Pathological findings associated with the updated European Society of Cardiology 2022 guidelines for preoperative cardiac testing: an observational cohort modelling study.

BACKGROUND: In 2022, the European Society of Cardiology updated guidelines for preoperative evaluation. The aims of this study were to quantify: (1) the impact of the updated recommendations on the yield of pathological findings compared with the previous guidelines published in 2014; (2) the impact of preoperative B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) use for risk estimation on the yield of pathological findings; and (3) the association between 2022 guideline adherence and outcomes. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of MET-REPAIR, an international, prospective observational cohort study (NCT03016936). Primary endpoints were reduced ejection fraction (EF<40%), stress-induced ischaemia, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The explanatory variables were class of recommendations for transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), stress imaging, and guideline adherence. We conducted second-order Monte Carlo simulations and multivariable regression. RESULTS: In total, 15,529 patients (39% female, median age 72 [inter-quartile range: 67-78] yr) were included. The 2022 update changed the recommendation for preoperative TTE in 39.7% patients, and for preoperative stress imaging in 12.9% patients. The update resulted in missing 1 EF <40% every 3 fewer conducted TTE, and in 4 additional stress imaging per 1 additionally detected ischaemia events. For cardiac stress testing, four more investigations were performed for every 1 additionally detected ischaemia episodes. Use of NT-proBNP did not improve the yield of pathological findings. Multivariable regression analysis failed to find an association between adherence to the updated guidelines and MACE. CONCLUSIONS: The 2022 update for preoperative cardiac testing resulted in a relevant increase in tests receiving a stronger recommendation. The updated recommendations for TTE did not improve the yield of pathological cardiac testing.

Has the quality of abstracts for randomised controlled trials improved since the release of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial guideline for abstract reporting? A survey of four high-profile anaesthesia journals.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts published in journal articles have traditionally been deficient of crucial information. To improve the quality of RCT abstracts, in January 2008, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial (CONSORT) group published a checklist of essential information for inclusion. The current study assessed whether there has been an improvement in the quality of RCT abstracts published in main anaesthesia journals since this new guideline was introduced. METHODS: Articles involving human RCTs published in four high-profile anaesthesia journals (Anaesthesia, Anesthesia & Analgesia, Anesthesiology and the European Journal of Anaesthesiology) were reviewed, comparing those published from October 2005 to September 2006 (pre-CONSORT abstracts) with those published from October 2008 to September 2009 (post-CONSORT abstracts). Trials involving healthy volunteers or cadavers, cost-effectiveness studies, meta-analyses and letters were excluded. Abstracts from remaining RCTs were randomly assigned to four reviewers in a blinded fashion and reviewed for content using the new CONSORT checklist. RESULTS: In total, 527 RCT abstracts (pre-CONSORT RCTs, n = 275 and post-CONSORT RCTs, n = 252) were analysed. The majority of abstracts in both groups provided an appropriate description of study interventions (73.1 and 73.8%, pre-CONSORT abstracts versus post-CONSORT abstracts, respectively), objective (91.3 and 90.1%) and conclusions (72.4 and 66.3%). From pre-CONSORT to post-CONSORT guidelines for abstract reporting, there were significant improvements in correctly identifying blinding (18.2-29%) and harmful effects (31.6-42.1%). The improvement in reporting the nature of the trial in abstract titles (20.1-29%) and primary outcome measure in the methods section (22.9-30.6%) did not reach significance. There was no clear improvement in the already poor reporting of trial design, participants, randomisation, recruitment, outcomes, trial registration and funding sources. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some promising improvements and inter-journal differences, the overall quality of RCT abstracts and adherence to the CONSORT checklist for abstracts remains poor.