Rationale and design of the PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3) : a randomized controlled trial evaluating tranexamic acid and a strategy to minimize hypotension in noncardiac surgery

Background For patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, bleeding and hypotension are frequent and associated with increased mortality and cardiovascular complications. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic agent with the potential to reduce surgical bleeding; however, there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety in noncardiac surgery. Although usual perioperative care is commonly consistent with a hypertension-avoidance strategy (i.e., most patients continue their antihypertensive medications throughout the perioperative period and intraoperative mean arterial pressures of 60 mmHg are commonly accepted), a hypotension-avoidance strategy may improve perioperative outcomes. Methods The PeriOperative Ischemic Evaluation (POISE)-3 Trial is a large international randomized controlled trial designed to determine if TXA is superior to placebo for the composite outcome of life-threatening, major, and critical organ bleeding, and non-inferior to placebo for the occurrence of major arterial and venous thrombotic events, at 30 days after randomization. Using a partial factorial design, POISE-3 will additionally determine the effect of a hypotension-avoidance strategy versus a hypertension-avoidance strategy on the risk of major cardiovascular events, at 30 days after randomization. The target sample size is 10,000 participants. Patients ≥45 years of age undergoing noncardiac surgery, with or at risk of cardiovascular and bleeding complications, are randomized to receive a TXA 1 g intravenous bolus or matching placebo at the start and at the end of surgery. Patients, health care providers, data collectors, outcome adjudicators, and investigators are blinded to the treatment allocation. Patients on ≥ 1 chronic antihypertensive medication are also randomized to either of the two blood pressure management strategies, which differ in the management of patient antihypertensive medications on the morning of surgery and on the first 2 days after surgery, and in the target mean arterial pressure during surgery. Outcome adjudicators are blinded to the blood pressure treatment allocation. Patients are followed up at 30 days and 1 year after randomization. Discussion Bleeding and hypotension in noncardiac surgery are common and have a substantial impact on patient prognosis. The POISE-3 trial will evaluate two interventions to determine their impact on bleeding, cardiovascular complications, and mortality

Effect of a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy versus a hypertension-avoidance strategy on the risk of acute kidney injury : a clinical research protocol for a substudy of the POISE-3 randomized clinical trial

Background: Most patients who take antihypertensive medications continue taking them on the morning of surgery and during the perioperative period. However, growing evidence suggests this practice may contribute to perioperative hypotension and a higher risk of complications. This protocol describes an acute kidney injury substudy of the Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3) trial, which is testing the effect of a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy versus a hypertension-avoidance strategy in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Objective: To conduct a substudy of POISE-3 to determine whether a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy reduces the risk of acute kidney injury compared with a hypertension-avoidance strategy. Design: Randomized clinical trial with 1:1 randomization to the intervention (a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy) or control (a hypertension-avoidance strategy). Intervention: If the presurgery systolic blood pressure (SBP) is <130 mmHg, all antihypertensive medications are withheld on the morning of surgery. If the SBP is ≥130 mmHg, some medications (but not angiotensin receptor blockers [ACEIs], angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], or renin inhibitors) may be continued in a stepwise manner. During surgery, the patients’ mean arterial pressure (MAP) is maintained at ≥80 mmHg. During the first 48 hours after surgery, some antihypertensive medications (but not ACEIs, ARBs, or renin inhibitors) may be restarted in a stepwise manner if the SBP is ≥130 mmHg. Control: Patients receive their usual antihypertensive medications before and after surgery. The patients’ MAP is maintained at ≥60 mmHg from anesthetic induction until the end of surgery. Setting: Recruitment from 108 centers in 22 countries from 2018 to 2021. Patients: Patients (~6800) aged ≥45 years having noncardiac surgery who have or are at risk of atherosclerotic disease and who routinely take antihypertensive medications. Measurements: The primary outcome of the substudy is postoperative acute kidney injury, defined as an increase in serum creatinine concentration of either ≥26.5 μmol/L (≥0.3 mg/dL) within 48 hours of randomization or ≥50% within 7 days of randomization. Methods: The primary analysis (intention-to-treat) will examine the relative risk and 95% confidence interval of acute kidney injury in the intervention versus control group. We will repeat the primary analysis using alternative definitions of acute kidney injury and examine effect modification by preexisting chronic kidney disease, defined as a prerandomization estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Results: Substudy results will be analyzed in 2022. Limitations: It is not possible to mask patients or providers to the intervention; however, objective measures will be used to assess acute kidney injury. Conclusions: This substudy will provide generalizable estimates of the effect of a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy on the risk of acute kidney injury

