Assessment of data quality in an international multi-centre randomised trial of coronary artery surgery

ART is a multi-centre randomised trial of cardiac surgery which provided a unique opportunity to evaluate the data from a large number of centres from a variety of countries. We attempted to assess data quality, including recruitment rates, timeliness and completeness of the data obtained from the centres in different socio-economic strata

Reduced risk of myocardial infarct and revascularization following coronary artery bypass grafting compared with percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with chronic kidney disease

Coronary atherosclerotic disease is highly prevalent in chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although revascularization improves outcomes, procedural risks are increased in CKD and unbiased data comparing bypass surgery (CABG) and percutaneous intervention (PCI) in CKD are sparse. To compare outcomes of CABG and PCI in stage 3-5 CKD, we identified randomized trials comparing these procedures. Investigators were contacted to obtain individual, patient-level data. Ten of 27 trials meeting inclusion criteria provided data. These trials enrolled 3993 patients encompassing 526 patients with stage 3-5 CKD of which 137 were stage 3b-5 CKD. Among individuals with stage 3-5 CKD survival through 5-years was not different following CABG compared with PCI (hazard ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval: 0.67, 1.46) or stage 3b-5 CKD (1.29: 0.68, 2.46). However, CKD modified the impact on survival free from myocardial infarction: it was not different between CABG and PCI for individuals with preserved kidney function (0.97: 0.80, 1.17), but was significantly lower following CABG in stage 3-5 CKD (0.49: 0.29, 0.82) and stage 3b-5 CKD (0.23: 0.09, 0.58). Repeat revascularization was reduced following CABG compared with PCI regardless of baseline kidney function. Results were limited by unavailability of data from several trials and paucity of enrolled patients with stage 4-5 CKD. Thus, our patient-level meta-analysis of individuals with CKD randomized to CABG versus PCI suggests that CABG significantly reduces the risk of subsequent myocardial infarction and revascularization without impacting survival in these patients

Randomized evidence for reduction of perioperative mortality

Objective: With more than 220 million major surgical procedures performed annually, perioperative interventions leading to even minor mortality reductions would save thousands of lives per year. This international consensus conference aimed to identify all nonsurgical interventions that increase or reduce perioperative mortality as suggested by randomized evidence. Design and Setting: A web-based international consensus conference. Participants: More than 1,000 physicians from 77 countries participated in this web-based consensus conference. Interventions: Systematic literature searches (MEDLINE/PubMed, June 8, 2011) were used to identify the papers with a statistically significant effect on mortality together with contacts with experts. Interventions were considered eligible for evaluation if they (1) were published in peer-reviewed journals, (2) dealt with a nonsurgical intervention (drug/technique/strategy) in adult patients undergoing surgery, and (3) provided a statistically significant mortality increase or reduction as suggested by a randomized trial or meta-analysis of randomized trials. Measurements and Main Results: Fourteen interventions that might change perioperative mortality in adult surgery were identified. Interventions that might reduce mortality include chlorhexidine oral rinse, clonidine, insulin, intra-aortic balloon pump, leukodepletion, levosimendan, neuraxial anesthesia, noninvasive respiratory support, hemodynamic optimization, oxygen, selective decontamination of the digestive tract, and volatile anesthetics. In contrast, aprotinin and extended-release metoprolol might increase mortality. Conclusions: Future research and health care funding should be directed toward studying and evaluating these interventions. © 2012 Elsevier Inc

Management and outcomes in critically ill nonagenarian versus octogenarian patients

Background: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients age 90 years or older represent a growing subgroup and place a huge financial burden on health care resources despite the benefit being unclear. This leads to ethical problems. The present investigation assessed the differences in outcome between nonagenarian and octogenarian ICU patients. Methods: We included 7900 acutely admitted older critically ill patients from two large, multinational studies. The primary outcome was 30-day-mortality, and the secondary outcome was ICU-mortality. Baseline characteristics consisted of frailty assessed by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), ICU-management, and outcomes were compared between octogenarian (80-89.9 years) and nonagenarian (>= 90 years) patients. We used multilevel logistic regression to evaluate differences between octogenarians and nonagenarians. Results: The nonagenarians were 10% of the entire cohort. They experienced a higher percentage of frailty (58% vs 42%; p < 0.001), but lower SOFA scores at admission (6 +/- 5 vs. 7 +/- 6; p < 0.001). ICU-management strategies were different. Octogenarians required higher rates of organ support and nonagenarians received higher rates of life-sustaining treatment limitations (40% vs. 33%; p < 0.001). ICU mortality was comparable (27% vs. 27%; p = 0.973) but a higher 30-day-mortality (45% vs. 40%; p = 0.029) was seen in the nonagenarians. After multivariable adjustment nonagenarians had no significantly increased risk for 30-day-mortality (aOR 1.25 (95% CI 0.90-1.74; p = 0.19)). Conclusion: After adjustment for confounders, nonagenarians demonstrated no higher 30-day mortality than octogenarian patients. In this study, being age 90 years or more is no particular risk factor for an adverse outcome. This should be considered- together with illness severity and pre-existing functional capacity - to effectively guide triage decisions