Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults after heart valve surgery.

BACKGROUND: The impact of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) following heart valve surgery is uncertain. We conducted an update of this systematic review and a meta-analysis to assess randomised controlled trial evidence for the use of exercise-based CR following heart valve surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of exercise-based CR compared with no exercise training in adults following heart valve surgery or repair, including both percutaneous and surgical procedures. We considered CR programmes consisting of exercise training with or without another intervention (such as an intervention with a psycho-educational component). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCO); PsycINFO (Ovid); Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS; Bireme); and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) on the Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) on 10 January 2020. We searched for ongoing trials from ClinicalTrials.gov, Clinical-trials.com, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 15 May 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared exercise-based CR interventions with no exercise training. Trial participants comprised adults aged 18 years or older who had undergone heart valve surgery for heart valve disease (from any cause) and had received heart valve replacement or heart valve repair. Both percutaneous and surgical procedures were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data. We assessed the risk of systematic errors ('bias') by evaluating risk domains using the 'Risk of bias' (RoB2) tool. We assessed clinical and statistical heterogeneity. We performed meta-analyses using both fixed-effect and random-effects models. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence for primary outcomes (all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalisation, and health-related quality of life). MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials with a total of 364 participants who have had open or percutaneous heart valve surgery. For this updated review, we identified four additional trials (216 participants). One trial had an overall low risk of bias, and we classified the remaining five trials as having some concerns. Follow-up ranged across included trials from 3 to 24 months. Based on data at longest follow-up, a total of nine participants died: 4 CR versus 5 control (relative risk (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 2.68; 2 trials, 131 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low). No trials reported on cardiovascular mortality. One trial reported one cardiac-related hospitalisation in the CR group and none in the control group (RR 2.72, 95% CI 0.11 to 65.56; 1 trial, 122 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low). We are uncertain about health-related quality of life at completion of the intervention in CR compared to control (Short Form (SF)-12/36 mental component: mean difference (MD) 1.28, 95% CI -1.60 to 4.16; 2 trials, 150 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low; and SF-12/36 physical component: MD 2.99, 95% CI -5.24 to 11.21; 2 trials, 150 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low), or at longest follow-up (SF-12/36 mental component: MD -1.45, 95% CI -4.70 to 1.80; 2 trials, 139 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low; and SF-12/36 physical component: MD -0.87, 95% CI -3.57 to 1.83; 2 trials, 139 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to lack of evidence and the very low quality of available evidence, this updated review is uncertain about the impact of exercise-CR in this population in terms of mortality, hospitalisation, and health-related quality of life. High-quality (low risk of bias) evidence on the impact of CR is needed to inform clinical guidelines and routine practice.

Early specialised palliative care: interventions, symptoms, problems.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated the content of interventions provided in early specialised palliative care (SPC). OBJECTIVES: To characterise the content of interventions delivered in early SPC in the Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT), a multicentre trial with six participating sites. METHODS: A retrospective qualitative and quantitative study coding all new interventions initiated by the palliative teams and documented in the medical records during the 8-week study period of DanPaCT. Interventions were categorised according to (a) symptom/problem prompting the intervention, (b) type of intervention and (c) professional(s) providing the intervention. RESULTS: In total, 145 patients were randomised to the SPC teams. According to the medical records, patients received a median of 3.5 (range 0-22) new interventions in the 8-week intervention-period from the palliative teams. For 24 (18%) of the patients there was no documented interventions in the medical records. The most frequent symptom/problems treated were pain, (100 interventions; 20% of interventions given) and impaired physical function (62; 13% of interventions given). The most frequent type of intervention was pharmacological (232; 42% of interventions given). CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first studies to meticulously investigate the content of interventions documented in the medical records for patients receiving early SPC. Diverse symptoms were treated with many different interventions. However, a relatively low number of interventions were documented. This may explain the lack of effect in DanPaCT but also questions whether all interventions were adequately documented TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01348048.

