Biological Treatment and the Potential Risk of Adverse Postoperative Outcome in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An Open-Source Expert Panel Review of the Current Literature and Future Perspectives

Abstract Background There is widespread concern that treatment with biologic agents may be associated with suboptimal postoperative outcome after surgery for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Aim We aimed to search and analyze the literature regarding the potential association of biologic treatment on adverse postoperative outcome in patients with IBD. We used the subject as a case in point for surgical research. The aim was not to conduct a new systematic review. Method This is an updated narrative review written in a collaborative method by authors invited through Twitter via the following hashtags (#OpenSourceResearch and #SoMe4Surgery). The manuscript was presented as slides on Twitter to allow discussion of each section of the paper sequentially. A Google document was created, which was shared across social media, and comments and edits were verified by the primary author to ensure accuracy and consistency. Results Forty-one collaborators responded to the invitation, and a total of 106 studies were identified that investigated the potential association of preoperative biological treatment on postoperative outcome in patients with IBD. Most of these studies were retrospective observational cohorts: 3 were prospective, 4 experimental, and 3 population-based studies. These studies were previously analyzed in 10 systematic/narrative reviews and 14 meta-analyses. Type of biologic agents, dose, drug concentration, antidrug antibodies, interval between last dose, and types of surgery varied widely among the studies. Adjustment for confounders and bias control ranged from good to very poor. Only 10 studies reported postoperative outcome according to Clavien–Dindo classification. Conclusion Although a large number of studies investigated the potential effect of biological treatment on postoperative outcomes, many reported divergent results. There is a need for randomized controlled trials. Future studies should focus on the avoiding the weakness of prior studies we identified. Seeking collaborators and sharing information via Twitter was integral to widening the contributors/authors and peer review for this article and was an effective method of collaboration

Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

Background: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. Methods: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. Findings: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96–1·28). Interpretation: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme

Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. METHODS: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. FINDINGS: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96-1·28). INTERPRETATION: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme