to determine the appropriate perioperative management of ACE-I and ARBs.