Accuracy of physicians in differentiating type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarction based on clinical information

Background Physicians commonly judge whether a myocardial infarction (MI) is type 1 (thrombotic) vs type 2 (supply/demand mismatch) based on clinical information. Little is known about the accuracy of physicians’ clinical judgement in this regard. We aimed to determine the accuracy of physicians’ judgement in the classification of type 1 vs type 2 MI in perioperative and nonoperative settings. Methods We performed an online survey using cases from the Optical Coherence Tomographic Imaging of Thrombus (OPTIMUS) Study, which investigated the prevalence of a culprit lesion thrombus based on intracoronary optical coherence tomography (OCT) in patients experiencing MI. Four MI cases, 2 perioperative and 2 nonoperative, were selected randomly, stratified by etiology. Physicians were provided with the patient’s medical history, laboratory parameters, and electrocardiograms. Physicians did not have access to intracoronary OCT results. The primary outcome was the accuracy of physicians' judgement of MI etiology, measured as raw agreement between physicians and intracoronary OCT findings. Fleiss’ kappa and Gwet’s AC1 were calculated to correct for chance. Results The response rate was 57% (308 of 536). Respondents were 62% male; median age was 45 years (standard deviation ± 11); 45% had been in practice for > 15 years. Respondents’ overall accuracy for MI etiology was 60% (95% confidence interval [CI] 57%-63%), including 63% (95% CI 60%-68%) for nonoperative cases, and 56% (95% CI 52%-60%) for perioperative cases. Overall chance-corrected agreement was poor (kappa = 0.05), consistent across specialties and clinical scenarios. Conclusions Physician accuracy in determining MI etiology based on clinical information is poor. Physicians should consider results from other testing, such as invasive coronary angiography, when determining MI etiology

The Number of Patients and Events Required to Limit the Risk of Overestimation of Intervention Effects in Meta-Analysis—A Simulation Study

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses including a limited number of patients and events are prone to yield overestimated intervention effect estimates. While many assume bias is the cause of overestimation, theoretical considerations suggest that random error may be an equal or more frequent cause. The independent impact of random error on meta-analyzed intervention effects has not previously been explored. It has been suggested that surpassing the optimal information size (i.e., the required meta-analysis sample size) provides sufficient protection against overestimation due to random error, but this claim has not yet been validated. METHODS: We simulated a comprehensive array of meta-analysis scenarios where no intervention effect existed (i.e., relative risk reduction (RRR) = 0%) or where a small but possibly unimportant effect existed (RRR = 10%). We constructed different scenarios by varying the control group risk, the degree of heterogeneity, and the distribution of trial sample sizes. For each scenario, we calculated the probability of observing overestimates of RRR>20% and RRR>30% for each cumulative 500 patients and 50 events. We calculated the cumulative number of patients and events required to reduce the probability of overestimation of intervention effect to 10%, 5%, and 1%. We calculated the optimal information size for each of the simulated scenarios and explored whether meta-analyses that surpassed their optimal information size had sufficient protection against overestimation of intervention effects due to random error. RESULTS: The risk of overestimation of intervention effects was usually high when the number of patients and events was small and this risk decreased exponentially over time as the number of patients and events increased. The number of patients and events required to limit the risk of overestimation depended considerably on the underlying simulation settings. Surpassing the optimal information size generally provided sufficient protection against overestimation. CONCLUSIONS: Random errors are a frequent cause of overestimation of intervention effects in meta-analyses. Surpassing the optimal information size will provide sufficient protection against overestimation

An international prospective cohort study evaluating major vascular complications among patients undergoing noncardiac surgery : the VISION Pilot Study

