Fluid Optimisation in Emergency Laparotomy (FLO-ELA) Trial: study protocol for a multi-centre randomised trial of cardiac output-guided fluid therapy compared to usual care in patients undergoing major emergency gastrointestinal surgery

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing major emergency gastrointestinal surgery are a major burden on healthcare systems. Optimal management of perioperative intravenous fluids may reduce mortality rates and improve outcomes from surgery. Previous small trials of cardiac-output guided haemodynamic therapy algorithms in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery have suggested this intervention results in reduced complications and a modest reduction in mortality. However, this existing evidence is based mainly on elective (planned) surgery, with little evaluation in the emergency setting. There are fundamental clinical and pathophysiological differences between the planned and emergency surgical setting which may influence the effects of this intervention. A large definitive trial in emergency surgery is needed to confirm or refute the potential benefits observed in elective surgery and to inform widespread clinical practice. METHODS: The FLO-ELA trial is a multi-centre, parallel-group, open, randomised controlled trial. 3138 patients aged 50 and over undergoing major emergency gastrointestinal surgery will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio using minimisation to minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring to guide protocolised administration of intra-venous fluid, or usual care without cardiac output monitoring. The trial intervention will be carried out during surgery and for up to 6 h postoperatively. The trial is funded through an efficient design call by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme and uses existing routinely collected datasets for the majority of data collection. The primary outcome is the number of days alive and out of hospital within 90 days of randomisation. Participants and those delivering the intervention will not be blinded to treatment allocation. Participant recruitment started in September 2017 with a 1-year internal pilot phase and is ongoing at the time of publication. DISCUSSION: This will be the largest contemporary randomised trial examining the effectiveness of perioperative cardiac output-guided haemodynamic therapy in patients undergoing major emergency gastrointestinal surgery. The multi-centre design and broad inclusion criteria support the external validity of the trial. Although the clinical teams delivering the trial interventions will not be blinded, significant trial outcome measures are objective and not subject to detection bias. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 14729158. Registered on 02 May 2017

Understanding the influences on successful quality improvement in emergency general surgery: learning from the RCS Chole-QuIC project

Abstract: Background: Acute gallstone disease is the highest volume Emergency General Surgical presentation in the UK. Recent data indicate wide variations in the quality of care provided across the country, with national guidance for care delivery not implemented in most UK hospitals. Against this backdrop, the Royal College of Surgeons of England set up a 13-hospital quality improvement collaborative (Chole-QuIC) to support clinical teams to reduce time to surgery for patients with acute gallstone disease requiring emergency cholecystectomy. Methods: Prospective, mixed-methods process evaluation to answer the following: (1) how was the collaborative delivered by the faculty and received, understood and enacted by the participants; (2) what influenced teams’ ability to improve care for patients requiring emergency cholecystectomy? We collected and analysed a range of data including field notes, ethnographic observations of meetings, and project documentation. Analysis was based on the framework approach, informed by Normalisation Process Theory, and involved the creation of comparative case studies based on hospital performance during the project. Results: Chole-QuIC was delivered as planned and was well received and understood by participants. Four hospitals were identified as highly successful, based upon a substantial increase in the number of patients having surgery in line with national guidance. Conversely, four hospitals were identified as challenged, achieving no significant improvement. The comparative analysis indicate that six inter-related influences appeared most associated with improvement: (1) achieving clarity of purpose amongst site leads and key stakeholders; (2) capacity to lead and effective project support; (3) ideas to action; (4) learning from own and others’ experience; (5) creating additional capacity to do emergency cholecystectomies; and (6) coordinating/managing the patient pathway. Conclusion: Collaborative-based quality improvement is a viable strategy for emergency surgery but success requires the deployment of effective clinical strategies in conjunction with improvement strategies. In particular, achieving clarity of purpose about proposed changes amongst key stakeholders was a vital precursor to improvement, enabling the creation of additional surgical capacity and new pathways to be implemented effectively. Protected time, testing ideas, and the ability to learn quickly from data and experience were associated with greater impact within this cohort

PANC Study (Pancreatitis: A National Cohort Study): national cohort study examining the first 30 days from presentation of acute pancreatitis in the UK

