Study Protocol: The Heart and Brain Study

Background: It is well-established that what’s good for the heart is good for the brain; vascular factors such as hypertension, diabetes, and high cholesterol, and genetic factors such as the apolipoprotein E4 allele increase the risk of developing both cardiovascular disease and dementia. However, the mechanisms underlying the heart-brain association remain unclear. Recent evidence suggests that impairments in vascular phenotypes and cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) may play an important role in cognitive decline. The Heart and Brain Study combines state-of-the-art vascular ultrasound, cerebrovascular magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and cognitive testing in participants of the long-running Whitehall II Imaging cohort to examine these physiological processes together. This paper describes the study protocol, data pre-processing and overarching objectives. Methods and Design: The 775 participants of the Whitehall II Imaging cohort, aged 65 years or older in 2019, have received cardiovascular and clinical assessments at 5-year-intervals since 1985, as well as a 3T brain MRI scan and neuropsychological tests between 2012-2016 (Whitehall II Wave MRI-1). Approximately 20% of this cohort are selected for the Heart and Brain Study, which involves a single testing session at the University of Oxford (Wave MRI-2). Between 2019-2023, participants will undergo ultrasound scans of the ascending aorta and common carotid arteries, measures of central and peripheral blood pressure, and 3T MRI scans to measure CVR in response to 5% carbon dioxide in air, vessel-selective cerebral blood flow, and cerebrovascular lesions. The structural and diffusion MRI scans and neuropsychological battery conducted at Wave MRI-1 will also be repeated. Using this extensive life-course data, the Heart and Brain Study will examine how 30-year trajectories of vascular risk throughout midlife (40-70 years) affect vascular phenotypes, cerebrovascular health, longitudinal brain atrophy and cognitive decline at older ages. Discussion: The study will generate one of the most comprehensive datasets to examine the longitudinal determinants of the heart-brain association. We will evaluate novel physiological processes in order to describe the optimal window for managing vascular risk in order to delay cognitive decline. Ultimately, the Heart and Brain Study will inform strategies to identify at-risk individuals for targeted interventions to prevent or delay dementia

Prospective observational cohort study on grading the severity of postoperative complications in global surgery research

Background The Clavien–Dindo classification is perhaps the most widely used approach for reporting postoperative complications in clinical trials. This system classifies complication severity by the treatment provided. However, it is unclear whether the Clavien–Dindo system can be used internationally in studies across differing healthcare systems in high- (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods This was a secondary analysis of the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), a prospective observational cohort study of elective surgery in adults. Data collection occurred over a 7-day period. Severity of complications was graded using Clavien–Dindo and the simpler ISOS grading (mild, moderate or severe, based on guided investigator judgement). Severity grading was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data are presented as frequencies and ICC values (with 95 per cent c.i.). The analysis was stratified by income status of the country, comparing HICs with LMICs. Results A total of 44 814 patients were recruited from 474 hospitals in 27 countries (19 HICs and 8 LMICs). Some 7508 patients (16·8 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication, equivalent to 11 664 complications in total. Using the ISOS classification, 5504 of 11 664 complications (47·2 per cent) were graded as mild, 4244 (36·4 per cent) as moderate and 1916 (16·4 per cent) as severe. Using Clavien–Dindo, 6781 of 11 664 complications (58·1 per cent) were graded as I or II, 1740 (14·9 per cent) as III, 2408 (20·6 per cent) as IV and 735 (6·3 per cent) as V. Agreement between classification systems was poor overall (ICC 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·20 to 0·55), and in LMICs (ICC 0·23, 0·05 to 0·38) and HICs (ICC 0·46, 0·25 to 0·59). Conclusion Caution is recommended when using a treatment approach to grade complications in global surgery studies, as this may introduce bias unintentionally

The surgical safety checklist and patient outcomes after surgery: a prospective observational cohort study, systematic review and meta-analysis

© 2017 British Journal of Anaesthesia Background: The surgical safety checklist is widely used to improve the quality of perioperative care. However, clinicians continue to debate the clinical effectiveness of this tool. Methods: Prospective analysis of data from the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), an international observational study of elective in-patient surgery, accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature. The exposure was surgical safety checklist use. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcome was postoperative complications. In the ISOS cohort, a multivariable multi-level generalized linear model was used to test associations. To further contextualise these findings, we included the results from the ISOS cohort in a meta-analysis. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Results: We included 44 814 patients from 497 hospitals in 27 countries in the ISOS analysis. There were 40 245 (89.8%) patients exposed to the checklist, whilst 7508 (16.8%) sustained ≥1 postoperative complications and 207 (0.5%) died before hospital discharge. Checklist exposure was associated with reduced mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.49 (0.32–0.77); P\u3c0.01], but no difference in complication rates [OR 1.02 (0.88–1.19); P=0.75]. In a systematic review, we screened 3732 records and identified 11 eligible studies of 453 292 patients including the ISOS cohort. Checklist exposure was associated with both reduced postoperative mortality [OR 0.75 (0.62–0.92); P\u3c0.01; I2=87%] and reduced complication rates [OR 0.73 (0.61–0.88); P\u3c0.01; I2=89%). Conclusions: Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine

Critical care admission following elective surgery was not associated with survival benefit: prospective analysis of data from 27 countries

This was an investigator initiated study funded by Nestle Health Sciences through an unrestricted research grant, and by a National Institute for Health Research (UK) Professorship held by RP. The study was sponsored by Queen Mary University of London