SNAP-2 EPICCS: the second Sprint National Anaesthesia Project—EPIdemiology of Critical Care after Surgery: protocol for an international observational cohort study

INTRODUCTION: The admission of high-risk patients to critical care after surgery is a recommended standard of care. Nevertheless, poor compliance against this recommendation has been repeatedly demonstrated in large epidemiological studies. It is unclear whether this is due to reasons of capacity, equipoise, poor quality clinical care or because hospitals are working creatively to create capacity for augmented care on normal surgical wards. The EPIdemiology of Critical Care after Surgery study aims to address these uncertainties. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: One-week observational cohort study in the UK and Australasia. All patients undergoing inpatient (overnight stay) surgery will be included. All will have prospective data collection on risk factors, surgical procedure and postoperative outcomes including the primary outcome of morbidity (measured using the Postoperative Morbidity Survey on day 7 after surgery) and secondary outcomes including length of stay and mortality. Data will also be collected on critical care referral and admission, surgical cancellations and critical care occupancy. The epidemiology of patient characteristics, processes and outcomes will be described. Inferential techniques (multilevel multivariable regression, propensity score matching and instrumental variable analysis) will be used to evaluate the relationship between critical care admission and postoperative outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval from the National Research Ethics Service in the UK and equivalent in Australasia. The collection of patient identifiable data without prior consent has been approved by the Confidentiality Advisory Group (England and Wales) and the Public Privacy and Patient Benefit Panel (Scotland). In these countries, patient identifiable data will be used to link prospectively collected data with national registers of death and inpatient administrative data. The study findings will be disseminated using a multimedia approach with the support of our lay collaborators, to patients, public, policy-makers, clinical and academic audiences

Restoration of function: the holy grail of peri‐operative care

In this collaborative supplement published byAnaesthesiaand theBritish Journal of Surgery, there are reviews ofenhanced recovery after surgery in both the elective [1] andthe emergency patient [2] by Kehlet, a surgeon fromDenmark. These are complimented by reviews on thequality of recovery by Myles [3], and on patient-centredoutcomes by Ladaha and Wijeysundera [4], anaesthetistsfrom Australia and Canada, respectively

Defining clinically important perioperative blood loss and transfusion for the Standardised Endpoints for Perioperative Medicine (StEP) collaborative: a protocol for a scoping review

INTRODUCTION: 'Standardised Endpoints for Perioperative Medicine' (StEP) is an international collaboration undertaking development of consensus-based consistent definitions for endpoints in perioperative clinical trials. Inconsistency in endpoint definitions can make interpretation of trial results more difficult, especially if conflicting evidence is present. Furthermore, this inconsistency impedes evidence synthesis and meta-analyses. The goals of StEP are to harmonise definitions for clinically meaningful endpoints and specify standards for endpoint reporting in clinical trials. To help inform this endeavour, we aim to conduct a scoping review to systematically characterise the definitions of clinically important endpoints in the existing published literature on perioperative blood loss and transfusion. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review will be conducted using the widely adopted framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley, with modifications from Levac. We refined our methods with guidance from research librarians as well as researchers and clinicians with content expertise. The electronic literature search will involve several databases including Medline, PubMed-not-Medline and Embase. Our review has three objectives, namely to (1) identify definitions of significant blood loss and transfusion used in previously published large perioperative randomised trials; (2) identify previously developed consensus-based definitions for significant blood loss and transfusion in perioperative medicine and related fields; and (3) describe the association between different magnitudes of blood loss and transfusion with postoperative outcomes. The multistage review process for each question will involve two reviewers screening abstracts, reading full-text articles and performing data extraction. The abstracted data will be organised and subsequently analysed in an iterative process. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review of the previously published literature does not require research ethics approval. The results will be used to inform a consensus-based process to develop definitions of clinically important perioperative blood loss and transfusion. The results of the scoping review will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal

Systematic review and consensus definitions for the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative: patient-centred outcomes

BACKGROUND: Patient-centred outcomes are increasingly used in perioperative clinical trials. The Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative aims to define which measures should be used in future research to facilitate comparison between studies and to enable robust evidence synthesis. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to create a longlist of patient satisfaction, health-related quality of life, functional status, patient well-being, and life-impact measures for consideration. A three-stage Delphi consensus process involving 89 international experts was then conducted in order to refine this list into a set of recommendations. RESULTS: The literature review yielded six patient-satisfaction measures, seven generic health-related quality-of-life measures, eight patient well-being measures, five functional-status measures, and five life-impact measures for consideration. The Delphi response rates were 92%, 87%, and 100% for Rounds 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Three additional measures were added during the Delphi process as a result of contributions from the StEP group members. Firm recommendations have been made about one health-related quality-of-life measure (EuroQol 5 Dimension, five-level version with visual analogue scale), one functional-status measure (WHO Disability Assessment Schedule version 2.0, 12-question version), and one life-impact measure (days alive and out of hospital at 30 days after surgery). Recommendations with caveats have been made about the Bauer patient-satisfaction measure and two life-impact measures (days alive and out of hospital at 1 yr after surgery, and discharge destination). CONCLUSIONS: Several patient-centred outcome measures have been recommended for use in future perioperative studies. We suggest that every clinical study should consider using at least one patient-centred outcome within a suite of endpoints

