Prehabilitation in patients with cirrhosis awaiting liver transplantation: protocol of a feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with cirrhosis awaiting liver transplantation (LT) are often frail, and malnourished. The period of time on the waitlist provides an opportunity to improve their physical fitness. Prehabilitation appears to improve the physical fitness of patients before major surgery. Little is known about prehabilitation in patients with cirrhosis. The aim of this feasibility study will be to investigate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of a multimodal prehabilitation programme in this patient population. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an open-label single-arm feasibility trial recruiting 25 consecutive adult patients with cirrhosis active on the LT waiting list of the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC). Individuals will be excluded based on criteria developed for the safe exercise training in patients with cirrhosis. Enrolled individuals will participate in a multimodal prehabilitation programme conducted at the PeriOperative Programme complex of the MUHC. It includes exercise training with a certified kinesiologist (aerobic and resistance training), nutritional optimisation with a registered dietician and psychological support with a nurse specialist. The exercise training programme is divided into an induction phase with three sessions per week for 4 weeks followed by a maintenance phase with one session every other week for 20 weeks. Aerobic training will be individualised based on result from cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) and will include a high-intensity interval training on a cycle ergometer. Feasibility, adherence and acceptability of the intervention will be assessed. Adverse events will be reviewed before each visit. Changes in exercise capacity (6-minute walk test, CPET, liver frailty index), nutritional status and health-related quality of life will be assessed during the study. Post-transplantation outcomes will be recorded. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The research ethics board of the MUHC has approved this study (2021-7646). Our findings will be submitted for presentation at national and international conferences, and for peer-reviewed publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05237583.

Exploring pregnant individuals' counseling needs regarding urgent imaging to rule out pulmonary embolism.

Background: Computed tomography pulmonary angiogram and lung scintigraphy with ventilation/perfusion scan are needed to diagnose pulmonary embolism (PE) in pregnancy. Their associated ionizing radiation doses are considered safe in pregnancy. A standardized patient information tool may improve patient counseling and reduce testing hesitancy. Objectives: In this context, we sought to address 1) what patients want to know before undergoing these tests and 2) how they want the information to be provided to them. Methods: We used a qualitative descriptive methodology. We recruited pregnant participants at the McGill University Health Center in Montreal, Canada. Structured interviews explored information needs about PE and diagnostic imaging for PE. The interview transcripts' themes were analyzed with a hybrid deductive and inductive approach. Results: Of 21 individuals approached, 20 consented to participate. Four had been previously investigated for PE. Participants requested information about the risks associated with PE and radiation and their effects on maternal and fetal health. They preferred for radiation doses to be presented in comparison with known radiation thresholds for fetal harm. They suggested that a written tool should be developed using an accessible language. Participants also indicated that the tool would be integrated into their decision-making process, emphasizing a lower risk tolerance for their fetus than for themselves. Conclusion: This single-center group of pregnant patients wished to be informed about the risks of PE and radiation associated with imaging. A written tool could help put information into context and facilitate decision making. These new insights may be used to inform counseling.

Prehabilitation in patients awaiting liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Frailty, malnutrition and sarcopenia lead to a significant increase in morbidity and mortality before and after liver transplantation (LT). Prehabilitation attempts to optimize physical fitness of individuals before major surgeries. To date, little is known about its impact on patients awaiting LT. AIMS: The aim of our scoping review was to describe whether prehabilitation in patients awaiting LT is feasible and safe, and whether it leads to a change in clinical parameters before or after transplantation. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature from 1946 to November 2023 to identify prospective studies and randomized controlled trials of adult LT candidates who participated in an exercise training program. RESULTS: Out of 3262 citations initially identified, six studies were included. Studies were heterogeneous in design, patient selection, intervention, duration, and outcomes assessed. All studies were self-described as pilot or feasibility studies and had a sample size ranging from 13 to 33. Two studies were randomized controlled trials. Two study restricted to patients with cirrhosis who were eligible for liver transplantation or on the transplant list. Exercise programs lasted between 6 and 12 weeks. In terms of feasibility, proportion of eligible patients that were recruited was between 54 and 100%. Program completion ranged between 38 and 90%. Interventions appeared safe with 9 (9.2%) adverse events noted. In the intervention group, improvements were generally noted in peak oxygen consumption and workload, 6-min walking distance, and muscle strength. One study suggested a decrease in post-transplant hospital length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, it appears that prehabilitation with exercise training is feasible, and safe in patients awaiting LT. Higher quality and larger studies are needed to confirm its impact on pre- and post-transplantation-related outcomes.

A randomized controlled trial of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor management in patients admitted in hospital with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Renin-angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) are commonly used among patients hospitalized with a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We evaluated whether continuation versus discontinuation of RAASi were associated with short term clinical or biochemical outcomes. METHODS: The RAAS-COVID-19 trial was a randomized, open label study in adult patients previously treated with RAASi who are hospitalized with COVID-19 (NCT04508985). Participants were randomized 1:1 to discontinue or continue RAASi. The primary outcome was a global rank score calculated from baseline to day 7 (or discharge) incorporating clinical events and biomarker changes. Global rank scores were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon test statistic and the negative binomial test (using incident rate ratio [IRR]) and the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Overall, 46 participants were enrolled; 21 participants were randomized to discontinue RAASi and 25 to continue. Patients' mean age was 71.5 years and 43.5% were female. Discontinuation of RAASi, versus continuation, resulted in a non-statistically different mean global rank score (discontinuation 6 [standard deviation [SD] 6.3] vs continuation 3.8 (SD 2.5); P = .60). The negative binomial analysis identified that discontinuation increased the risk of adverse outcomes (IRR 1.67 [95% CI 1.06-2.62]; P = .027); RAASi discontinuation increased brain natriuretic peptide levels (% change from baseline: +16.7% vs -27.5%; P = .024) and the incidence of acute heart failure (33% vs 4.2%, P = .016). CONCLUSION: RAASi continuation in participants hospitalized with COVID-19 appears safe; discontinuation increased brain natriuretic peptide levels and may increase risk of acute heart failure; where possible, RAASi should be continued.

Prehabilitation in Thoracic Cancer Surgery: From Research to Standard of Care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether personalized, stepped prehabilitation care is a feasible, safe, and effective implementation strategy. DESIGN: Quality improvement project. Data collected prospectively from August 2018 to December 2019 were analyzed retrospectively to describe the clinical implementation of a prehabilitation care program for elective lung cancer surgery. SETTING: Single center, tertiary university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-one consecutive adult patients living in the metropolitan area of Montreal were included if an elective resection of suspected or confirmed lung cancer was planned. INTERVENTIONS: At the earliest contemplation of surgery, the whole cohort was screened for impaired physical, nutritional, and/or psychological status. Patients screened at higher risk received dedicated assessment and personalized prehabilitation care upon specific needs. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients' specific needs and their access and flow through the different services were described. Prehabilitation effectiveness was evaluated using walking and exercise tests, and adverse events were monitored. Eighty-one patients were screened for functional impairments. Forty patients showed reduction of physical function, seven of them refused the specific assessment, one refused in-hospital exercise; 48 patients showed nutritional risk, eight of them refused or did not comply with nutritional therapy. Overall, 45 high-risk patients received a one-month personalized prehabilitation program: 16 partook in a trimodal program (exercise, nutrition, and psychological), and 22 received a program with both nutrition and exercise. No adverse events occurred during the study period. After prehabilitation, six-minute waking distance improved by 29.9 meters (standard deviation 47.3 m) (n = 35; p = 0.001) and the oxygen uptake at the anaerobic threshold improved by 1.6 (1.7) mL/kg/min (n = 13; p = 0.004). Length of hospital stay was two (interquartile range one-four) days in prehabilitated patients versus three (two-seven) days in the usual care group (p = 0.101). CONCLUSIONS: A personalized, stepped prehabilitation program targeting high-risk patients undergoing elective lung cancer surgery was feasible, safe, and effective.

Management of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System blockade in patients admitted to hospital with confirmed coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection (The McGill RAAS-COVID- 19): A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the RAAS-COVID-19 randomized control trial is to evaluate whether an upfront strategy of temporary discontinuation of renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibition versus continuation of RAAS inhibition among patients admitted with established COVID-19 infection has an impact on short term clinical and biomarker outcomes. We hypothesize that continuation of RAAS inhibition will be superior to temporary discontinuation with regards to the primary endpoint of a global rank sum score. The global rank sum score has been successfully used in previous cardiovascular clinical trials. TRIAL DESIGN: This is an open label parallel two arm (1,1 ratio) randomized control superiority trial of approximately 40 COVID-19 patients who are on chronic RAAS inhibitor therapy. PARTICIPANTS: Adults who are admitted to hospital within the McGill University Health Centre systems (MUHC) including Royal Victoria Hospital (RVH), Montreal General Hospital (MGH) and Jewish General Hospital (JGH) and who are within 96 hours of COVID-19 diagnosis (confirmed via PCR on any biological sample) will be considered for the trial. Of note, the initial protocol to screen and enrol within 48 hours of COVID-19 diagnosis was extended through an amendment, to 96 hours to increase feasibility. Participants have to be 18 years or older and would have to be on RAAS inhibitors for at least a month to be considered eligible for the study. Additionally, RAAS inhibitors should not have been held for more than 48 hours before randomization. A list of inclusion and exclusion criteria can be found in the full protocol document. In order to prevent heart failure exacerbation, patients with reduced ejection fraction were excluded from the trial. Once a patient is admitted on the ward with a diagnosis of COVID-19, we will confirm with the treating physician if the participant is suitable for the RAAS-COVID trial and meets all the inclusion and exclusion criteria. If the patient is eligible and informed consent has been obtained we will collect data on sex, age, ethnicity, past medical history and list of medications (e.g. other anti-hypertensives or anticoagulants), for further analysis. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: All the study participants will be randomized to a strategy of temporarily holding the RAAS inhibitor [intervention] versus continuing the RAAS inhibitor [continued standard of care]. Among participants who are randomized to the intervention arm, alternative guide-line directed anti-hypertensive medication will be provided to the treating physician team (detail in study protocol). In the intervention arm RAAS inhibitor will be withheld for a total of 7 days with the possibility of the withdrawn medication being initiated at any point after day 7 or on the day of discharge. The recommendation for re-initiating the withdrawn medication will be made to the treating physician. The re-initiation of these therapies are according to standard convention and follow-up as per Canadian guidelines. Additionally, the date of restarting the withdrawn medication or whether the medication was re-prescribed on discharge or not, will be collected. This will be used to conduct a sensitivity analysis. Furthermore, biomarkers such as troponin, c-reactive protein (CRP) and lymphocyte count will be assessed during the same time period. Samples will be collected on randomization, day 4 and day 7. MAIN OUTCOMES: PRIMARY ENDPOINT: In this study the primary end point is a global rank score calculated for all participants, regardless of treatment assignment ( score from 0 to 7). Please refer to table 4 in the full protocol. In the context of the current trial, it is estimated that death is the most meaningful endpoint, and therefore has the highest score ( score of 7). This is followed by admission to ICU, the need for mechanical ventilation etc. The lowest scores ( score of 1) are assigned to biomarker changes (e.g. change in troponin, change in CRP). This strategy has been used successfully in cardiovascular disease trials and therefore is applicable to the current trial. The primary endpoint for the present trial is assessed from baseline to day 7 (or discharge). Participants are ranked across the clinical and biomarker domains. Lower values indicate better health (or stability). Participants who died during the 7th day of the study will be ranked based on all events occurring before their death and also including the fatal event in the score. Next, participants who did not die but were transferred to ICU for invasive ventilation will be ranked based on all the events occurring before the ICU entry and also including the ICU admission in the score. Those participants who did not die were not transferred to ICU for invasive ventilation, will be ranked based on the subsequent outcomes. The mean rank score will then be compared between groups. In this scheme, a lower mean rank score indicates greater overall stability for participants. Secondary endpoints : The key secondary endpoints are the individual components of the primary components and include the following: death, transfer to ICU primarily for invasive ventilation, transfer to ICU for other indication, non-fatal MACE ( any of following, MI, stroke, acute HF, new onset Afib), length of stay > 4 days, development of acute kidney injury ( > 40% decline in eGFR or doubling of serum creatinine), urgent intravenous treatment for high blood pressure, 30% increase in baseline high sensitivity troponin, 30% increase in baseline BNP, increase in CRP to > 30% in 48 hours and lymphocyte count drop> 30%. We will also look at the World Health Organization (WHO) ordinal scale for clinical improvement (in COVID-19) in our data. In this scale death will be assigned the highest score of 8. Patients with no limitation of activity will be assigned a score of 1 which indicates overall more stability (3). Additionally, we will evaluate the potential effects of discontinuing RAAS inhibition on alternative schedules (longer/shorter than 7 days, intermittent discontinuation) using a mechanistic mathematical model of COVID-19 immunopathology calibrated to data collected from our patient cohort. In particular, we will assess the impact of alternative schedules on primary and secondary endpoints including increases to baseline CRP and lymphocyte counts. RANDOMIZATION: Participants will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio. Randomization will be performed within an electronic database system at the time of enrolment using a random number generator, an approach that has been successfully used in other clinical trials. Neither participant, study team, or treating team will be blinded to the intervention arm. BLINDING: This is an open label study with no blinding. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): The approximate number of participants required for this trial is 40 patients (randomized 1:1 to continuation versus discontinuation of RAAS inhibitors). This number was calculated based on previous rates of outcomes for COVID-19 in the literature (e.g. death, ICU transfer) and statistical power calculations. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol number: MP-37-2021-6641, Version 4: 01-10-2020. Trial start date September 1st 2020 and currently enrolling participants. Estimated end date for recruitment of participants : July 2021. Estimated end date for study completion: September 1st 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration: ClincalTrials.gov : NCT04508985 , date of registration: August 11th , 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Anticoagulant Use and the Risk of Thromboembolism and Bleeding in Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation After Noncardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: An effective and safe oral anticoagulation (OAC) strategy for patients with new postoperative AF (POAF) after noncardiac surgery remains unclear. We aimed to determine the association between OAC use and 1) thromboembolic events and 2) major bleeding in patients with POAF after noncardiac surgery. METHODS: A retrospective cohort (1999-2015) was used to identify patients with new POAF after inpatient noncardiac surgery. Initiation of OAC was defined as prescription of an OAC within 30 days following hospital discharge. Times to first hospital admission or emergency department visit for a thromboembolic or major bleeding event were compared using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: We identified 22,007 patients with new POAF after inpatient noncardiac surgery. The majority of patients had intermediate (CHA2DS2-VASc 2-3: 45%) to high (CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 4: 42%) thromboembolic risk. During a mean follow-up of 4 years, a total of 1099 (5%) thromboembolic and 3250 (15%) bleeding events occurred. Compared with patients not on anticoagulation, anticoagulation did not reduce the risk for thromboembolic events (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.89, 95% CI 0.73-1.07). In patients initiated on anticoagulation, there was an association with a higher risk for major bleeding (aHR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04-1.25). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with new POAF after noncardiac surgery, anticoagulation was not associated with a reduction in long-term thromboembolic events; however, this was accompanied by an overall increased risk for major bleeding. Future prospective clinical studies are needed to better address the role for anticoagulation therapy in the setting of POAF after noncardiac surgery to understand the efficacy and safety of treatment.

Effect of Perioperative Active Body Surface Warming Systems on Analgesic and Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia is a common complication of surgery, and active body surface warming (ABSW) systems are used to prevent adverse clinical outcomes. Prior data on certain outcomes are equivocal (ie, blood loss) or limited (ie, pain and opioid consumption). The objective of this study was to provide an updated review on the effect of ABSW on clinical outcomes and temperature maintenance. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials evaluating ABSW systems compared to nonactive warming controls in noncardiac surgeries. Outcomes studied included postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption (primary outcomes) and other perioperative clinical variables such as temperature changes, blood loss, and wound infection (secondary outcomes). We searched Ovid MEDLINE daily, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science from inception to June 2019. Quality of evidence (QoE) was rated according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Subgroup analysis sought to determine the effect of preoperative + intraoperative warming versus intraoperative warming alone. Metaregression evaluated the effect of year of publication, use of neuromuscular blockers, anesthesia, and surgery type on outcomes. RESULTS: Fifty-four articles (3976 patients) were included. Pooled results demonstrated that ABSW maintained normothermia compared to controls, during surgery (30 minutes postinduction [mean difference {MD}: 0.3°C, 95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.2-0.4, moderate QoE]), end of surgery (MD: 1.1°C, 95% CI, 0.9-1.3, high QoE), and up to 4 hours postoperatively (MD: 0.3°C, 95% CI, 0.2-0.5, high QoE). ABSW was not associated with difference in pain scores (<24 hours postoperatively, moderate to low QoE) or perioperative opioid consumption (very low QoE). ABSW increased patient satisfaction (MD: 2.2 points, 95% CI, 0.9-3.6, moderate QoE), reduced blood transfusions (odds ratio [OR] = 0.6, 95% CI, 0.4-1.0, moderate QoE), shivering (OR = 0.2, 95% CI, 0.1-0.4, high QoE), and wound infections (OR = 0.3, 95% CI, 0.2-0.7, high QoE). No significant differences were found for fluid administration (low QoE), blood loss (very low QoE), major adverse cardiovascular events (very low QoE), or mortality (very low QoE). Subgroup analysis and metaregression suggested increased temperature benefit with pre + intraoperative warming, use of neuromuscular blockers, and recent publication year. ABSW seemed to confer less temperature benefit in cesarean deliveries and neurosurgical/spinal cases compared to abdominal surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: ABSW is effective in maintaining physiological normothermia, decreasing wound infections, shivering, blood transfusions, and increasing patient satisfaction but does not appear to affect postoperative pain and opioid use.

Meta-analysis Comparing Outcomes of Type 2 Myocardial Infarction and Type 1 Myocardial Infarction With a Focus on Dual Antiplatelet Therapy.

BACKGROUND: There are important knowledge gaps in type 2 myocardial infarction (T2MI). Our primary objective was to compare the outcomes of patients with T2MI with those of patients with type 1 myocardial infarction (T1MI). Our secondary objective was to determine whether randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating dual antiplatelets (DAPTs) have explicitly included patients with T2MI. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis comparing outcomes of patients with T2MI with patients with T1MI and a separate systematic review to evaluate the inclusion of T2MI in RCTs evaluating DAPT. There were 19 cohorts enrolling 48,829 patients (40,604 with T1MI and 5361 with T2MI) and 51 RCTs enrolling 188,132 patients with acute coronary syndrome. RESULTS: Patients with T2MI had approximately 2-fold increases in unadjusted odds of long-term mortality compared with patients with T1MI (odds ratio, 2.47; 95% confidence interval, 2.06-2.96; P < 0.0001) and a 45% increase in adjusted odds of long-term mortality (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.69; P < 0.0001, respectively). There was no published evaluation of efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of DAPT in patients with T2MI. CONCLUSION: Patients with T2MI are at increased risk of adjusted all-cause long-term mortality compared with patients with T1MI. The role of DAPT remains unclear in T2MI.

CONTEXTE: Il existe d'importantes lacunes dans notre connaissance de l'infarctus du myocarde de type 2 (IMT2). Notre objectif principal était de comparer le devenir de patients ayant subi un IMT2 et celui de patients ayant subi un infarctus du myocarde de type 1 (IMT1). Notre objectif secondaire était de déterminer si des essais contrôlés randomisés (ECR) visant à évaluer des bithérapies antiplaquettaires (BA) avaient inclus explicitement des patients ayant subi un IMT2. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Nous avons réalisé une méta-analyse afin de comparer le devenir de patients ayant subi un IMT2 et celui de patients ayant subi un IMT1. Nous avons aussi effectué une revue systématique distincte des données pour évaluer l'inclusion de cas d'IMT2 dans les ECR visant à évaluer des BA. Il y avait 19 cohortes regroupant 48 829 patients (40 604 ayant subi un IMT1 et 5 361 ayant subi un IMT2) et 51 ECR regroupant 188 132 patients atteints d'un syndrome coronarien aigu. RÉSULTATS: Chez les patients ayant subi un IMT2, la probabilité non corrigée de mortalité à long terme était environ 2 fois plus élevée que chez les patients ayant subi un IMT1 (rapport de cotes : 2,47; intervalle de confiance à 95 % : 2,06-2,96; p < 0,0001), et la probabilité corrigée de mortalité à long terme était accrue de 45 % (rapport de cotes : 1,45; intervalle de confiance à 95 % : 1,25-1,69; p < 0,0001). Aucune évaluation de l'efficacité (potentielle ou réelle) et de l'innocuité des BA chez les patients ayant subi un IMT2 n'a été publiée. CONCLUSION: Le risque corrigé de mortalité à long terme toutes causes confondues est plus élevé chez les patients ayant subi un IMT2 que chez les patients ayant subi un IMT1. Le rôle des BA reste à élucider dans les cas d'IMT2.

Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events Associated With Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation After Noncardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a frequent occurrence after noncardiac surgery. It remains unclear whether POAF is associated with an increased risk of major adverse events. We aimed to elucidate the risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, and death associated with POAF following noncardiac surgery by a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies and observational studies. METHODS: We searched electronic databases from inception up to August 1, 2019 for all studies that reported stroke or myocardial infarction in adult patients who developed POAF following noncardiac surgery. We used random-effects models to summarize the studies. RESULTS: The final analyses included 28 studies enrolling 2 612 816 patients. At 1-month (10 studies), POAF was associated with an ≈3-fold increase in the risk of stroke (weighted mean 2.1% versus 0.7%; odds ratio [OR], 2.82 [95% CI, 2.15-3.70]; P<0.001). POAF was associated with ≈4-fold increase in the long-term risk of stroke with (weighted mean, 2.0% versus 0.6%; OR, 4.12 [95% CI, 3.32-5.11]; P≤0.001) in 8 studies with ≥12-month follow-up. There was a significant overall increase in the risk of stroke and myocardial infarction associated with POAF (weighted mean, 2.5% versus 0.9%; OR, 3.44 [95% CI, 2.38-4.98]; P<0.001) and (weighted mean, 12.6% versus 2.7%; OR, 4.02 [95% CI, 3.08-5.24]; P<0.001), respectively. Furthermore, POAF was associated with a 3-fold increase in all-cause mortality at 30 days (weighted mean, 15.0% versus 5.4%; OR, 3.36 [95% CI, 2.13-5.31]; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: POAF was associated with markedly higher risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, and all-cause mortality following noncardiac surgery. Future studies are needed to evaluate the impact of optimal cardiovascular pharmacotherapies to prevent POAF and to decrease the risk of major adverse events in these high-risk patients.

Prehabilitation: finally utilizing frailty screening data.

The elderly colorectal cancer patients tend to be frail, at nutrition risk with multiple comorbidities. In view of the stress on the body by surgery and recovery, it makes sense if patients are prepared before appropriately so that they can recover earlier and better. Prehabilitation prior to major surgery has attracted the attention of clinicians recently, and this review highlights the steps that need to be taken to implement a multidisciplinary program. Such programs requires a paradigm shift in the sense that all players need to be working in team for the benefit of patinets' outcome.

Cardiovascular Risk in Men with Prostate Cancer: Insights from the RADICAL PC Study.

PURPOSE: We describe the cardiovascular risk profile in a representative cohort of patients with prostate cancer treated with or without androgen deprivation therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively characterized in detail 2,492 consecutive men (mean age 68 years) with prostate cancer (newly diagnosed or with a plan to prescribe androgen deprivation therapy for the first time) from 16 Canadian sites. Cardiovascular risk was estimated by calculating Framingham risk scores. RESULTS: Most men (92%) had new prostate cancer (intermediate risk 41%, high risk 50%). The highest level of education achieved was primary school in 12%. Most (58%) were current or former smokers, 22% had known cardiovascular disease, 16% diabetes, 45% hypertension, 31% body mass index 30 kg/m2 or greater, 24% low levels of physical activity, mean handgrip strength was 37.3 kg and 69% had a Framingham risk score consistent with high cardiovascular risk. Participants in whom androgen deprivation therapy was planned had higher Framingham risk scores than those not intending to receive androgen deprivation therapy, and this risk was abolished after adjustment for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of men with prostate cancer are at high cardiovascular risk. There is a positive association between a plan to use androgen deprivation therapy and baseline cardiovascular risk factors. However, this association is explained by confounding factors.

Relationship between Perioperative Hypotension and Perioperative Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Major Noncardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative hypotension is associated with cardiovascular events in patients having noncardiac surgery. It is unknown if the severity of preexisting coronary artery disease determines susceptibility to the cardiovascular risks of perioperative hypotension. METHODS: In this retrospective exploratory analysis of a substudy of an international prospective blinded cohort study, 955 patients 45 yr of age or older with history or risk factors for coronary artery disease underwent coronary computed tomographic angiography before elective inpatient noncardiac surgery. The authors evaluated the potential interaction between angiographic findings and perioperative hypotension (defined as systolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg for a total of 10 min or more during surgery or for any duration after surgery and for which intervention was initiated) on the composite outcome of time to myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death up to 30 days after surgery. Angiography assessors were blinded to study outcomes; patients, treating clinicians, and outcome assessors were blinded to angiography findings. RESULTS: Cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death within 30 days after surgery) occurred in 7.7% of patients (74/955), including in 2.7% (8/293) without obstructive coronary disease or hypotension compared to 6.7% (21/314) with obstructive coronary disease but no hypotension (hazard ratio, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.11 to 5.66; P = 0.027), 8.8% (14/159) in patients with hypotension but without obstructive coronary disease (hazard ratio, 3.85; 95% CI, 1.62 to 9.19; P = 0.002), and 16.4% (31/189) with obstructive coronary disease and hypotension (hazard ratio, 7.34; 95% CI, 3.37 to 15.96; P < 0.001). Hypotension was independently associated with cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.99 to 5.06; P < 0.001). This association remained in patients without obstructive disease and did not differ significantly across degrees of coronary disease (P value for interaction, 0.599). CONCLUSIONS: In patients having noncardiac surgery, perioperative hypotension was associated with cardiovascular events regardless of the degree of coronary artery disease on preoperative coronary computed tomographic angiography.

The effect of colchicine administration on postoperative pleural effusion following lung resection: a randomized blinded placebo-controlled feasibility pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: This substudy of the colchicine for prevention of perioperative atrial fibrillation (COP-AF) pilot trial seeks to assess the effect of colchicine administration on the volume of postoperative pleural drainage, duration of chest tube in situ and length of stay following lung resection. METHODS: Between April 2014 and April 2015, 100 patients undergoing lung resection at 2 tertiary care centres participated in a pilot blinded randomized trial comparing perioperative twice daily 0.6 mg of colchicine orally (n = 49) or placebo (n = 51) twice daily for 10 days. The primary outcome was total pleural drainage volume, which was recorded in 8-h intervals for the first 2 postoperative days per standardized protocol. RESULTS: Only 1 patient did not complete the trial. The mean volume of pleural drainage at 40-h mark postoperation was significantly less in the colchicine group (550.9 ml) compared with the placebo group (741.3 ml, P = 0.039). Compared with the placebo group, the colchicine group showed significantly less mean pleural drainage on postoperative Day 2 (583.8 vs 763.3 ml, P = 0.039) and beyond. There were no differences in mean time to chest tube removal (6.8 days for the colchicine group vs 5.9 days for the placebo group, P = 0.585) and mean hospital length of stay (7.4 vs 6.9 days, P = 0.641). CONCLUSIONS: Oral colchicine is potentially effective in diminishing the amount of pleural drainage following lung resection and can be considered in patients at high risk of large postoperative pleural effusion. A full-scale, prospective placebo-controlled randomized trial is needed to assess the clinical significance of perioperative colchicine administration following oncological lung resection.

Colchicine for Prevention of Perioperative Atrial Fibrillation in patients undergoing lung resection surgery: a pilot randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: We carried out a pilot randomized controlled study to determine the feasibility of a large trial evaluating the impact of colchicine versus placebo on postoperative atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter (POAF) among patients undergoing lung resection surgery. METHODS: Patients ≥55 years of age undergoing lung resection surgery were randomly assigned to receive colchicine 0.6 mg or placebo starting a few hours before surgery. Postoperatively, patients received colchicine 0.6 mg or placebo twice daily for an additional 9 days. Our feasibility outcomes included the period of time required to recruit 100 patients, the completeness of follow-up and compliance with the study drug. The primary efficacy outcome was POAF within 30 days of randomization. RESULTS: One hundred patients were randomized (49 to colchicine and 51 to placebo) over a period of 12 months at 2 centres in Canada. All patients completed the 30-day follow-up. The mean staff time required to recruit and to follow-up each patient was 165 min. In all, 71% of patients completed the study drug course without interruption. Patient refusal to continuing taking the study drug was the main reason for permanent drug discontinuation. New POAF occurred in 5 (10.2%) patients in the colchicine group and 7 (13.7%) patients in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.20-2.34). CONCLUSIONS: These results show the feasibility of a trial evaluating Colchicine for the prevention of perioperative Atrial Fibrillation in patients undergoing lung resection surgery. This pilot study will serve as the foundation for the large multicentre COP-AF trial.

Aspirin in Patients With Previous Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery.

Background: Uncertainty remains about the effects of aspirin in patients with prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) having noncardiac surgery. Objective: To evaluate benefits and harms of perioperative aspirin in patients with prior PCI. Design: Nonprespecified subgroup analysis of a multicenter factorial trial. Computerized Internet randomization was done between 2010 and 2013. Patients, clinicians, data collectors, and outcome adjudicators were blinded to treatment assignment. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01082874). Setting: 135 centers in 23 countries. Patients: Adults aged 45 years or older who had or were at risk for atherosclerotic disease and were having noncardiac surgery. Exclusions were placement of a bare-metal stent within 6 weeks, placement of a drug-eluting stent within 1 year, or receipt of nonstudy aspirin within 72 hours before surgery. Intervention: Aspirin therapy (overall trial, n = 4998; subgroup, n = 234) or placebo (overall trial, n = 5012; subgroup, n = 236) initiated within 4 hours before surgery and continued throughout the perioperative period. Of the 470 subgroup patients, 99.9% completed follow-up. Measurements: The 30-day primary outcome was death or nonfatal myocardial infarction; bleeding was a secondary outcome. Results: In patients with prior PCI, aspirin reduced the risk for the primary outcome (absolute risk reduction, 5.5% [95% CI, 0.4% to 10.5%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.50 [CI, 0.26 to 0.95]; P for interaction = 0.036) and for myocardial infarction (absolute risk reduction, 5.9% [CI, 1.0% to 10.8%]; HR, 0.44 [CI, 0.22 to 0.87]; P for interaction = 0.021). The effect on the composite of major and life-threatening bleeding in patients with prior PCI was uncertain (absolute risk increase, 1.3% [CI, -2.6% to 5.2%]). In the overall population, aspirin increased the risk for major bleeding (absolute risk increase, 0.8% [CI, 0.1% to 1.6%]; HR, 1.22 [CI, 1.01 to 1.48]; P for interaction = 0.50). Limitation: Nonprespecified subgroup analysis with small sample. Conclusion: Perioperative aspirin may be more likely to benefit rather than harm patients with prior PCI. Primary Funding Source: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiac Risk Assessment and Management for Patients Who Undergo Noncardiac Surgery.

The Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines Committee and key Canadian opinion leaders believed there was a need for up to date guidelines that used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of evidence assessment for patients who undergo noncardiac surgery. Strong recommendations included: 1) measuring brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal fragment of proBNP (NT-proBNP) before surgery to enhance perioperative cardiac risk estimation in patients who are 65 years of age or older, are 45-64 years of age with significant cardiovascular disease, or have a Revised Cardiac Risk Index score ≥ 1; 2) against performing preoperative resting echocardiography, coronary computed tomography angiography, exercise or cardiopulmonary exercise testing, or pharmacological stress echocardiography or radionuclide imaging to enhance perioperative cardiac risk estimation; 3) against the initiation or continuation of acetylsalicylic acid for the prevention of perioperative cardiac events, except in patients with a recent coronary artery stent or who will undergo carotid endarterectomy; 4) against α2 agonist or ß-blocker initiation within 24 hours before surgery; 5) withholding angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin II receptor blocker starting 24 hours before surgery; 6) facilitating smoking cessation before surgery; 7) measuring daily troponin for 48 to 72 hours after surgery in patients with an elevated NT-proBNP/BNP measurement before surgery or if there is no NT-proBNP/BNP measurement before surgery, in those who have a Revised Cardiac Risk Index score ≥1, age 45-64 years with significant cardiovascular disease, or age 65 years or older; and 8) initiating of long-term acetylsalicylic acid and statin therapy in patients who suffer myocardial injury/infarction after surgery.