Peri-Operative Wearables in Elder Recover after Surgery (POWERS) study: a protocol for a multicentre, prospective cohort study to evaluate perioperative activity with postoperative disability in older adults after non-cardiac surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The ageing population has led to an increasing proportion of surgical patients with greater frailty and comorbidity. Complications and mortality within 30 days of a surgical procedure are often used to evaluate success in the perioperative period however these measures can potentially underestimate a substantial level of morbidity associated with surgery. Personal wearable technologies are now readily available and can offer detailed information on activity intensity, sedentary behaviour and sleeping patterns. These devices may provide important information perioperatively by acting as a non-invasive, and cost-efficient means to risk stratify patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Peri-Operative Wearables in Elder Recover After Surgery (POWERS) study is a multicentre observational study of 200 older adults (≥65 years) having major elective non-cardiac surgery. The objectives are to characterise the association between preoperative and postoperative activity monitor measurements with postoperative disability and recovery, as well as characterise trajectories of activity and sleep in the perioperative period. Activity will be monitored with the ActiGraph GT3X device and measured for 7-day increments, preoperatively, and at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months postoperatively. Disability will be assessed using the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 assessed at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months postoperatively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The POWERS study received research ethics board approval at all participating sites on 1 August 2019 (REB # 19-121 (CTO 1849)). Renewal was granted on 19 May 2022.

Functional Improvement Trajectories After Surgery (FIT After Surgery) study: protocol for a multicentre prospective cohort study to evaluate significant new disability after major surgery in older adults.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults prioritise surviving surgery, but also preservation of their functional status and quality of life. Current approaches to measure postoperative recovery, which focus on death, complications and length of hospitalisation, may miss key relevant domains. We propose that postoperative disability is an important patient-centred outcome to measure intermediate-to-long recovery after major surgery in older adults. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Functional Improvement Trajectories After Surgery (FIT After Surgery) study is a multicentre cohort study of 2000 older adults (≥65 years) having major non-cardiac surgery. Its objectives are to characterise the incidence, trajectories, risk factors and impact of new significant disability after non-cardiac surgery. Disability is assessed using WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 instrument and participants' level-of-care needs. Disability assessments occur before surgery, and at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after surgery. The primary outcome is significantly worse WHODAS score or death at 6 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes are (1) significantly worse WHODAS score or death at 1 year after surgery, (2) increased care needs or death at 6 months after surgery and (3) increased care needs or death at 1 year after surgery. We will use multivariable logistic regression models to determine the association of preoperative characteristics and surgery type with outcomes, joint modelling to characterise longitudinal time trends in WHODAS scores over 12 months after surgery, and longitudinal latent class mixture models to identify clusters following similar trajectories of disability. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The FIT After Surgery study has received research ethics board approval at all sites. Recruitment began in December 2019 but was placed on hold in March 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Recruitment was gradually restarted in October 2020, with 1-year follow-up expected to finish in 2023. Publication of the primary results is anticipated to occur in 2024.

Hepatitis C Contamination of Medication Vials Accessed with Sterile Needles and Syringes.

BACKGROUND: Health care-associated hepatitis C virus outbreaks from contaminated medication vials continue to be reported even though most practitioners deny reusing needles or syringes. The hypothesis was that when caring for hepatitis C virus-infected patients, healthcare providers may inadvertently contaminate the medication vial diaphragm and that subsequent access with sterile needles and syringes can transfer hepatitis C virus into the medication, where it remains stable in sufficient quantities to infect subsequent patients. METHODS: A parallel-arm lab study (n = 9) was performed in which contamination of medication vials in healthcare settings was simulated using cell culture-derived hepatitis C virus. First, surface-contaminated vials were accessed with sterile needles and syringes, and then hepatitis C virus contamination was assessed in cell culture. Second, after contaminating several medications with hepatitis C virus, viral infectivity over time was assessed. Last, surface-contaminated vial diaphragms were disinfected with 70% isopropyl alcohol to determine whether disinfection of the vial surface was sufficient to eliminate hepatitis C virus infectivity. RESULTS: Contamination of medication vials with hepatitis C virus and subsequent access with sterile needles and syringes resulted in contamination of the vial contents in sufficient quantities to initiate an infection in cell culture. Hepatitis C virus remained viable for several days in several commonly used medications. Finally, a single or 2- to 3-s wipe of the vial diaphragm with 70% isopropyl alcohol was not sufficient to eliminate hepatitis C virus infectivity. CONCLUSIONS: Hepatitis C virus can be transferred into commonly used medications when using sterile single-use needles and syringes where it remains viable for several days. Furthermore, cleaning the vial diaphragm with 70% isopropyl alcohol is not sufficient to eliminate the risk of hepatitis C virus infectivity. This highlights the potential risks associated with sharing medications between patients.

Society position statement : Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society joint position statement on the perioperative management of patients with implanted pacemakers, defibrillators, and neurostimulating devices.

PURPOSE: There are more than 200,000 Canadians living with permanent pacemakers or implantable defibrillators, many of whom will require surgery or invasive procedures each year. They face potential hazards when undergoing surgery; however, with appropriate planning and education of operating room personnel, adverse device-related outcomes should be rare. This joint position statement from the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) and the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society (CAS) has been developed as an accessible reference for physicians and surgeons, providing an overview of the key issues for the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care of these patients. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The document summarizes the limited published literature in this field, but for most issues, relies heavily on the experience of the cardiologists and anesthesiologists who contributed to this work. This position statement outlines how to obtain information about an individual's type of pacemaker or implantable defibrillator and its programming. It also stresses the importance of determining if a patient is highly pacemaker-dependent and proposes a simple approach for nonelective evaluation of dependency. Although the document provides a comprehensive list of the intraoperative issues facing these patients, there is a focus on electromagnetic interference resulting from electrocautery and practical guidance is given regarding the characteristics of surgery, electrocautery, pacemakers, and defibrillators which are most likely to lead to interference. CONCLUSIONS: The document stresses the importance of preoperative consultation and planning to minimize complications. It reviews the relative merits of intraoperative magnet use vs reprogramming of devices and gives examples of situations where one or the other approach is preferable.

Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society joint position statement on the perioperative management of patients with implanted pacemakers, defibrillators, and neurostimulating devices.

There are more than 200,000 Canadians living with permanent pacemakers or implantable defibrillators, many of whom will require surgery or invasive procedures each year. They face potential hazards when undergoing surgery; however, with appropriate planning and education of operating room personnel, adverse device-related outcomes should be rare. This joint position statement from the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) and the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society (CAS) has been developed as an accessible reference for physicians and surgeons, providing an overview of the key issues for the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care of these patients. The document summarizes the limited published literature in this field, but for most issues, relies heavily on the experience of the cardiologists and anesthesiologists who contributed to this work. This position statement outlines how to obtain information about an individual's type of pacemaker or implantable defibrillator and its programming. It also stresses the importance of determining if a patient is highly pacemaker-dependent and proposes a simple approach for nonelective evaluation of dependency. Although the document provides a comprehensive list of the intraoperative issues facing these patients, there is a focus on electromagnetic interference resulting from electrocautery and practical guidance is given regarding the characteristics of surgery, electrocautery, pacemakers, and defibrillators which are most likely to lead to interference. The document stresses the importance of preoperative consultation and planning to minimize complications. It reviews the relative merits of intraoperative magnet use vs reprogramming of devices and gives examples of situations where one or the other approach is preferable.