Objectives: Among patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, our objectives were to: (1) determine the feasibility of undertaking a large international cohort study; (2) estimate the current incidence of major perioperative vascular events; (3) compare the observed event rates to the expected event rates according to the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI); and (4) provide an estimate of the proportion of myocardial infarctions without ischemic symptoms that may go undetected without perioperative troponin monitoring. Design: An international prospective cohort pilot study. Participants: Patients undergoing noncardiac surgery who were >45 years of age, receiving a general or regional anesthetic, and requiring hospital admission. Measurements: Patients had a Roche fourth-generation Elecsys troponin T measurement collected 6 to 12 hours postoperatively and on the first, second, and third days after surgery. Our primary outcome was major vascular events (a composite of vascular death [i.e., death from vascular causes], nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal cardiac arrest, and nonfatal stroke) at 30 days after surgery. Our definition for perioperative myocardial infarction included: (1) an elevated troponin T measurement with at least one of the following defining features: ischemic symptoms, development of pathologic Q waves, ischemic electrocardiogram changes, coronary artery intervention, or cardiac imaging evidence of myocardial infarction; or (2) autopsy findings of acute or healing myocardial infarction. Results: We recruited 432 patients across 5 hospitals in Canada, China, Italy, Colombia, and Brazil. During the first 30 days after surgery, 6.3% (99% confidence interval 3.9–10.0) of the patients suffered a major vascular event (10 vascular deaths, 16 nonfatal myocardial infarctions, and 1 nonfatal stroke). The observed event rate was increased 6-fold compared with the event rate expected from the RCRI. Of the 18 patients who suffered a myocardial infarction, 12 (66.7%) had no ischemic symptoms to suggest myocardial infarction. Conclusions: This study suggests that major perioperative vascular events are common, that the RCRI underestimates risk, and that monitoring troponins after surgery can assist physicians to avoid missing myocardial infarction. These results underscore the need for a large international prospective cohort study

Association between angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker use prior to major elective surgery and the risk of acute dialysis

Background: Some studies but not others suggest angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) use prior to major surgery associates with a higher risk of postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) and death. Methods: We conducted a large population-based retrospective cohort study of patients aged 66 years or older who received major elective surgery in 118 hospitals in Ontario, Canada from 1995 to 2010 (n = 237,208). We grouped the cohort into ACEi/ARB users (n = 101,494) and non-users (n = 135,714) according to whether the patient filled at least one prescription for an ACEi or ARB (or not) in the 120 days prior to surgery. Our study outcomes were acute kidney injury treated with dialysis (AKI-D) within 14 days of surgery and all-cause mortality within 90 days of surgery. Results: After adjusting for potential confounders, preoperative ACEi/ARB use versus non-use was associated with 17% lower risk of post-operative AKI-D (adjusted relative risk (RR): 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.71 to 0.98) and 9% lower risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted RR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.87 to 0.95). Propensity score matched analyses provided similar results. The association between ACEi/ARB and AKI-D was significantly modified by the presence of preoperative chronic kidney disease (CKD) (P value for interaction < 0.001) with the observed association evident only in patients with CKD (CKD - adjusted RR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.50 to 0.78 versus No CKD: adjusted RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.24). Conclusions: In this cohort study, preoperative ACEi/ARB use versus non-use was associated with a lower risk of AKI-D, and the association was primarily evident in patients with CKD. Large, multi-centre randomized trials are needed to inform optimal ACEi/ARB use in the peri-operative setting

How to design high quality acupuncture trials—a consensus informed by evidence

An international panel including patients, clinicians, researchers, acupuncture and surgery trialists, statisticians, and experts in clinical epidemiology and methodology have developed new guidance for randomised controlled trials in acupuncture. It addresses the most prevalent and critical concerns of current acupuncture trials and will help funding agencies, trial registers, and journal editors to evaluate the relevance, importance, and quality of submitted trial proposals and completed trial

Randomized trials fit for the 21st century. A joint opinion from the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation

© The Author(s) 2022. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. When citing this article, a citation from any of the journals listed is appropriate. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected] controlled trials are the cornerstone for reliably evaluating therapeutic strategies. However, during the past 25 years, the rules and regulations governing randomized trials and their interpretation have become increasingly burdensome, and the cost and complexity of trials has become prohibitive. The present model is unsustainable, and the development of potentially effective treatments is often stopped prematurely on financial grounds, while existing drug treatments or non-drug interventions (such as screening strategies or management tools) may not be assessed reliably. The current ‘best regulatory practice’ environment, and a lack of consensus on what that requires, too often makes it unduly difficult to undertake efficient randomized trials able to provide reliable evidence about the safety and efficacy of potentially valuable interventions. Inclusion of underrepresented population groups and lack of diversity also remain among the challenges.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio