Defining clinically important perioperative blood loss and transfusion for the Standardised Endpoints for Perioperative Medicine (StEP) collaborative: a protocol for a scoping review

INTRODUCTION: 'Standardised Endpoints for Perioperative Medicine' (StEP) is an international collaboration undertaking development of consensus-based consistent definitions for endpoints in perioperative clinical trials. Inconsistency in endpoint definitions can make interpretation of trial results more difficult, especially if conflicting evidence is present. Furthermore, this inconsistency impedes evidence synthesis and meta-analyses. The goals of StEP are to harmonise definitions for clinically meaningful endpoints and specify standards for endpoint reporting in clinical trials. To help inform this endeavour, we aim to conduct a scoping review to systematically characterise the definitions of clinically important endpoints in the existing published literature on perioperative blood loss and transfusion. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review will be conducted using the widely adopted framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley, with modifications from Levac. We refined our methods with guidance from research librarians as well as researchers and clinicians with content expertise. The electronic literature search will involve several databases including Medline, PubMed-not-Medline and Embase. Our review has three objectives, namely to (1) identify definitions of significant blood loss and transfusion used in previously published large perioperative randomised trials; (2) identify previously developed consensus-based definitions for significant blood loss and transfusion in perioperative medicine and related fields; and (3) describe the association between different magnitudes of blood loss and transfusion with postoperative outcomes. The multistage review process for each question will involve two reviewers screening abstracts, reading full-text articles and performing data extraction. The abstracted data will be organised and subsequently analysed in an iterative process. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review of the previously published literature does not require research ethics approval. The results will be used to inform a consensus-based process to develop definitions of clinically important perioperative blood loss and transfusion. The results of the scoping review will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal

A novel multivariate STeady-state index during general ANesthesia (STAN)

The assessment of the adequacy of general anesthesia for surgery, namely the nociception/anti-nociception balance, has received wide attention from the scientific community. Monitoring systems based on the frontal EEG/EMG, or autonomic state reactions (e.g. heart rate and blood pressure) have been developed aiming to objectively assess this balance. In this study a new multivariate indicator of patients' steady-state during anesthesia (STAN) is proposed, based on wavelet analysis of signals linked to noxious activation. A clinical protocol was designed to analyze precise noxious stimuli (laryngoscopy/intubation, tetanic, and incision), under three different analgesic doses; patients were randomized to receive either remifentanil 2.0, 3.0 or 4.0 ng/ml. ECG, PPG, BP, BIS, EMG and [Formula: see text] were continuously recorded. ECG, PPG and BP were processed to extract beat-to-beat information, and [Formula: see text] curve used to estimate the respiration rate. A combined steady-state index based on wavelet analysis of these variables, was applied and compared between the three study groups and stimuli (Wilcoxon signed ranks, Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests). Following institutional approval and signing the informed consent thirty four patients were enrolled in this study (3 excluded due to signal loss during data collection). The BIS index of the EEG, frontal EMG, heart rate, BP, and PPG wave amplitude changed in response to different noxious stimuli. Laryngoscopy/intubation was the stimulus with the more pronounced response [Formula: see text]. These variables were used in the construction of the combined index STAN; STAN responded adequately to noxious stimuli, with a more pronounced response to laryngoscopy/intubation (18.5-43.1 %, [Formula: see text]), and the attenuation provided by the analgesic, detecting steady-state periods in the different physiological signals analyzed (approximately 50 % of the total study time). A new multivariate approach for the assessment of the patient steady-state during general anesthesia was developed. The proposed wavelet based multivariate index responds adequately to different noxious stimuli, and attenuation provided by the analgesic in a dose-dependent manner for each stimulus analyzed in this study.The first author was supported by a scholarship from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT SFRH/BD/35879/2007). The authors would also like to acknowledge the support of UISPA—System Integration and Process Automation Unit—Part of the LAETA (Associated Laboratory of Energy, Transports and Aeronautics) a I&D Unit of the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), Portugal. FCT support under project PEst-OE/EME/LA0022/2013.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Measurement of Exercise Tolerance before Surgery (METS) study: a protocol for an international multicentre prospective cohort study of cardiopulmonary exercise testing prior to major non-cardiac surgery

Introduction: Preoperative functional capacity is considered an important risk factor for cardiovascular and other complications of major non-cardiac surgery. Nonetheless, the usual approach for estimating preoperative functional capacity, namely doctors’ subjective assessment, may not accurately predict postoperative morbidity or mortality. 3 possible alternatives are cardiopulmonary exercise testing; the Duke Activity Status Index, a standardised questionnaire for estimating functional capacity; and the serum concentration of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT pro-BNP), a biomarker for heart failure and cardiac ischaemia.Methods and analysis: The Measurement of Exercise Tolerance before Surgery (METS) Study is a multicentre prospective cohort study of patients undergoing major elective non-cardiac surgery at 25 participating study sites in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK. We aim to recruit 1723 participants. Prior to surgery, participants undergo symptom-limited cardiopulmonary exercise testing on a cycle ergometer, complete the Duke Activity Status Index questionnaire, undergo blood sampling to measure serum NT pro-BNP concentration and have their functional capacity subjectively assessed by their responsible doctors. Participants are followed for 1?year after surgery to assess vital status, postoperative complications and general health utilities. The primary outcome is all-cause death or non-fatal myocardial infarction within 30?days after surgery, and the secondary outcome is all-cause death within 1?year after surgery. Both receiver-operating-characteristic curve methods and risk reclassification table methods will be used to compare the prognostic accuracy of preoperative subjective assessment, peak oxygen consumption during cardiopulmonary exercise testing, Duke Activity Status Index scores and serum NT pro-BNP concentration.Ethics and dissemination: The METS Study has received research ethics board approval at all sites. Participant recruitment began in March 2013, and 1-year follow-up is expected to finish in 2016. Publication of the results of the METS Study is anticipated to occur in 2017.<br/

Outcomes in randomised controlled trials in prevention and management of carious lesions:a systematic review

Abstract Background Inconsistent outcome reporting is one significant hurdle to combining results from trials into systematic reviews. Core outcome sets (COS) can reduce this barrier. The aim of this review was to map outcomes reported in caries prevention and management randomised controlled trials (RCT) as a first step to COS development. We also investigated RCT characteristics and reporting of primary outcomes and sample size calculations. Methods PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge and Cochrane CENTRAL were systematically searched (1 January 1968 to 25 August 2015). Inclusion criteria: RCTs comparing any technique for prevention or management of caries with another or placebo and RCTs comparing interventions to support patients undergoing treatment of caries (without setting, dentition or age restrictions). Categories were developed through piloting and group consensus and outcomes grouped accordingly. Results Of 4773 search results, 764 were potentially relevant, full text was available for 731 papers and 605 publications met the inclusion criteria and were included. For all outcomes across the time periods 1968–1980 and 2001–2010, reporting of outcome ‘caries experience’ reduced from 39% to 18%; ‘clinical performance of the restoration’ reporting increased from 33% to 42% although there was a reduction to 22% in 2011–2015. Emerging outcome domains include ‘lesion activity’ and ‘pulp health-related outcomes’, accounting for 1% and 0%, respectively, during 1968–1980 and 10% and 4% for 2011–2015. Reporting ‘resource efficiency’ and ‘quality of life measures’ have remained at a low level. No publications reported tooth survival independent of an index such as DMFT or equivalent. Primary outcomes were only identified as such in 414 (68%) of the reports. Conclusions Over the past 50 years, outcome reporting for trials on prevention and management of carious lesions have tended to focus on outcomes measuring caries experience and restoration material clinical performance with lesion activity and cost-effectiveness increasingly being reported. Patient-reported and patient-focused outcomes are becoming more common (although as secondary outcomes) but remain low in use. The challenge with developing a COS will be balancing commonly previously reported outcomes against those more relevant for the future. Trial registration PROSPERO, CRD42015025310 . Registered on 14 August 2015, Trials (Schwendicke et al., Trials 16:397, 2015) and COMET initiative online (COMET, 2017)

The effect of crystalloid versus medium molecular weight colloid solution on post-operative nausea and vomiting after ambulatory gynecological surgery - a prospective randomized trial.

UNLABELLED: ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Intravenous fluid is recommended in international guidelines to improve patient post-operative symptoms, particularly nausea and vomiting. The optimum fluid regimen has not been established. This prospective, randomized, blinded study was designed to determine if administration of equivolumes of a colloid (hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4) reduced post operative nausea and vomiting in healthy volunteers undergoing ambulatory gynecologic laparoscopy surgery compared to a crystalloid solution (Hartmann\u27s Solution). METHODS: 120 patients were randomized to receive intravenous colloid (N = 60) or crystalloid (N = 60) intra-operatively. The volume of fluid administered was calculated at 1.5 ml.kg-1 per hour of fasting. Patients were interviewed to assess nausea, vomiting, anti-emetic use, dizziness, sore throat, headache and subjective general well being at 30 minutes and 2, 24 and 48 hours post operatively. Pulmonary function testing was performed on a subgroup. RESULTS: At 2 hours the proportion of patients experiencing nausea (38.2 % vs 17.9%, P = 0.03) and the mean nausea score were increased in the colloid compared to crystalloid group respectively (1.49 ± 0.3 vs 0.68 ± 0.2, P = 0.028). The incidence of vomiting and anti-emetic usage was low and did not differ between the groups. Sore throat, dizziness, headache and general well being were not different between the groups. A comparable reduction on post-operative FVC and FEV-1 and PEFR was observed in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Intra-operative administration of colloid increased the incidence of early postoperative nausea and has no advantage over crystalloid for symptom control after gynaecological laparoscopic surgery

Reporting of ethical approval and informed consent in clinical research published in leading nursing journals : a retrospective observational study

Background: Ethical considerations play a prominent role in the protection of human subjects in clinical research. To date the disclosure of ethical protection in clinical research published in the international nursing journals has not been explored. Our research objective was to investigate the reporting of ethical approval and informed consent in clinical research published in leading international nursing journals. Methods: This is a retrospective observational study. All clinical research published in the five leading international nursing journals from the SCI Journal Citation Reports between 2015 and 2017 were retrieved to evaluate for evidence of ethical review. Results: A total of 2041 citations have been identified from the contents of all the five leading nursing journals that were published between 2015 and 2017. Out of these, 1284 clinical studies have been included and text relating to ethical review has been extracted. From these, most of prospective clinical studies (87.5%) discussed informed consent. Only half of those (52.9%) reported that written informed consent had been obtained; few (3.6%) reported oral consent, and few (6.8%) used other methods such as online consent or completion and return of data collection (such as surveys) to denote assent. Notably, 36.2% of those did not describe the method used to obtain informed consent and merely described that “consent was obtained from participants or participants agreed to join in the research”. Furthermore, whilst most of clinical studies (93.7%) mentioned ethical approval; 92.5% of those stated the name of ethical committee and interestingly, only 37.1% of those mentioned the ethical approval reference. The rates of reporting ethical approval were different between different study type, country, and whether financial support was received (all P<0.05). Conclusion: The reporting of ethics in leading international nursing journals demonstrates progress, but improvement of the transparency and the standard of ethical reporting in nursing clinical research is required

The Reproducibility of Blood Acid Base Responses in Male Collegiate Athletes Following Individualised Doses of Sodium Bicarbonate: A Randomised Controlled Crossover Study

Background: Current evidence suggests sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) should be ingested based upon the individualised alkalotic peak of either blood pH or bicarbonate (HCO3−) because of large inter-individual variations (10–180 min). If such a strategy is to be practical, the blood analyte response needs to be reproducible. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the degree of reproducibility of both time to peak (TTP) and absolute change in blood pH, HCO3− and sodium (Na+) following acute NaHCO3 ingestion. Methods: Male participants (n = 15) with backgrounds in rugby, football or sprinting completed six randomised treatments entailing ingestion of two doses of 0.2 g·kg−1 body mass (BM) NaHCO3 (SBC2a and b), two doses of 0.3 g·kg−1 BM NaHCO3 (SBC3a and b) or two control treatments (CON1a and b) on separate days. Blood analysis included pH, HCO3− and Na+ prior to and at regular time points following NaHCO3 ingestion over a 3-h period. Results: HCO3− displayed greater reproducibility than pH in intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis for both TTP (HCO3− SBC2 r = 0.77, P = 0.003; SBC3 r = 0.94, P < 0.001; pH SBC2 r = 0.62, P = 0.044; SBC3 r = 0.71, P = 0.016) and absolute change (HCO3− SBC2 r = 0.89, P < 0.001; SBC3 r = 0.76, P = 0.008; pH SBC2 r = 0.84, P = 0.001; SBC3 r = 0.62, P = 0.041). Conclusion: Our results indicate that both TTP and absolute change in HCO3− is more reliable than pH. As such, these data provide support for an individualised NaHCO3 ingestion strategy to consistently elicit peak alkalosis before exercise. Future work should utilise an individualised NaHCO3 ingestion strategy based on HCO3− responses and evaluate effects on exercise performance

Restoration of function: the holy grail of peri‐operative care

In this collaborative supplement published byAnaesthesiaand theBritish Journal of Surgery, there are reviews ofenhanced recovery after surgery in both the elective [1] andthe emergency patient [2] by Kehlet, a surgeon fromDenmark. These are complimented by reviews on thequality of recovery by Myles [3], and on patient-centredoutcomes by Ladaha and Wijeysundera [4], anaesthetistsfrom Australia and Canada, respectively

SNAP-2 EPICCS: the second Sprint National Anaesthesia Project—EPIdemiology of Critical Care after Surgery: protocol for an international observational cohort study

INTRODUCTION: The admission of high-risk patients to critical care after surgery is a recommended standard of care. Nevertheless, poor compliance against this recommendation has been repeatedly demonstrated in large epidemiological studies. It is unclear whether this is due to reasons of capacity, equipoise, poor quality clinical care or because hospitals are working creatively to create capacity for augmented care on normal surgical wards. The EPIdemiology of Critical Care after Surgery study aims to address these uncertainties. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: One-week observational cohort study in the UK and Australasia. All patients undergoing inpatient (overnight stay) surgery will be included. All will have prospective data collection on risk factors, surgical procedure and postoperative outcomes including the primary outcome of morbidity (measured using the Postoperative Morbidity Survey on day 7 after surgery) and secondary outcomes including length of stay and mortality. Data will also be collected on critical care referral and admission, surgical cancellations and critical care occupancy. The epidemiology of patient characteristics, processes and outcomes will be described. Inferential techniques (multilevel multivariable regression, propensity score matching and instrumental variable analysis) will be used to evaluate the relationship between critical care admission and postoperative outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval from the National Research Ethics Service in the UK and equivalent in Australasia. The collection of patient identifiable data without prior consent has been approved by the Confidentiality Advisory Group (England and Wales) and the Public Privacy and Patient Benefit Panel (Scotland). In these countries, patient identifiable data will be used to link prospectively collected data with national registers of death and inpatient administrative data. The study findings will be disseminated using a multimedia approach with the support of our lay collaborators, to patients, public, policy-makers, clinical and academic audiences