Home-based exercise prehabilitation to improve disease-free survival and return to intended oncologic treatment after cancer surgery in older adults with frailty: a secondary analysis of a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Improving survivorship for patients with cancer and frailty is a priority. We aimed to estimate whether exercise prehabilitation improves disease-free survival and return to intended oncologic treatment for older adults with frailty undergoing cancer surgery. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of the oncologic outcomes of a randomized trial of patients ≥ 60 yr of age with frailty undergoing elective cancer surgery. Participants were randomized either to a supported, home-based exercise program plus nutritional guidance or to usual care. Outcomes for this analysis were one-year disease-free survival and return to intended oncologic treatment. We estimated complier average causal effects to account for intervention adherence. RESULTS: We randomized 204 participants (102 per arm); 182 were included in our modified intention-to-treat population and, of these participants, 171/182 (94%) had complete one-year follow up. In the prehabilitation group, 18/94 (11%) died or experienced cancer recurrence, compared with 19/88 (11%) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 2.34; P = 0.49). Return to intended oncologic treatment occurred in 24/94 (29%) patients the prehabilitation group vs 20/88 (23%) in the usual care group (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.84 to 2.77; P = 0.16). Complier average causal effects directionally diverged for disease-free survival (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.20 to 4.08; P = 0.90) and increased the point estimate for return to treatment (HR, 2.04; 95% CI, 0.52 to 7.97; P = 0.30), but in both cases the CIs included 1. CONCLUSIONS: Randomization to home-based exercise prehabilitation did not lead to significantly better disease-free survival or earlier return to intended oncologic treatment in older adults with frailty undergoing cancer surgery. Our results could inform future trials powered for more plausible effect sizes, especially for the return to intended oncologic treatment outcome. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02934230 ); first submitted 22 August 2016.

RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: L'amélioration de la survie des personnes atteintes de cancer et de fragilité est une priorité. Nous avons cherché à estimer si la préadaptation physique améliore la survie sans maladie et le retour au traitement oncologique prévu pour les personnes âgées fragiles bénéficiant d'une chirurgie du cancer. MéTHODE: Nous avons effectué une analyse secondaire des issues oncologiques d'une étude randomisée de patient·es âgé·es de 60 ans ou plus atteint·es de fragilité bénéficiant d'une chirurgie carcinologique non urgente. Nous avons randomisé les personnes participantes à un programme d'exercice à domicile accompagné de conseils nutritionnels ou à recevoir les soins habituels. Les critères d'évaluation de cette analyse étaient la survie sans maladie à un an et le retour au traitement oncologique prévu. Nous avons estimé les effets moyens causaux d'observance pour tenir compte de l'adhérence à l'intervention. RéSULTATS: Nous avons randomisé 204 participant·es (102 par bras); 182 personnes ont été incluses dans notre population modifiée en intention de traiter et, parmi ces participant·es, 171/182 (94%) ont fait l'objet d'un suivi complet à un an. Dans le groupe préadaptation, 18/94 (11%) personnes sont décédées ou ont connu une récidive du cancer, contre 19/88 (11 %) dans le groupe témoin (rapport de risque [HR], 1,25; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95%, 0.66 à 2.34; P = 0.49). Le retour au traitement oncologique prévu a eu lieu chez 24 patient·es sur 94 (29 %) dans le groupe préadaptation vs 20/88 (23 %) dans le groupe de soins habituels (RR, 1.53; IC 95%, 0.84 à 2.77; P = 0.16). Les effets moyens causaux d'observance ont divergé directionnellement pour la survie sans maladie (RR, 0.91; IC 95%, 0.20 à 4.08; P = 0.90) et augmenté l'estimation ponctuelle du retour au traitement (RR, 2.04; IC 95%, 0.52 à 7.97; P = 0.30), mais dans les deux cas, les IC comprenaient 1. CONCLUSION: La randomisation pour la préadaptation physique à domicile n'a pas entraîné d'amélioration significative de la survie sans maladie ou de retour plus précoce au traitement oncologique prévu chez les personnes âgées fragiles bénéficiant d'une chirurgie du cancer. Nos résultats pourraient éclairer de futures études alimentées par des tailles d'effet plus plausibles, en particulier pour le critère de retour prévu au traitement oncologique. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02934230 ); première soumission le 22 août 2016.

