Heart failure events in randomized controlled trials for adults receiving maintenance dialysis: a meta-epidemiologic study.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Heart failure is characterized as cardiac dysfunction resulting in elevated cardiac filling pressures with symptoms and signs of congestion. Distinguishing heart failure from other causes of similar presentations in patients with kidney failure is challenging but necessary, and is needed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to accurately estimate treatment effects. The objective of this study was to review heart failure events, their diagnostic criteria and adjudication in RCTs of patients with kidney failure treated with dialysis. We hypothesized that heart failure events, diagnostic criteria and adjudication were infrequently reported in RCTs in dialysis. METHODS: We conducted a meta-epidemiologic systematic review of RCTs from high impact medical, nephrology and cardiology journals from 2000 to 2020. RCTs were eligible if they enrolled adults receiving maintenance dialysis for kidney failure and evaluated any intervention. Results. Of 561 RCTs in patients receiving dialysis, 36 (6.4%) reported heart failure events as primary (10, 27.8%) or secondary (31, 86.1%) outcomes. 10 of the 36 (27.8%) RCTs provided heart failure event diagnostic criteria and 5 of these 10 (50%) adjudicated heart failure events. These 10 RCTs included event diagnostic criteria for heart failure or heart failure hospitalizations, and their criteria included dyspnea (5/10), edema (2/10), rales/crackles (4/10), chest x-ray pulmonary edema or vascular redistribution (4/10), treatment in an acute setting (6/10) and ultrafiltration or dialysis (4/10). No study explicitly distinguished heart failure from volume overload secondary to non-adherence or underdialysis. CONCLUSION: Overall, we found that heart failure events are infrequently reported in RCTs in dialysis and are heterogeneously defined. Further research is required to develop standardized diagnostic criteria that are practical and meaningful to patients and clinicians.

Perioperative Transfusion Practices in Adults Having Noncardiac Surgery.

Surgical patients are often transfused to manage bleeding and anemia. Best practices for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion administration in patient having noncardiac surgery remains controversial and a robust evaluation and description of perioperative transfusion practices is lacking. We characterized perioperative hemoglobin concentrations and transfusion practices from the prospective VISION cohort which included 39,222 patients aged ≥45 years who had inpatient noncardiac surgery. Variations in transfusion practices were analyzed using hierarchical mixed models, and associations with mortality and complications were evaluated using a nested frailty survival model. Within the cohort, 16.1% (n = 6296) were given perioperative RBC transfusions, with the fraction declining from 20% to 13% over the 6-year study period. The proportion of patients transfused varied by surgery type from 6.4% for low-risk operations (i.e., minor surgery) to 31.5% for orthopedic surgeries. Variations were largely associated with patient hemoglobin concentrations, but also with center (range: 3.7%-27.3%) and country (0.4%-25.3%). Even after adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, comorbidities and type of surgery, both center and country were significant sources of variation in transfusion practices. Among transfused participants, 60.4% (n = 3728/6170) had at least 1 hemoglobin concentration ≤80g/L and 86.0% (n = 5305/6170) had at least 1 hemoglobin concentration ≤90g/L, suggesting that relatively restrictive transfusion strategies were used in most. The proportion of patients receiving at least 1 RBC transfusion declined from 20% to 13% over 6 years. However, there was considerable unexplained variation in transfusion practices.

Associations of inflammatory biomarkers with morbidity and mortality after noncardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Noncardiac surgery is associated with an inflammatory response. Whether increased inflammation in the perioperative period is associated with subsequent morbidity and mortality is unknown. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were systematically searched from date of inception until May 2023. Longitudinal studies were included if they reported multivariable adjusted associations of biomarkers measured preoperatively and/or within 10 days after surgery with at least one prespecified adverse outcome in noncardiac surgery patients. Data were extracted independently and in duplicate. Risk estimates were pooled using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models and reported as summary odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. The outcomes were all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events. RESULTS: Fifty-two studies with a total of 121,849 patients were included. The median follow-up was 56 [IQR, 28-63] months and the average age was 57 (±3) years. Elevated preoperative C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were associated with a higher risk of mortality (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.29-1.90, I2 = 93%, 28 studies). This association was stronger in non-cancer surgery populations (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.92-2.31, I2 = 0%, 4 studies) when compared to cancer surgery populations (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.26-1.81, I2 = 83%, 24 studies) (p for subgroup difference = 0.001). Similarly, higher postoperative CRP levels were associated with all-cause mortality (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.17-2.20, I2 = 90%, 7 studies). Higher preoperative CRP levels were associated with major cardiovascular events (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.51-2.94, I2 = 0%, 2 studies). Other preoperatively measured biomarkers associated with all-cause mortality were fibrinogen (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.05-2.09, I2 = 52%, 5 studies), interleukin-6 (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.07-1.28, I2 = 27%, 3 studies), and tumour necrosis factor-alpha (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.16-1.61, I2 = 0%, 2 studies). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Inflammatory biomarker levels in the perioperative period were associated with all-cause mortality and adverse cardiovascular events in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

Association between Complications and Death within 30 days after General Surgery: A Vascular Events in Noncardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation (VISION) substudy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the epidemiology of post-operative complications among general surgery patients, inform their relationships with 30-day mortality, and determine the attributable fraction of death of each postoperative complication. BACKGROUND: The contemporary causes of post-operative mortality among general surgery patients are not well characterized. METHODS: VISION is a prospective cohort study of adult non-cardiac surgery patients across 28 centres in 14 countries, who were followed for 30 days after surgery. For the subset of general surgery patients, a cox proportional hazards model was used to determine associations between various surgical complications and post-operative mortality. The analyses were adjusted for preoperative and surgical variables. Results were reported in adjusted hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Among 7950 patients included in the study, 240 (3.0%) patients died within 30 days of surgery. Five post-operative complications (myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery [MINS], major bleeding, sepsis, stroke, and acute kidney injury resulting in dialysis) were independently associated with death. Complications associated with the largest attributable fraction (AF) of post-operative mortality (i.e., percentage of deaths in the cohort that can be attributed to each complication, if causality were established) were major bleeding (n=1454, 18.3%, HR 2.49 95%CI 1.87-3.33, P<0.001, AF 21.2%), sepsis (n=783, 9.9%, HR 6.52, 95%CI 4.72-9.01, P<0.001, AF 15.6%), and MINS (n=980, 12.3%, HR 2.00, 95%CI 1.50-2.67, P<0.001, AF 14.4%). CONCLUSION: The complications most associated with 30-day mortality following general surgery are major bleeding, sepsis, and MINS. These findings may guide the development of mitigating strategies, including prophylaxis for perioperative bleeding.

Design and Rationale of the CLEAR SYNERGY (OASIS 9) Trial: A 2x2 Factorial Randomized Controlled Trial of Colchicine versus placebo and Spironolactone versus placebo in Patients with Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Patients experiencing myocardial infarction (MI) remain at high risk of future major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). While low-dose colchicine and spironolactone have been shown to decrease post-MI MACE, more data are required to confirm their safety and efficacy in an unselected post-MI population. Therefore, we initiated the CLEAR SYNERGY (OASIS 9) trial to address these uncertainties. METHODS: The CLEAR SYNERGY trial is a 2 × 2 factorial randomized controlled trial of low-dose colchicine 0.5 mg daily versus placebo and spironolactone 25 mg daily versus placebo in 7,062 post-MI participants who were within 72 hours of the index percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We blinded participants, healthcare providers, research personnel, and outcome adjudicators to treatment allocation. The primary outcome for colchicine is the first occurrence of the composite of cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, stroke, or unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization. The co-primary outcomes for spironolactone are (1) the composite of the total numbers of cardiovascular death or new or worsening heart failure and (2) the first occurrence of the composite of cardiovascular death, new or worsening heart failure, recurrent MI or stroke. We finished recruitment with 7,062 participants from 104 centers in 14 countries on November 8, 2022, and plan to present the results in the fall of 2024. CONCLUSIONS: CLEAR SYNERGY is a large international randomized controlled trial that will inform the effects of low-dose colchicine and spironolactone in largely unselected post-MI patients who undergo PCI. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03048825).

The relative merits of using a high-sensitivity cardiac Troponin T assay compared to a nonhigh-sensitivity troponin T assay after noncardiac surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Troponin elevation after noncardiac surgery is associated with an elevated risk of 30-day mortality. Little is known about relative merit of using a high-sensitivity Troponin T (hsTnT), the fifth-generation assay, vs the nonhigh sensitivity Troponin T (non-hsTnT), the fourth-generation assay, in the noncardiac surgery setting. We aimed to identify whether hsTnT can identify additional patients at risk that would have gone undetected with non-hsTnT measurement. METHODS: The VISION Study included 40,004 noncardiac surgery patients with postoperative troponin measurements. Among them, 1,806 patients had both fourth-generation non-hsTnT and fifth-generation hsTnT concomitant measurements (4,451 paired results). We compared the absolute concentrations, the timing, and the impact of different thresholds on predicting 30-day major cardiovascular complications (composite of death, nonfatal cardiac arrest, coronary revascularization, and congestive heart failure). RESULTS: Based on the manufacturers' threshold of 14 ng/L, 580 (32.1%) patients had postoperative hsTnT concentrations greater than the threshold, while their non-hsTnT concentrations were below the manufacturer's threshold. These 580 patients had higher risk of major cardiovascular events (OR 2.33; CI 95% 1.04-5.23; P = .049) than patients with hsTnT concentrations below the manufacturer threshold. Among patients with myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, only 50% would be detected by the fourth-generation non-hsTnT assay at 6 to 12 hours postoperative as compared to 85% with the fifth-generation hsTnT assay (P-value < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Within the first 3 postoperative days, fifth-generation hsTnT identified at least 1 in 3 patients with troponin elevation that would have gone undetected by fourth-generation non-hsTnT using published thresholds in this setting. Furthermore, fifth-generation hsTnT identified patients with an elevation earlier than fourth-generation non-hsTnT, indicating potential to improve postoperative risk stratification.

Barriers and facilitators to perioperative smoking cessation: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Smoking cessation interventions are underutilized in the surgical setting. We aimed to systematically identify the barriers and facilitators to smoking cessation in the surgical setting. METHODS: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) framework for scoping reviews, we searched 5 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) for quantitative or qualitative studies published in English (since 2000) evaluating barriers and facilitators to perioperative smoking cessation interventions. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis and mapped to the theoretical domains framework (TDF). RESULTS: From 31 studies, we identified 23 unique barriers and 13 facilitators mapped to 11 of the 14 TDF domains. The barriers were within the domains of knowledge (e.g., inadequate knowledge of smoking cessation interventions) in 23 (74.2%) studies; environmental context and resources (e.g., lack of time to deliver smoking cessation interventions) in 19 (61.3%) studies; beliefs about capabilities (e.g., belief that patients are nervous about surgery/diagnosis) in 14 (45.2%) studies; and social/professional role and identity (e.g., surgeons do not believe it is their role to provide smoking cessation interventions) in 8 (25.8%) studies. Facilitators were mainly within the domains of environmental context and resources (e.g., provision of quit smoking advice as routine surgical care) in 15 (48.4%) studies, reinforcement (e.g., surgery itself as a motivator to kickstart quit attempts) in 8 (25.8%) studies, and skills (e.g., smoking cessation training and awareness of guidelines) in 5 (16.2%) studies. CONCLUSION: The identified barriers and facilitators are actionable targets for future studies aimed at translating evidence informed smoking cessation interventions into practice in perioperative settings. More research is needed to evaluate how targeting these barriers and facilitators will impact smoking outcomes.

A prospective cohort study of chronic postsurgical pain after ambulatory surgeries.

OBJECTIVE: The incidence and factors associated with chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) after ambulatory surgeries have not been well studied. Our primary objective was to determine the incidence of CPSP and secondary objectives included assessment of intensity of CPSP, incidence of moderate-to-severe CPSP, and exploration of factors associated with CPSP. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study of ambulatory surgery patients having procedures with a potential to cause moderate-to-severe postoperative pain. All patients had participated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) showing no difference in achieving satisfactory analgesia in a recovery unit with either morphine or hydromorphone. CPSP was defined as chronic pain that developed or increased in intensity after the surgical procedure and is localized to the surgical field or within the innervation territory of a nerve in the surgical field, and has persisted for 3 months post-surgery, with the exclusion of other causes of pain. Incidences of CPSP were reported as rate (%) with 95% CI, and intensity using a 0-10 numerical rating scale (95% CI). We used logistic regression to explore factors associated with CPSP adjusting for baseline catastrophizing and depression. RESULTS: Among 402 RCT patients, 208 provided data for the 3-month outcome. Incidence of CPSP was 18.8% (39/208), 95% CI = 13.7%-24.7% and 78% (28/39) of them had moderate-to-severe CPSP. Average CPSP intensity was 5.5, 95% CI = 4.7-6.4. Every unit increase in pain over the first 24 h was significantly associated with increased odds of moderate-to-severe CPSP at 3 months; odds ratio = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.04-1.58. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one in five patients develop CPSP after ambulatory surgeries with the majority of them having moderate-to-severe pain. Considering that acute pain after discharge is associated with CPSP and that there are no formal care pathways to address this need, studies need to focus on evaluating feasible strategies to provide continuing care.

Prevention of persistent pain with lidocaine infusions in breast cancer surgery (PLAN): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Persistent pain is a common yet debilitating complication after breast cancer surgery. Given the pervasive effects of this pain disorder on the patient and healthcare system, post-mastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS) is becoming a larger population health problem, especially as the prognosis and survivorship of breast cancer increases. Interventions that prevent persistent pain after breast surgery are needed to improve the quality of life of breast cancer survivors. An intraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion has emerged as a potential intervention to decrease the incidence of PMPS. We aim to determine the definitive effects of this intervention in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. METHODS: PLAN will be a multicenter, parallel-group, blinded, 1:1 randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 1,602 patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Adult patients scheduled for a lumpectomy or mastectomy will be randomized to receive an intravenous 2% lidocaine bolus of 1.5 mg/kg with induction of anesthesia, followed by a 2.0 mg/kg/h infusion until the end of surgery, or placebo solution (normal saline) at the same volume. The primary outcome will be the incidence of persistent pain at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include the incidence of pain and opioid consumption at 1 h, 1-3 days, and 12 months after surgery, as well as emotional, physical, and functional parameters, and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to provide definitive evidence on an intervention that could potentially prevent persistent pain after breast cancer surgery. If this trial is successful, lidocaine infusion would be integrated as standard of care in breast cancer management. This inexpensive, widely available, and easily administered intervention has the potential to reduce pain and suffering in an already afflicted patient population, decrease the substantial costs of chronic pain management, potentially decrease opioid use, and improve the quality of life in patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04874038, Dr. James Khan. Date of registration: May 5, 2021).

Timing of Major Postoperative Bleeding Among Patients Undergoing Surgery.

Importance: Although major bleeding is among the most common and prognostically important perioperative complications, the relative timing of bleeding events is not well established. This information is critical for preventing bleeding complications and for informing the timing of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Objective: To determine the timing of postoperative bleeding among patients undergoing surgery for up to 30 days after surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study. Patients aged 45 years or older who underwent inpatient noncardiac surgery were recruited in 14 countries between 2007 and 2013, with follow-up until December 2014. Data analysis was performed from June to July 2023. Exposure: Noncardiac surgery requiring overnight hospital admission. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome (postoperative major bleeding) was a composite of the timing of the following bleeding outcomes: (1) bleeding leading to transfusion, (2) bleeding leading to a postoperative hemoglobin level less than 7 g/dL, (3) bleeding leading to death, and (4) bleeding associated with reintervention. Each of the components of the composite primary outcome (1-4) and bleeding independently associated with mortality after noncardiac surgery, which was defined as a composite of outcomes 1 to 3, were secondary outcomes. Results: Among 39 813 patients (median [IQR] age, 63.0 [54.8-72.5] years; 19 793 women [49.7%]), there were 5340 major bleeding events (primary outcome) in 4638 patients (11.6%) within the first 30 days after surgery. Of these events, 42.7% (95% CI, 40.9%-44.6%) occurred within 24 hours after surgery, 77.7% (95% CI, 75.8%-79.5%) by postoperative day 7, 88.3% (95% CI, 86.5%-90.2%) by postoperative day 14, and 94.6% (95% CI, 92.7%-96.5%) by postoperative day 21. Within 48 hours of surgery, 56.2% of major bleeding events, 56.2% of bleeding leading to transfusion, 56.1% of bleeding independently associated with mortality after noncardiac surgery, 51.8% of bleeding associated with hemoglobin less than 7 g/dL, and 51.8% of bleeding associated with reintervention had occurred. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, of the major postoperative bleeding events in the first 30 days, more than three-quarters occurred during the first postoperative week. These findings are useful for researchers for the planning future clinical research and for clinicians in prevention of bleeding-related surgical complications and in decision-making regarding starting of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis after surgery.

Associations of preoperative anaemia with healthcare resource use and outcomes after colorectal surgery: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative anaemia is common in patient undergoing colorectal surgery. Understanding the population-level costs of preoperative anaemia will inform development and evaluation of anaemia management at health system levels. METHODS: This was a population-based cohort study using linked, routinely collected data, including residents from Ontario, Canada, aged ≥18 yr who underwent an elective colorectal resection between 2012 and 2022. Primary exposure was preoperative anaemia (haemoglobin <130 g L-1 in males; <120 g L-1 in females). Primary outcome was 30-day costs in 2022 Canadian dollars (CAD), from the perspective of a publicly funded healthcare system. Secondary outcomes included red blood cell transfusion, major adverse events (MAEs), length of stay (LOS), days alive at home (DAH), and readmissions. RESULTS: We included 54,286 patients, with mean 65.3 (range 18-102) years of age and 49.0% females, among which 21 264 (39.2%) had preoperative anaemia. There was an absolute adjusted cost increase of $2671 per person at 30 days after surgery attributable to preoperative anaemia (ratio of means [RoM] 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.06). Compared with the control group, 30-day risks of transfusion (odds ratio [OR] 4.34, 95% CI 4.04-4.66), MAEs (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03-1.27), LOS (RoM 1.08, 95% CI 1.07-1.10), and readmissions (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.08-1.24) were higher in the anaemia group, with reduced DAH (RoM 0.95, 95% CI 0.95-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately $2671 CAD per person in 30-day health system costs are attributable to preoperative anaemia after colorectal surgery in Ontario, Canada.

Incidence and Risk Factors of Chronic Postoperative Pain in Same-day Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The amount of same-day surgery has increased markedly worldwide in recent decades, but there remains limited evidence on chronic postsurgical pain in this setting. METHODS: This study assessed pain 90 days after ambulatory surgery in an international, multicenter prospective cohort study of patients at least 45 yr old with comorbidities or at least 65 yr old. Pain was assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory. Chronic postsurgical pain was defined as a change of more than 1 point in self-rated average pain at the surgical site between baseline and 90 days, and moderate to severe chronic postsurgical pain was defined as a score greater than 4 in self-rated average pain at the surgical site at 90 days. Risk factors for chronic postsurgical pain were identified using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Between November 2021 and January 2023, a total of 2,054 participants were included, and chronic postsurgical pain occurred in 12% of participants, of whom 93.1% had new chronic pain at the surgical site (i.e., participants without pain before surgery). Moderate to severe chronic postsurgical pain occurred in 9% of overall participants. Factors associated with chronic postsurgical pain were active smoking (odds ratio, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.76), orthopedic surgery (odds ratio, 4.7; 95% CI, 2.24 to 9.7), plastic surgery (odds ratio, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.97 to 9.2), breast surgery (odds ratio, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.29 to 5.8), vascular surgery (odds ratio, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.09 to 6.7), and ethnicity (i.e., for Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, odds ratio, 3.41; 95% CI, 1.68 to 6.9 and for First Nations/native persons, odds ratio, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.05 to 15.4). CONCLUSIONS: Persistent postsurgical pain after same-day surgery is common, is usually moderate to severe in nature, and occurs mostly in patients without chronic pain before surgery.

Effects of RBT-1 on preconditioning response biomarkers in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft or heart valve surgery: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial.

Background: RBT-1 is a combination drug of stannic protoporfin (SnPP) and iron sucrose (FeS) that elicits a preconditioning response through activation of antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and iron-scavenging pathways, as measured by heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1), interleukin-10 (IL-10), and ferritin, respectively. Our primary aim was to determine whether RBT-1 administered before surgery would safely and effectively elicit a preconditioning response in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Methods: This phase 2, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, adaptive trial, conducted in 19 centres across the USA, Canada, and Australia, enrolled patients scheduled to undergo non-emergent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and/or heart valve surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Patients were randomised (1:1:1) to receive either a single intravenous infusion of high-dose RBT-1 (90 mg SnPP/240 mg FeS), low-dose RBT-1 (45 mg SnPP/240 mg FeS), or placebo within 24-48 h before surgery. The primary outcome was a preoperative preconditioning response, measured by a composite of plasma HO-1, IL-10, and ferritin. Safety was assessed by adverse events and laboratory parameters. Prespecified adaptive criteria permitted early stopping and enrichment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04564833. Findings: Between Aug 4, 2021, and Nov 9, 2022, of 135 patients who were enrolled and randomly allocated to a study group (46 high-dose, 45 low-dose, 44 placebo), 132 (98%) were included in the primary analysis (46 high-dose, 42 low-dose, 44 placebo). At interim, the trial proceeded to full enrollment without enrichment. RBT-1 led to a greater preconditioning response than did placebo at high-dose (geometric least squares mean [GLSM] ratio, 3.58; 95% CI, 2.91-4.41; p < 0.0001) and low-dose (GLSM ratio, 2.62; 95% CI, 2.11-3.24; p < 0.0001). RBT-1 was generally well tolerated by patients. The primary drug-related adverse event was dose-dependent photosensitivity, observed in 12 (26%) of 46 patients treated with high-dose RBT-1 and in six (13%) of 45 patients treated with low-dose RBT-1 (safety population). Interpretation: RBT-1 demonstrated a statistically significant cytoprotective preconditioning response and a manageable safety profile. Further research is needed. A phase 3 trial is planned. Funding: Renibus Therapeutics, Inc.

Topical Versus Intravenous Tranexamic Acid in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: The DEPOSITION Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although intravenous tranexamic acid is used in cardiac surgery to reduce bleeding and transfusion, topical tranexamic acid results in lower plasma concentrations compared to intravenous tranexamic acid, which may lower the risk of seizures. We aimed to determine whether topical tranexamic acid reduces the risk of in-hospital seizure without increasing the risk of transfusion among cardiac surgery patients. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double dummy, blinded, randomized controlled trial of patients recruited by convenience sampling in academic hospitals undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Between September 17, 2019, and November 28, 2023, a total of 3242 patients from 16 hospitals in 6 countries were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive either intravenous tranexamic acid (control) through surgery or topical tranexamic acid (treatment) at the end of surgery. The primary outcome was seizure, and the secondary outcome was red blood cell transfusion. After the last planned interim analysis-when 75% of anticipated participants had completed follow up-the Data and Safety Monitoring Board recommended to terminate the trial, and upon unblinding, the Operations Committee stopped the trial for safety. RESULTS: Among 3242 randomized patients (mean age, 66.0 years; 77.7% male), in-hospital seizure occurred in 4 of 1624 patients (0.2%) in the topical group and in 11 of 1628 patients (0.7%) in the intravenous group (absolute risk difference, -0.5%; 95% CI, -0.9 to 0.03; P = .07). Red blood cell transfusion occurred in 570 patients (35.1%) in the topical group and in 433 (26.8%) in the intravenous group (absolute risk difference, 8.3%; 95% CI, 5.2 to 11.5; P = .007). The absolute risk difference in transfusion of ≥4 units of red blood cells in the topical group compared to the intravenous group was 8.2% (95% CI, 3.4 to 12.9). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients having cardiac surgery, topical administration of tranexamic acid resulted in an 8.3% absolute increase in transfusion without reducing the incidence of seizure, compared to intravenous tranexamic acid.

European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) expert consensus statement on perioperative myocardial infarction after cardiac surgery.

Cardiac surgery may lead to myocardial damage and release of cardiac biomarkers through various mechanisms such as cardiac manipulation, systemic inflammation, myocardial hypoxia, cardioplegic arrest and ischaemia caused by coronary or graft occlusion. Defining perioperative myocardial infarction (PMI) after cardiac surgery presents challenges, and the association between the current PMI definitions and postoperative outcomes remains uncertain. To address these challenges, the European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) facilitated collaboration among a multidisciplinary group to evaluate the existing evidence on the mechanisms, diagnosis and prognostic implications of PMI after cardiac surgery. The review found that the postoperative troponin value thresholds associated with an increased risk of mortality are markedly higher than those proposed by all the current definitions of PMI. Additionally, it was found that large postoperative increases in cardiac biomarkers are prognostically relevant even in absence of additional supportive signs of ischaemia. A new algorithm for PMI detection after cardiac surgery was also proposed, and a consensus was reached within the group that establishing a prognostically relevant definition of PMI is critically needed in the cardiovascular field and that PMI should be included in the primary composite outcome of coronary intervention trials.

Machine Learning Approaches for the Image-Based Identification of Surgical Wound Infections: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSIs) occur frequently and impact patients and health care systems. Remote surveillance of surgical wounds is currently limited by the need for manual assessment by clinicians. Machine learning (ML)-based methods have recently been used to address various aspects of the postoperative wound healing process and may be used to improve the scalability and cost-effectiveness of remote surgical wound assessment. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to provide an overview of the ML methods that have been used to identify surgical wound infections from images. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of ML approaches for visual detection of SSIs following the JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) methodology. Reports of participants in any postoperative context focusing on identification of surgical wound infections were included. Studies that did not address SSI identification, surgical wounds, or did not use image or video data were excluded. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science Core Collection, IEEE Xplore, Compendex, and arXiv for relevant studies in November 2022. The records retrieved were double screened for eligibility. A data extraction tool was used to chart the relevant data, which was described narratively and presented using tables. Employment of TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis) guidelines was evaluated and PROBAST (Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool) was used to assess risk of bias (RoB). RESULTS: In total, 10 of the 715 unique records screened met the eligibility criteria. In these studies, the clinical contexts and surgical procedures were diverse. All papers developed diagnostic models, though none performed external validation. Both traditional ML and deep learning methods were used to identify SSIs from mostly color images, and the volume of images used ranged from under 50 to thousands. Further, 10 TRIPOD items were reported in at least 4 studies, though 15 items were reported in fewer than 4 studies. PROBAST assessment led to 9 studies being identified as having an overall high RoB, with 1 study having overall unclear RoB. CONCLUSIONS: Research on the image-based identification of surgical wound infections using ML remains novel, and there is a need for standardized reporting. Limitations related to variability in image capture, model building, and data sources should be addressed in the future.

Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of the Procedure-specific Risks of Thrombosis and Bleeding in General Abdominal, Colorectal, Upper Gastrointestinal, and Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To provide procedure-specific estimates of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding after abdominal surgery. BACKGROUND: The use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis represents a trade-off that depends on VTE and bleeding risks that vary between procedures; their magnitude remains uncertain. METHODS: We identified observational studies reporting procedure-specific risks of symptomatic VTE or major bleeding after abdominal surgery, adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up, and estimated cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery, stratified by VTE risk groups, and rated evidence certainty. RESULTS: After eligibility screening, 285 studies (8,048,635 patients) reporting on 40 general abdominal, 36 colorectal, 15 upper gastrointestinal, and 24 hepatopancreatobiliary surgery procedures proved eligible. Evidence certainty proved generally moderate or low for VTE and low or very low for bleeding requiring reintervention. The risk of VTE varied substantially among procedures: in general abdominal surgery from a median of <0.1% in laparoscopic cholecystectomy to a median of 3.7% in open small bowel resection, in colorectal from 0.3% in minimally invasive sigmoid colectomy to 10.0% in emergency open total proctocolectomy, and in upper gastrointestinal/hepatopancreatobiliary from 0.2% in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy to 6.8% in open distal pancreatectomy for cancer. CONCLUSIONS: VTE thromboprophylaxis provides net benefit through VTE reduction with a small increase in bleeding in some procedures (eg, open colectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy), whereas the opposite is true in others (eg, laparoscopic cholecystectomy and elective groin hernia repairs). In many procedures, thromboembolism and bleeding risks are similar, and decisions depend on individual risk prediction and values and preferences regarding VTE and bleeding.

Risk of thrombosis and bleeding in gynecologic noncancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide procedure-specific estimates of the risk for symptomatic venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in noncancer gynecologic surgeries. DATA SOURCES: We conducted comprehensive searches on Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Furthermore, we performed separate searches for randomized trials that addressed the effects of thromboprophylaxis. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible studies were observational studies that enrolled ≥50 adult patients who underwent noncancer gynecologic surgery procedures and that reported the absolute incidence of at least 1 of the following: symptomatic pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, bleeding that required reintervention (including re-exploration and angioembolization), bleeding that led to transfusion, or postoperative hemoglobin level <70 g/L. METHODS: A teams of 2 reviewers independently assessed eligibility, performed data extraction, and evaluated the risk of bias of the eligible articles. We adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up and used the median value from studies to determine the cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery stratified by patient venous thromboembolism risk factors and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the evidence certainty. RESULTS: We included 131 studies (1,741,519 patients) that reported venous thromboembolism risk estimates for 50 gynecologic noncancer procedures and bleeding requiring reintervention estimates for 35 procedures. The evidence certainty was generally moderate or low for venous thromboembolism and low or very low for bleeding requiring reintervention. The risk for symptomatic venous thromboembolism varied from a median of <0.1% for several procedures (eg, transvaginal oocyte retrieval) to 1.5% for others (eg, minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy, 1.2%-4.6% across patient venous thromboembolism risk groups). Venous thromboembolism risk was <0.5% for 30 (60%) of the procedures; 0.5% to 1.0% for 10 (20%) procedures; and >1.0% for 10 (20%) procedures. The risk for bleeding the require reintervention varied from <0.1% (transvaginal oocyte retrieval) to 4.0% (open myomectomy). The bleeding requiring reintervention risk was <0.5% in 17 (49%) procedures, 0.5% to 1.0% for 12 (34%) procedures, and >1.0% in 6 (17%) procedures. CONCLUSION: The risk for venous thromboembolism in gynecologic noncancer surgery varied between procedures and patients. Venous thromboembolism risks exceeded the bleeding risks only among selected patients and procedures. Although most of the evidence is of low certainty, the results nevertheless provide a compelling rationale for restricting pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis to a minority of patients who undergo gynecologic noncancer procedures.