Exploratory analyses of the Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT): a randomized trial of early specialized palliative care plus standard care versus standard care in advanced cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Early and integrated specialized palliative care is often recommended but has still only been investigated in relatively few randomized clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of early specialized palliative care plus standard care versus standard care on the explorative outcomes in the Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT). METHODS: We conducted a randomized multicentre, parallel-group clinical trial. Consecutive patients with metastatic cancer were included if they had symptoms or problems that exceeded a predefined threshold according to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Outcomes were estimated as the differences between the intervention and the control groups in the change from baseline to the weighted mean of the 3- and 8-week follow-ups measured as areas under the curve. RESULTS: In total, 145 patients were randomized to early specialized palliative care plus standard care versus 152 to standard care only. Early specialized palliative care had no significant effect on any of the symptoms or problems. Of the 21 items addressing satisfaction, specialized palliative care improved the item 'overall satisfaction with the help received from the health care system' with 9 points (95% confidence interval 3.8 to 14.2, p = 0.0006) and three other items (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In line with the analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes in DanPaCT, we did not find that specialized palliative care, as provided in DanPaCT, affected symptoms and problems. However, patients in the intervention group seemed more satisfied with the health care received than those in the standard care group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01348048.

Early physical and psycho-educational rehabilitation in patients with coronary artery bypass grafting: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Rehabilitation of patients following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been widely studied; however, research into early rehabilitation after CABG is sparse. The aim of this trial was to assess the impact of early rehabilitation, compared with usual care in patients following CABG. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. PATIENTS: A total of 326 patients treated with CABG. METHODS: Patients treated with CABG were randomized 1:1 to 4 weeks of comprehensive early rehabilitation or usual care. The primary outcome was the Six Minute Walk Test (6MWT). Secondary outcomes were mental health and physical activity (Medical Outcome Study Short Form; SF-12); anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; HADS); physical and emotional scores; sleep (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index; PSQI); pain (Örebro Musculoskeletal Screening Questionnaire; ÖMSQ) and muscle endurance (Sit-To-Stand test). RESULTS: Sixteen patients dropped out. No significant differences between groups in the primary outcome (6MWT) were found after 4 weeks (p = 0.27). For secondary outcomes the odds ratio of HADS-D ≥ 8 decreased in favour of the experimental intervention (p = 0.04). There was non-adherence to parts of the intervention. Per-protocol analysis showed differences between groups for the 6MWT (p = 0.02) and the Sit-To-Stand test (p = 0.046). CONCLUSION: In general, the intervention had no effect on the 6MWT, or secondary outcomes, except for depressive symptoms. However, in adherent participants, the intervention had a positive effect for the primary and several secondary outcomes.

