RESUMO
Background: Anaesthesiology clinicians can implement risk mitigation strategies if they know which patients are at greatest risk for postoperative complications. Although machine learning models predicting complications exist, their impact on clinician risk assessment is unknown. Methods: This single-centre randomised clinical trial enrolled patients age ≥18 undergoing surgery with anaesthesiology services. Anaesthesiology clinicians providing remote intraoperative telemedicine support reviewed electronic health records with (assisted group) or without (unassisted group) also reviewing machine learning predictions. Clinicians predicted the likelihood of postoperative 30-day all-cause mortality and postoperative acute kidney injury within 7 days. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for the clinician predictions was determined. Results: Among 5,071 patient cases reviewed by 89 clinicians, the observed incidence was 2% for postoperative death and 11% for acute kidney injury. Clinician predictions agreed with the models more strongly in the assisted versus unassisted group (weighted kappa 0.75 versus 0.62 for death [difference 0.13, 95%CI 0.10-0.17] and 0.79 versus 0.54 for kidney injury [difference 0.25, 95%CI 0.21-0.29]). Clinicians predicted death with AUROC of 0.793 in the assisted group and 0.780 in the unassisted group (difference 0.013, 95%CI -0.070 to 0.097). Clinicians predicted kidney injury with AUROC of 0.734 in the assisted group and 0.688 in the unassisted group (difference 0.046, 95%CI -0.003 to 0.091). Conclusions: Although there was evidence that the models influenced clinician predictions, clinician performance was not statistically significantly different with and without machine learning assistance. Further work is needed to clarify the role of machine learning in real-time perioperative risk stratification. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05042804.
RESUMO
Background: Novel applications of telemedicine can improve care quality and patient outcomes. Telemedicine for intraoperative decision support has not been rigorously studied. Methods: This single centre randomised clinical trial ( clinicaltrials.gov NCT03923699 ) of unselected adult surgical patients was conducted between July 1, 2019 and January 31, 2023. Patients received usual care or decision support from a telemedicine service, the Anesthesiology Control Tower (ACT). The ACT provided real-time recommendations to intraoperative anaesthesia clinicians based on case reviews, machine-learning forecasting, and physiologic alerts. ORs were randomised 1:1. Co-primary outcomes of 30-day all-cause mortality, respiratory failure, acute kidney injury (AKI), and delirium were analysed as intention-to-treat. Results: The trial completed planned enrolment with 71927 surgeries (35956 ACT; 35971 usual care). After multiple testing correction, there was no significant effect of the ACT vs. usual care on 30-day mortality [641/35956 (1.8%) vs 638/35971 (1.8%), risk difference 0.0% (95% CI -0.2% to 0.3%), p=0.96], respiratory failure [1089/34613 (3.1%) vs 1112/34619 (3.2%), risk difference -0.1% (95% CI -0.4% to 0.3%), p=0.96], AKI [2357/33897 (7%) vs 2391/33795 (7.1%), risk difference -0.1% (-0.6% to 0.4%), p=0.96], or delirium [1283/3928 (32.7%) vs 1279/3989 (32.1%), risk difference 0.6% (-2.0% to 3.2%), p=0.96]. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes or in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: In this large RCT of a novel application of telemedicine-based remote monitoring and decision support using real-time alerts and case reviews, we found no significant differences in postoperative outcomes. Large-scale intraoperative telemedicine is feasible, and we suggest future avenues where it may be impactful.