Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Study protocol for a randomized clinical trial to assess 7 versus 14-days of treatment for Pseudomonas aeruginosa bloodstream infections (SHORTEN-2 trial)

Background Research priorities in Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) have rapidly evolved in the last decade. The need for a more efficient use of antimicrobials have fueled plenty of studies to define the optimal duration for antibiotic treatments, and yet, there still are large areas of uncertainty in common clinical scenarios. Pseudomonas aeruginosa has been pointed as a priority for clinical research, but it has been unattended by most randomized trials tackling the effectiveness of short treatments. The study protocol of the SHORTEN-2 trial is presented as a practical example of new ways to approach common obstacles for clinical research in AMS. Objective To determine whether a 7-day course of antibiotics is superior to 14-day schemes for treating bloodstream infections by P. aeruginosa (BSI-PA). Methods A superiority, open-label, randomized controlled trial will be performed across 30 Spanish hospitals. Adult patients with uncomplicated BSI-PA will be randomized to receive a 7 versus 14-day course of any active antibiotic. The primary endpoint will be the probability for the 7-day group of achieving better outcomes than the control group, assessing altogether clinical effectiveness, severe adverse events, and antibiotic exposure through a DOOR/RADAR analysis. Main secondary endpoints include treatment failure, BSI-PA relapses, and mortality. A superiority design was set for the primary endpoint and non-inferiority for treatment failure, resulting in a sample size of 304 patients. Conclusions SHORTEN-2 trial aligns with some of the priorities for clinical research in AMS. The implementation of several methodological innovations allowed overcoming common obstacles, like feasible sample sizes or measuring the clinical impact and unintended effects