Measurement of Exercise Tolerance before Surgery (METS) study: a protocol for an international multicentre prospective cohort study of cardiopulmonary exercise testing prior to major non-cardiac surgery

Introduction: Preoperative functional capacity is considered an important risk factor for cardiovascular and other complications of major non-cardiac surgery. Nonetheless, the usual approach for estimating preoperative functional capacity, namely doctors’ subjective assessment, may not accurately predict postoperative morbidity or mortality. 3 possible alternatives are cardiopulmonary exercise testing; the Duke Activity Status Index, a standardised questionnaire for estimating functional capacity; and the serum concentration of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT pro-BNP), a biomarker for heart failure and cardiac ischaemia.Methods and analysis: The Measurement of Exercise Tolerance before Surgery (METS) Study is a multicentre prospective cohort study of patients undergoing major elective non-cardiac surgery at 25 participating study sites in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK. We aim to recruit 1723 participants. Prior to surgery, participants undergo symptom-limited cardiopulmonary exercise testing on a cycle ergometer, complete the Duke Activity Status Index questionnaire, undergo blood sampling to measure serum NT pro-BNP concentration and have their functional capacity subjectively assessed by their responsible doctors. Participants are followed for 1?year after surgery to assess vital status, postoperative complications and general health utilities. The primary outcome is all-cause death or non-fatal myocardial infarction within 30?days after surgery, and the secondary outcome is all-cause death within 1?year after surgery. Both receiver-operating-characteristic curve methods and risk reclassification table methods will be used to compare the prognostic accuracy of preoperative subjective assessment, peak oxygen consumption during cardiopulmonary exercise testing, Duke Activity Status Index scores and serum NT pro-BNP concentration.Ethics and dissemination: The METS Study has received research ethics board approval at all sites. Participant recruitment began in March 2013, and 1-year follow-up is expected to finish in 2016. Publication of the results of the METS Study is anticipated to occur in 2017.<br/

Perioperative structure and process quality and safety indicators: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Clinical indicators assess healthcare structures, processes, and outcomes. While used widely, the exact number and level of scientific evidence of these indicators remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the number, type, and evidence base of clinical process and structure indicators currently available for quality and safety measurement in perioperative care. METHODS: We performed a systematic review searching Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane, Google Scholar, and System for Information in Grey Literature in Europe databases for English language human studies in adults (age >18) published in the past 10 years (January 2005–January 2016). We also included professional and governmental body publications and guidelines describing the development, validation, and use of structure and process indicators in perioperative care. RESULTS: We identified 43 860 journal articles and 43 relevant indicator program publications. From these, we identified a total of 1282 clinical indicators, split into structure (36%, n=463) and process indicators (64%, n=819). The dimensions of quality most frequently addressed were effectiveness (38%, n=475) and patient safety (29%, n=363). The majority of indicators (53%, n=675) did not have a level of evidence ascribed in their literature. Patient-centred metrics accounted for the fewest published clinical indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread use, the majority of clinical indicators are not based on a strong level of scientific evidence. There may be scope in setting standards for the development and validation process of clinical indicators. Most indicators focus on the effectiveness, safety, and efficiency of care

Protocol for the "Michigan Awareness Control Study": A prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing electronic alerts based on bispectral index monitoring or minimum alveolar concentration for the prevention of intraoperative awareness

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The incidence of intraoperative awareness with explicit recall is 1-2/1000 cases in the United States. The Bispectral Index monitor is an electroencephalographic method of assessing anesthetic depth that has been shown in one prospective study to reduce the incidence of awareness in the high-risk population. In the B-Aware trial, the number needed to treat in order to prevent one case of awareness in the high-risk population was 138. Since the number needed to treat and the associated cost of treatment would be much higher in the general population, the efficacy of the Bispectral Index monitor in preventing awareness in all anesthetized patients needs to be clearly established. This is especially true given the findings of the B-Unaware trial, which demonstrated no significant difference between protocols based on the Bispectral Index monitor or minimum alveolar concentration for the reduction of awareness in high risk patients.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>To evaluate efficacy in the general population, we are conducting a prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing the Bispectral Index monitor to a non-electroencephalographic gauge of anesthetic depth. The total recruitment for the study is targeted for 30,000 patients at both low and high risk for awareness. We have developed a novel algorithm that is capable of real-time analysis of our electronic perioperative information system. In one arm of the study, anesthesia providers will receive an electronic page if the Bispectral Index value is >60. In the other arm of the study, anesthesia providers will receive a page if the age-adjusted minimum alveolar concentration is <0.5. Our minimum alveolar concentration algorithm is sensitive to both inhalational anesthetics and intravenous sedative-hypnotic agents.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Awareness during general anesthesia is a persistent problem and the role of the Bispectral Index monitor in its prevention is still unclear. The Michigan Awareness Control Study is the largest prospective trial of awareness prevention ever conducted.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Clinical Trial NCT00689091</p

Developing and validating subjective and objective risk-assessment measures for predicting mortality after major surgery: An international prospective cohort study

Background: Preoperative risk prediction is important for guiding clinical decision-making and resource allocation. Clinicians frequently rely solely on their own clinical judgement for risk prediction rather than objective measures. We aimed to compare the accuracy of freely available objective surgical risk tools with subjective clinical assessment in predicting 30-day mortality. Methods and findings: We conducted a prospective observational study in 274 hospitals in the United Kingdom (UK), Australia, and New Zealand. For 1 week in 2017, prospective risk, surgical, and outcome data were collected on all adults aged 18 years and over undergoing surgery requiring at least a 1-night stay in hospital. Recruitment bias was avoided through an ethical waiver to patient consent; a mixture of rural, urban, district, and university hospitals participated. We compared subjective assessment with 3 previously published, open-access objective risk tools for predicting 30-day mortality: the Portsmouth-Physiology and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality (P-POSSUM), Surgical Risk Scale (SRS), and Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT). We then developed a logistic regression model combining subjective assessment and the best objective tool and compared its performance to each constituent method alone. We included 22,631 patients in the study: 52.8% were female, median age was 62 years (interquartile range [IQR] 46 to 73 years), median postoperative length of stay was 3 days (IQR 1 to 6), and inpatient 30-day mortality was 1.4%. Clinicians used subjective assessment alone in 88.7% of cases. All methods overpredicted risk, but visual inspection of plots showed the SORT to have the best calibration. The SORT demonstrated the best discrimination of the objective tools (SORT Area Under Receiver Operating Characteristic curve [AUROC] = 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88–0.92; P-POSSUM = 0.89, 95% CI 0.88–0.91; SRS = 0.85, 95% CI 0.82–0.87). Subjective assessment demonstrated good discrimination (AUROC = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.86–0.91) that was not different from the SORT (p = 0.309). Combining subjective assessment and the SORT improved discrimination (bootstrap optimism-corrected AUROC = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.90–0.94) and demonstrated continuous Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.06–0.20, p < 0.001) compared with subjective assessment alone. Decision-curve analysis (DCA) confirmed the superiority of the SORT over other previously published models, and the SORT–clinical judgement model again performed best overall. Our study is limited by the low mortality rate, by the lack of blinding in the ‘subjective’ risk assessments, and because we only compared the performance of clinical risk scores as opposed to other prediction tools such as exercise testing or frailty assessment. Conclusions: In this study, we observed that the combination of subjective assessment with a parsimonious risk model improved perioperative risk estimation. This may be of value in helping clinicians allocate finite resources such as critical care and to support patient involvement in clinical decision-making

A novel multivariate STeady-state index during general ANesthesia (STAN)

The assessment of the adequacy of general anesthesia for surgery, namely the nociception/anti-nociception balance, has received wide attention from the scientific community. Monitoring systems based on the frontal EEG/EMG, or autonomic state reactions (e.g. heart rate and blood pressure) have been developed aiming to objectively assess this balance. In this study a new multivariate indicator of patients' steady-state during anesthesia (STAN) is proposed, based on wavelet analysis of signals linked to noxious activation. A clinical protocol was designed to analyze precise noxious stimuli (laryngoscopy/intubation, tetanic, and incision), under three different analgesic doses; patients were randomized to receive either remifentanil 2.0, 3.0 or 4.0 ng/ml. ECG, PPG, BP, BIS, EMG and [Formula: see text] were continuously recorded. ECG, PPG and BP were processed to extract beat-to-beat information, and [Formula: see text] curve used to estimate the respiration rate. A combined steady-state index based on wavelet analysis of these variables, was applied and compared between the three study groups and stimuli (Wilcoxon signed ranks, Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests). Following institutional approval and signing the informed consent thirty four patients were enrolled in this study (3 excluded due to signal loss during data collection). The BIS index of the EEG, frontal EMG, heart rate, BP, and PPG wave amplitude changed in response to different noxious stimuli. Laryngoscopy/intubation was the stimulus with the more pronounced response [Formula: see text]. These variables were used in the construction of the combined index STAN; STAN responded adequately to noxious stimuli, with a more pronounced response to laryngoscopy/intubation (18.5-43.1 %, [Formula: see text]), and the attenuation provided by the analgesic, detecting steady-state periods in the different physiological signals analyzed (approximately 50 % of the total study time). A new multivariate approach for the assessment of the patient steady-state during general anesthesia was developed. The proposed wavelet based multivariate index responds adequately to different noxious stimuli, and attenuation provided by the analgesic in a dose-dependent manner for each stimulus analyzed in this study.The first author was supported by a scholarship from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT SFRH/BD/35879/2007). The authors would also like to acknowledge the support of UISPA—System Integration and Process Automation Unit—Part of the LAETA (Associated Laboratory of Energy, Transports and Aeronautics) a I&D Unit of the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), Portugal. FCT support under project PEst-OE/EME/LA0022/2013.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio