Associations of inflammatory biomarkers with morbidity and mortality after noncardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Noncardiac surgery is associated with an inflammatory response. Whether increased inflammation in the perioperative period is associated with subsequent morbidity and mortality is unknown. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were systematically searched from date of inception until May 2023. Longitudinal studies were included if they reported multivariable adjusted associations of biomarkers measured preoperatively and/or within 10 days after surgery with at least one prespecified adverse outcome in noncardiac surgery patients. Data were extracted independently and in duplicate. Risk estimates were pooled using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models and reported as summary odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. The outcomes were all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events. RESULTS: Fifty-two studies with a total of 121,849 patients were included. The median follow-up was 56 [IQR, 28-63] months and the average age was 57 (±3) years. Elevated preoperative C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were associated with a higher risk of mortality (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.29-1.90, I2 = 93%, 28 studies). This association was stronger in non-cancer surgery populations (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.92-2.31, I2 = 0%, 4 studies) when compared to cancer surgery populations (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.26-1.81, I2 = 83%, 24 studies) (p for subgroup difference = 0.001). Similarly, higher postoperative CRP levels were associated with all-cause mortality (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.17-2.20, I2 = 90%, 7 studies). Higher preoperative CRP levels were associated with major cardiovascular events (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.51-2.94, I2 = 0%, 2 studies). Other preoperatively measured biomarkers associated with all-cause mortality were fibrinogen (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.05-2.09, I2 = 52%, 5 studies), interleukin-6 (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.07-1.28, I2 = 27%, 3 studies), and tumour necrosis factor-alpha (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.16-1.61, I2 = 0%, 2 studies). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Inflammatory biomarker levels in the perioperative period were associated with all-cause mortality and adverse cardiovascular events in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

Associations of Inflammatory Biomarkers With the Risk of Morbidity and Mortality After Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although inflammatory biomarkers have been associated with cardiovascular events in nonsurgical settings, these associations have not been systematically addressed in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. This review aimed to evaluate the relationships of inflammatory markers with mortality and adverse cardiovascular events in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and Central databases were systematically searched for studies reporting pre- or postoperative levels of inflammatory biomarkers in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Outcomes of interest were postoperative mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Studies reporting multivariable adjusted risk estimates were included. Risk estimates were pooled with the use of random-effects models and reported as summary odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: Among 14,465 citations identified, 29 studies including 29,401 participants met the eligibility criteria. The average follow-up time after surgery was 31 months. Preoperative C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.60-2.20; I2 = 19%; 11 studies) and MACE (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.34-2.24; I2 = 0%; 3 studies). CRP levels measured on postoperative day 6 (OR 7.4, 95% CI 2.90-18.88, 1 study) and day 10 (OR 11.8, 95% CI 3.50-39.78, 1 study) were associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality. Less, but overall similar, information was available for other inflammatory biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: In this large meta-analysis, inflammatory biomarkers measured before or after cardiac surgery were associated with mortality and adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Anticoagulation use in perioperative atrial fibrillation after noncardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, and death after noncardiac surgery. Anticoagulation therapy is effective for stroke prevention in nonsurgical atrial fibrillation, but its efficacy and safety in perioperative atrial fibrillation are unknown. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from database inception until January 2022. We included studies comparing anticoagulation versus no anticoagulation use in patients with perioperative atrial fibrillation after noncardiac surgery. Our study outcomes included stroke ± systemic embolism, bleeding, mortality, myocardial infarction, and venous thromboembolism. We pooled studies using fixed-effects models. We reported summary risk ratios (RRs) for studies reporting multivariable-adjusted results. RESULTS: Seven observational studies but no randomised trials were included. Of the 27,822 patients, 29.1% were prescribed therapeutic anticoagulation. Anticoagulation use was associated with a lower risk of stroke ± systemic embolism (RR 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85; I2 = 81%; 3 studies) but a higher risk of bleeding (RR 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.25; 1 study). There was a lower risk of mortality associated with anticoagulation use (RR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.40-0.51; I2 = 80%; 2 studies). There was no difference in the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 2.19; 95% CI, 0.97-4.96; 1 study). The certainty of the evidence was very low across all outcomes. CONCLUSION: Anticoagulation is associated with a reduced risk of stroke and death but an increased risk of bleeding. The quality of the evidence is very poor. Randomised trials are needed to better determine the effects of anticoagulation use in this population.

Reporting and interpretation of effects in non-randomized nutritional and environmental epidemiology: a methods study.

PURPOSE: The presentation of absolute effects, in addition to relative effects, is critical to the optimal interpretation of effect estimates. Failure to present and interpret absolute effects may obscure the magnitude of the effect of an intervention or exposure and mislead evidence users. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we estimate the proportion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) addressing the health effects of nutritional and environmental exposures that report absolute effects. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from 2019 through 2021 for SRMAs addressing the health effects of nutritional and environmental exposures and patient-important health outcomes. We included a sample of 200 SRMAs. Pairs of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, reviewed search records for eligibility and collected data from SRMAs. RESULTS: More than two-thirds (153/200; 76.5%) of eligible systematic reviews reported on one or more dichotomous outcomes that could be translated to absolute effects. Only eight (8/153, 5.2%)5.2%), however, reported absolute effects. A similar proportion of reviews published in high-impact journals and in other journals reported absolute effects (4/131; 3.1% vs. 4/69; 5.9%). Among reviews that reported absolute effects, six reviews (6/8; 75%) reported absolute risk differences as fractions (e.g., 2 fewer cases per 1000 people) and two reviews (2/8; 25%) presented the number of cases prevented by modifying the exposure (e.g., 2000 cases prevented in United States annually). CONCLUSIONS: Reviews addressing the effects of nutritional and environmental exposures on health outcomes rarely report absolute effects, which precludes effective interpretation of magnitudes of effects and their importance. We present guidance for review authors, editors, peer reviewers, and evidence users to calculate and interpret absolute effects.

Use of Anticoagulation Therapy in Patients With Perioperative Atrial Fibrillation After Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: Perioperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) after cardiac surgery is associated with an increased risk of stroke. However, the efficacy and safety of using anticoagulation therapy in this population are unknown. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing use of anticoagulation therapy vs no anticoagulation therapy in patients with POAF after cardiac surgery. Outcomes included arterial thromboembolism (ie, stroke ± systemic embolism) and bleeding. Data were pooled using fixed-effects models. We reported summary risk ratios (RRs) for studies with multivariable adjustment and estimated absolute risk differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Nine observational studies met eligibility criteria. No randomized trials were identified. Of the 254,200 POAF patients included, 27.3% received anticoagulation. Six studies reported outcomes after long-term follow-up (median 5.0 years; range 4.2-10.0). The risk of arterial thromboembolism was lower in patients receiving anticoagulation therapy (RR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-0.99; I2 = 57%; P = 0.04; 6 studies). The estimated short-term and long-term absolute risk reductions in arterial thromboembolism with use of anticoagulation therapy were 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4-1.4) and 2 events per 1000 person-years (95% CI, 0-4), respectively. The risk of bleeding was higher in patients receiving anticoagulation therapy (RR 3.22; 95% CI, 2.82-3.68; I2 = 98%; P < 0.001; 2 studies). The estimated short-term and long-term absolute risk increases in bleeding with use of anticoagulation therapy were 0.5% (95% CI, 0.4-0.6) and 42 events per 1000 person-years (95% CI, 35-51), respectively. Conclusions: Use of anticoagulation therapy is associated with a small reduction in the risk of arterial thromboembolism, but also an increased risk of bleeding. Randomized controlled trials are needed to address this issue.

Introduction: La fibrillation auriculaire périopératoire (FAPO) après l'intervention chirurgicale au cœur est associée à une augmentation du risque d'accident vasculaire cérébral (AVC). Toutefois, on ne connaît pas l'efficacité et l'innocuité de la l'anticoagulothérapie de cette population. Méthodes: Nous avons réalisé une revue systématique et une méta-analyse d'études qui comparaient l'utilisation de l'anticoagulothérapie vs l'absence d'anticoagulothérapie chez les patients atteints de FAPO après l'intervention chirurgicale au cœur. Les résultats étaient notamment la thromboembolie artérielle (c.-à-d. l'AVC ± l'embolie systémique) et les hémorragies. Nous avons regroupé les données à l'aide de modèles à effets fixes. Nous avons rapporté les risques relatifs (RR) sommaires d'études avec l'ajustement multivarié et l'estimation des différences du risque absolu avec des intervalles de confiance (IC) à 95 %. Résultats: Neuf études observationnelles répondaient aux critères d'admissibilité. Aucun essai à répartition aléatoire n'a été trouvé. Parmi les 254 200 patients atteints de FAPO sélectionnés, 27,3 % avaient reçu une anticoagulation. Six études révélaient des résultats après le suivi à long terme (médiane 5,0 ans ; fourchette 4,2-10,0). Le risque de thromboembolie artérielle était plus faible chez les patients qui avaient reçu une anticoagulothérapie (RR 0,83 ; IC à 95 %, 0,69-0,99 ; I2 = 57 % ; P = 0,04 ; six études). Les estimations de réduction du risque absolu à court terme et à long terme lors de thromboembolie artérielle avec l'utilisation de l'anticoagulothérapie étaient respectivement de 0,8 % (IC à 95 %, 0,4-1,4) et de deux événements par 1000 personnes-années (IC à 95 %, 0-4). Le risque d'hémorragie était plus élevé chez les patients qui avaient reçu une anticoagulothérapie (RR 3,22 ; IC à 95 %, 2,82-3,68 ; I2 = 98 % ; P < 0,001 ; deux études). Les estimations d'augmentation du risque absolu à court terme et à long terme des hémorragies avec l'utilisation de l'anticoagulothérapie étaient respectivement de 0,5 % (IC à 95 %, 0,4-0,6) et de 42 événements par 1000 personnes-années (IC à 95 %, 35-51). Conclusions: L'utilisation de l'anticoagulothérapie est associée à une réduction minime du risque de thromboembolie artérielle, mais aussi à une augmentation du risque d'hémorragie. Des essais cliniques à répartition aléatoire sont nécessaires pour aborder cette question.

Variations in the measurement of weaning parameters: a survey of respiratory therapists.

OBJECTIVES: Respiratory therapists differ in the methods used to obtain weaning parameters. A questionnaire survey was conducted to better characterize those differences. DESIGN: A questionnaire survey was conducted among respiratory therapists from nine hospitals in the Los Angeles area. The four-page, 32-question instrument was self-administered and anonymous. Responses were tabulated for analysis. SETTING: Respondents from nine hospitals, three hospitals with residency training programs and six community hospitals without training programs in the Los Angeles area. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred two respiratory therapists. RESULTS: There was no universally acknowledged group of weaning parameters, although four parameters were named by > 90%. There was wide variation in methods used to obtaining weaning parameters. Almost all (91%) obtained measurements with the patients breathing their current fraction of inspired oxygen, but there was great variability in the ventilator mode used to collect these parameters (T-tube, continuous positive airway pressure, pressure support), with an equally wide range of pressures added to each mode (0 to 10 cm H(2)O). There was great variation in the time (< 1 to > 15 min) before recording weaning parameters. Measurement of parameters was done either with bedside instruments or read from the ventilator display. The maximal inspiratory pressure had great variation in the duration of airway occlusion (< 1 to 20 s), with the most frequent time frame being 2 to 4 s. Differences were noted between therapists from the same hospital as well as between hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: There is great variation among respiratory therapists when obtaining weaning parameters. This calls for further standardization of the measurement of weaning parameters.