Anaesthesia Choice for Creation of Arteriovenous Fistula (ACCess) study protocol : a randomised controlled trial comparing primary unassisted patency at 1 year of primary arteriovenous fistulae created under regional compared to local anaesthesia.

INTRODUCTION: Arteriovenous fistulae (AVF) are the 'gold standard' vascular access for haemodialysis. Universal usage is limited, however, by a high early failure rate. Several small, single-centre studies have demonstrated better early patency rates for AVF created under regional anaesthesia (RA) compared with local anaesthesia (LA). The mechanistic hypothesis is that the sympathetic blockade associated with RA causes vasodilatation and increased blood flow through the new AVF. Despite this, considerable variation in practice exists in the UK. A high-quality, adequately powered, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) is required to definitively inform practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Anaesthesia Choice for Creation of Arteriovenous Fistula (ACCess) study is a multicentre, observer-blinded RCT comparing primary radiocephalic/brachiocephalic AVF created under regional versus LA. The primary outcome is primary unassisted AVF patency at 1 year. Access-specific (eg, stenosis/thrombosis), patient-specific (including health-related quality of life) and safety secondary outcomes will be evaluated. Health economic analysis will also be undertaken. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The ACCess study has been approved by the West of Scotland Research and ethics committee number 3 (20/WS/0178). Results will be published in open-access peer-reviewed journals within 12 months of completion of the trial. We will also present our findings at key national and international renal and anaesthetic meetings, and support dissemination of trial outcomes via renal patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14153938. SPONSOR: NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde GN19RE456, Protocol V.1.3 (8 May 2021), REC/IRAS ID: 290482.

Which is more useful in predicting hospital mortality--dichotomised blood test results or actual test values? A retrospective study in two hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Routine blood tests are an integral part of clinical medicine and in interpreting blood test results clinicians have two broad options. (1) Dichotomise the blood tests into normal/abnormal or (2) use the actual values and overlook the reference values. We refer to these as the "binary" and the "non-binary" strategy respectively. We investigate which strategy is better at predicting the risk of death in hospital based on seven routinely undertaken blood tests (albumin, creatinine, haemoglobin, potassium, sodium, urea, and white blood cell count) using tree models to implement the two strategies. METHODOLOGY: A retrospective database study of emergency admissions to an acute hospital during April 2009 to March 2010, involving 10,050 emergency admissions with routine blood tests undertaken within 24 hours of admission. We compared the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve for predicting in-hospital mortality using the binary and non-binary strategy. RESULTS: The mortality rate was 6.98% (701/10050). The mean predicted risk of death in those who died was significantly (p-value <0.0001) lower using the binary strategy (risk = 0.181 95%CI: 0.193 to 0.210) versus the non-binary strategy (risk = 0.222 95%CI: 0.194 to 0.251), representing a risk difference of 28.74 deaths in the deceased patients (n = 701). The binary strategy had a significantly (p-value <0.0001) lower area under the ROC curve of 0.832 (95% CI: 0.819 to 0.845) versus the non-binary strategy (0.853 95% CI: 0.840 to 0.867). Similar results were obtained using data from another hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Dichotomising routine blood test results is less accurate in predicting in-hospital mortality than using actual test values because it underestimates the risk of death in patients who died. Further research into the use of actual blood test values in clinical decision making is required especially as the infrastructure to implement this potentially promising strategy already exists in most hospitals.

Health technology assessment review: remote monitoring of vital signs--current status and future challenges.

Recent developments in communications technologies and associated computing and digital electronics now permit patient data, including routine vital signs, to be surveyed at a distance. Remote monitoring, or telemonitoring, can be regarded as a subdivision of telemedicine - the use of electronic and telecommunications technologies to provide and support health care when distance separates the participants. Depending on environment and purpose, the patient and the carer/system surveying, analysing or interpreting the data could be separated by as little as a few feet or be on different continents. Most telemonitoring systems will incorporate five components: data acquisition using an appropriate sensor; transmission of data from patient to clinician; integration of data with other data describing the state of the patient; synthesis of an appropriate action, or response or escalation in the care of the patient, and associated decision support; and storage of data. Telemonitoring is currently being used in community-based healthcare, at the scene of medical emergencies, by ambulance services and in hospitals. Current challenges in telemonitoring include: the lack of a full range of appropriate sensors, the bulk weight and size of the whole system or its components, battery life, available bandwidth, network coverage, and the costs of data transmission via public networks. Telemonitoring also has the ability to produce a mass of data - but this requires interpretation to be of clinical use and much necessary research work remains to be done.

The Bellagio Report: Cardiovascular risks of spaceflight: implications for the future of space travel.

BACKGROUND: Long-duration space missions, as well as emerging civilian tourist space travel activities, prompted review and assessment of data available to date focusing on cardiovascular risk and available risk mitigation strategies. The goal was the creation of tools for risk priority assessments taking into account the probability of the occurrence of an adverse cardiovascular event and available and published literature from spaceflight data as well as available risk mitigation strategies. METHODS: An international group of scientists convened in Bellagio, Italy, in 2004 under the auspices of the Aerospace Medical Association to review available literature for cardiac risks identified in the Bioastronautics Critical Path Roadmap (versions 2000, 2004). This effort led to the creation of a priority assessment framework to allow for an objective assessment of the hazard, probability of its occurrence, mission impact, and available risk mitigation measures. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: Spaceflight data are presented regarding evidence/ no evidence of cardiac dysrhythmias, cardiovascular disease, and cardiac function as well as orthostatic intolerance, exercise capacity, and peripheral resistance in presyncopal astronauts compared to non-presyncopal astronauts. Assessment of the priority of different countermeasures was achieved with a tabular framework with focus on probability of occurrence, mission impact, compliance, practicality, and effectiveness of countermeasures. Special operational settings and circumstances related to sensitive portions of any mission and the impact of environmental influences on mission effectiveness are addressed. The need for development of diagnostic tools, techniques, and countermeasure devices, food preparation, preservation technologies and medication, as well as an infrastructure to support these operations are stressed. Selected countermeasure options, including artificial gravity and pharmacological countermeasures need to be systematically evaluated and validated in flight, especially after long-duration exposures. Data need to be collected regarding the emerging field of suborbital and orbital civilian space travel, to allow for sound risk assessment.