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.

The lifetime risk of surgery in England: a nationwide observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The average number of times a person will have surgery in their lifetime, and the amount of surgical healthcare resources they use, is unknown. Lifetime risk is a measure of the risk of an average person having a specific event within their lifetime. We report the lifetime risk of surgery and the change observed during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a population cohort study using hospital episode statistics to identify all patients undergoing surgery between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2020, in England. We calculated age- and sex-specific incidence rates of surgery and combined these with routinely available population and mortality data from the Office for National Statistics. We computed the probability of requiring surgery stratified by 5-yr epochs (age 0-4 to ≥90 yr). Our primary analysis calculated lifetime risk for all surgery using the life table method. We assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, comparing a pre-pandemic and a pandemic period. RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2020, 23 427 531 patients underwent surgery, of which 11 937 062 were first surgeries. The average denominator population for England was 55.9 million. The lifetime risk of first surgery was 60.2% (95% confidence interval 55.1-65.4%) for women and 59.1% (95% confidence interval 54.2-64.1%) for men. The COVID-19 pandemic decreased the lifetime risk of first surgery by 32.3% for women and by 31.7% for men. This estimated lifetime risk should only be applied to the English population. CONCLUSIONS: This population epidemiological analysis suggests that approximately 60% of people in England will undergo surgery in their lifetime.

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.

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.

The need for data describing the surgical population in Latin America.

Latin American countries have a huge diversity in sociocultural factors, ethnicity, geography, and political systems. Provision of healthcare varies widely in Latin America, and it is unclear how these disparities relate to outcomes for individual patients undergoing surgery. The Latin American Surgical Outcome Study (LASOS), with its pragmatic design, will provide a snapshot of surgical activity throughout Latin America and identify the next steps needed to improve postoperative outcomes.

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.

An Evaluation of Severe Anesthetic-Related Critical Incidents and Risks From the South African Paediatric Surgical Outcomes Study: A 14-Day Prospective, Observational Cohort Study of Pediatric Surgical Patients.

BACKGROUND: Severe anesthetic-related critical incident (SARCI) monitoring is an essential component of safe, quality anesthetic care. Predominantly retrospective data from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) report higher incidence but similar types of SARCI compared to high-income countries (HIC). The aim of our study was to describe the baseline incidence of SARCI in a middle-income country (MIC) and to identify associated risk for SARCI. We hypothesized a higher incidence but similar types of SARCI and risks compared to HICs. METHODS: We performed a 14-day, prospective multicenter observational cohort study of pediatric patients (aged <16 years) undergoing surgery in government-funded hospitals in South Africa, a MIC, to determine perioperative outcomes. This analysis described the incidence and types of SARCI and associated perioperative cardiac arrests (POCAs). We used multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify risk factors independently associated with SARCI, including 7 a priori variables and additional candidate variables based on their univariable performance. RESULTS: Two thousand and twenty-four patients were recruited from May 22 to August 22, 2017, at 43 hospitals. The mean age was 5.9 years (±standard deviation 4.2). A majority of patients during this 14-day period were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I (66.4%) or presenting for minor surgery (54.9%). A specialist anesthesiologist managed 59% of cases. These patients were found to be significantly younger (P < .001) and had higher ASA physical status (P < .001). A total of 426 SARCI was documented in 322 of 2024 patients, an overall incidence of 15.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.4-17.6). The most common event was respiratory (214 of 426; 50.2%) with an incidence of 8.5% (95% CI, 7.4-9.8). Six children (0.3%; 95% CI, 0.1-0.6) had a POCA, of whom 4 died in hospital. Risks independently associated with a SARCI were age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.95; CI, 0.92-0.98; P = .004), increasing ASA physical status (aOR = 1.85, 1,74, and 2.73 for ASA II, ASA III, and ASA IV-V physical status, respectively), urgent/emergent surgery (aOR = 1.35, 95% CI, 1.02-1.78; P = .036), preoperative respiratory infection (aOR = 2.47, 95% CI, 1.64-3.73; P < .001), chronic respiratory comorbidity (aOR = 1.75, 95% CI, 1.10-2.79; P = .018), severity of surgery (intermediate surgery aOR = 1.84, 95% CI, 1.39-2.45; P < .001), and level of hospital (first-level hospitals aOR = 2.81, 95% CI, 1.60-4.93; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of SARCI in South Africa was 3 times greater than in HICs, and an associated POCA was 10 times more common. The risk factors associated with SARCI may assist with targeted interventions to improve safety and to triage children to the optimal level of care.

Postoperative Outcomes Associated With Procedural Sedation Conducted by Physician and Nonphysician Anesthesia Providers: Findings From the Prospective, Observational African Surgical Outcomes Study.

BACKGROUND: There is an unmet need for essential surgical services in Africa. Limited anesthesia services are a contributing factor. Nonphysician anesthesia providers are utilized to assist with providing anesthesia and procedural sedation to make essential surgeries available. There is a paucity of data on outcomes following procedural sedation for surgery in Africa. We investigated the postoperative outcomes following procedural sedation by nonphysicians and physicians in Africa. We hypothesized that the level of training of the sedation provider may be associated with the incidence of severe postoperative complications and death. METHODS: A secondary analysis of a prospective cohort of inhospital adult surgical patients representing 25 African countries was performed. The primary outcome was a collapsed composite of inhospital severe postoperative complications and death. We assessed the association between receiving procedural sedation conducted by a nonphysician (versus physician) and the composite outcome using logistic regression. We used the inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score method to adjust for potential confounding variables including patient age, hemoglobin level, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physiological status, diabetes mellitus, urgency of surgery, severity of surgery, indication for surgery, surgical discipline, seniority of the surgical team, hospital level of specialization, and hospital funding system using public or private funding. All patients who only received procedural sedation for surgery were included. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-six patients met the inclusion criteria, of which 98 (29.2%) received sedation from a nonphysician provider. The incidence of severe postoperative complications and death was 10 of 98 (10.2%) in the nonphysician group and 5 of 238 (2.1%) in the physician group. The estimated association between procedural sedation conducted by a nonphysician provider and inhospital outcomes was an 8-fold increase in the odds of severe complications and/or death, with an odds ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 8.3 (2.7-25.6). CONCLUSIONS: The modest number of observations in this secondary data analysis suggests that shifting the task of procedural sedation from physicians to nonphysicians to increase access to care may be associated with severe postoperative complications and death in Africa. Research focusing on identifying factors contributing to adverse outcomes associated with procedural sedation is necessary to make this practice safer.

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.

Global surgery, obstetric, and anaesthesia indicator definitions and reporting: An Utstein consensus report.

BACKGROUND: Indicators to evaluate progress towards timely access to safe surgical, anaesthesia, and obstetric (SAO) care were proposed in 2015 by the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery. These aimed to capture access to surgery, surgical workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality rate, and catastrophic and impoverishing financial consequences of surgery. Despite being rapidly taken up by practitioners, data points from which to derive the indicators were not defined, limiting comparability across time or settings. We convened global experts to evaluate and explicitly define-for the first time-the indicators to improve comparability and support achievement of 2030 goals to improve access to safe affordable surgical and anaesthesia care globally. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The Utstein process for developing and reporting guidelines through a consensus building process was followed. In-person discussions at a 2-day meeting were followed by an iterative process conducted by email and virtual group meetings until consensus was reached. The meeting was held between June 16 to 18, 2019; discussions continued until August 2020. Participants consisted of experts in surgery, anaesthesia, and obstetric care, data science, and health indicators from high-, middle-, and low-income countries. Considering each of the 6 indicators in turn, we refined overarching descriptions and agreed upon data points needed for construction of each indicator at current time (basic data points), and as each evolves over 2 to 5 (intermediate) and >5 year (full) time frames. We removed one of the original 6 indicators (one of 2 financial risk protection indicators was eliminated) and refined descriptions and defined data points required to construct the 5 remaining indicators: geospatial access, workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality, and catastrophic expenditure. A strength of the process was the number of people from global institutes and multilateral agencies involved in the collection and reporting of global health metrics; a limitation was the limited number of participants from low- or middle-income countries-who only made up 21% of the total attendees. CONCLUSIONS: To track global progress towards timely access to quality SAO care, these indicators-at the basic level-should be implemented universally as soon as possible. Intermediate and full indicator sets should be achieved by all countries over time. Meanwhile, these evolutions can assist in the short term in developing national surgical plans and collecting more detailed data for research studies.

Emergency Airway Management in Patients with COVID-19: A Prospective International Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation for patients with COVID-19 is required for invasive mechanical ventilation. The authors sought to describe practice for emergency intubation, estimate success rates and complications, and determine variation in practice and outcomes between high-income and low- and middle-income countries. The authors hypothesized that successful emergency airway management in patients with COVID-19 is associated with geographical and procedural factors. METHODS: The authors performed a prospective observational cohort study between March 23, 2020, and October 24, 2020, which included 4,476 episodes of emergency tracheal intubation performed by 1,722 clinicians from 607 institutions across 32 countries in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation. The authors investigated associations between intubation and operator characteristics, and the primary outcome of first-attempt success. RESULTS: Successful first-attempt tracheal intubation was achieved in 4,017/4,476 (89.7%) episodes, while 23 of 4,476 (0.5%) episodes required four or more attempts. Ten emergency surgical airways were reported-an approximate incidence of 1 in 450 (10 of 4,476). Failed intubation (defined as emergency surgical airway, four or more attempts, or a supraglottic airway as the final device) occurred in approximately 1 of 120 episodes (36 of 4,476). Successful first attempt was more likely during rapid sequence induction versus non-rapid sequence induction (adjusted odds ratio, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.49 to 2.39]; P < 0.001), when operators used powered air-purifying respirators versus nonpowered respirators (adjusted odds ratio, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.16 to 2.20]; P = 0.006), and when performed by operators with more COVID-19 intubations recorded (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03 for each additional previous intubation [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.06]; P = 0.015). Intubations performed in low- or middle-income countries were less likely to be successful at first attempt than in high-income countries (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.41 to 0.79]; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The authors report rates of failed tracheal intubation and emergency surgical airway in patients with COVID-19 requiring emergency airway management, and identified factors associated with increased success. Risks of tracheal intubation failure and success should be considered when managing COVID-19.

Understanding the performance of a pan-African intervention to reduce postoperative mortality: a mixed-methods process evaluation of the ASOS-2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The African Surgical OutcomeS-2 (ASOS-2) trial tested an enhanced postoperative surveillance intervention to reduce postoperative mortality in Africa. We undertook a concurrent evaluation to understand the process of intervention delivery. METHODS: Mixed-methods process evaluation, including field notes, interviews, and post-trial questionnaire responses. Qualitative analysis used the framework method with subsequent creation of comparative case studies, grouping hospitals by intervention fidelity. A post-trial questionnaire was developed using initial qualitative analyses. Categorical variables were summarised as count (%) and continuous variables as median (inter-quartile range [IQR]). Odds ratios (OR) were used to rank influences by impact on fidelity. RESULTS: The dataset included eight in-depth case studies, and 96 questionnaire responses (response rate 67%) plus intervention fidelity data for each trial site. Overall, 57% (n=55/96) of hospitals achieved intervention delivery using an inclusive definition of fidelity. Delivery of the ASOS-2 interventions and data collection presented a significant burden to the investigators, outstripping limited resources. The influences most associated with fidelity were: surgical staff enthusiasm for the trial (OR=3.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-7.0); nursing management support of the trial (OR=2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-6.5); performance of a dummy run (OR=2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-6.1); nursing colleagues seeing the value of the intervention(s) (OR=2.1; 95% CI, 0.9-5.7); and site investigators' belief in the effectiveness of the intervention (OR=3.2; 95% CI, 1.2-9.4). CONCLUSIONS: ASOS-2 has proved that coordinated interventional research across Africa is possible, but delivering the ASOS-2 interventions was a major challenge for many investigators. Future improvement science efforts must include better planning for intervention delivery, additional support to investigators, and promotion of strong inter-professional teamwork. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials gov NCT03853824.

Systematic review and consensus definitions for the Standardized Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative: cardiovascular outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Adverse cardiovascular events are a leading cause of perioperative morbidity and mortality. The definitions of perioperative cardiovascular adverse events are heterogeneous. As part of the international Standardized Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative, this study aimed to find consensus amongst clinical trialists on a set of standardised and valid cardiovascular outcomes for use in future perioperative clinical trials. METHODS: We identified currently used perioperative cardiovascular outcomes by a systematic review of the anaesthesia and perioperative medicine literature (PubMed/Ovid, Embase, and Cochrane Library). We performed a three-stage Delphi consensus-gaining process that involved 55 clinician researchers worldwide. Cardiovascular outcomes were first shortlisted and the most suitable definitions determined. These cardiovascular outcomes were then assessed for validity, reliability, feasibility, and clarity. RESULTS: We identified 18 cardiovascular outcomes. Participation in the three Delphi rounds was 100% (n=19), 71% (n=55), and 89% (n=17), respectively. A final list of nine cardiovascular outcomes was elicited from the consensus: myocardial infarction, myocardial injury, cardiovascular death, non-fatal cardiac arrest, coronary revascularisation, major adverse cardiac events, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and atrial fibrillation. These nine cardiovascular outcomes were rated by the majority of experts as valid, reliable, feasible, and clearly defined. CONCLUSIONS: These nine consensus cardiovascular outcomes can be confidently used as endpoints in clinical trials designed to evaluate perioperative interventions with the goal of improving perioperative outcomes.

Bleeding Independently associated with Mortality after noncardiac Surgery (BIMS): an international prospective cohort study establishing diagnostic criteria and prognostic importance.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to establish diagnostic criteria for bleeding independently associated with mortality after noncardiac surgery (BIMS) defined as bleeding during or within 30 days after noncardiac surgery that is independently associated with mortality within 30 days of surgery, and to estimate the proportion of 30-day postoperative mortality potentially attributable to BIMS. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of participants ≥45 yr old having inpatient noncardiac surgery at 12 academic hospitals in eight countries between 2007 and 2011. Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the adjusted relationship between candidate diagnostic criteria for BIMS and all-cause mortality within 30 days of surgery. RESULTS: Of 16 079 participants, 2.0% (315) died and 36.1% (5810) met predefined screening criteria for bleeding. Based on independent association with 30-day mortality, BIMS was identified as bleeding leading to a postoperative haemoglobin <70 g L-1, transfusion of ≥1 unit of red blood cells, or that was judged to be the cause of death. Bleeding independently associated with mortality after noncardiac surgery occurred in 17.3% of patients (2782). Death occurred in 5.8% of patients with BIMS (161/2782), 1.3% (39/3028) who met bleeding screening criteria but not BIMS criteria, and 1.1% (115/10 269) without bleeding. BIMS was associated with mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.87; 95% confidence interval: 1.42-2.47). We estimated the proportion of 30-day postoperative deaths potentially attributable to BIMS to be 20.1-31.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Bleeding independently associated with mortality after noncardiac surgery (BIMS), defined as bleeding that leads to a postoperative haemoglobin <70 g L-1, blood transfusion, or that is judged to be the cause of death, is common and may account for a quarter of deaths after noncardiac surgery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00512109.

Preoperative prediction of Bleeding Independently associated with Mortality after noncardiac Surgery (BIMS): an international prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic criteria for Bleeding Independently associated with Mortality after noncardiac Surgery (BIMS) have been defined as bleeding that leads to a postoperative haemoglobin <70 g L-1, leads to blood transfusion, or is judged to be the direct cause of death. Preoperative prediction guides for BIMS can facilitate informed consent and planning of perioperative care. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study of 16 079 participants aged ≥45 yr having inpatient noncardiac surgery at 12 academic hospitals in eight countries between 2007 and 2011, 17.3% (2782) experienced BIMS. An electronic risk calculator for BIMS was developed and internally validated by logistic regression with bootstrapping, and further simplified to a risk index. Decision curve analysis assessed the potential utility of each prediction guide compared with a strategy of identifying risk of BIMS based on preoperative haemoglobin <120 g L-1. RESULTS: With information about the type of surgery, preoperative haemoglobin, age, sex, functional status, kidney function, history of high-risk coronary artery disease, and active cancer, the risk calculator accurately predicted BIMS (bias-corrected C-statistic, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.837-0.852). A simplified index based on preoperative haemoglobin <120 g L-1, open surgery, and high-risk surgery also predicted BIMS, but less accurately (C-statistic, 0.787; 95% confidence interval, 0.779-0.796). Both prediction guides could improve decision making compared with knowledge of haemoglobin <120 g L-1 alone. CONCLUSIONS: BIMS, defined as bleeding that leads to a postoperative haemoglobin <70 g L-1, leads to blood transfusion, or that is judged to be the direct cause of death, can be predicted by a simple risk index before surgery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00512109.

Development of a Clinical Prediction Model for In-hospital Mortality from the South African Cohort of the African Surgical Outcomes Study.

BACKGROUND: Data on the factors that influence mortality after surgery in South Africa are scarce, and neither these data nor data on risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality after surgery are routinely collected. Predictors related to the context or setting of surgical care delivery may also provide insight into variation in practice. Variation must be addressed when planning for improvement of risk-adjusted outcomes. Our objective was to identify the factors predicting in-hospital mortality after surgery in South Africa from available data. METHODS: A multivariable logistic regression model was developed to identify predictors of 30-day in-hospital mortality in surgical patients in South Africa. Data from the South African contribution to the African Surgical Outcomes Study were used and included 3800 cases from 51 hospitals. A forward stepwise regression technique was then employed to select for possible predictors prior to model specification. Model performance was evaluated by assessing calibration and discrimination. The South African Surgical Outcomes Study cohort was used to validate the model. RESULTS: Variables found to predict 30-day in-hospital mortality were age, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status category, urgent or emergent surgery, major surgery, and gastrointestinal-, head and neck-, thoracic- and neurosurgery. The area under the receiver operating curve or c-statistic was 0.859 (95% confidence interval: 0.827-0.892) for the full model. Calibration, as assessed using a calibration plot, was acceptable. Performance was similar in the validation cohort as compared to the derivation cohort. CONCLUSION: The prediction model did not include factors that can explain how the context of care influences post-operative mortality in South Africa. It does, however, provide a basis for reporting risk-adjusted perioperative mortality rate in the future, and identifies the types of surgery to be prioritised in quality improvement projects at a local or national level.