Pharmacological interventions for benzodiazepine discontinuation in chronic benzodiazepine users.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged treatment with benzodiazepines is common practice despite clinical recommendations of short-term use. Benzodiazepines are used by approximately 4% of the general population, with increased prevalence in psychiatric populations and the elderly. After long-term use it is often difficult to discontinue benzodiazepines due to psychological and physiological dependence. This review investigated if pharmacological interventions can facilitate benzodiazepine tapering. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions to facilitate discontinuation of chronic benzodiazepine use. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases up to October 2017: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group's Specialised Register of Trials, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and ISI Web of Science. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP, and ISRCTN registry, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological treatment versus placebo or no intervention or versus another pharmacological intervention in adults who had been treated with benzodiazepines for at least two months and/or fulfilled criteria for benzodiazepine dependence (any criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 38 trials (involving 2543 participants), but we could only extract data from 35 trials with 2295 participants. Many different interventions were studied, and no single intervention was assessed in more than four trials. We extracted data on 18 different comparisons. The risk of bias was high in all trials but one. Trial Sequential Analysis showed imprecision for all comparisons.For benzodiazepine discontinuation, we found a potential benefit of valproate at end of intervention (1 study, 27 participants; risk ratio (RR) 2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 6.03; very low-quality evidence) and of tricyclic antidepressants at longest follow-up (1 study, 47 participants; RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.82; low-quality evidence).We found potentially positive effects on benzodiazepine withdrawal symptoms of pregabalin (1 study, 106 participants; mean difference (MD) -3.10 points, 95% CI -3.51 to -2.69; very low-quality evidence), captodiame (1 study, 81 participants; MD -1.00 points, 95% CI -1.13 to -0.87; very low-quality evidence), paroxetine (2 studies, 99 participants; MD -3.57 points, 95% CI -5.34 to -1.80; very low-quality evidence), tricyclic antidepressants (1 study, 38 participants; MD -19.78 points, 95% CI -20.25 to -19.31; very low-quality evidence), and flumazenil (3 studies, 58 participants; standardised mean difference -0.95, 95% CI -1.71 to -0.19; very low-quality evidence) at end of intervention. However, the positive effect of paroxetine on benzodiazepine withdrawal symptoms did not persist until longest follow-up (1 study, 54 participants; MD -0.13 points, 95% CI -4.03 to 3.77; very low-quality evidence).The following pharmacological interventions reduced symptoms of anxiety at end of intervention: carbamazepine (1 study, 36 participants; MD -6.00 points, 95% CI -9.58 to -2.42; very low-quality evidence), pregabalin (1 study, 106 participants; MD -4.80 points, 95% CI -5.28 to -4.32; very low-quality evidence), captodiame (1 study, 81 participants; MD -5.70 points, 95% CI -6.05 to -5.35; very low-quality evidence), paroxetine (2 studies, 99 participants; MD -6.75 points, 95% CI -9.64 to -3.86; very low-quality evidence), and flumazenil (1 study, 18 participants; MD -1.30 points, 95% CI -2.28 to -0.32; very low-quality evidence).Two pharmacological treatments seemed to reduce the proportion of participants that relapsed to benzodiazepine use: valproate (1 study, 27 participants; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.90; very low-quality evidence) and cyamemazine (1 study, 124 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.78; very low-quality evidence). Alpidem decreased the proportion of participants with benzodiazepine discontinuation (1 study, 25 participants; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.99; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 2.3 participants; low-quality evidence) and increased the occurrence of withdrawal syndrome (1 study, 145 participants; RR 4.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 21.14; NNTH 5.9 participants; low-quality evidence). Likewise, magnesium aspartate decreased the proportion of participants discontinuing benzodiazepines (1 study, 144 participants; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96; NNTH 5.8; very low-quality evidence).Generally, adverse events were insufficiently reported. Specifically, one of the flumazenil trials was discontinued due to severe panic reactions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the low or very low quality of the evidence for the reported outcomes, and the small number of trials identified with a limited number of participants for each comparison, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions regarding pharmacological interventions to facilitate benzodiazepine discontinuation in chronic benzodiazepine users. Due to poor reporting, adverse events could not be reliably assessed across trials. More randomised controlled trials are required with less risk of systematic errors ('bias') and of random errors ('play of chance') and better and full reporting of patient-centred and long-term clinical outcomes. Such trials ought to be conducted independently of industry involvement.

Randomised clinical trial of early specialist palliative care plus standard care versus standard care alone in patients with advanced cancer: The Danish Palliative Care Trial.

BACKGROUND: Beneficial effects of early palliative care have been found in advanced cancer, but the evidence is not unequivocal. AIM: To investigate the effect of early specialist palliative care among advanced cancer patients identified in oncology departments. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: The Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT) (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01348048) is a multicentre randomised clinical trial comparing early referral to a specialist palliative care team plus standard care versus standard care alone. The planned sample size was 300. At five oncology departments, consecutive patients with advanced cancer were screened for palliative needs. Patients with scores exceeding a predefined threshold for problems with physical, emotional or role function, or nausea/vomiting, pain, dyspnoea or lack of appetite according to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) were eligible. The primary outcome was the change in each patient's primary need (the most severe of the seven QLQ-C30 scales) at 3- and 8-week follow-up (0-100 scale). Five sensitivity analyses were conducted. Secondary outcomes were change in the seven QLQ-C30 scales and survival. RESULTS: Totally 145 patients were randomised to early specialist palliative care versus 152 to standard care. Early specialist palliative care showed no effect on the primary outcome of change in primary need (-4.9 points (95% confidence interval -11.3 to +1.5 points); p = 0.14). The sensitivity analyses showed similar results. Analyses of the secondary outcomes, including survival, also showed no differences, maybe with the exception of nausea/vomiting where early specialist palliative care might have had a beneficial effect. CONCLUSION: We did not observe beneficial or harmful effects of early specialist palliative care, but important beneficial effects cannot be excluded.

SheppHeartCABG trial-comprehensive early rehabilitation after coronary artery bypass grafting: a protocol for a randomised clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery often experience a range of symptoms. Studies indicate that non-pharmacological interventions such as exercise training and psychoeducation have a positive physiological and psychological effect in early outpatient rehabilitation. The SheppHeartCABG trial will investigate the effect of early comprehensive rehabilitation in early phase rehabilitation versus usual care. The aim of this paper is to present the protocol for the SheppHeartCABG trial. METHODS/ANALYSIS: SheppHeartCABG is an investigator-initiated randomised clinical superiority trial with blinded outcome assessment, employing 1:1 central randomisation to rehabilitation plus usual care versus usual care alone. On the basis of a sample size calculation, 326 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting will be included from two clinical sites. All patients receive usual care and patients allocated to the experimental intervention follow 4 weeks rehabilitation consisting of an exercise programme, psycho-educative consultations and a compact mindfulness programme. The primary outcome is physical function measured by the 6-min walk test. The secondary outcomes are mental health and physical activity measured by the Medical Outcome Study Short Form (SF-12), anxiety and depression measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale questionnaire, physical, emotional and global scores by the HeartQoL questionnaire, sleep measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, pain measured by the Örebro Musculoskeletal Screening Questionnaire and muscle endurance measured by the sit-to-stand test. A number of explorative analyses will also be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: SheppHeartCABG is approved by the regional ethics committee (no. H-4-2014-109) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (no. 30-1309) and is performed in accordance with good clinical practice and the Declaration of Helsinki in its latest form. Positive, neutral and negative results of the trial will be submitted to international peer-reviewed journals. Furthermore, results will be presented at national and international conferences relevant to the subject fields. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02290262; pre-results.

Cardiac rehabilitation increases physical capacity but not mental health after heart valve surgery: a randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The evidence for cardiac rehabilitation after valve surgery remains sparse. Current recommendations are therefore based on patients with ischaemic heart disease. The aim of this randomised clinical trial was to assess the effects of cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care after heart valve surgery. METHODS: The trial was an investigator-initiated, randomised superiority trial (The CopenHeartVR trial, VR; valve replacement or repair). We randomised 147 patients after heart valve surgery 1:1 to 12 weeks of cardiac rehabilitation consisting of physical exercise and monthly psycho-educational consultations (intervention) versus usual care without structured physical exercise or psycho-educational consultations (control). Primary outcome was physical capacity measured by VO2 peak and secondary outcome was self-reported mental health measured by Short Form-36. RESULTS: 76% were men, mean age 62 years, with aortic (62%), mitral (36%) or tricuspid/pulmonary valve surgery (2%). Cardiac rehabilitation compared with control had a beneficial effect on VO2 peak at 4 months (24.8 mL/kg/min vs 22.5 mL/kg/min, p=0.045) but did not affect Short Form-36 Mental Component Scale at 6 months (53.7 vs 55.2 points, p=0.40) or the exploratory physical and mental outcomes. Cardiac rehabilitation increased the occurrence of self-reported non-serious adverse events (11/72 vs 3/75, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac rehabilitation after heart valve surgery significantly improves VO2 peak at 4 months but has no effect on mental health and other measures of exercise capacity and self-reported outcomes. Further research is needed to justify cardiac rehabilitation in this patient group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01558765, Results.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults after heart valve surgery.

BACKGROUND: Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation may benefit heart valve surgery patients. We conducted a systematic review to assess the evidence for the use of exercise-based intervention programmes following heart valve surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation compared with no exercise training intervention, or treatment as usual, in adults following heart valve surgery. We considered programmes including exercise training with or without another intervention (such as a psycho-educational component). SEARCH METHODS: We searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); MEDLINE (Ovid); EMBASE (Ovid); CINAHL (EBSCO); PsycINFO (Ovid); LILACS (Bireme); and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-S (CPCI-S) on Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) on 23 March 2015. We handsearched Web of Science, bibliographies of systematic reviews and trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, Controlled-trials.com, and The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials that investigated exercise-based interventions compared with no exercise intervention control. The trial participants comprised adults aged 18 years or older who had undergone heart valve surgery for heart valve disease (from any cause) and received either heart valve replacement, or heart valve repair. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data. We assessed the risk of systematic errors ('bias') by evaluation of bias risk domains. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity were assessed. Meta-analyses were undertaken using both fixed-effect and random-effects models. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence. We sought to assess the risk of random errors with trial sequential analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included two trials from 1987 and 2004 with a total 148 participants who have had heart valve surgery. Both trials had a high risk of bias.There was insufficient evidence at 3 to 6 months follow-up to judge the effect of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation compared to no exercise on mortality (RR 4.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 90.78); participants = 104; studies = 1; quality of evidence: very low) and on serious adverse events (RR 1.15 (95% CI 0.37 to 3.62); participants = 148; studies = 2; quality of evidence: very low). Included trials did not report on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and the secondary outcomes of New York Heart Association class, left ventricular ejection fraction and cost. We did find that, compared with control (no exercise), exercise-based rehabilitation may increase exercise capacity (SMD -0.47, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.13; participants = 140; studies = 2, quality of evidence: moderate). There was insufficient evidence at 12 months follow-up for the return to work outcome (RR 0.55 (95% CI 0.19 to 1.56); participants = 44; studies = 1; quality of evidence: low). Due to limited information, trial sequential analysis could not be performed as planned. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that exercise-based rehabilitation for adults after heart valve surgery, compared with no exercise, may improve exercise capacity. Due to a lack of evidence, we cannot evaluate the impact on other outcomes. Further high-quality randomised clinical trials are needed in order to assess the impact of exercise-based rehabilitation on patient-relevant outcomes, including mortality and quality of life.

Early physical training and psycho-educational intervention for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. The SheppHeart randomized 2 × 2 factorial clinical pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery often experience a range of problems and symptoms such as immobility, pain and insufficient sleep. Results from trials investigating testing in-hospital physical exercise or psychological intervention have been promising. However, no randomized clinical trials have tested a comprehensive rehabilitation programme consisting of both physical exercise and psycho-education in the early rehabilitation phase. AIMS: The aims of the present SheppHeart pilot randomized clinical trial were to evaluate the feasibility of patient recruitment, patient acceptance of the intervention, safety and tolerability of the intervention. METHODS AND DESIGN: Sixty patients admitted for coronary artery bypass graft were randomized 1:1:1:1 to: 1) physical exercise plus usual care, or 2) psycho-educational intervention plus usual care, or 3) physical exercise and psycho-educational plus usual care, or 4) usual care alone during a four week period after surgery. RESULTS: The acceptability of trial participation was 67% during the three month recruitment period. In the physical exercise groups, patients complied with 59% of the total expected training sessions during hospitalization. Nine patients (30%) complied with >75% and nine patients (30%) complied with 50% of the planned exercise sessions. Eleven patients (42%) participated in ⩾75% of the four consultations and six patients (23%) participated in 50% of the psycho-educational programme. CONCLUSION: Comprehensive phase one rehabilitation combining physical exercise and psycho-education in coronary artery bypass graft patients shows reasonably high inclusion, feasibility and safety.

The effects of high perioperative inspiratory oxygen fraction for adult surgical patients.

BACKGROUND: Available evidence on the effects of a high fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) of 60% to 90% compared with a routine fraction of inspired oxygen of 30% to 40%, during anaesthesia and surgery, on mortality and surgical site infection has been inconclusive. Previous trials and meta-analyses have led to different conclusions on whether a high fraction of supplemental inspired oxygen during anaesthesia may decrease or increase mortality and surgical site infections in surgical patients. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of an FIO2 equal to or greater than 60% compared with a control FIO2 at or below 40% in the perioperative setting in terms of mortality, surgical site infection, respiratory insufficiency, serious adverse events and length of stay during the index admission for adult surgical patients.We looked at various outcomes, conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses, examined the role of bias and applied trial sequential analysis (TSA) to examine the level of evidence supporting or refuting a high FIO2 during surgery, anaesthesia and recovery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, International Web of Science, the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS), advanced Google and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) up to February 2014. We checked the references of included trials and reviews for unidentified relevant trials and reran the searches in March 2015. We will consider two studies of interest when we update the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized clinical trials that compared a high fraction of inspired oxygen with a routine fraction of inspired oxygen during anaesthesia, surgery and recovery in individuals 18 years of age or older. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data independently. We conducted random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses, and for dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RRs). We used published data and data obtained by contacting trial authors.To minimize the risk of systematic error, we assessed the risk of bias of the included trials. To reduce the risk of random errors caused by sparse data and repetitive updating of cumulative meta-analyses, we applied trial sequential analyses. We used Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 28 randomized clinical trials (9330 participants); in the 21 trials reporting relevant outcomes for this review, 7597 participants were randomly assigned to a high fraction of inspired oxygen versus a routine fraction of inspired oxygen.In trials with an overall low risk of bias, a high fraction of inspired oxygen compared with a routine fraction of inspired oxygen was not associated with all-cause mortality (random-effects model: RR 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.36; GRADE: low quality) within the longest follow-up and within 30 days of follow-up (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.99, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.60; GRADE: low quality). In a trial sequential analysis, the required information size was not reached and the analysis could not refute a 20% increase in mortality. Similarly, when all trials were included, a high fraction of inspired oxygen was not associated with all-cause mortality to the longest follow-up (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.33) or within 30 days of follow-up (Peto OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.29), both of very low quality according to GRADE. Neither was a high fraction of inspired oxygen associated with the risk of surgical site infection in trials with low risk of bias (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.17; GRADE: low quality) or in all trials (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.07; GRADE: low quality). A high fraction of inspired oxygen was not associated with respiratory insufficiency (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.99), serious adverse events (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.43) or length of stay (mean difference -0.06 days, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.32 days).In subgroup analyses of nine trials using preoperative antibiotics, a high fraction of inspired oxygen was associated with a decrease in surgical site infections (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.97; GRADE: very low quality); a similar effect was noted in the five trials adequately blinded for the outcome assessment (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96; GRADE: very low quality). We did not observe an effect of a high fraction of inspired oxygen on surgical site infections in any other subgroup analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: As the risk of adverse events, including mortality, may be increased by a fraction of inspired oxygen of 60% or higher, and as robust evidence is lacking for a beneficial effect of a fraction of inspired oxygen of 60% or higher on surgical site infection, our overall results suggest that evidence is insufficient to support the routine use of a high fraction of inspired oxygen during anaesthesia and surgery. Given the risk of attrition and outcome reporting bias, as well as other weaknesses in the available evidence, further randomized clinical trials with low risk of bias in all bias domains, including a large sample size and long-term follow-up, are warranted.

Update to the study protocol, including statistical analysis plan for a randomized clinical trial comparing comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation after heart valve surgery with control: the CopenHeartVR trial.

BACKGROUND: Heart valve diseases are common with an estimated prevalence of 2.5% in the Western world. The number is rising because of an ageing population. Once symptomatic, heart valve diseases are potentially lethal, and heavily influence daily living and quality of life. Surgical treatment, either valve replacement or repair, remains the treatment of choice. However, post-surgery, the transition to daily living may become a physical, mental and social challenge. We hypothesize that a comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation program can improve physical capacity and self-assessed mental health and reduce hospitalization and healthcare costs after heart valve surgery. METHODS: This randomized clinical trial, CopenHeartVR, aims to investigate whether cardiac rehabilitation in addition to usual care is superior to treatment as usual after heart valve surgery. The trial will randomly allocate 210 patients 1:1 to an intervention or a control group, using central randomization, and blinded outcome assessment and statistical analyses. The intervention consists of 12 weeks of physical exercise and a psycho-educational intervention comprising five consultations. The primary outcome is peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak) measured by cardiopulmonary exercise testing with ventilatory gas analysis. The secondary outcome is self-assessed mental health measured by the standardized questionnaire Short Form-36. Long-term healthcare utilization and mortality as well as biochemistry, echocardiography and cost-benefit will be assessed. A mixed-method design will be used to evaluate qualitative and quantitative findings, encompassing a survey-based study before the trial and a qualitative pre- and post-intervention study. CONCLUSION: This randomized clinical trial will contribute with evidence of whether cardiac rehabilitation should be provided after heart valve surgery. The study is approved by the local regional Research Ethics Committee (H-1-2011-157), and the Danish Data Protection Agency (j.nr. 2007-58-0015). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registered 16 March 2012; ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01558765 ).

