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

Machine learning-based prediction of adverse events following an acute coronary syndrome (PRAISE): a modelling study of pooled datasets

Background The accuracy of current prediction tools for ischaemic and bleeding events after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains insufficient for individualised patient management strategies. We developed a machine learning-based risk stratification model to predict all-cause death, recurrent acute myocardial infarction, and major bleeding after ACS.Methods Different machine learning models for the prediction of 1-year post-discharge all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and major bleeding (defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5) were trained on a cohort of 19 826 adult patients with ACS (split into a training cohort [80%] and internal validation cohort [20%]) from the BleeMACS and RENAMI registries, which included patients across several continents. 25 clinical features routinely assessed at discharge were used to inform the models. The best-performing model for each study outcome (the PRAISE score) was tested in an external validation cohort of 3444 patients with ACS pooled from a randomised controlled trial and three prospective registries. Model performance was assessed according to a range of learning metrics including area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).Findings The PRAISE score showed an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI 0.78-0.85) in the internal validation cohort and 0.92 (0.90-0.93) in the external validation cohort for 1-year all-cause death; an AUC of 0.74 (0.70-0.78) in the internal validation cohort and 0.81 (0.76-0.85) in the external validation cohort for 1-year myocardial infarction; and an AUC of 0.70 (0.66-0.75) in the internal validation cohort and 0.86 (0.82-0.89) in the external validation cohort for 1-year major bleeding.Interpretation A machine learning-based approach for the identification of predictors of events after an ACS is feasible and effective. The PRAISE score showed accurate discriminative capabilities for the prediction of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and major bleeding, and might be useful to guide clinical decision making. Copyright (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved