Erratum to "Exploring the cost-effectiveness of high versus low perioperative fraction of inspired oxygen in the prevention of surgical site infections among abdominal surgery patients in three low- and middle-income countries" [BJA Open 7 (2023) 100207].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.bjao.2023.100207.].

Erratum to 'Exploring the cost-effectiveness of high versus low perioperative fraction of inspired oxygen in the prevention of surgical site infections among abdominal surgery patients in three low- and middle-income countries' [BJA Open 7 (2023) 100207].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.bjao.2023.100207.].

Mortality and major postoperative complications within 1 year after vascular surgery: a prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients undergoing vascular procedures are prone to developing postoperative complications affecting their short­term mortality. Prospective reports describing the incidence of long­term complications after vascular surgery are lacking. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe the incidence of complications 1 year after vascular surgery and to evaluate an association between myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS) and 1­year mortality. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a substudy of a large prospective cohort study Vascular Events in Noncardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation (VISION). Recruitment took place in 28 centers across 14 countries from August 2007 to November 2013. We enrolled patients aged 45 years or older undergoing vascular surgery, receiving general or regional anesthesia, and hospitalized for at least 1 night postoperatively. Plasma cardiac troponin T concentration was measured before the surgery and on the first, second, and third postoperative day. The patients or their relatives were contacted 1 year after the procedure to assess the incidence of major postoperative complications. RESULTS: We enrolled 2641 patients who underwent vascular surgery, 2534 (95.9%) of whom completed 1­year follow­up. Their mean (SD) age was 68.2 (9.8) years, and the cohort was predominantly male (77.5%). The most frequent 1­year complications were myocardial infarction (224/2534, 8.8%), amputation (187/2534, 7.4%), and congestive heart failure (67/2534, 2.6%). The 1­year mortality rate was 8.8% (223/2534). MINS occurred in 633 patients (24%) and was associated with an increased 1­year mortality (hazard ratio, 2.82; 95% CI, 2.14-3.72; P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of major postoperative complications after vascular surgery is high. The occurrence of MINS is associated with a nearly 3­fold increase in 1­year mortality.

Method of Anesthesia and Perioperative Risk Factors, Maternal Anesthesia Complications, and Neonatal Mortality Following Cesarean Delivery in Africa: A Substudy of a 7-Day Prospective Observational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The African Surgical Outcomes Study (ASOS) found that maternal mortality following cesarean delivery in Africa is 50 times higher than in high-income countries, and associated with obstetric hemorrhage and anesthesia complications. Mothers who died were more likely to receive general anesthesia (GA). The associations between GA versus spinal anesthesia (SA) and preoperative risk factors, maternal anesthesia complications, and neonatal outcomes following cesarean delivery in Africa are unknown. METHODS: This is a secondary explanatory analysis of 3792 patients undergoing cesarean delivery in ASOS, a prospective observational cohort study, across 22 African countries. The primary aim was to estimate the association between preoperative risk factors and the outcome of the method of anesthesia delivered. Secondary aims were to estimate the association between the method of anesthesia and the outcomes (1) maternal intraoperative hypotension, (2) severe maternal anesthesia complications, and (3) neonatal mortality. Generalized linear mixed models adjusting for obstetric gravidity and gestation, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) category, urgency of surgery, maternal comorbidities, fetal distress, and level of anesthesia provider were used. RESULTS: Of 3709 patients, SA was performed in 2968 (80%) and GA in 741 (20%). Preoperative factors independently associated with GA for cesarean delivery were gestational age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.093; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.052-1.135), ASA categories III (aOR, 11.84; 95% CI, 2.93-46.31) and IV (aOR, 11.48; 95% CI, 2.93-44.93), eclampsia (aOR, 3.92; 95% CI, 2.18-7.06), placental abruption (aOR, 6.23; 95% CI, 3.36-11.54), and ruptured uterus (aOR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.36-9.63). SA was administered to 48 of 94 (51.1%) patients with eclampsia, 12 of 28 (42.9%) with cardiac disease, 14 of 19 (73.7%) with preoperative sepsis, 48 of 76 (63.2%) with antepartum hemorrhage, 30 of 55 (54.5%) with placenta previa, 33 of 78 (42.3%) with placental abruption, and 12 of 29 (41.4%) with a ruptured uterus. The composite maternal outcome "all anesthesia complications" was more frequent in GA than SA (9/741 [1.2%] vs 3/2968 [0.1%], P < .001). The unadjusted neonatal mortality was higher with GA than SA (65/662 [9.8%] vs 73/2669 [2.7%], P < .001). The adjusted analyses demonstrated no association between method of anesthesia and (1) intraoperative maternal hypotension and (2) neonatal mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of patients undergoing anesthesia for cesarean delivery in Africa indicated patients more likely to receive GA. Anesthesia complications and neonatal mortality were more frequent following GA. SA was often administered to high-risk patients, including those with eclampsia or obstetric hemorrhage. Training in the principles of selection of method of anesthesia, and the skills of safe GA and neonatal resuscitation, is recommended.

