Report of a Delphi exercise to inform the design of a research programme on screening for thoracic aortic disease

Objectives: To inform the design of a clinical trial of a targeted screening programme for relatives of individuals affected by thoracic aortic disease, we performed a consensus exercise as to the acceptability of screening, the optimal sequence and choice of tests, long-term patient management, and choice of trial design. Methods: Working with the Aortic Dissection Awareness UK & Ireland patient association, we performed a Delphi exercise with clinical experts, patients, and carers, consisting of three rounds of consultation followed by a final multi-stakeholder face-to-face workshop. Results: Thirty-five experts and 84 members of the public took part in the surveys, with 164 patients and clinicians attending the final workshop. There was substantial agreement on the need for a targeted screening pathway that would employ a combined approach (imaging + genetic testing). The target population would include the first- and second-degree adult (> 15 years) relatives, with no upper age limit of affected patients. Disagreement persisted about the screening process, sequence, personnel, the imaging method to adopt, computed tomography (CT) scan vs magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and the specifics of a potential trial, including willingness to undergo randomisation, and measures of effectiveness and acceptability. Conclusion: A Delphi process, initiated by patients, identified areas of uncertainty with respect to behaviour, process, and the design of a targeted screening programme for thoracic aortic disease that requires further research prior to any future trial

Prothrombin complex concentrate in cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) has recently emerged as effective alternative to fresh frozen plasma (FFP) in treating excessive perioperative bleeding. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PCC administration as first-line treatment for coagulopathy following adult cardiac surgery. METHODS: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to the end of March 2018 to identify eligible articles. Adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery and receiving perioperative PCC were compared to those receiving FFP. RESULTS: A total of 861 adult patients from 4 studies were retrieved. No randomized studies were identified. Pooled odds ratio (OR) showed that PCC cohort was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of RBC transfusion (OR: 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45-3.40) and units of RBC received (OR: 1.34; 95%CI: 0.78-1.90). No differences were observed between the groups for re-exploration for bleeding (OR: 1.09; 95%CI: 0.66-1.82), chest drain output at 24 hours (OR: 66.36; 95%CI: -82.40-216.11), hospital mortality (OR: 0.94; 95%CI: 0.59-1.49), stroke (OR: 0.80; 95%CI: 0.41-1.56), and occurrence of acute kidney injury (OR: 0.80; 95%CI: 0.58-1.12). A trend toward increased risk of renal replacement therapy was observed in the PCC group (OR: 0.41; 95%CI: 0.16-1.02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with significant bleeding following cardiac surgery, PCC administration seems to be more effective than FFP in reducing perioperative blood transfusions. No additional risks of thromboembolic events or other adverse reactions were observed. Randomized controlled trials are needed to definitively establish the safety of PCC in cardiac surgery