Association of preoperative anaesthesia consultation prior to elective noncardiac surgery with patient and health system outcomes: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Surgical volumes and use of preoperative anaesthesia consultations are increasing. However, contemporary data estimating the association between preoperative anaesthesia consultation and patient (days alive and at home [DAH30], mortality) and system (costs, length of stay, and readmissions) outcomes are not available. METHODS: We conducted a population-based comparative effectiveness study using linked health administrative data among patients aged ≥40 yr who underwent intermediate-risk to high-risk elective, inpatient, noncardiac surgery in Ontario, Canada (2009-17). Our primary outcome was DAH30. Secondary outcomes included DAH90, 30-day and 1-yr mortality, 30-day health system costs, length of index admission, and 30-day readmissions. Propensity score overlap weights were used to adjust for confounders. Prespecified effect modifier analyses focused on high-risk subgroups. RESULTS: Among 364 149 patients, 274 365 (75.3%) received a preoperative anaesthesia consultation. No adjusted association was found (22.5 days vs 22.5 days; adjusted ratio of means 1.00, 95% CI 1.00-1.00) between consultation and DAH30 in the full population. We identified significant effect modification (significantly more DAH30) among patients with ischaemic heart disease, ASA physical status ≥4, frailty index score ≥0.21, and who underwent vascular surgery. Secondary outcomes were associated with preoperative consultation, including greater DAH90, decreased length of stay, lower 30-day and 1-yr mortality, and reduced 30-day costs. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative anaesthesia consultation was not associated with greater DAH30 across the overall study population. However, important potential benefits were observed among high-risk subgroups. Research is needed to identify optimal patient populations and consultation processes.

Barriers and facilitators to participation in exercise prehabilitation before cancer surgery for older adults with frailty: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Older adults with frailty are at an increased risk of adverse outcomes after surgery. Exercise before surgery (exercise prehabilitation) may reduce adverse events and improve recovery after surgery. However, adherence with exercise therapy is often low, especially in older populations. The purpose of this study was to qualitatively assess the barriers and facilitators to participating in exercise prehabilitation from the perspective of older people with frailty participating in the intervention arm of a randomized trial. METHODS: This was a research ethics approved, nested descriptive qualitative study within a randomized controlled trial of home-based exercise prehabilitation vs. standard care with older patients (≥ 60 years) having elective cancer surgery, and who were living with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale ≥ 4). The intervention was a home-based prehabilitation program for at least 3 weeks before surgery that involved aerobic activity, strength and stretching, and nutritional advice. After completing the prehabilitation program, participants were asked to partake in a semi-structured interview informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Qualitative analysis was guided by the TDF. RESULTS: Fifteen qualitative interviews were completed. Facilitators included: 1) the program being manageable and suitable to older adults with frailty, 2) adequate resources to support engagement, 3) support from others, 4) a sense of control, intrinsic value, noticing progress and improving health outcomes and 5) the program was enjoyable and facilitated by previous experience. Barriers included: 1) pre-existing conditions, fatigue and baseline fitness, 2) weather, and 3) guilt and frustration when unable to exercise. A need for individualization and variety was offered as a suggestion by participants and was therefore described as both a barrier and facilitator. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based exercise prehabilitation is feasible and acceptable to older people with frailty preparing for cancer surgery. Participants identified that a home-based program was manageable, easy to follow with helpful resources, included valuable support from the research team, and they reported self-perceived health benefits and a sense of control over their health. Future studies and implementation should consider increased personalization based on health and fitness, psychosocial support and modifications to aerobic exercises in response to adverse weather conditions.

Identifying barriers and facilitators to routine preoperative frailty assessment: a qualitative interview study.

PURPOSE: Preoperative frailty assessment is recommended by multiple practice guidelines and may improve outcomes, but it is not routinely performed. The barriers and facilitators of routine preoperative frailty assessment have not been formally assessed. Our objective was to perform a theory-guided evaluation of barriers and facilitators to preoperative frailty assessment. METHODS: This was a research ethics board-approved qualitative study involving physicians who perform preoperative assessment (consultant and resident anesthesiologists and consultant surgeons). Semistructured interviews were conducted by a trained research assistant informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify barriers and facilitators to frailty assessment. Interview transcripts were independently coded by two research assistants to identify specific beliefs relevant to each theoretical domain. RESULTS: We interviewed 28 clinicians (nine consultant anesthesiologists, nine consultant surgeons, and ten anesthesiology residents). Six domains (Knowledge [100%], Social Influences [96%], Social Professional Role and Identity [96%], Beliefs about Capabilities [93%], Goals [93%], and Intentions [93%]) were identified by > 90% of respondents. The most common barriers identified were prioritization of other aspects of assessment (e.g., cardio/respiratory) and a lack of awareness of evidence and guidelines supporting frailty assessment. The most common facilitators were a high degree of familiarity with frailty, recognition of the importance of frailty assessment, and strong intentions to perform frailty assessment. CONCLUSION: Barriers and facilitators to preoperative frailty assessment are multidimensional, but generally consistent across different types of perioperative physicians. Knowledge of barriers and facilitators can guide development of evidence-based strategies to increase frailty assessment.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'évaluation préopératoire de la fragilité est recommandée par plusieurs lignes directrices de pratique et pourrait améliorer les devenirs, mais elle n'est pas systématiquement réalisée. Les obstacles et les facilitateurs de l'évaluation de routine de la fragilité préopératoire n'ont pas été officiellement évalués. Notre objectif était de mener une évaluation théorique des obstacles et des facilitateurs de l'évaluation préopératoire de la fragilité. MéTHODE: Il s'agissait d'une étude qualitative approuvée par le comité d'éthique de la recherche impliquant des médecins menant des évaluations préopératoires (anesthésiologistes, résidents en anesthésiologie et chirurgiens). Des entrevues semi-structurées ont été réalisées par un assistant de recherche formé en se fondant sur le Cadre des domaines théoriques afin d'identifier les obstacles et les facilitateurs à l'évaluation de la fragilité. Les transcriptions des entrevues ont été codées de manière indépendante par deux assistants de recherche afin d'identifier les croyances spécifiques pertinentes à chaque domaine théorique. RéSULTATS: Nous avons interrogé 28 cliniciens (neuf anesthésiologistes, neuf chirurgiens et dix résidents en anesthésiologie). Six domaines (Connaissances [100 %], Influences sociales [96 %], Rôle et identité socio-professionnels [96 %], Croyances concernant les capacités [93 %], Objectifs [93 %] et Intentions [93 %]) ont été identifiés par > 90 % des répondants. Les obstacles les plus fréquemment cités étaient la priorisation accordée à d'autres aspects de l'évaluation (p. ex., cardio/respiratoire) et le manque de connaissances des données probantes et des lignes directrices à l'appui de l'évaluation de la fragilité. Les facilitateurs les plus courants étaient un degré élevé de familiarité avec la fragilité, la reconnaissance de l'importance de l'évaluation de la fragilité et de fortes intentions de réaliser une évaluation de la fragilité. CONCLUSION: Les obstacles et les facilitateurs de l'évaluation préopératoire de la fragilité sont multidimensionnels, mais généralement uniformes parmi les différents types de médecins périopératoires. La connaissance des obstacles et des facilitateurs peut guider l'élaboration de stratégies fondées sur des données probantes pour augmenter l'évaluation de la fragilité.

Home-based prehabilitation with exercise to improve postoperative recovery for older adults with frailty having cancer surgery: the PREHAB randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a state of vulnerability as a result of decreased reserves. Prehabilitation may increase reserve and improve postoperative outcomes. Our objective was to determine if home-based prehabilitation improves postoperative functional recovery in older adults with frailty having cancer surgery. METHODS: This double blind randomised trial enrolled people ≥60 yr having elective cancer surgery and ≥3 weeks from enrolment to surgery as eligible. Participation in a remotely supported, home-based exercise prehabilitation program plus nutritional guidance was compared with standard care plus written advice on age-appropriate activity and nutrition. The primary outcome was 6-min walk test (6MWT) distance at the first postoperative clinic visit. Secondary outcomes included physical performance, quality of life, disability, length of stay, non-home discharge, and 30-day readmission. RESULTS: Of 543 patients assessed, 254 were eligible and 204 (80%) were randomised (102 per arm); 182 (94 intervention and 88 control) had surgery and were analysed. Mean age was 74 yr and 57% were female. Mean duration of participation was 5 weeks, mean adherence was 61% (range 0%-100%). We found no significant difference in 6MWT at follow-up (+14 m, 95% confidence interval -26-55 m, P=0.486), or for secondary outcomes. Analyses using a prespecified adherence definition of ≥80% supported improvements in 6MWT distance, complication count, and disability. CONCLUSIONS: A home-based prehabilitation program did not significantly improve postoperative recovery or other outcomes in older adults with frailty having cancer surgery. Program adherence may be a key mediator of prehabilitation efficacy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02934230.

Development and evaluation of an evidence-based, theory-grounded online Clinical Frailty Scale tutorial.

INTRODUCTION: Frailty is a robust predictor of adverse outcomes in older people. Practice guidelines recommend routine screening for frailty; however, this does not occur regularly. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a validated, feasible instrument that can be used in a variety of clinical settings and is associated with many adverse outcomes. Our objective was to develop and evaluate an online training module to guide frailty assessment using the CFS. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team of clinical experts developed an evidence-based, theory-grounded online training module for users who wished to perform frailty assessment using the CFS. The module was prospectively evaluated for user satisfaction, effectiveness and feasibility using a standardised questionnaire. Qualitative feedback was analysed with thematic analysis. RESULTS: Version 1 of the CFS module was used 627 times from 21 October 2019 to 24 March 2020. Satisfaction, effectiveness and feasibility of the module were positively rated (≥4/5 on a 5-point Likert scale n = 582 [93%], n = 507, [81%], n = 575, [91%], respectively). Qualitative feedback highlighted ease of use, likelihood of users to share the module with others and opportunities to increase multimedia content. CONCLUSION: An online tutorial, designed using evidence and theory to guide frailty assessment using the CFS, was positively rated by users. The module's content and structure was rated effective and feasible, and users were satisfied with, and likely to share, the module. Research evaluating the module's impact on the accuracy of frailty assessment is required.

Patient prioritization of routine and patient-reported postoperative outcome measures: a prospective, nested cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: Understanding which outcomes matter most and improving outcomes for the growing population of older surgical patients are top priorities for Canadian anesthesia research. Nevertheless, there is little understanding of which outcomes older surgical patients prioritize most highly. We evaluated how older people prioritized six outcomes after elective noncardiac surgery. These outcomes were recommended in core outcome sets for perioperative medicine. METHODS: Following ethical approval, we conducted a prospective, nested, cross-sectional study of people one year after they had major elective noncardiac surgery. Participants were asked to rate the importance of six commonly measured outcomes (complications, length of stay, discharge disposition, days at home, disability score, and developing a new disability) on an 11-point Likert scale. Open-ended questions elicited other preferences. Pairwise comparisons were evaluated using Bayesian multivariate regression. K-means clustering identified subgroups of patients based on overall prioritization. Thematic analysis was applied to open-ended responses. RESULTS: One hundred and one consecutive participants responded. All outcomes scored at least 7.7/10 on average. Complications and discharge location were most highly rated, but only days at home and length of stay had substantial probability (> 99%) of being rated lower than the other four outcomes. Thematic analysis identified the need for greater procedure-specific information, support services, and physical recovery measures. CONCLUSIONS: Commonly recorded and recommended outcomes are reassuringly relevant to older people; however, system-related measures are less highly valued than those more directly related to health and function. Outcomes may need to be personalized to properly evaluate the success of perioperative care.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Pour la recherche canadienne en anesthésie, l'une des priorités absolues consiste à comprendre quelles issues comptent le plus et à améliorer les issues pour la population croissante de patients chirurgicaux plus âgés. Néanmoins, nous ne savons que peu de choses quant aux issues les plus importantes pour les patients chirurgicaux plus âgés. Nous avons évalué la façon dont les personnes âgées priorisaient six issues après une chirurgie non cardiaque non urgente. Ces issues étaient recommandées au sein d'ensembles de critères de base en médecine périopératoire. MéTHODE: Après avoir obtenu l'approbation du comité d'éthique, nous avons mené une étude prospective, imbriquée et transversale auprès de patients un an après une chirurgie majeure non cardiaque non urgente. Les participants devaient évaluer l'importance de six critères couramment mesurés (complications, durée de séjour, dispositions à la sortie, jours à la maison, score d'invalidité et développement d'une nouvelle incapacité) sur une échelle de Likert de 11 points. Les questions ouvertes ont suscité d'autres préférences. Les comparaisons par paires ont été évaluées par régression multivariée bayésienne. L'algorithme des K-moyennes a identifié des sous-groupes de patients en fonction de leur priorisation globale. L'analyse thématique a été appliquée aux réponses ouvertes. RéSULTATS: Cent un participants consécutifs ont répondu. Tous les critères ont obtenu une note d'au moins 7,7/10 en moyenne. Les complications et le lieu de sortie étaient les mieux notés, mais seuls les jours à la maison et la durée de séjour ont affiché une probabilité substantielle (> 99 %) d'être évalués moins haut que les quatre autres critères. L'analyse thématique a révélé la nécessité d'une plus grande information spécifique à l'intervention, de services de soutien et de mesures de rétablissement physique. CONCLUSION: De façon rassurante, les critères couramment enregistrés et recommandés sont pertinents pour les personnes âgées; toutefois, les mesures liées au système sont moins appréciées que celles qui sont plus directement liées à la santé et à la fonction. Il est possible que les critères dussent être personnalisés pour évaluer de façon adéquate le succès des soins périopératoires.

Implementation of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society guidelines for perioperative risk assessment and management: an interrupted time series study.

PURPOSE: The Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) guidelines for patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery address the lack of standardized management for patients at risk of perioperative cardiovascular complications. Our interdisciplinary group evaluated the implementation of these guidelines. METHODS: We used an interrupted time series design to evaluate the effect of implementation of the CCS guidelines, using routinely collected hospital data. The study population consisted of elective, non-cardiac surgery patients who were: i) inpatients following surgery and ii) age ≥ 65 or age 45-64 yr with a Revised Cardiac Risk Index ≥ 1. Outcomes included adherence to troponin I (TnI) monitoring (primary) and adherence to appropriate consultant care for patients with elevated TnI (secondary). Exploratory outcomes included cost measures and clinical outcomes such as length of stay. RESULTS: We included 1,421 patients (706 pre- and 715 post-implementation). We observed a 67% absolute increase (95% confidence interval, 55 to 80; P < 0.001) in adherence to TnI testing following the implementation of the guidelines. In patients who had elevated TnI following guideline implementation (n = 64), the majority (85%) received appropriate follow-up care in the form of a general medicine or cardiology consult, all received at least one electrocardiogram, and half received at least one advanced cardiac test (e.g., cardiac perfusion scan, or percutaneous intervention). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed the ability to implement and adhere to the CCS guidelines. Large-scale multicentre evaluations of CCS guideline implementation are needed to gain a better understanding of potential effects on clinically relevant outcomes.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les lignes directrices de la Société canadienne de cardiologie (SCC) concernant les patients subissant une chirurgie non cardiaque ont été conçues pour pallier l'absence de standardisation dans la prise en charge des patients à risque de complications cardiovasculaires périopératoires. Notre groupe interdisciplinaire a évalué la mise en œuvre de ces lignes directrices. MéTHODE: Nous avons utilisé une méthodologie de série chronologique interrompue pour évaluer l'effet de la mise en œuvre des lignes directrices de la SCC, à l'aide des données hospitalières habituellement recueillies. La population à l'étude se composait de patients de chirurgies non cardiaques non urgentes qui étaient : i) hospitalisés après leur chirurgie et ii) âgés de ≥ 65 ans ou de 45 à 64 ans avec un Indice de risque cardiaque révisé ≥ 1. Les critères d'évaluation comprenaient l'observance du monitorage de la troponine I (TnI) (critère d'évaluation primaire) et l'observance des soins spécialisés appropriés aux patients présentant un taux élevé de TnI (critère secondaire). Les critères exploratoires comprenaient des mesures de coûts et des résultats cliniques tels que la durée de séjour. RéSULTATS: Nous avons inclus 1421 patients (706 avant et 715 après la mise en œuvre). Nous avons observé une augmentation absolue de 67 % (intervalle de confiance de 95 %, 55 à 80; P < 0,001) de l'observance des tests de la TnI suite à la mise en œuvre des lignes directrices. Parmi les patients présentant un taux élevé de TnI suite à la mise en œuvre des lignes directrices (n = 64), la majorité (85%) a reçu des soins de suivi appropriés sous la forme d'une consultation en médecine générale ou en cardiologie; tous ont subi au moins un électrocardiogramme, et la moitié ont passé au moins un examen cardiaque subséquent (p. ex., évaluation de la perfusion myocardique par scintigraphie ou cathétérisme percutané). CONCLUSION: Notre étude a montré qu'il est possible de mettre en œuvre et d'adhérer aux nouvelles lignes directrices de la SCC. Des évaluations multicentriques à grande échelle portant sur la mise en œuvre des lignes directrices de la SCC sont nécessaires pour mieux comprendre ses effets potentiels sur les devenirs cliniquement pertinents.

Evaluation of a preoperative personalized risk communication tool: a prospective before-and-after study.

PURPOSE: Patients want personalized information before surgery; most do not receive personalized risk estimates. Inadequate information contributes to poor experience and medicolegal complaints. We hypothesized that exposure to the Personalized Risk Evaluation and Decision Making in Preoperative Clinical Assessment (PREDICT) app, a personalized risk communication tool, would improve patient knowledge and satisfaction after anesthesiology consultations compared with standard care. METHODS: We conducted a prospective clinical study (before-after design) and used patient-reported data to calculate personalized risks of morbidity, mortality, and expected length of stay using a locally calibrated National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator embedded in the PREDICT app. In the standard care (before) phase, the application's materials and output were not available to participants; in the PREDICT app (after) phase, personalized risks were communicated. Our primary outcome was knowledge score after the anesthesiology consultation. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, anxiety, feasibility, and acceptability. RESULTS: We included 183 participants (90 before; 93 after). Compared with standard care phase, the PREDICT app phase had higher post-consultation: knowledge of risks (14.3% higher; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5 to 22.0; P < 0.001) and satisfaction (0.8 points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 1.4; P = 0.03). Anxiety was unchanged (- 1.9%; 95% CI, - 4.2 to 0.5; P = 0.13). Acceptability was high for patients and anesthesiologists. CONCLUSION: Exposure to a patient-facing, personalized risk communication app improved knowledge of personalized risk and increased satisfaction for adults before elective inpatient surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03422133); registered 5 February 2018.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les patients veulent disposer d'informations personnalisées avant leur chirurgie, mais la plupart d'entre eux ne reçoivent pas d'estimations de leur risque personnalisées. Des informations inadéquates contribuent à une mauvaise expérience et à des plaintes médicolégales. Nous avons émis l'hypothèse qu'une exposition à l'application PREDICT (Personalized Risk Evaluation and Decision Making in Preoperative Clinical Assessment), un outil de communication du risque personnalisé, améliorerait les connaissances et la satisfaction des patients après leurs consultations en anesthésiologie comparativement à des soins standard. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude clinique prospective (de type avant-après) et utilisé les données rapportées par les patients afin de calculer leur risque personnalisé de morbidité et de mortalité, ainsi que la durée de séjour anticipée à l'aide d'un calculateur de risque tiré du Programme national d'amélioration de la qualité chirurgicale que nous avons calibré localement et intégré à l'application PREDICT. Dans la phase de soins standard (avant), le contenu et les résultats de l'application n'étaient pas divulgués aux participants; dans la phase comportant l'application PREDICT (après), les risques personnalisés étaient communiqués. Notre critère d'évaluation principal était le score des connaissances des patients après la consultation en anesthésiologie. Les critères d'évaluation secondaires comprenaient la satisfaction des patients et leur niveau d'anxiété ainsi que la faisabilité et l'acceptabilité d'une telle approche. RéSULTATS: Nous avons inclus 183 participants (90 avant; 93 après). Comparativement à la phase de soins standard, la phase avec l'application PREDICT a démontré un niveau plus élevé de connaissances des risques post consultation (14,3 % plus élevé; intervalle de confiance [IC] 95 %, 6,5 à 22,0; P < 0,001) et de satisfaction (0,8 point; IC 95 %, 0,1 à 1,4; P = 0,03). L'anxiété est demeurée inchangée (− 1,9 %; IC 95 %, − 4,2 à 0,5; P = 0,13). L'acceptabilité était élevée, tant chez les patients que chez les anesthésiologistes. CONCLUSION: L'exposition des patients à une application de communication du risque personnalisé a amélioré leurs connaissances de leur risque personnalisé et augmenté la satisfaction des adultes avant une chirurgie non urgente et non ambulatoire. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03422133); enregistrée le 5 février 2018.

Frailty and long-term postoperative disability trajectories: a prospective multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is associated with early postoperative outcomes. How frailty influences long-term postoperative recovery is poorly described. Our objective was to evaluate the association of frailty with postoperative disability trajectories in the year after surgery. METHODS: Prespecified 1-yr follow-up of a prospective multicentre cohort study. Patients ≥65 yr were assessed for frailty before major elective noncardiac surgery (Clinical Frailty Scale [CFS] and Fried Phenotype [FP]). The primary outcome was patient-reported disability score (using the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0) at baseline, 30, 90, and 365 days after surgery. Repeated measures linear regression estimated the association of preoperative frailty with changes in disability scores over time, adjusted for procedure. Group-based trajectory modelling was used to identify subgroup trajectories of people with frailty. RESULTS: One-year follow-up was complete for 687/702 (97.9%) participants. Frailty was associated with a significant difference in disability trajectory (P<0.0001). Compared with baseline, people with frailty experienced a decrease in disability score at 365 days (CFS frailty: -7.3 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.2 to -4.5); (FP frailty: -5.4 points, 95% CI -8.5 to -2.3); people without frailty had no significant change in their disability score from baseline (no CFS frailty: +0.8 points, 95% CI -1.7 to 3.2; no FP frailty: +1.1 points, 95% CI -3.5 to 1.3). More than one-third of people with frailty experienced an early increase in disability before achieving a net decrease in disability. CONCLUSIONS: Decision-making and care planning should integrate the possible trade-offs between early adverse outcomes with longer-term benefit when frailty is present in older surgical patients.

Frailty as a Predictor of Death or New Disability After Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of the modified Fried Index (mFI) and the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) to predict death or patient-reported new disability 90 days after major elective surgery. BACKGROUND: The association of frailty with patient-reported outcomes, and comparisons between preoperative frailty instruments are poorly described. METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter cohort study. We determined frailty status in individuals ≥65 years having elective noncardiac surgery using the mFI and CFS. Outcomes included death or patient-reported new disability (primary); safety incidents, length of stay (LOS), and institutional discharge (secondary); ease of use, usefulness, benefit, clinical importance, and feasibility (tertiary). We measured the adjusted association of frailty with outcomes using regression analysis and compared true positive and false positive rates (TPR/FPR). RESULTS: Of 702 participants, 645 had complete follow up. The CFS identified 297 (42.3%) with frailty, the mFI 257 (36.6%); 72 (11.1%) died or experienced a new disability. Frailty was significantly associated with the primary outcome (CFS adjusted odds ratio, OR, 2.51, 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.50-4.21; mFI adjusted-OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.57-4.31). TPR and FPR were not significantly different between instruments. Frailty was the only significant predictor of death or new disability in a multivariable analysis. Need for institutional discharge, costs and LOS were significantly increased in individuals with frailty. The CFS was easier to use, required less time and had less missing data. CONCLUSIONS: Older people with frailty are significantly more likely to die or experience a new patient-reported disability after surgery. Clinicians performing frailty assessments before surgery should consider the CFS over the mFI as accuracy was similar, but ease of use and feasibility were higher.

Modifiable risk factors for patients undergoing lung cancer surgery and their optimization: a review.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs include a variety of pre-, intra- and post-operative interventions that seek to decrease the stress response to surgery and facilitate the recovery of surgical patients. There are a number of patient factors that may increase the risk of postoperative complications (POC) after lung cancer surgery and delay recovery. Some of these factors may be amenable to optimization preoperatively and potentially decrease the incidence of these complications. We have chosen to discuss the incidence and complications associated with factors we felt were both relatively common and significant contributors to POCs. For each of these factors we discuss potential avenues for optimization and the evidence for the resulting decrease in complications.

PREHAB study: a protocol for a prospective randomised clinical trial of exercise therapy for people living with frailty having cancer surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Exercise prehabilitation may improve outcomes after surgery. Frailty is a key predictor of adverse postoperative outcomes in older people; the multidimensional nature of frailty makes this a population who may derive substantial benefit from exercise prehabilitation. The objective of this trial is to test the efficacy of exercise prehabilitation to improve postoperative functional outcomes for people living with frailty having cancer surgery with curative intent. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a single-centre, parallel-arm randomised controlled trial of home-based exercise prehabilitation versus standard care among consenting patients >60 years having elective cancer surgery (intra-abdominal and intrathoracic) and who are frail (Clinical Frailty Scale >4). The intervention consists of > 3 weeks of exercise prehabilitation (strength, aerobic and stretching). The primary outcome is the 6 min walk test at the first postoperative clinic visit. Secondary outcomes include the short physical performance battery, health-related quality of life, disability-free survival, complications and health resource utilisation. The primary outcome will be analysed by intention to treat using analysis of covariance. Outcomes up to 1 year after surgery will be ascertained through linkage to administrative data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by our ethics review board (Protocol Approval #2016009-01H). Results will be disseminated through presentation at scientific conferences, through peer-reviewed publication, stakeholder organisations and engagement of social and traditional media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02934230; Pre-results.

Postoperative Home Monitoring After Joint Replacement: Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a prospective observational study of patients undergoing elective primary hip or knee replacements to examine the feasibility of a postoperative home monitoring system as transitional care to support patients following their surgery in real time. OBJECTIVE: The primary outcome was the mean percentage of successful wireless transmissions from home of blood pressure levels, heart rate, oxygen saturation levels, and pain scores until postoperative day 4 with a feasibility target of ≥90%. METHODS: Patients with an expected length of stay ≤1 day, age 18-80 years, Revised Cardiac Risk Index ≤ class 2, and caretakers willing to assist at home were eligible. Patient satisfaction, as a secondary outcome, was also evaluated. Wireless monitoring equipment (remote patient monitoring, Telus Canada) was obtained and a multidisciplinary care team was formed. RESULTS: We conducted the study after obtaining Research Ethics Board approval; 54 patients completed the study: 21 males, 33 females. In total, we evaluated 9 hips, 4 hip resurfacing, 26 total knees, and 15 hemi-knees. The mean transmission rate was 96.4% (SD 5.9%; 95% CI 94.8-98.0). The median response to "I would recommend the Remote Monitoring System program to future patients" was 4.5 (interquartile range 4-5), with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 5 "strongly agree." At 30 days postop, there was no mortality or readmission. CONCLUSIONS: This is an evolving new paradigm for postoperative care and the first feasibility study on monitoring biometrics after primary hip or knee replacement. Postoperative home monitoring combines current technology with real-time support by a multidisciplinary transitional care team after discharge, facilitating postsurgical care with successful wireless transmission of vitals. The postoperative home monitoring implementation is, therefore, generalizable to other surgical discharges from hospitals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02143232; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02143232 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/71ugAhhIk).

Postoperative Home Monitoring After Joint Replacement: Retrospective Outcome Study Comparing Cases With Matched Historical Controls.

BACKGROUND: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients undergoing postoperative home monitoring (POHM) following elective primary hip or knee replacements. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of our study were to compare the cost per patient, readmissions rate, emergency room visits, and mortality within 30 days to the historical standard of care using descriptive analysis. METHODS: After Research Ethics Board approval, patients who were enrolled and had completed a POHM study were individually matched to historical controls by age, American Society of Anesthesiology class, and procedure at a ratio 1:2. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients in the study group and 107 in the control group were eligible for the analysis. Compared with the historical standard of care, the average cost per case was Can $5826.32 (SD 1418.89) in the POHM group and Can $9198.58 (SD 1513.59) for controls. After 30 days, there were 2 emergency room visits (3.7%) and 0 readmissions in the POHM group, whereas there were 8 emergency room visits (7.5%) and 2 readmissions (1.9%) in the control group. No mortalities occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The POHM study offers an early hospital discharge pathway for elective hip and knee procedures at a 38% reduction of the standard of care cost. The multidisciplinary transitional POHM team may provide a reliable forum to minimize readmissions, and emergency room visits within 30 days postoperatively. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02143232; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02143232 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/73WQ9QR6P).

Implementation of a referral to discharge glycemic control initiative for reduction of surgical site infections in gynecologic oncology patients.

OBJECTIVE(S): To evaluate the frequency of surgical site infections before and after implementation of a comprehensive, multidisciplinary perioperative glycemic control initiative. STUDY METHODS: As part of a CUSP (Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program) initiative, between January 5 and December 18, 2015, we implemented comprehensive, multidisciplinary glycemic control initiative to reduce SSI rates in patients undergoing major pelvic surgery for a gynecologic malignancy ('Group II'). Key components of this quality of care initiative included pre-operative HbA1c measurement with special triage for patients meeting criteria for diabetes or pre-diabetes, standardization of available intraoperative insulin choices, rigorous pre-op/intra-op/post-op glucose monitoring with control targets set to maintain BG ≤10mmol/L (180mg/dL) and communication/notification with primary care providers. Effectiveness was evaluated against a similar control group of patients ('Group I') undergoing surgery in 2014 prior to implementation of this initiative. RESULTS: We studied a total of 462 patients. Subjects in the screened (Group II) and comparison (Group I) groups were of similar age (avg. 61.0, 60.0years; p=0.422) and BMI (avg. 31.1, 32.3kg/m2; p=0.257). Descriptive statistics served to compare surgical site infection (SSI) rates and other characteristics across groups. Women undergoing surgery prior to implementation of this algorithm (n=165) had an infection rate of 14.6%. Group II (n=297) showed an over 2-fold reduction in SSI compared to Group I [5.7%; p=0.001, adjRR: 0.45, 95% CI: (0.25, 0.81)]. Additionally, approximately 19% of Group II patients were newly diagnosed with either prediabetes (HbA1C 6.0-6.4) or diabetes (HbA1C≥6.5) and were referred to family or internal medicine for appropriate management. CONCLUSION(S): Implementation of a comprehensive multidisciplinary glycemic control initiative can lead to a significant reduction in surgical site infections in addition to early identification of an important health condition in the gynecologic oncology patient population.