Abstract Background Acute pancreatitis is a common, yet complex, emergency surgical presentation. Multiple guidelines exist and management can vary significantly. The aim of this first UK, multicentre, prospective cohort study was to assess the variation in management of acute pancreatitis to guide resource planning and optimize treatment. Methods All patients aged greater than or equal to 18 years presenting with acute pancreatitis, as per the Atlanta criteria, from March to April 2021 were eligible for inclusion and followed up for 30 days. Anonymized data were uploaded to a secure electronic database in line with local governance approvals. Results A total of 113 hospitals contributed data on 2580 patients, with an equal sex distribution and a mean age of 57 years. The aetiology was gallstones in 50.6 per cent, with idiopathic the next most common (22.4 per cent). In addition to the 7.6 per cent with a diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis, 20.1 per cent of patients had a previous episode of acute pancreatitis. One in 20 patients were classed as having severe pancreatitis, as per the Atlanta criteria. The overall mortality rate was 2.3 per cent at 30 days, but rose to one in three in the severe group. Predictors of death included male sex, increased age, and frailty; previous acute pancreatitis and gallstones as aetiologies were protective. Smoking status and body mass index did not affect death. Conclusion Most patients presenting with acute pancreatitis have a mild, self-limiting disease. Rates of patients with idiopathic pancreatitis are high. Recurrent attacks of pancreatitis are common, but are likely to have reduced risk of death on subsequent admissions. </jats:sec

Outcomes following small bowel obstruction due to malignancy in the national audit of small bowel obstruction

Introduction Patients with cancer who develop small bowel obstruction are at high risk of malnutrition and morbidity following compromise of gastrointestinal tract continuity. This study aimed to characterise current management and outcomes following malignant small bowel obstruction. Methods A prospective, multicentre cohort study of patients with small bowel obstruction who presented to UK hospitals between 16th January and 13th March 2017. Patients who presented with small bowel obstruction due to primary tumours of the intestine (excluding left-sided colonic tumours) or disseminated intra-abdominal malignancy were included. Outcomes included 30-day mortality and in-hospital complications. Cox-proportional hazards models were used to generate adjusted effects estimates, which are presented as hazard ratios (HR) alongside the corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The threshold for statistical significance was set at the level of P ≤ 0.05 a-priori. Results 205 patients with malignant small bowel obstruction presented to emergency surgery services during the study period. Of these patients, 50 had obstruction due to right sided colon cancer, 143 due to disseminated intraabdominal malignancy, 10 had primary tumours of the small bowel and 2 patients had gastrointestinal stromal tumours. In total 100 out of 205 patients underwent a surgical intervention for obstruction. 30-day in-hospital mortality rate was 11.3% for those with primary tumours and 19.6% for those with disseminated malignancy. Severe risk of malnutrition was an independent predictor for poor mortality in this cohort (adjusted HR 16.18, 95% CI 1.86 to 140.84, p = 0.012). Patients with right-sided colon cancer had high rates of morbidity. Conclusions Mortality rates were high in patients with disseminated malignancy and in those with right sided colon cancer. Further research should identify optimal management strategy to reduce morbidity for these patient groups

National prospective cohort study of the burden of acute small bowel obstruction

Background Small bowel obstruction is a common surgical emergency, and is associated with high levels of morbidity and mortality across the world. The literature provides little information on the conservatively managed group. The aim of this study was to describe the burden of small bowel obstruction in the UK. Methods This prospective cohort study was conducted in 131 acute hospitals in the UK between January and April 2017, delivered by trainee research collaboratives. Adult patients with a diagnosis of mechanical small bowel obstruction were included. The primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included complications, unplanned intensive care admission and readmission within 30 days of discharge. Practice measures, including use of radiological investigations, water soluble contrast, operative and nutritional interventions, were collected. Results Of 2341 patients identified, 693 (29·6 per cent) underwent immediate surgery (within 24 h of admission), 500 (21·4 per cent) had delayed surgery after initial conservative management, and 1148 (49·0 per cent) were managed non‐operatively. The mortality rate was 6·6 per cent (6·4 per cent for non‐operative management, 6·8 per cent for immediate surgery, 6·8 per cent for delayed surgery; P = 0·911). The major complication rate was 14·4 per cent overall, affecting 19·0 per cent in the immediate surgery, 23·6 per cent in the delayed surgery and 7·7 per cent in the non‐operative management groups (P < 0·001). Cox regression found hernia or malignant aetiology and malnutrition to be associated with higher rates of death. Malignant aetiology, operative intervention, acute kidney injury and malnutrition were associated with increased risk of major complication. Conclusion Small bowel obstruction represents a significant healthcare burden. Patient‐level factors such as timing of surgery, acute kidney injury and nutritional status are factors that might be modified to improve outcomes

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

Abstract 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

How safe bariatric surgery is-An update on perioperative mortality for clinicians and patients.