One-year Outcomes after Discharge from Noncardiac Surgery and Association between Predischarge Complications and Death after Discharge: Analysis of the VISION Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: In previous analyses, myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, major bleeding, and sepsis were independently associated with most deaths in the 30 days after noncardiac surgery, but most of these deaths occurred during the index hospitalization for surgery. The authors set out to describe outcomes after discharge from hospital up to 1 yr after inpatient noncardiac surgery and associations between predischarge complications and postdischarge death up to 1 yr after surgery. METHODS: This study was an analysis of patients discharged after inpatient noncardiac surgery in a large international prospective cohort study across 28 centers from 2007 to 2013 of patients aged 45 yr or older followed to 1 yr after surgery. The study estimated (1) the cumulative postdischarge incidence of death and other outcomes up to a year after surgery and (2) the adjusted time-varying associations between postdischarge death and predischarge complications including myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, major bleeding, sepsis, infection without sepsis, stroke, congestive heart failure, clinically important atrial fibrillation or flutter, amputation, venous thromboembolism, and acute kidney injury managed with dialysis. RESULTS: Among 38,898 patients discharged after surgery, the cumulative 1-yr incidence was 5.8% (95% CI, 5.5 to 6.0%) for all-cause death and 24.7% (95% CI, 24.2 to 25.1%) for all-cause hospital readmission. Predischarge complications were associated with 33.7% (95% CI, 27.2 to 40.2%) of deaths up to 30 days after discharge and 15.0% (95% CI, 12.0 to 17.9%) up to 1 yr. Most of the association with death was due to myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (15.6% [95% CI, 9.3 to 21.9%] of deaths within 30 days, 6.4% [95% CI, 4.1 to 8.7%] within 1 yr), major bleeding (15.0% [95% CI, 8.3 to 21.7%] within 30 days, 4.7% [95% CI, 2.2 to 7.2%] within 1 yr), and sepsis (5.4% [95% CI, 2.2 to 8.6%] within 30 days, 2.1% [95% CI, 1.0 to 3.1%] within 1 yr). CONCLUSIONS: One in 18 patients 45 yr old or older discharged after inpatient noncardiac surgery died within 1 yr, and one quarter were readmitted to the hospital. The risk of death associated with predischarge perioperative complications persists for weeks to months after discharge.

Hypotension-Avoidance Versus Hypertension-Avoidance Strategies in Noncardiac Surgery : An International Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Among patients having noncardiac surgery, perioperative hemodynamic abnormalities are associated with vascular complications. Uncertainty remains about what intraoperative blood pressure to target and how to manage long-term antihypertensive medications perioperatively. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of a hypotension-avoidance and a hypertension-avoidance strategy on major vascular complications after noncardiac surgery. DESIGN: Partial factorial randomized trial of 2 perioperative blood pressure management strategies (reported here) and tranexamic acid versus placebo. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03505723). SETTING: 110 hospitals in 22 countries. PATIENTS: 7490 patients having noncardiac surgery who were at risk for vascular complications and were receiving 1 or more long-term antihypertensive medications. INTERVENTION: In the hypotension-avoidance strategy group, the intraoperative mean arterial pressure target was 80 mm Hg or greater; before and for 2 days after surgery, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors were withheld and the other long-term antihypertensive medications were administered only for systolic blood pressures 130 mm Hg or greater, following an algorithm. In the hypertension-avoidance strategy group, the intraoperative mean arterial pressure target was 60 mm Hg or greater; all antihypertensive medications were continued before and after surgery. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was a composite of vascular death and nonfatal myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, stroke, and cardiac arrest at 30 days. Outcome adjudicators were masked to treatment assignment. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in 520 of 3742 patients (13.9%) in the hypotension-avoidance group and in 524 of 3748 patients (14.0%) in the hypertension-avoidance group (hazard ratio, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.12]; P = 0.92). Results were consistent for patients who used 1 or more than 1 antihypertensive medication in the long term. LIMITATION: Adherence to the assigned strategies was suboptimal; however, results were consistent across different adherence levels. CONCLUSION: In patients having noncardiac surgery, our hypotension-avoidance and hypertension-avoidance strategies resulted in a similar incidence of major vascular complications. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and Research Grant Council of Hong Kong.

Indications, Challenges, and Characteristics of Successful Implementation of Perioperative Registries in Low Resource Settings: A Systematic Review.

Perioperative registries can be utilised to track outcomes, develop risk prediction models, and make evidence-based decisions and interventions. To better understand and support initiatives to establish clinical registries, this study aimed to assess the indications, challenges, and characteristics of successful perioperative registries in low-resource settings, where there is unmet surgical demand and patients have a mortality rate up to double that of high-income countries. We conducted a librarian-assisted literature search of international research databases of articles published between January 1969 and January 2021. Studies were filtered using predefined criteria and responses to two Mixed Method Appraisal Tool screening questions. A Direct Content Analysis Method was used to synthesis. e data for eligible studies based on predefined criteria. The search identified 2793 abstracts. After removing duplicates and excluding studies that did not meet eligibility criteria, twelve studies were included, conducted in South America (n = 4), Africa (n = 5), the Middle East (n = 2), and Asia (n = 1). The lack of context-specific data for determining and evaluating patient outcomes (n = 7) was the major indication for implementation. Organising local research teams and engaging stakeholders in the host country were associated with successful implementation. Inadequate funding for data collectors and monitoring data quality were identified as challenges (n = 4). The goal of a perioperative registry is to generate data to influence and support quality improvement, and national surgical policies. Efforts to establish perioperative registries in low- and middle-income countries should engage local teams and stakeholders and seek to overcome challenges in data collection and monitoring.

Determining the Minimum Dataset for Surgical Patients in Africa: A Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: It is often difficult for clinicians in African low- and middle-income countries middle-income countries to access useful aggregated data to identify areas for quality improvement. The aim of this Delphi study was to develop a standardised perioperative dataset for use in a registry. METHODS: A Delphi method was followed to achieve consensus on the data points to include in a minimum perioperative dataset. The study consisted of two electronic surveys, followed by an online discussion and a final electronic survey (four Rounds). RESULTS: Forty-one members of the African Perioperative Research Group participated in the process. Forty data points were deemed important and feasible to include in a minimum dataset for electronic capturing during the perioperative workflow by clinicians. A smaller dataset consisting of eight variables to define risk-adjusted perioperative mortality rate was also described. CONCLUSIONS: The minimum perioperative dataset can be used in a collaborative effort to establish a resource accessible to African clinicians in improving quality of care.

Nurses' Priorities for Perioperative Research in Africa.

BACKGROUND: Mortality rates among surgical patients in Africa are double those of surgical patients in high-income countries. Internationally, there is a call to improve access to and safety of surgical and perioperative care. Perioperative research needs to be coordinated across Africa to positively impact perioperative mortality. METHODS: The aim of this study was to determine the top 10 perioperative research priorities for perioperative nurses in Africa, using a research priority-setting process. A Delphi technique with 4 rounds was used to establish consensus on the top 10 perioperative research priorities. In the first round, respondents submitted research priorities. Similar research priorities were amalgamated into single priorities when possible. In round 2, respondents ranked the priorities using a scale from 1 to 10 (of which 1 is the first/highest priority, and 10 is the last/lowest priority). The top 20 (of 31) were determined after round 2. In round 3, respondents ranked their top 10 priorities. The final round was an online discussion to reach consensus on the top 10 perioperative research priorities. RESULTS: A total of 17 perioperative nurses representing 12 African countries determined the top research priorities, which were: (1) strategies to translate and implement perioperative research into clinical practice in Africa, (2) creating a perioperative research culture and the tools, resources, and funding needed to conduct perioperative nursing research in Africa, (3) optimizing nurse-led postoperative pain management, (4) survey of operating theater and critical care resources, (5) perception of, and adherence to sterile field and aseptic techniques among surgeons in Africa (6) surgical staff burnout, (7) broad principles of infection control in surgical wards, (8) the role of interprofessional communication to promote clinical teamwork when caring for surgical patients, (9) effective implementation of the surgical safety checklist and measures of its impact, and (10) constituents of quality nursing care. CONCLUSIONS: These research priorities provide the structure for an intermediate-term research agenda for perioperative research in Africa.

Barriers to Quality Perioperative Care Delivery in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Qualitative Rapid Appraisal Study.

BACKGROUND: Provision of timely, safe, and affordable surgical care is an essential component of any high-quality health system. Increasingly, it is recognized that poor quality of care in the perioperative period (before, during, and after surgery) may contribute to significant excess mortality and morbidity. Therefore, improving access to surgical procedures alone will not address the disparities in surgical outcomes globally until the quality of perioperative care is addressed. We aimed to identify key barriers to quality perioperative care delivery for 3 "Bellwether" procedures (cesarean delivery, emergency laparotomy, and long-bone fracture fixation) in 5 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: Ten hospitals representing secondary and tertiary facilities from 5 LMICs were purposefully selected: 2 upper-middle income (Colombia and South Africa); 2 lower-middle income (Sri Lanka and Tanzania); and 1 lower income (Uganda). We used a rapid appraisal design (pathway mapping, ethnography, and interviews) to map out and explore the complexities of the perioperative pathway and care delivery for the Bellwether procedures. The framework approach was used for data analysis, with triangulation across different data sources to identify barriers in the country and pattern matching to identify common barriers across the 5 LMICs. RESULTS: We developed 25 pathway maps, undertook >30 periods of observation, and held >40 interviews with patients and clinical staff. Although the extent and impact of the barriers varied across the LMIC settings, 4 key common barriers to safe and effective perioperative care were identified: (1) the fragmented nature of the care pathways, (2) the limited human and structural resources available for the provision of care, (3) the direct and indirect costs of care for patients (even in health systems for which care is ostensibly free of charge), and (4) patients' low expectations of care. CONCLUSIONS: We identified key barriers to effective perioperative care in LMICs. Addressing these barriers is important if LMIC health systems are to provide safe, timely, and affordable provision of the Bellwether procedures.

Perioperative Care Pathways in Low- and Lower-Middle-Income Countries: Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Safe and effective care for surgical patients requires high-quality perioperative care. In high-income countries (HICs), care pathways have been shown to be effective in standardizing clinical practice to optimize patient outcomes. Little is known about their use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where perioperative mortality is substantially higher. METHODS: Systematic review and narrative synthesis to identify and describe studies in peer-reviewed journals on the implementation or evaluation of perioperative care pathways in LMICs. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, WHO Global Index, Web of Science, Scopus, Global Health and SciELO alongside citation searching. Descriptive statistics, taxonomy classifications and framework analyses were used to summarize the setting, outcome measures, implementation strategies, and facilitators and barriers to implementation. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included. The majority of pathways were set in tertiary hospitals in lower-middle-income countries and were focused on elective surgery. Only six studies were assessed as high quality. Most pathways were adapted from international guidance and had been implemented in a single hospital. The most commonly reported barriers to implementation were cost of interventions and lack of available resources. CONCLUSIONS: Studies from a geographically diverse set of low and lower-middle-income countries demonstrate increasing use of perioperative pathways adapted to resource-poor settings, though there is sparsity of literature from low-income countries, first-level hospitals and emergency surgery. As in HICs, addressing patient and clinician beliefs is a major challenge in improving care. Context-relevant and patient-centered research, including qualitative and implementation studies, would make a valuable contribution to existing knowledge.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Abdominal and Pelvic Surgery at Primary and Secondary Hospitals in Low-Middle-Income Countries (LMIC's): Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendation.

BACKGROUND: This is the first Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guideline for primary and secondary hospitals in low-middle-income countries (LMIC's) for elective abdominal and gynecologic care. METHODS: The ERAS LMIC Guidelines group was established by the ERAS® Society in collaboration with different representatives of perioperative care from LMIC's. The group consisted of seven members from the ERAS® Society and eight members from LMIC's. An updated systematic literature search and evaluation of evidence from previous ERAS® guidelines was performed by the leading authors of the Colorectal (2018) and Gynecologic (2019) surgery guidelines (Gustafsson et al in World J Surg 43:6592-695, Nelson et al in Int J Gynecol Cancer 29(4):651-668). Meta-analyses randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies from both HIC's and LMIC's were considered for each perioperative item. The members in the LMIC group then applied the current evidence and adapted the recommendations for each intervention as well as identifying possible new items relevant to LMIC's. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system (GRADE) methodology was used to determine the quality of the published evidence. The strength of the recommendations was based on importance of the problem, quality of evidence, balance between desirable and undesirable effects, acceptability to key stakeholders, cost of implementation and specifically the feasibility of implementing in LMIC's and determined through discussions and consensus. RESULTS: In addition to previously described ERAS® Society interventions, the following items were included, revised or discussed: the Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC), preoperative routine human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing in countries with a high prevalence of HIV/AIDS (CD4 and viral load for those patients that are HIV positive), delirium screening and prevention, COVID 19 screening, VTE prophylaxis, immuno-nutrition, prehabilitation, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and a standardized postoperative monitoring guideline. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are seen as a starting point to address the urgent need to improve perioperative care and to effect data-driven, evidence-based care in LMIC's.

Effect of a Perioperative Hypotension-Avoidance Strategy Versus a Hypertension-Avoidance Strategy on the Risk of Acute Kidney Injury: A Clinical Research Protocol for a Substudy of the POISE-3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients who take antihypertensive medications continue taking them on the morning of surgery and during the perioperative period. However, growing evidence suggests this practice may contribute to perioperative hypotension and a higher risk of complications. This protocol describes an acute kidney injury substudy of the Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3) trial, which is testing the effect of a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy versus a hypertension-avoidance strategy in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a substudy of POISE-3 to determine whether a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy reduces the risk of acute kidney injury compared with a hypertension-avoidance strategy. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial with 1:1 randomization to the intervention (a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy) or control (a hypertension-avoidance strategy). INTERVENTION: If the presurgery systolic blood pressure (SBP) is <130 mmHg, all antihypertensive medications are withheld on the morning of surgery. If the SBP is ≥130 mmHg, some medications (but not angiotensin receptor blockers [ACEIs], angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], or renin inhibitors) may be continued in a stepwise manner. During surgery, the patients' mean arterial pressure (MAP) is maintained at ≥80 mmHg. During the first 48 hours after surgery, some antihypertensive medications (but not ACEIs, ARBs, or renin inhibitors) may be restarted in a stepwise manner if the SBP is ≥130 mmHg. CONTROL: Patients receive their usual antihypertensive medications before and after surgery. The patients' MAP is maintained at ≥60 mmHg from anesthetic induction until the end of surgery. SETTING: Recruitment from 108 centers in 22 countries from 2018 to 2021. PATIENTS: Patients (~6800) aged ≥45 years having noncardiac surgery who have or are at risk of atherosclerotic disease and who routinely take antihypertensive medications. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome of the substudy is postoperative acute kidney injury, defined as an increase in serum creatinine concentration of either ≥26.5 µmol/L (≥0.3 mg/dL) within 48 hours of randomization or ≥50% within 7 days of randomization. METHODS: The primary analysis (intention-to-treat) will examine the relative risk and 95% confidence interval of acute kidney injury in the intervention versus control group. We will repeat the primary analysis using alternative definitions of acute kidney injury and examine effect modification by preexisting chronic kidney disease, defined as a prerandomization estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. RESULTS: Substudy results will be analyzed in 2022. LIMITATIONS: It is not possible to mask patients or providers to the intervention; however, objective measures will be used to assess acute kidney injury. CONCLUSIONS: This substudy will provide generalizable estimates of the effect of a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy on the risk of acute kidney injury.

CONTEXTE: La plupart des patients qui prennent des médicaments antihypertenseurs continuent de les prendre le matin d'une intervention chirurgicale et pendant la période périopératoire. De plus en plus de preuves suggèrent que cette pratique pourrait entraîner l'hypotension périopératoire et augmenter le risque de complications. Ce protocole décrit une sous-étude sur l'insuffisance rénale aiguë (IRA) découlant de l'essai Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3). Cet essai teste l'effet d'une stratégie d'évitement de l'hypotension périopératoire par rapport à une stratégie d'évitement de l'hypertension chez des patients qui subissent une chirurgie non cardiaque. OBJECTIFS: Cette sous-étude de l'essai POISE-3 vise à déterminer si une stratégie d'évitement de l'hypotension périopératoire réduit le risque d'IRA comparativement à la stratégie d'évitement de l'hypertension. TYPE D'ÉTUDE: Essai clinique randomisé à répartition 1:1 au groupe intervention (stratégie d'évitement de l'hypotension périopératoire) ou au groupe témoin (stratégie d'évitement de l'hypertension). GROUPE INTERVENTION: Si la pression artérielle systolique (PAS) avant l'opération est <130 mmHg, tous les médicaments antihypertenseurs sont suspendus le matin de la chirurgie. Si la PAS est ≥130 mmHg, certains médicaments (excluant les inhibiteurs de l'enzyme de conversion de l'angiotensine [IECA], les antagonistes du récepteur de l'angiotensine [ARA] ou les inhibiteurs de la rénine) peuvent être poursuivis de façon graduelle. Pendant la chirurgie, la pression artérielle moyenne (PAM) du patient est maintenue à ≥80 mmHg. Dans les 48 heures suivant l'intervention chirurgicale, certains médicaments antihypertenseurs (excluant les IECA, les ARA ou les inhibiteurs de la rénine) peuvent être réintroduits par étapes si la PAS est ≥130 mmHg. GROUPE TÉMOIN: Les patients reçoivent leurs médicaments antihypertenseurs habituels avant et après la chirurgie. La PAM du patient est maintenue à ≥60 mmHg de l'induction de l'anesthésie à la fin de l'intervention chirurgicale. CADRE: Recrutement à partir de 108 centres dans 22 pays entre 2018 à 2021. SUJETS: Des patients (~6 800) âgés de 45 ans et plus atteints d'athérosclérose, ou présentant un risque de l'être, devant subir une chirurgie non cardiaque et prenant des médicaments antihypertenseurs sur une base régulière. MESURES: Le principal critère d'évaluation de cette sous-étude est une IRA postopératoire définie par une hausse d'au moins 26,5 µmol/L (≥0,3 mg/dL) de la créatinine sérique dans les 48 heures suivant la randomisation ou d'au moins 50 % dans les 7 jours suivant la randomisation. MÉTHODOLOGIE: L'analyse primaire (par intention de traiter) examinera le risque relatif d'une IRA et l'intervalle de confiance à 95 % dans le groupe intervention par rapport au groupe témoin. Nous répéterons l'analyse primaire en utilisant d'autres définitions de l'IRA et nous examinerons la modification de l'effet en présence d'une insuffisance rénale préexistante (définie par un DFGe prérandomisation <60 ml/min/1,73 m2). RÉSULTATS: Les résultats de cette sous-étude seront analysés en 2022. LIMITES: Il n'est pas possible de procéder à l'insu des patients ou des prestataires de soins pour cette intervention; des mesures objectives seront toutefois utilisées pour évaluer l'IRA. CONCLUSION: Cette sous-étude fournira des estimations généralisables de l'effet d'une stratégie visant à éviter l'hypotension périopératoire sur le risque d'insuffisance rénale aiguë.

Postoperative outcomes associated with surgical care for women in Africa: an international risk-adjusted analysis of prospective observational cohorts.

Background: Improving women's health is a critical component of the sustainable development goals. Although obstetric outcomes in Africa have received significant focus, non-obstetric surgical outcomes for women in Africa remain under-examined. Methods: We did a secondary analysis of the African Surgical Outcomes Study (ASOS) and International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), two 7-day prospective observational cohort studies of outcomes after adult inpatient surgery. This sub-study focuses specifically on the analysis of the female, elective, non-obstetric, non-gynaecological surgical data collected during these two large multicentre studies. The African data from both cohorts are compared with international (non-African) outcomes in a risk-adjusted logistic regression analysis using a generalised linear mixed-effects model. The primary outcome was severe postoperative complications including in-hospital mortality in Africa compared with non-African outcomes. Results: A total of 1698 African participants and 18 449 international participants met the inclusion criteria. The African cohort were younger than the international cohort with a lower preoperative risk profile. Severe complications occurred in 48 (2.9%) of 1671, and 431 (2.3%) of 18 449 patients in the African and international cohorts, respectively, with in-hospital mortality after severe complications of 23/48 (47.9%) in Africa and 78/431 (18.1%) internationally. Women in Africa had an adjusted odds ratio of 2.06 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-3.62; P=0.012) of developing a severe postoperative complication after elective non-obstetric, non-gynaecological surgery, compared with the international cohort. Conclusions: Women in Africa have double the risk adjusted odds of severe postoperative complications (including in-hospital mortality) after elective non-obstetric, non-gynaecological surgery compared with the international incidence.

The Cost Implications of Dabigatran in Patients with Myocardial Injury After Non-Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Management of Myocardial Injury after Non-Cardiac Surgery (MANAGE) trial demonstrated that dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was more effective than placebo in preventing the primary composite outcome of vascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-hemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, amputation and symptomatic venous thromboembolism in patients with myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS). The cost implications of dabigatran for this population are unknown but are important given the significant clinical implications. METHODS: Hospitalized events, procedures, and study and non-study medications were documented. We applied Canadian unit costs to healthcare resources consumed for all patients in the trial, and calculated the average cost per patient in Canadian dollars for the duration of the study (median follow-up of 16 months). A sensitivity analysis was performed using only Canadian patients, and subgroup analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: The total study cost for the dabigatran group was $9985 per patient, compared with $10,082 for placebo, a difference of - $97 (95% confidence interval [CI] - $2128 to $3672). Savings arising from fewer clinical events and procedures in the dabigatran 110 mg twice-daily group were enough to offset the cost of the study drug. In Canadian patients, the difference was $250 (95% CI -$2848 to $4840). Both differences were considered cost neutral. Dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was cost saving or cost neutral in many subgroups that were considered. CONCLUSION: Dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was cost neutral for patients in the MANAGE trial. Our cost findings support the use of dabigatran 110 mg twice daily in patients with MINS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier number NCT01661101.