Association Between Myocardial Injury and Cardiovascular Outcomes of Orthopaedic Surgery: A Vascular Events in Noncardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation (VISION) Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS) is common and of prognostic importance. Little is known about MINS in orthopaedic surgery. The diagnostic criterion for MINS was a level of ≥0.03 ng/mL on a non-high-sensitivity troponin T (TnT) assay due to myocardial ischemia. METHODS: We undertook an international, prospective study of 15,103 patients ≥45 years of age who had inpatient noncardiac surgery; 3,092 underwent orthopaedic surgery. Non-high-sensitivity TnT assays were performed on postoperative days 0, 1, 2, and 3. Among orthopaedic patients, we determined (1) the prognostic relevance of the MINS diagnostic criteria, (2) the 30-day mortality rate for those with and without MINS, and (3) the probable proportion of MINS cases that would go undetected without troponin monitoring because of a lack of an ischemic symptom. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty-seven orthopaedic patients (11.9%) had MINS. MINS was associated independently with 30-day mortality including among those who had had orthopaedic surgery. Orthopaedic patients without and with MINS had a 30-day mortality rate of 1.0% and 9.8%, respectively (odds ratio [OR], 11.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.72 to 18.92). The 30-day mortality rate was increased for patients with MINS who had an ischemic feature (i.e., symptoms, or evidence of ischemia on electrocardiography or imaging) (OR, 18.25; 95% CI, 10.06 to 33.10) and for those who did not have an ischemic feature (OR, 7.35; 95% CI, 3.37 to 16.01). The proportion of orthopaedic patients with MINS who were asymptomatic and in whom the myocardial injury would have probably gone undetected without TnT monitoring was 81.3% (95% CI, 76.3% to 85.4%). CONCLUSIONS: One in 8 orthopaedic patients in our study had MINS, and MINS was associated with a higher mortality rate regardless of symptoms. Troponin levels should be measured after surgery in at-risk patients because most MINS cases (>80%) are asymptomatic and would go undetected without routine measurements. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting reports exist in the medical literature regarding the association between industry funding and published research findings. In this study, we examine the association between industry funding and the statistical significance of results in recently published medical and surgical trials. METHODS: We examined a consecutive series of 332 randomized trials published between January 1999 and June 2001 in 8 leading surgical journals and 5 medical journals. Each eligible study was independently reviewed for methodological quality using a 21-point index with 5 domains: randomization, outcomes, eligibility criteria, interventions and statistical issues. Our primary analysis included studies that explicitly identified the primary outcome and reported it as statistically significant. For studies that did not explicitly identify a primary outcome, we defined a "positive" study as one with at least 1 statistically significant outcome measure. We used multivariable regression analysis to determine whether there was an association between reported industry funding and trial results, while controlling for study quality and sample size. RESULTS: Among the 332 randomized trials, there were 158 drug trials, 87 surgical trials and 87 trials of other therapies. In 122 (37%) of the trials, authors declared industry funding. An unadjusted analysis of this sample of trials revealed that industry funding was associated with a statistically significant result in favour of the new industry product (odds ratio [OR] 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-3.5). The association remained significant after adjustment for study quality and sample size (adjusted OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-3.0). There was a nonsignificant difference between surgical trials (OR 8.0, 95% CI 1.1-53.2) and drug trials (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.8), both of which were likely to have a pro-industry result (relative OR 5.0, 95% CI 0.7-37.5, p = 0.14). INTERPRETATION: Industry-funded trials are more likely to be associated with statistically significant pro-industry findings, both in medical trials and surgical interventions.