Development and validation of a score to predict postoperative respiratory failure in a multicentre European cohort : A prospective, observational study

BACKGROUND Postoperative respiratory failure (PRF) is the most frequent respiratory complication following surgery. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to build a clinically useful predictive model for the development of PRF. DESIGN A prospective observational study of a multicentre cohort. SETTING Sixty-three hospitals across Europe. PATIENTS Patients undergoing any surgical procedure under general or regional anaesthesia during 7-day recruitment periods. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Development of PRF within 5 days of surgery. PRF was defined by a partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2) less than 8 kPa or new onset oxyhaemoglobin saturation measured by pulse oximetry (SpO(2)) less than 90% whilst breathing room air that required conventional oxygen therapy, noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation. RESULTS PRF developed in 224 patients (4.2% of the 5384 patients studied). In-hospital mortality [95% confidence interval (95% CI)] was higher in patients who developed PRF [10.3% (6.3 to 14.3) vs. 0.4% (0.2 to 0.6)]. Regression modelling identified a predictive PRF score that includes seven independent risk factors: low preoperative SpO(2); at least one preoperative respiratory symptom; preoperative chronic liver disease; history of congestive heart failure; open intrathoracic or upper abdominal surgery; surgical procedure lasting at least 2 h; and emergency surgery. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (c-statistic) was 0.82 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.85) and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic was 7.08 (P = 0.253). CONCLUSION A risk score based on seven objective, easily assessed factors was able to predict which patients would develop PRF. The score could potentially facilitate preoperative risk assessment and management and provide a basis for testing interventions to improve outcomes. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT01346709)

Accelerated surgery versus standard care in hip fracture (HIP ATTACK) : an international, randomised, controlled trial

Background: Observational studies have suggested that accelerated surgery is associated with improved outcomes in patients with a hip fracture. The HIP ATTACK trial assessed whether accelerated surgery could reduce mortality and major complications. Methods: HIP ATTACK was an international, randomised, controlled trial done at 69 hospitals in 17 countries. Patients with a hip fracture that required surgery and were aged 45 years or older were eligible. Research personnel randomly assigned patients (1:1) through a central computerised randomisation system using randomly varying block sizes to either accelerated surgery (goal of surgery within 6 h of diagnosis) or standard care. The coprimary outcomes were mortality and a composite of major complications (ie, mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, life-threatening bleeding, and major bleeding) at 90 days after randomisation. Patients, health-care providers, and study staff were aware of treatment assignment, but outcome adjudicators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02027896). Findings: Between March 14, 2014, and May 24, 2019, 27 701 patients were screened, of whom 7780 were eligible. 2970 of these were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive accelerated surgery (n=1487) or standard care (n=1483). The median time from hip fracture diagnosis to surgery was 6 h (IQR 4\u20139) in the accelerated-surgery group and 24 h (10\u201342) in the standard-care group (p<0\ub70001). 140 (9%) patients assigned to accelerated surgery and 154 (10%) assigned to standard care died, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0\ub791 (95% CI 0\ub772 to 1\ub714) and absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 1% ( 121 to 3; p=0\ub740). Major complications occurred in 321 (22%) patients assigned to accelerated surgery and 331 (22%) assigned to standard care, with an HR of 0\ub797 (0\ub783 to 1\ub713) and an ARR of 1% ( 122 to 4; p=0\ub771). Interpretation: Among patients with a hip fracture, accelerated surgery did not significantly lower the risk of mortality or a composite of major complications compared with standard care. Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research