Procedural specificity in laparoscopic simulator training: protocol for a randomised educational superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of structured curricula for minimally invasive surgery training is becoming increasingly popular. However, many laparoscopic training programs still use basic skills and isolated task training, despite increasing evidence to support the use of training models with higher functional resemblance, such as whole procedural modules. In contrast to basic skills training, procedural training involves several cognitive skills such as elements of planning, movement integration, and how to avoid adverse events. The objective of this trial is to investigate the specificity of procedural practice in laparoscopic simulator training. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomised single-centre educational superiority trial. Participants are 96 surgical novices (medical students) without prior laparoscopic experience. Participants start by practicing a series of basic skills tasks to a predefined proficiency level on a virtual reality laparoscopy simulator. Upon reaching proficiency, the participants are randomised to either the intervention group, which practices two procedures (an appendectomy followed by a salpingectomy) or to the control group, practicing only one procedure (a salpingectomy) on the simulator. 1:1 central randomisation is used and participants are stratified by sex and time to complete the basic skills. Data collection is done at a surgical skills centre.The primary outcome is the number of repetitions required to reach a predefined proficiency level on the salpingectomy module. The secondary outcome is the total training time to proficiency. The improvement in motor skills and effect on cognitive load are also explored. DISCUSSION: The results of this trial might provide new knowledge on how the technical part of surgical training curricula should be comprised in the future. To examine the specificity of practice in procedural simulator training is of great importance in order to develop more comprehensive surgical curricula. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02069951.

Detailed statistical analysis plan for the Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT).

BACKGROUND: Advanced cancer patients experience considerable symptoms, problems, and needs. Early referral of these patients to specialized palliative care (SPC) could offer improvements. The Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT) investigates whether patients with metastatic cancer will benefit from being referred to 'early SPC'. DanPaCT is a multicenter, parallel-group, superiority clinical trial with 1:1 randomization. The planned sample size was 300 patients. The primary data collection for DanPaCT is finished. To prevent outcome reporting bias, selective reporting, and data-driven results, we present a detailed statistical analysis plan (SAP) for DanPaCT here. RESULTS: This SAP provides detailed descriptions of the statistical analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes in DanPaCT. The primary outcome is the change in the patient's 'primary need'. The 'primary need' is a patient-individualised outcome representing the score of the symptom or problem that had the highest intensity out of seven at baseline assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Secondary outcomes are the seven scales that are represented in the primary outcome, but each scale evaluated individually for all patients, and survival. The detailed description includes chosen significance levels, models for multiple imputations, sensitivity analyses and blinding. In addition, we discuss the patient-individualized primary outcome, blinding, missing data, multiplicity and the risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Only few trials have investigated the effects of SPC. To our knowledge DanPaCT is the first trial to investigate screening based 'early SPC' for patients with metastatic cancer from a broad spectrum of cancer diagnosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01348048 (May 2011).

Endoscopic versus open radial artery harvest and mammario-radial versus aorto-radial grafting in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery: protocol for the 2 × 2 factorial designed randomised NEO trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting using the radial artery has, since the 1990s, gone through a revival. Observational studies have indicated better long-term patency when using radial arteries. Therefore, radial artery might be preferred especially in younger patients where long time patency is important. During the last 10 years different endoscopic techniques to harvest the radial artery have evolved. Endoscopic radial artery harvest only requires a small incision near the wrist in contrast to open harvest, which requires an incision from the elbow to the wrist. However, it is unknown whether the endoscopic technique results in fewer complications or a graft patency comparable to open harvest. When the radial artery has been harvested, there are two ways to use the radial artery as a graft. One way is sewing it onto the aorta and another is sewing it onto the mammary artery. It is unknown which technique is the superior revascularisation technique. METHODS/DESIGN: The NEO Trial is a randomised clinical trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. We plan to randomise 300 participants into four intervention groups: (1) mammario-radial endoscopic group; (2) aorto-radial endoscopic group; (3) mammario-radial open surgery group; and (4) aorto-radial open surgery group.The hand function will be assessed by a questionnaire, a clinical examination, the change in cutaneous sensibility, and the measurement of both sensory and motor nerve conduction velocity at 3 months postoperatively. All the postoperative complications will be registered, and we will evaluate muscular function, scar appearance, vascular supply to the hand, and the graft patency including the patency of the central radial artery anastomosis. A patency evaluation by multi-slice computer tomography will be done at one year postoperatively.We expect the nerve conduction studies and the standardised neurological examinations to be able to discriminate differences in hand function comparing endoscopic to open harvest of the radial artery. The trial also aims to show if there is any patency difference between mammario-radial compared to aorto-radial revascularisation techniques but this objective is exploratory. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01848886.Danish Ethics committee number: H-3-2012-116.Danish Data Protection Agency: 2007-58-0015/jr.n:30-0838.

A randomised, multicentre clinical trial of specialised palliative care plus standard treatment versus standard treatment alone for cancer patients with palliative care needs: the Danish palliative care trial (DanPaCT) protocol.

BACKGROUND: Advanced cancer patients experience considerable symptoms, problems, and needs. Early referral of these patients to specialised palliative care (SPC) could improve their symptoms and problems.The Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT) investigates whether patients with metastatic cancer, who report palliative needs in a screening, will benefit from being referred to 'early SPC'. METHODS/DESIGN: DanPaCT is a clinical, multicentre, parallel-group superiority trial with balanced randomisation (1:1). The planned sample size is 300 patients. Patients are randomised to specialised palliative care (SPC) plus standard treatment versus standard treatment. Consecutive patients from oncology departments are screened for palliative needs with a questionnaire if they: a) have metastatic cancer; b) are 18 years or above; and c) have no prior contact with SPC. Patients with palliative needs (i.e. symptoms/problems exceeding a certain threshold) according to the questionnaire are eligible. The primary outcome is the change in the patients' primary need (the most severe symptom/problem measured with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30)). Secondary outcomes are other symptoms/problems (EORTC QLQ-C30), satisfaction with health care (FAMCARE P-16), anxiety and depression (the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale), survival, and health care costs. DISCUSSION: Only few trials have investigated the effects of SPC. To our knowledge DanPaCT is the first trial to investigate screening based 'early SPC' for patients with a broad spectrum of cancer diagnosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled Trials NCT01348048.

'In situ simulation' versus 'off site simulation' in obstetric emergencies and their effect on knowledge, safety attitudes, team performance, stress, and motivation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Unexpected obstetric emergencies threaten the safety of pregnant women. As emergencies are rare, they are difficult to learn. Therefore, simulation-based medical education (SBME) seems relevant. In non-systematic reviews on SBME, medical simulation has been suggested to be associated with improved learner outcomes. However, many questions on how SBME can be optimized remain unanswered. One unresolved issue is how 'in situ simulation' (ISS) versus 'off site simulation' (OSS) impact learning. ISS means simulation-based training in the actual patient care unit (in other words, the labor room and operating room). OSS means training in facilities away from the actual patient care unit, either at a simulation centre or in hospital rooms that have been set up for this purpose. METHODS AND DESIGN: The objective of this randomized trial is to study the effect of ISS versus OSS on individual learning outcome, safety attitude, motivation, stress, and team performance amongst multi-professional obstetric-anesthesia teams.The trial is a single-centre randomized superiority trial including 100 participants. The inclusion criteria were health-care professionals employed at the department of obstetrics or anesthesia at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, who were working on shifts and gave written informed consent. Exclusion criteria were managers with staff responsibilities, and staff who were actively taking part in preparation of the trial. The same obstetric multi-professional training was conducted in the two simulation settings. The experimental group was exposed to training in the ISS setting, and the control group in the OSS setting. The primary outcome is the individual score on a knowledge test. Exploratory outcomes are individual scores on a safety attitudes questionnaire, a stress inventory, salivary cortisol levels, an intrinsic motivation inventory, results from a questionnaire evaluating perceptions of the simulation and suggested changes needed in the organization, a team-based score on video-assessed team performance and on selected clinical performance. DISCUSSION: The perspective is to provide new knowledge on contextual effects of different simulation settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClincialTrials.gov NCT01792674.