UK pneumonectomy outcome study (UKPOS): a prospective observational study of pneumonectomy outcome

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In order to assess the short term risks of pneumonectomy for lung cancer in contemporary practice a one year prospective observational study of pneumonectomy outcome was made. Current UK practice for pneumonectomy was observed to note patient and treatment factors associated with major complications.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study was performed. All 35 UK thoracic surgical centres were invited to submit data to the study. All adult patients undergoing pneumonectomy for lung cancer between 1 January and 31 December 2005 were included. Patients undergoing pleuropneumonectomy, extended pneumonectomy, completion pneumonectomy following previous lobectomy and pneumonectomy for benign disease, were excluded from the study.</p> <p>The main outcome measure was suffering a major complication. Major complications were defined as: death within 30 days of surgery; treated cardiac arrhythmia or hypotension; unplanned intensive care admission; further surgery or inotrope usage.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>312 pneumonectomies from 28 participating centres were entered. The major complication incidence was: 30-day mortality 5.4%; treated cardiac arrhythmia 19.9%; unplanned intensive care unit admission 9.3%; further surgery 4.8%; inotrope usage 3.5%. Age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status ≥ P3, pre-operative diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) and epidural analgesia were collectively the strongest risk factors for major complications. Major complications prolonged median hospital stay by 2 days.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The 30 day mortality rate was less than 8%, in agreement with the British Thoracic Society guidelines. Pneumonectomy was associated with a high rate of major complications. Age, ASA physical status, DLCO and epidural analgesia appeared collectively most associated with major complications.</p

Mini-Stern Trial: A randomised trial comparing mini-sternotomy to full median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement

Objective Aortic valve replacement (AVR) can be performed either through full median sternotomy (FS) or upper mini-sternotomy (MS). The Mini-Stern trial aimed to establish whether MS leads to quicker postoperative recovery and shorter hospital stay after first-time isolated AVR. Methods This pragmatic, open-label, parallel RCT compared MS with FS for first-time isolated AVR in two UK NHS hospitals. Primary endpoints were duration of postoperative hospital stay and the time to fitness for discharge from hospital after AVR, analysed in the intent-to-treat population. Results In this RCT, 222 patients were recruited and randomised (118 MS, 104 FS). Compared to FS patients, MS patients had longer hospital stay (mean 9.5 vs. 8.6 days) and took longer to achieve fitness for discharge home (mean 8.5 vs. 7.5 days). Adjusting for valve type, sex and surgeon, hazard ratios (HR) from Cox models did not show a statistically significant effect of MS (relative to FS) on either hospital stay (HR 0.874, 95% CI 0.668-1.143, p-value 0.3246) or time to fitness for discharge (HR 0.907, 95% CI 0.688-1.197, p-value 0.4914). During mean follow up of 760 days (MS:745 and FS:777 days), 12 (10%) MS and 7 (7%) FS patients died (HR 1.871, 95% CI 0.723-4.844, p-value 0.1966). Average extra cost for MS was £1,714, during the first 12 months after AVR. Conclusions Compared to FS for AVR, MS did not result in shorter hospital stay, faster recovery or improved survival and was not cost-effective. MS approach is not superior to FS for performing AVR

Effectiveness of incentive spirometry in patients following thoracotomy and lung resection including those at high risk for developing pulmonary complications.

BACKGROUND Following thoracotomy, patients frequently receive routine respiratory physiotherapy which may include incentive spirometry, a breathing technique characterised by deep breathing performed through a device offering visual feedback. This type of physiotherapy is recommended and considered important in the care of thoracic surgery patients, but high quality evidence for specific interventions such as incentive spirometry remains lacking. METHODS 180 patients undergoing thoracotomy and lung resection participated in a prospective single-blind randomised controlled trial. All patients received postoperative breathing exercises, airway clearance and early mobilisation; the control group performed thoracic expansion exercises and the intervention group performed incentive spirometry. RESULTS No difference was observed between the intervention and control groups in the mean drop in forced expiratory volume in 1 s on postoperative day 4 (40% vs 41%, 95% CI -5.3% to 4.2%, p=0.817), the frequency of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) (12.5% vs 15%, 95% CI -7.9% to 12.9%, p=0.803) or in any other secondary outcome measure. A high-risk subgroup (defined by ≥2 independent risk factors; age ≥75 years, American Society of Anaesthesiologists score ≥3, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), smoking status, body mass index ≥30) also demonstrated no difference in outcomes, although a larger difference in the frequency of PPC was observed (14% vs 23%) with 95% CIs indicating possible benefit of intervention (-7.4% to 2.6%). CONCLUSIONS Incentive spirometry did not improve overall recovery of lung function, frequency of PPC or length of stay. For patients at higher risk for the development of PPC, in particular those with COPD or current/recent ex-smokers, there were larger observed actual differences in the frequency of PPC in favour of the intervention, indicating that investigations regarding the physiotherapy management of these patients need to be developed further

Patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting have a poor outcome after myocardial infarction: an analysis of the VALsartan in acute myocardial iNfarcTion trial (VALIANT)

The number of patients presenting with an acute myocardial infarction (MI) and prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is increasing. We compared the baseline characteristics, treatment, and clinical outcomes of patients with and without prior CABG in the VALIANT trial. Of the 14 703 patients with heart failure (HF), left ventricular systolic dysfunction, or both enrolled in VALIANT, 1026 (7%) had prior CABG. Prior CABG patients were older [mean age (SD): 67 (10) vs. 65 (12) years; P less than 0.0001], had more comorbidity, and more frequent non-Q wave MI (66 vs. 30%; P less than 0.0001). At hospital presentation, prior CABG patients received less aspirin (82 vs. 90%; P less than 0.0001) and thrombolysis (21 vs. 36%; P less than 0.0001), but had a similar rate of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (14 vs. 15%; P = 0.2). Prior CABG patients were more likely to experience the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, MI, HF, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or stroke; 3 year Kaplan-Meier rate, 64 vs. 39% (adjusted hazard ratio 1.29, 95% confidence interval 1.17-1.43; P less than 0.0001). Patients with prior CABG had a worse clinical profile and experienced more fatal and non-fatal outcomes. Greater recognition is necessary for these high-risk patients including optimization of evidence-based secondary preventive therapy