Bluebelle pilot randomised controlled trial of three wound dressing strategies to reduce surgical site infection in primary surgical wounds

Objective: Surgical site infection (SSI) affects up to 25% of primary surgical wounds. Dressing strategies may influence SSI risk. The Bluebelle study assessed the feasibility of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different dressing strategies to reduce SSI in primary surgical wounds. / Design: A pilot, factorial RCT. / Setting: Five UK hospitals. / Participants: Adults undergoing abdominal surgery with a primary surgical wound. / Interventions: Participants were randomised to ‘simple dressing’, ‘glue-as-a-dressing’ or ‘no dressing’, and to the time at which the treatment allocation was disclosed to the surgeon (disclosure time, before or after wound closure). / Primary and secondary outcome measures: Feasibility outcomes focused on recruitment, adherence to randomised allocations, reference assessment of SSI and response rates to participant-completed and observer-completed questionnaires to assess SSI (proposed primary outcome for main trial), wound experience and symptoms, and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L). / Results: Between March and November 2016, 1115 patients were screened; 699 (73.4%) were eligible and approached, 415 (59.4%) consented and 394 (35.3%) were randomised (simple dressing=133, glue=129 and ‘no dressing’=132). Non-adherence to dressing allocation was 2% (3/133), 6% (8/129) and 15% (20/132), respectively. Adherence to disclosure time was 99% and 86% before and after wound closure, respectively. The overall rate of SSI (reference assessment) was 18.1% (51/281). Response rates to the Wound Healing Questionnaire and other questionnaires ranged from >90% at 4 days to 68% at 4–8 weeks. / Conclusions: A definitive RCT of dressing strategies including ‘no dressing’ is feasible. Further work is needed to optimise questionnaire response rates. / Trial registration number: 49328913; Pre-results

Recommendations for optimising pilot and feasibility work in surgery

BackgroundSurgical trials are recognised as inherently challenging. Pilot and feasibility studies (PAFS) are increasingly acknowledged as a key method to optimise the design and conduct of randomised trials but remain limited in surgery. We used a mixed methods approach to develop recommendations for how surgical PAFS could be optimised. MethodsThe findings from a quantitative analysis of funded surgical PAFS over a 10-year period and in-depth qualitative interviews with surgeons, methodologists and funders were triangulated and synthesised with available methodological guidance on PAFS.ResultsThe synthesis informed development of an explanatory model describing root causes and compounding challenges that contribute to how and why surgical PAFS are not currently optimised. The four root causes identified include issues relating to i) understanding the full scope of PAFS; ii) design and conduct of PAFS; iii) reporting of PAFS; and iv) lack of appreciation of the value of PAFS by all stakeholder groups. Compounding challenges relate to both cultural issues and access to and interpretation of available methodological PAFS guidance. The study findings and explanatory model were used to inform development of a practical guidance tool for surgeons and study teams to improve research practice.ConclusionsOptimisation of PAFS in surgery requires a cultural shift in research practice amongst funders, academic institutions, regulatory bodies and journal editors, as well as amongst surgeons. Our ‘Top Tips’ guidance tool offers an accessible framework for surgeons designing PAFS. Adoption and utilisation of these recommendations will optimise surgical PAFS, facilitating successful and efficient future surgical trials.<br/

The relationship between quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30) and survival in patients with gastro-oesopohageal cancer

It remains unclear whether any aspect of quality of life has a role in predicting survival in an unselected cohort of patients with gastro-oesophageal cancer. Therefore the aim of the present study was to examine the relationship between quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30), clinico-pathological characteristics and survival in patients with gastro-oesophageal cancer. Patients presenting with gastric or oesophageal cancer, staged using the UICC tumour node metastasis (TNM) classification and who received either potentially curative surgery or palliative treatment between November 1997 and December 2002 (n=152) participated in a quality of life study, using the EORTC QLQ-C30 core questionnaire. On univariate analysis, age (P &#60; 0.01), tumour length (P &#60; 0.0001), TNM stage (P&#60;0.0001), weight loss (P&#60;0.0001), dysphagia score (P&#60;0.001), performance status (P&#60;0.1) and treatment (P&#60;0.0001) were significantly associated with cancer-specific survival. EORTC QLQ-C30, physical functioning (P&#60;0.0001), role functioning (P&#60;0.001), cognitive functioning (P&#60;0.01), social functioning (P&#60;0.0001), global quality of life (P&#60;0.0001), fatigue (P&#60;0.0001), nausea/vomiting (P&#60;0.01), pain (P&#60;0.001), dyspnoea (P&#60;0.0001), appetite loss (P&#60;0.0001) and constipation (P&#60;0.05) were also significantly associated with cancer-specific survival. On multivariate survival analysis, tumour stage (P&#60;0.0001), treatment (P&#60;0.001) and appetite loss (P&#60;0.0001) were significant independent predictors of cancer-specific survival. The present study highlights the importance of quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30) measures, in particular appetite loss, as a prognostic factor in these patients

What Are the Real Procedural Costs of Bariatric Surgery? A Systematic Literature Review of Published Cost Analyses

This is the final version. Available on open access from Springer Verlag via the DOI in this recordThis review aims to evaluate the current literature on the procedural costs of bariatric surgery for the treatment of severe obesity. Using a published framework for the conduct of micro-costing studies for surgical interventions, existing cost estimates from the literature are assessed for their accuracy, reliability and comprehensiveness based on their consideration of seven ‘important’ cost components. MEDLINE, PubMed, key journals and reference lists of included studies were searched up to January 2017. Eligible studies had to report per-case, total procedural costs for any type of bariatric surgery broken down into two or more individual cost components. A total of 998 citations were screened, of which 13 studies were included for analysis. Included studies were mainly conducted from a US hospital perspective, assessed either gastric bypass or adjustable gastric banding procedures and considered a range of different cost components. The mean total procedural costs for all included studies was US$14,389 (range, US$7423 to US$33,541). No study considered all of the recommended ‘important’ cost components and estimation methods were poorly reported. The accuracy, reliability and comprehensiveness of the existing cost estimates are, therefore, questionable. There is a need for a comparative cost analysis of the different approaches to bariatric surgery, with the most appropriate costing approach identified to be micro-costing methods. Such an analysis will not only be useful in estimating the relative cost-effectiveness of different surgeries but will also ensure appropriate reimbursement and budgeting by healthcare payers to ensure barriers to access this effective treatment by severely obese patients are minimised.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR

Feasibility of quality of life assessment in patients with upper gastrointestinal tract cancer

Quality of life (QOL) is an important outcome after treatment for upper gastrointestinal tract cancer but few studies report good accrual and subsequent attrition is usually high. This study investigated the feasibility of a nurse-led service to obtain longitudinal QOL assessments and explored how clinical and sociodemographic factors influence patients' need for help to complete questionnaires. Fully informed patients were invited into the study. Baseline hospital assessments were scheduled by telephone and thereafter by post unless patients' health indicated the need for a home visit. In all, 128 out of 140 (91%) baseline QOL assessments were performed. Follow-up questionnaire completion was good, with 114 patients (89%) completing all but one of the expected assessments. At baseline, 41 (32%) patients required a lot of help to complete questionnaires. Patients requiring help were more likely to be undergoing palliative treatment than treatment aimed at cure (68 vs 33%; odds ratio 3.48, P < 0.01). Patients' with advanced stage cancer of the upper gastrointestinal tract receiving palliative treatment require dedicated staff to ensure good compliance with longitudinal QOL data collection. It is essential to budget for this in clinical trails. © 2003 Cancer Research UK

Managing clustering effects and learning effects in the design and analysis of multicentre randomised trials: a survey to establish current practice.

BACKGROUND:Patient outcomes can depend on the treating centre, or health professional, delivering the intervention. A health professional's skill in delivery improves with experience, meaning that outcomes may be associated with learning. Considering differences in intervention delivery at trial design will ensure that any appropriate adjustments can be made during analysis. This work aimed to establish practice for the allowance of clustering and learning effects in the design and analysis of randomised multicentre trials. METHODS:A survey that drew upon quotes from existing guidelines, references to relevant publications and example trial scenarios was delivered. Registered UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Units were invited to participate. RESULTS:Forty-four Units participated (N = 50). Clustering was managed through design by stratification, more commonly by centre than by treatment provider. Managing learning by design through defining a minimum expertise level for treatment provider was common (89%). One-third reported experience in expertise-based designs. The majority of Units had adjusted for clustering during analysis, although approaches varied. Analysis of learning was rarely performed for the main analysis (n = 1), although it was explored by other means. The insight behind the approaches used within and reasons for, or against, alternative approaches were provided. CONCLUSIONS:Widespread awareness of challenges in designing and analysing multicentre trials is identified. Approaches used, and opinions on these, vary both across and within Units, indicating that approaches are dependent on the type of trial. Agreeing principles to guide trial design and analysis across a range of realistic clinical scenarios should be considered

Further considerations for placebo controls in surgical trials

© 2023. The Author(s).Peer reviewedPublisher PD