Assessment of functional capacity before major non-cardiac surgery: an international, prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Functional capacity is an important component of risk assessment for major surgery. Doctors' clinical subjective assessment of patients' functional capacity has uncertain accuracy. We did a study to compare preoperative subjective assessment with alternative markers of fitness (cardiopulmonary exercise testing [CPET], scores on the Duke Activity Status Index [DASI] questionnaire, and serum N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT pro-BNP] concentrations) for predicting death or complications after major elective non-cardiac surgery. METHODS: We did a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study at 25 hospitals: five in Canada, seven in the UK, ten in Australia, and three in New Zealand. We recruited adults aged at least 40 years who were scheduled for major non-cardiac surgery and deemed to have one or more risk factors for cardiac complications (eg, a history of heart failure, stroke, or diabetes) or coronary artery disease. Functional capacity was subjectively assessed in units of metabolic equivalents of tasks by the responsible anaesthesiologists in the preoperative assessment clinic, graded as poor (10). All participants also completed the DASI questionnaire, underwent CPET to measure peak oxygen consumption, and had blood tests for measurement of NT pro-BNP concentrations. After surgery, patients had daily electrocardiograms and blood tests to measure troponin and creatinine concentrations until the third postoperative day or hospital discharge. The primary outcome was death or myocardial infarction within 30 days after surgery, assessed in all participants who underwent both CPET and surgery. Prognostic accuracy was assessed using logistic regression, receiver-operating-characteristic curves, and net risk reclassification. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2013, and March 25, 2016, we included 1401 patients in the study. 28 (2%) of 1401 patients died or had a myocardial infarction within 30 days of surgery. Subjective assessment had 19·2% sensitivity (95% CI 14·2-25) and 94·7% specificity (93·2-95·9) for identifying the inability to attain four metabolic equivalents during CPET. Only DASI scores were associated with predicting the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·83-0·99; p=0·03). INTERPRETATION: Subjectively assessed functional capacity should not be used for preoperative risk evaluation. Clinicians could instead consider a measure such as DASI for cardiac risk assessment. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Ontario Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science, UK National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia, UK Clinical Research Collaboration, Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, and Monash University.This study was supported by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Ontario Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science, UK National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia, UK Clinical Research Collaboration, Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, and Monash University (Melbourne, VIC, Australia). DNW is supported by a New Investigator Award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. DNW and BHC are partly supported by Merit Awards from the Department of Anesthesia at the University of Toronto. RMP is a Career Development Fellow for the British Journal of Anaesthesia and Royal College of Anaesthetists, and a professor for the UK National Institute for Health Research. TEFA is a clinical research training fellow for the UK Medical Research Council and British Journal of Anaesthesia. MPWG holds the British Oxygen Company Chair of Anaesthesia of the Royal College of Anaesthetists, which is awarded by the UK National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia. We thank the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital (Toronto, ON, Canada) for generously supporting the costs of international trial insurance for this study, and all the participating patients and staff across the 25 study sites

Antibody decay, T cell immunity and breakthrough infections following two SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses in inflammatory bowel disease patients treated with infliximab and vedolizumab

AbstractAnti tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drugs increase the risk of serious respiratory infection and impair protective immunity following pneumococcal and influenza vaccination. Here we report SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced immune responses and breakthrough infections in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, who are treated either with the anti-TNF antibody, infliximab, or with vedolizumab targeting a gut-specific anti-integrin that does not impair systemic immunity. Geometric mean [SD] anti-S RBD antibody concentrations are lower and half-lives shorter in patients treated with infliximab than vedolizumab, following two doses of BNT162b2 (566.7 U/mL [6.2] vs 4555.3 U/mL [5.4], p &lt;0.0001; 26.8 days [95% CI 26.2 – 27.5] vs 47.6 days [45.5 – 49.8], p &lt;0.0001); similar results are also observed with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (184.7 U/mL [5.0] vs 784.0 U/mL [3.5], p &lt;0.0001; 35.9 days [34.9 – 36.8] vs 58.0 days [55.0 – 61.3], p value &lt; 0.0001). One fifth of patients fail to mount a T cell response in both treatment groups. Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections are more frequent (5.8% (201/3441) vs 3.9% (66/1682), p = 0.0039) in patients treated with infliximab than vedolizumab, and the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection is predicted by peak anti-S RBD antibody concentration after two vaccine doses. Irrespective of the treatments, higher, more sustained antibody levels are observed in patients with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to vaccination. Our results thus suggest that adapted vaccination schedules may be required to induce immunity in at-risk, anti-TNF-treated patients.</jats:p

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