Randomized Evidence for Reduction of Perioperative Mortality: An Updated Consensus Process.

OBJECTIVE: Of the 230 million patients undergoing major surgical procedures every year, more than 1 million will die within 30 days. Thus, any nonsurgical interventions that help reduce perioperative mortality might save thousands of lives. The authors have updated a previous consensus process to identify all the nonsurgical interventions, supported by randomized evidence, that may help reduce perioperative mortality. DESIGN AND SETTING: A web-based international consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised 500 clinicians from 61 countries. INTERVENTIONS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify published literature about nonsurgical interventions, supported by randomized evidence, showing a statistically significant impact on mortality. A consensus conference of experts discussed eligible papers. The interventions identified by the conference then were submitted to colleagues worldwide through a web-based survey. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The authors identified 11 interventions contributing to increased survival (perioperative hemodynamic optimization, neuraxial anesthesia, noninvasive ventilation, tranexamic acid, selective decontamination of the gastrointestinal tract, insulin for tight glycemic control, preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump, leuko-depleted red blood cells transfusion, levosimendan, volatile agents, and remote ischemic preconditioning) and 2 interventions showing increased mortality (beta-blocker therapy and aprotinin). Interventions then were voted on by participating clinicians. Percentages of agreement among clinicians in different countries differed significantly for 6 interventions, and a variable gap between evidence and clinical practice was noted. CONCLUSIONS: The authors identified 13 nonsurgical interventions that may decrease or increase perioperative mortality, with variable agreement by clinicians. Such interventions may be optimal candidates for investigation in high-quality trials and discussion in international guidelines to reduce perioperative mortality.

Mortality in Multicenter Critical Care Trials: An Analysis of Interventions With a Significant Effect.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify all treatments that affect mortality in adult critically ill patients in multicenter randomized controlled trials. We also evaluated the methodological aspects of these studies, and we surveyed clinicians' opinion and usual practice for the selected interventions. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were searched. Further articles were suggested for inclusion from experts and cross-check of references. STUDY SELECTION: We selected the articles that fulfilled the following criteria: publication in a peer-reviewed journal; multicenter randomized controlled trial design; dealing with nonsurgical interventions in adult critically ill patients; and statistically significant effect in unadjusted landmark mortality. A consensus conference assessed all interventions and excluded those with lack of reproducibility, lack of generalizability, high probability of type I error, major baseline imbalances between intervention and control groups, major design flaws, contradiction by subsequent larger higher quality trials, modified intention to treat analysis, effect found only after adjustments, and lack of biological plausibility. DATA EXTRACTION: For all selected studies, we recorded the intervention and its comparator, the setting, the sample size, whether enrollment was completed or interrupted, the presence of blinding, the effect size, and the duration of follow-up. DATA SYNTHESIS: We found 15 interventions that affected mortality in 24 multicenter randomized controlled trials. Median sample size was small (199 patients) as was median centers number (10). Blinded trials enrolled significantly more patients and involved more centers. Multicenter randomized controlled trials showing harm also involved significantly more centers and more patients (p = 0.016 and p = 0.04, respectively). Five hundred fifty-five clinicians from 61 countries showed variable agreement on perceived validity of such interventions. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 15 treatments that decreased/increased mortality in critically ill patients in 24 multicenter randomized controlled trials. However, design affected trial size and larger trials were more likely to show harm. Finally, clinicians view of such trials and their translation into practice varied.

Effects of dermatan sulfate for anticoagulation in continuous renal replacement therapy.

BACKGROUND: Dermatan sulfate (DS) is a natural glycosaminoglycan with a unique mechanism of action on the coagulation system. Unlike unfractionated heparin (UFH), DS selectively inhibits thrombin, does not inhibit factor Xa, is effective on both free and fibrin-bound thrombin and does not interfere with platelets. This study represents the first experience using DS as anticoagulant in patients on continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). METHODS: A total of 147 patients in our intensive care unit who developed acute renal failure after cardiovascular surgery were on CRRT according to the same protocol: machine, Gambro Prisma; filter, AN69, 0.9 m2; QB, 150 ml/min; QD, 2,000 ml/hour; and Q(Infusate), 500 ml/hour. In a retrospective cohort of 100 patients, anticoagulation was performed with UFH (UFH-CRRT): initial bolus of 530 +/- 363 IU, then i.v. infusion of 598 +/- 261 IU/hour. A prospective cohort of 47 patients received DS (DS-CRRT) as a 150-mg bolus followed by a 13.5 +/- 3 mg/hour infusion. Hematology tests were performed at baseline and during CRRT; filter lifetime was measured from the start to filter clotting. RESULTS: Median filter lifetime was 58 hours in DS-CRRT vs. 47 hours in UFH-CRRT (p<0.001). No differences emerged in basal hematology and hemostasis tests between groups. During CRRT, DS produced a smaller activated partial thromboplastin time increase than UFH (p<0.01). Platelet count exhibited a comparable small decline in both DS-CRRT and UFH-CRRT (p<0.01). No significant bleeding episodes occurred during DS-CRRT. In-hospital mortality was similar in the 2 cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: DS can be suggested as an anticoagulant for CRRT in patients who develop acute renal failure following major cardiovascular surgery.