Bariatric, metabolic or weight loss surgery produces sustained weight loss and imporovement in obesity related diseases. Bariatric surgery has existed for decades but there is limited reliable data on the risk of perioperative mortality following the procedures. This commentary focuses on a recent meta-analysis which has produced contemporaneous mortality data, and the findings are significant. Utilising data from 3.6 million patients the study has shown an overall pooled perioperative mortality of 0.08%, a significantly reduced risk compared to previous, smaller studies. This finding increases our knowledge of surgical risk for these procedures and should now equip health care groups to challenge barriers to uptake of bariatric surgery. Barriers currently include a worldwide lack of focus on treating obesity, lack of funding and resource from commissioners, and a general public and professional view that bariatric surgery may be high risk. In reality, this figure equates to mortality risk for procedures generally considered 'safe' such as laparoscopic cholecystectomy and knee arthroplasty. Bariatric surgery is a safe option for achieving sustained weight-loss and the treatment of obesity related diseases, and refusing access to surgery on the grounds of perioperative safety should now be an outdated premise

Results of the ARROW survey of anti-reflux practice in the United Kingdom

Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common, significant health burden. United Kingdom guidance states that surgery should be considered for patients with a diagnosis of GERD not suitable for long-term acid suppression. There is no consensus on many aspects of patient pathways and optimal surgical technique, and an absence of information on how patients are currently selected for surgery. Further detail on the delivery of anti-reflux surgery (ARS) is required. A United Kingdom-wide survey was designed to gather surgeon opinion regarding pre-, peri- and post-operative practice of ARS. Responses were received from 155 surgeons at 57 institutions. Most agreed that endoscopy (99%), 24-hour pH monitoring (83%) and esophageal manometry (83%) were essential investigations prior to surgery. Of 57 units, 30 (53%) had access to a multidisciplinary team to discuss cases; case-loads were higher in those units (median 50 vs. 30, P &lt; 0.024). The most popular form of fundoplication was a Nissen posterior 360° (75% of surgeons), followed by a posterior 270° Toupet (48%). Only seven surgeons stated they had no upper limit of body mass index prior to surgery. A total of 46% of respondents maintain a database of their practice and less than a fifth routinely record quality of life scores before (19%) or after (14%) surgery. While there are areas of consensus, a lack of evidence to support workup, intervention and outcome evaluation is reflected in the variability of practice. ARS patients are not receiving the same level of evidence-based care as other patient groups.</p

Fluid Optimisation in Emergency Laparotomy (FLO-ELA) Trial: study protocol for a multi-centre randomised trial of cardiac output-guided fluid therapy compared to usual care in patients undergoing major emergency gastrointestinal surgery

Abstract Introduction Postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing major emergency gastrointestinal surgery are a major burden on healthcare systems. Optimal management of perioperative intravenous fluids may reduce mortality rates and improve outcomes from surgery. Previous small trials of cardiac-output guided haemodynamic therapy algorithms in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery have suggested this intervention results in reduced complications and a modest reduction in mortality. However, this existing evidence is based mainly on elective (planned) surgery, with little evaluation in the emergency setting. There are fundamental clinical and pathophysiological differences between the planned and emergency surgical setting which may influence the effects of this intervention. A large definitive trial in emergency surgery is needed to confirm or refute the potential benefits observed in elective surgery and to inform widespread clinical practice. Methods The FLO-ELA trial is a multi-centre, parallel-group, open, randomised controlled trial. 3138 patients aged 50 and over undergoing major emergency gastrointestinal surgery will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio using minimisation to minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring to guide protocolised administration of intra-venous fluid, or usual care without cardiac output monitoring. The trial intervention will be carried out during surgery and for up to 6 h postoperatively. The trial is funded through an efficient design call by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme and uses existing routinely collected datasets for the majority of data collection. The primary outcome is the number of days alive and out of hospital within 90 days of randomisation. Participants and those delivering the intervention will not be blinded to treatment allocation. Participant recruitment started in September 2017 with a 1-year internal pilot phase and is ongoing at the time of publication. Discussion This will be the largest contemporary randomised trial examining the effectiveness of perioperative cardiac output-guided haemodynamic therapy in patients undergoing major emergency gastrointestinal surgery. The multi-centre design and broad inclusion criteria support the external validity of the trial. Although the clinical teams delivering the trial interventions will not be blinded, significant trial outcome measures are objective and not subject to detection bias. Trial registration ISRCTN 14729158. Registered on 02 May 2017