Cognitive Outcomes after DEXmedetomidine sedation in cardiac surgery: CODEX randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Older patients undergoing cardiac surgery carry the highest risk for developing major postoperative neurocognitive disorder (postoperative NCD or P-NCD) with up to 25% incidence 3 months after surgery. P-NCD is associated with significant morbidity, mortality, loss of independence, premature retirement and increased healthcare costs. This multicentre randomised trial is investigating the efficacy of postoperative dexmedetomidine sedation in reducing the incidence of major P-NCD after cardiac surgery compared with standard protocols. CODEX will be the largest interventional trial with major P-NCD as the primary outcome. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: CODEX is recruiting patients ≥60 years old, undergoing elective cardiac surgery and without pre-existing major cognitive dysfunction or dementia. Eligible participants are randomised to receive postoperative dexmedetomidine or standard institutional sedation protocols in the intensive care unit. Baseline preoperative cognitive function is assessed with the computer-based Cogstate Brief Battery. The primary outcome, major P-NCD, 3 months after surgery is defined as a decrease in cognitive function ≥1.96 SD below age-matched, non-operative controls. Secondary outcomes include delirium, major P-NCD at 6/12 months, depressive symptoms, mild P-NCD and quality of surgical recovery at 3/6/12 months. The specific diagnostic criteria used in this protocol are consistent with the recommendations for clinical assessment and management of NCD from the Nomenclature Consensus Working Group on perioperative cognitive changes. Intention-to-treat analysis will compare major P-NCD at 3 months between study groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: CODEX was approved by Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Research Ethics Board (REB) (Project ID 1743). This will be the first multicentre, randomised controlled trial to assess the efficacy of a pharmacological intervention to reduce the incidence of major P-NCD after cardiac surgery in patients ≥60 years old. Dissemination of the study results will include briefings of key findings and interpretation, conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04289142.

A physician survey of perioperative neuraxial anesthesia management in patients on a direct oral anticoagulant.

BACKGROUND: The perioperative management of patients taking a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) who require a high-bleed-risk surgery and/or neuraxial anesthesia is uncertain. We surveyed clinician practices relating to DOAC interruption and related perioperative management in patients having high-bleed-risk surgery with neuraxial anesthesia, and assess the suitability of a randomized trial of different perioperative DOAC management strategies. METHODS: We surveyed members of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, the Canadian Anesthesia Society and Thrombosis Canada. We developed four clinical scenarios involving DOAC-treated patients who required anticoagulant interruption for elective high-bleed-risk surgery. In three scenarios, patients were to receive neuraxial anesthesia, and in one scenario they were to receive general anesthesia. We also asked about the merit of a randomized trial to compare a 2-day versus longer (3- to 5-day) duration of DOAC interruption. RESULTS: There were 399 survey respondents of whom 356 (89%) were anesthetists and 43 (11%) were medical specialists. The responses indicate uncertainty about the DOAC interruption interval for high-bleed-risk surgery and/or neuraxial anesthesia; anesthetists favor 3- to 5-day interruption whereas medical specialists favor 2-day interruption. Anesthetists were unwilling to proceed with neuraxial anesthesia in patients with a 2-day DOAC interruption interval, preferring to cancel the surgery or switch to general anesthesia. There is general agreement on the need for a randomized trial in this field to compare a 2-day and a 3- to 5-day DOAC interruption management strategy. CONCLUSIONS: There is variability in practices relating to the perioperative management of DOAC-treated patients who require a high-bleed-risk surgery with neuraxial anesthesia; this variability relates to the duration of DOAC interruption in such patients.

Canadian recommendations for training and performance in basic perioperative point-of-care ultrasound: recommendations from a consensus of Canadian anesthesiology academic centres.

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) uses ultrasound at the bedside to aid decision-making in acute clinical scenarios. The increased use of ultrasound for regional anesthesia and vascular cannulation, together with more anesthesiologists trained in transesophageal echocardiography have contributed to the widespread use of POCUS in perioperative care. Despite the support of international experts, the practice of POCUS in perioperative care is variable as Canadian guidelines for anesthesiologists do not currently exist. Using a Delphi process of online surveys and a face-to-face national Canadian meeting, we developed a consensus statement for basic POCUS (bPOCUS) performance and training with a group of national experts from all Canadian universities. The group of experts consisted of 55 anesthesiologists from 12 Canadian universities considered local leaders in the field. An initial exploratory online survey of 47 statements was conducted. These statements were derived from previous generic guidelines or consensus conferences, or were based on current literature. Fourteen statements reached full consensus, 19 had 90-100% agreement, and 14 had less than 90% agreement. Eight new statements were proposed during the national meeting, and all statements without full agreement were discussed. A second online survey included 42 modified or new statements. From this second survey, 16 statements obtained full consensus, 39 had very good agreement, and one had good agreement. The final document includes 56 statements that define the scope of practice and necessary training for perioperative bPOCUS. The statements include five bPOCUS domains: cardiac, lung, airway, gastric, and abdomen. The use of bPOCUS is evolving and will play a significant role in perioperative medicine. This consensus statement aims to define a Canadian national standard on which curricula may be based. It also provides a framework to allow further development of bPOCUS in the perioperative setting.

RéSUMé: L'échographie ciblée (POCUS) utilise l'échographie au chevet des patients pour faciliter la prise de décisions dans les situations cliniques urgentes. L'utilisation accrue de l'échographie pour l'anesthésie régionale et la cannulation vasculaire, ainsi que l'augmentation du nombre d'anesthésologistes formés à l'échocardiographie transesophagienne, ont contribué à l'utilisation généralisée de l'échographie ciblée dans les soins périopératoires. Malgré son endossement par des experts internationaux, la pratique de l'échographie ciblée en soins périopératoires est variable, car il n'existe pas, à l'heure actuelle, de lignes directrices canadiennes destinées aux anesthésiologistes. À l'aide d'un processus Delphi de sondages en ligne et d'une réunion nationale canadienne en personne, un groupe d'experts nationaux provenant de toutes les universités canadiennes a élaboré une déclaration consensuelle pour la formation de base en et l'exécution de l'échographie ciblée (bPOCUS). Le groupe d'experts était composé de 55 anesthésiologistes issus de 12 universités canadiennes considérés comme des chefs de file locaux dans le domaine. Un premier sondage exploratoire en ligne comportant 47 énoncés a été réalisé. Ces énoncés étaient dérivés de lignes directrices antérieures ou de conférences consensuelles, ou étaient fondés sur la littérature actuelle. Quatorze énoncés ont obtenu un consensus complet, 19 ont atteint un taux de 90 à 100 %, et 14 ont obtenu moins de 90 % d'accord. Huit nouveaux énoncés ont été proposés au cours de la réunion nationale, et tous les énoncés n'ayant pas obtenu d'accord complet ont été discutés. Un deuxième sondage en ligne comprenait 42 énoncés modifiés ou nouveaux. Dans ce deuxième sondage, 16 énoncés ont obtenu un consensus total, 39 un très bon accord et un énoncé un bon accord. Le document final comporte 56 énoncés qui définissent le champ de pratique et la formation nécessaire pour l'échographie ciblée périopératoire de base. Les énoncés portent sur cinq domaines de l'échographie ciblée de base : échographie cardiaque, pulmonaire, des voies respiratoires, gastrique et abdominale. L'utilisation de l'échographie ciblée de base évolue et jouera un rôle important en médecine périopératoire. Cette déclaration consensuelle vise à définir une norme nationale canadienne sur laquelle les programmes d'études pourront s'appuyer. Elle fournit également un cadre pour encourager le développement ultérieur de l'échographie ciblée de base dans un contexte périopératoire.

Predictors of preprocedural direct oral anticoagulant levels in patients having an elective surgery or procedure.

The Perioperative Anticoagulation Use for Surgery Evaluation (PAUSE) study prospectively evaluated a prespecified periprocedural-interruption strategy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) among patients with atrial fibrillation. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify clinical parameters associated with residual DOAC levels ≥30 ng/mL or ≥50 ng/mL. Patients undergoing low-bleed-risk procedures were more likely to have residual levels of ≥30 ng/mL and ≥50 ng/mL. For low-risk procedures, age ≥75 years, female sex, a creatinine clearance (CrCl) <50 mL/min, and an interruption of <36 hours were associated with a greater likelihood of levels ≥30 ng/mL, whereas age ≥75 years, female sex, a CrCl of <50 mL/min, and standard DOAC dosing were associated with levels ≥50 ng/mL. For high-risk procedures, weight of <70 kg, CrCl <50 mL/min, and standard DOAC dosing were associated with residual levels ≥30 ng/mL, whereas female sex was associated with levels ≥50 ng/mL. For low-risk procedures, apixaban was associated with a higher likelihood of levels ≥30 ng/mL as compared with dabigatran (P = .0019) and of levels ≥50 ng/mL when compared with rivaroxaban (P = .0003). For high-risk procedures, apixaban was marginally associated with a higher likelihood of residual levels ≥30 ng/mL when compared with dabigatran (P = .05), whereas rivaroxaban was associated with a higher likelihood of levels ≥30 ng/mL as compared with apixaban. Further study is required to determine whether adjustments to perioperative plans based on these clinical parameters could result in a lower risk of residual DOAC levels. The PAUSE trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT2228798.

Restricted versus liberal intraoperative benzodiazepine use in cardiac anaesthesia for reducing delirium (B-Free Pilot): a pilot, multicentre, randomised, cluster crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is common after cardiac surgery and is associated with adverse outcomes. Perioperative benzodiazepine use is associated with delirium and is common during cardiac surgery, which may increase the risk of postoperative delirium. We undertook a pilot study to inform the feasibility of a large randomised cluster crossover trial examining whether an institutional policy of restricted benzodiazepine administration during cardiac surgery (compared with liberal administration) would reduce delirium. METHODS: We conducted a two-centre, pilot, randomised cluster crossover trial with four 4 week crossover periods. Each centre was randomised to a policy of restricted or liberal use, and then alternated between the two policies during the remaining three periods. Our feasibility outcomes were adherence to each policy (goal ≥80%) and outcome assessment (one delirium assessment per day in the ICU in ≥90% of participants). We also evaluated the incidence of intraoperative awareness in one site using serial Brice questionnaires. RESULTS: Of 800 patients undergoing cardiac surgery during the trial period, 127/800 (15.9%) had delirium. Of these, 355/389 (91.3%) received benzodiazepines during the liberal benzodiazepine periods and 363/411 (88.3%) did not receive benzodiazepines during the restricted benzodiazepine periods. Amongst the 800 patients, 740 (92.5%) had ≥1 postoperative delirium assessment per day in the ICU. Of 521 patients screened for intraoperative awareness, one patient (0.2%), managed during the restricted benzodiazepine period (but who received benzodiazepine), experienced intraoperative awareness. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of a large, multicentre, randomised, cluster crossover trial examining whether an institutional policy of restricted vs liberal benzodiazepine use during cardiac surgery will reduce postoperative delirium. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03053869.

Effect of Fibrinogen Concentrate vs Cryoprecipitate on Blood Component Transfusion After Cardiac Surgery: The FIBRES Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Excessive bleeding is a common complication of cardiac surgery. An important cause of bleeding is acquired hypofibrinogenemia (fibrinogen level <1.5-2.0 g/L), for which guidelines recommend fibrinogen replacement with cryoprecipitate or fibrinogen concentrate. The 2 products have important differences, but comparative clinical data are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To determine if fibrinogen concentrate is noninferior to cryoprecipitate for treatment of bleeding related to hypofibrinogenemia after cardiac surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized clinical trial at 11 Canadian hospitals enrolling adult patients experiencing clinically significant bleeding and hypofibrinogenemia after cardiac surgery (from February 10, 2017, to November 1, 2018). Final 28-day follow-up visit was completed on November 28, 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Fibrinogen concentrate (4 g; n = 415) or cryoprecipitate (10 units; n = 412) for each ordered dose within 24 hours after cardiopulmonary bypass. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcome was blood components (red blood cells, platelets, plasma) administered during 24 hours post bypass. A 2-sample, 1-sided test for the ratio of the mean number of units was conducted to evaluate noninferiority (threshold for noninferiority ratio, <1.2). RESULTS: Of 827 randomized patients, 735 (372 fibrinogen concentrate, 363 cryoprecipitate) were treated and included in the primary analysis (median age, 64 [interquartile range, 53-72] years; 30% women; 72% underwent complex operations; 95% moderate to severe bleeding; and pretreatment fibrinogen level, 1.6 [interquartile range, 1.3-1.9] g/L). The trial met the a priori stopping criterion for noninferiority at the interim analysis after 827 of planned 1200 patients were randomized. Mean 24-hour postbypass allogeneic transfusions were 16.3 (95% CI, 14.9 to 17.8) units in the fibrinogen concentrate group and 17.0 (95% CI, 15.6 to 18.6) units in the cryoprecipitate group (ratio, 0.96 [1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 1.09; P < .001 for noninferiority] [2-sided 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.09; P = .50 for superiority]). Thromboembolic events occurred in 26 patients (7.0%) in the fibrinogen concentrate group and 35 patients (9.6%) in the cryoprecipitate group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients undergoing cardiac surgery who develop clinically significant bleeding and hypofibrinogenemia after cardiopulmonary bypass, fibrinogen concentrate is noninferior to cryoprecipitate with regard to number of blood components transfused in a 24-hour period post bypass. Use of fibrinogen concentrate may be considered for management of bleeding in patients with acquired hypofibrinogenemia in cardiac surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03037424.

Perioperative Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Receiving a Direct Oral Anticoagulant.

IMPORTANCE: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who use a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and request elective surgery or procedure present a common clinical situation yet perioperative management is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety of a standardized perioperative DOAC management strategy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Perioperative Anticoagulation Use for Surgery Evaluation (PAUSE) cohort study conducted at 23 clinical centers in Canada, the United States, and Europe enrolled and screened patients from August 1, 2014, through July 31, 2018. Participants (n = 3007) had AF; were 18 years of age or older; were long-term users of apixaban, dabigatran etexilate, or rivaroxaban; were scheduled for an elective surgery or procedure; and could adhere to the DOAC therapy interruption protocol. INTERVENTIONS: A simple standardized perioperative DOAC therapy interruption and resumption strategy based on DOAC pharmacokinetic properties, procedure-associated bleeding risk, and creatinine clearance levels. The DOAC regimens were omitted for 1 day before a low-bleeding-risk procedure and 2 days before a high-bleeding-risk procedure. The DOAC regimens were resumed 1 day after a low-bleeding-risk procedure and 2 to 3 days after a high-bleeding-risk procedure. Follow-up of patients occurred for 30 days after the operation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Major bleeding and arterial thromboembolism (ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and transient ischemic attack) and the proportion of patients with an undetectable or minimal residual anticoagulant level (<50 ng/mL) at the time of the procedure. RESULTS: The 3007 patients with AF (mean [SD] age of 72.5 [9.39] years; 1988 men [66.1%]) comprised 1257 (41.8%) in the apixaban cohort, 668 (22.2%) in the dabigatran cohort, and 1082 (36.0%) in the rivaroxaban cohort; 1007 patients (33.5%) had a high-bleeding-risk procedure. The 30-day postoperative rate of major bleeding was 1.35% (95% CI, 0%-2.00%) in the apixaban cohort, 0.90% (95% CI, 0%-1.73%) in the dabigatran cohort, and 1.85% (95% CI, 0%-2.65%) in the rivaroxaban cohort. The rate of arterial thromboembolism was 0.16% (95% CI, 0%-0.48%) in the apixaban cohort, 0.60% (95% CI, 0%-1.33%) in the dabigatran cohort, and 0.37% (95% CI, 0%-0.82%) in the rivaroxaban cohort. In patients with a high-bleeding-risk procedure, the rates of major bleeding were 2.96% (95% CI, 0%-4.68%) in the apixaban cohort and 2.95% (95% CI, 0%-4.76%) in the rivaroxaban cohort. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, patients with AF who had DOAC therapy interruption for elective surgery or procedure, a perioperative management strategy without heparin bridging or coagulation function testing was associated with low rates of major bleeding and arterial thromboembolism.

Safety of a Restrictive versus Liberal Approach to Red Blood Cell Transfusion on the Outcome of AKI in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Safely reducing red blood cell transfusions can prevent transfusion-related adverse effects, conserve the blood supply, and reduce health care costs. Both anemia and red blood cell transfusion are independently associated with AKI, but observational data are insufficient to determine whether a restrictive approach to transfusion can be used without increasing AKI risk. METHODS: In a prespecified kidney substudy of a randomized noninferiority trial, we compared a restrictive threshold for red blood cell transfusion (transfuse if hemoglobin<7.5 g/dl, intraoperatively and postoperatively) with a liberal threshold (transfuse if hemoglobin<9.5 g/dl in the operating room or intensive care unit, or if hemoglobin<8.5 g/dl on the nonintensive care ward). We studied 4531 patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass who had a moderate-to-high risk of perioperative death. The substudy's primary outcome was AKI, defined as a postoperative increase in serum creatinine of ≥0.3 mg/dl within 48 hours of surgery, or ≥50% within 7 days of surgery. RESULTS: Patients in the restrictive-threshold group received significantly fewer transfusions than patients in the liberal-threshold group (1.8 versus 2.9 on average, or 38% fewer transfusions in the restricted-threshold group compared with the liberal-threshold group; P<0.001). AKI occurred in 27.7% of patients in the restrictive-threshold group (624 of 2251) and in 27.9% of patients in the liberal-threshold group (636 of 2280). Similarly, among patients with preoperative CKD, AKI occurred in 33.6% of patients in the restrictive-threshold group (258 of 767) and in 32.5% of patients in the liberal-threshold group (252 of 775). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing cardiac surgery, a restrictive transfusion approach resulted in fewer red blood cell transfusions without increasing the risk of AKI.

Reporting preclinical anesthesia study (REPEAT): Evaluating the quality of reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature.

Poor reporting quality may contribute to irreproducibility of results and failed 'bench-to-bedside' translation. Consequently, guidelines have been developed to improve the complete and transparent reporting of in vivo preclinical studies. To examine the impact of such guidelines on core methodological and analytical reporting items in the preclinical anesthesiology literature, we sampled a cohort of studies. Preclinical in vivo studies published in Anesthesiology, Anesthesia & Analgesia, Anaesthesia, and the British Journal of Anaesthesia (2008-2009, 2014-2016) were identified. Data was extracted independently and in duplicate. Reporting completeness was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Principles and Guidelines for Reporting Preclinical Research. Risk ratios were used for comparative analyses. Of 7615 screened articles, 604 met our inclusion criteria and included experiments reporting on 52 490 animals. The most common topic of investigation was pain and analgesia (30%), rodents were most frequently used (77%), and studies were most commonly conducted in the United States (36%). Use of preclinical reporting guidelines was listed in 10% of applicable articles. A minority of studies fully reported on replicates (0.3%), randomization (10%), blinding (12%), sample-size estimation (3%), and inclusion/exclusion criteria (5%). Statistics were well reported (81%). Comparative analysis demonstrated few differences in reporting rigor between journals, including those that endorsed reporting guidelines. Principal items of study design were infrequently reported, with few differences between journals. Methods to improve implementation and adherence to community-based reporting guidelines may be necessary to increase transparent and consistent reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature.

Six-Month Outcomes after Restrictive or Liberal Transfusion for Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: We reported previously that, in patients undergoing cardiac surgery who were at moderate-to-high risk for death, a restrictive transfusion strategy was noninferior to a liberal strategy with respect to the composite outcome of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new-onset renal failure with dialysis by hospital discharge or 28 days after surgery, whichever came first. We now report the clinical outcomes at 6 months after surgery. METHODS: We randomly assigned 5243 adults undergoing cardiac surgery to a restrictive red-cell transfusion strategy (transfusion if the hemoglobin concentration was <7.5 g per deciliter intraoperatively or postoperatively) or a liberal red-cell transfusion strategy (transfusion if the hemoglobin concentration was <9.5 g per deciliter intraoperatively or postoperatively when the patient was in the intensive care unit [ICU] or was <8.5 g per deciliter when the patient was in the non-ICU ward). The primary composite outcome was death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new-onset renal failure with dialysis occurring within 6 months after the initial surgery. An expanded secondary composite outcome included all the components of the primary outcome as well as emergency department visit, hospital readmission, or coronary revascularization occurring within 6 months after the index surgery. The secondary outcomes included the individual components of the two composite outcomes. RESULTS: At 6 months after surgery, the primary composite outcome had occurred in 402 of 2317 patients (17.4%) in the restrictive-threshold group and in 402 of 2347 patients (17.1%) in the liberal-threshold group (absolute risk difference before rounding, 0.22 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.95 to 2.39; odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.18; P=0.006 for noninferiority). Mortality was 6.2% in the restrictive-threshold group and 6.4% in the liberal-threshold group (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.21). There were no significant between-group differences in the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing cardiac surgery who were at moderate-to-high risk for death, a restrictive strategy for red-cell transfusion was noninferior to a liberal strategy with respect to the composite outcome of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new-onset renal failure with dialysis at 6 months after surgery. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; TRICS III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02042898 .).

The role of randomized cluster crossover trials for comparative effectiveness testing in anesthesia: design of the Benzodiazepine-Free Cardiac Anesthesia for Reduction in Postoperative Delirium (B-Free) trial.

Increasingly, clinicians and researchers recognize that studies of interventions need to evaluate not only their therapeutic efficacy (i.e., the effect on an outcome in ideal, controlled settings) but also their real-world effectiveness in broad, unselected patient groups. Effectiveness trials inform clinical practice by comparing variations in therapeutic approaches that fall within the standard of care. In this article, we discuss the need for studies of comparative effectiveness in anesthesia and the limitations of individual patient randomized-controlled trials in determining comparative effectiveness. We introduce the concept of randomized cluster crossover trials as a means of answering questions of comparative effectiveness in anesthesia, using the design of the Benzodiazepine-Free Cardiac Anesthesia for Reduction in Postoperative Delirium (B-Free) trial (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT03053869).

Comparison of Two Major Perioperative Bleeding Scores for Cardiac Surgery Trials: Universal Definition of Perioperative Bleeding in Cardiac Surgery and European Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Bleeding Severity Grade.

WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND:: Research into major bleeding during cardiac surgery is challenging due to variability in how it is scored. Two consensus-based clinical scores for major bleeding: the Universal definition of perioperative bleeding and the European Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (E-CABG) bleeding severity grade, were compared in this substudy of the Transfusion Avoidance in Cardiac Surgery (TACS) trial. METHODS: As part of TACS, 7,402 patients underwent cardiac surgery at 12 hospitals from 2014 to 2015. We examined content validity by comparing scored items, construct validity by examining associations with redo and complex procedures, and criterion validity by examining 28-day in-hospital mortality risk across bleeding severity categories. Hierarchical logistic regression models were constructed that incorporated important predictors and categories of bleeding. RESULTS: E-CABG and Universal scores were correlated (Spearman ρ = 0.78, P < 0.0001), but E-CABG classified 910 (12.4%) patients as having more severe bleeding, whereas the Universal score classified 1,729 (23.8%) as more severe. Higher E-CABG and Universal scores were observed in redo and complex procedures. Increasing E-CABG and Universal scores were associated with increased mortality in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Regression model discrimination based on predictors of perioperative mortality increased with additional inclusion of the Universal score (c-statistic increase from 0.83 to 0.91) or E-CABG (c-statistic increase from 0.83 to 0.92). When other major postoperative complications were added to these models, the association between Universal or E-CABG bleeding with mortality remained. CONCLUSIONS: Although each offers different advantages, both the Universal score and E-CABG performed well in the validity assessments, supporting their use as outcome measures in clinical trials.

Risk of Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Randomized to a Restrictive Versus Liberal Approach to Red Blood Cell Transfusion in Cardiac Surgery: A Substudy Protocol of the Transfusion Requirements in Cardiac Surgery III Noninferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: When safe to do so, avoiding blood transfusions in cardiac surgery can avoid the risk of transfusion-related infections and other complications while protecting a scarce resource and reducing costs. This protocol describes a kidney substudy of the Transfusion Requirements in Cardiac Surgery III (TRICS-III) trial, a multinational noninferiority randomized controlled trial to determine whether the risk of major clinical outcomes in patients undergoing planned cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass is no greater with a restrictive versus liberal approach to red blood cell transfusion. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this substudy is to determine whether the risk of acute kidney injury is no greater with a restrictive versus liberal approach to red blood cell transfusion, and whether this holds true in patients with and without preexisting chronic kidney disease. DESIGN AND SETTING: Multinational noninferiority randomized controlled trial conducted in 73 centers in 19 countries (2014-2017). PATIENTS: Patients (~4800) undergoing planned cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome of this substudy is perioperative acute kidney injury, defined as an acute rise in serum creatinine from the preoperative value (obtained in the 30-day period before surgery), where an acute rise is defined as ≥26.5 µmol/L in the first 48 hours after surgery or ≥50% in the first 7 days after surgery. METHODS: We will report the absolute risk difference in acute kidney injury and the 95% confidence interval. We will repeat the primary analysis using alternative definitions of acute kidney injury, including staging definitions, and will examine effect modification by preexisting chronic kidney disease (defined as a preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] <60 mL/min/1.73 m2). LIMITATIONS: It is not possible to blind patients or providers to the intervention; however, objective measures will be used to assess outcomes, and outcome assessors will be blinded to the intervention assignment. RESULTS: Substudy results will be reported by the year 2018. CONCLUSIONS: This substudy will provide generalizable estimates of the risk of acute kidney injury of a restrictive versus liberal approach to red blood cell transfusion in the presence of anemia during cardiac surgery done with cardiopulmonary bypass. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov; clinical trial registration number NCT 02042898.

CONTEXTE: En chirurgie cardiaque, éviter les transfusions sanguines, lorsque sécuritaire, contribue à réduire les risques d'infections transfusionnelles et de complications tout en préservant une ressource rare et en réduisant le coût des soins. Ce protocole décrit une étude secondaire qui examine le volet des risques d'insuffisance rénale aiguë (IRA) de l'étude TRICS-III (Transfusion Requirements in Cardiac Surgery III), un essai de non-infériorité multinational, contrôlé et à répartition aléatoire faisant état des exigences applicables à la transfusion sanguine en chirurgie cardiaque. Notre protocole vise plus particulièrement à déterminer si le risque d'atteintes rénales encouru par les patients subissant une chirurgie de pontages coronarien est plus ou moins grand selon que l'on préconise une approche restrictive ou libérale en matière de transfusion sanguine. OBJECTIF: L'objectif de notre étude est de déterminer si le risque d'IRA est plus ou moins grand selon que l'on préconise une approche restrictive ou libérale à l'égard de la transfusion sanguine; et, si c'est le cas, d'établir si ce risque différentiel perdure selon que le patient était ou non atteint d'insuffisance rénale chronique avant l'intervention. CADRE ET TYPE D'ÉTUDE: L'étude consiste en un essai multinational de non-infériorité, contrôlé et à répartition aléatoire, mené entre 2014 et 2017 au sein de 73 centres répartis dans 19 pays. PATIENTS: L'étude compte environ 4 800 patients ayant subi un pontage coronarien. MESURES: Le principal facteur observé est le développement d'une IRA périopératoire, telle que définie par une hausse marquée du taux de créatinine sérique par rapport à la valeur préopératoire (prélevée dans les 30 jours précédant l'intervention). Nous avons défini une « hausse marquée ¼ par un taux de créatinine atteignant au moins 26,5µmol/L dans les 48 heures postopératoires ou son augmentation d'au moins 50 % à l'intérieur des sept premiers jours. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Nous présenterons le risque différentiel absolu d'IRA dans un intervalle de confiance à 95 %. Nous répéterons l'analyse primaire en alternant les définitions de l'IRA (notamment en fonction des différents stades) et examinerons les éventuelles modifications de l'incidence chez des patients atteints d'une insuffisance rénale préexistante (définie par un DFGe préopératoire à moins de 60 ml/min/1,73 m2). LIMITES DE L'ÉTUDE: Il n'est évidemment pas possible de procéder à l'insu des patients ni des fournisseurs de soins lors de l'intervention. Toutefois, des mesures objectives seront utilisées pour évaluer les résultats, et les évaluateurs ne seront aucunement au courant de la répartition des cas. RÉSULTATS: Les résultats de cette étude secondaire seront présentés d'ici 2018. CONCLUSION: Cette étude secondaire fournira des estimations généralisables du risque de développer une IRA lors d'un pontage coronarien selon que, pour traiter l'anémie, l'approche à l'égard de la transfusion sanguine soit restrictive ou libérale.

Transfusion Requirements in Cardiac Surgery III (TRICS III): Study Design of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if a restrictive transfusion threshold is noninferior to a higher threshold as measured by a composite outcome of mortality and serious morbidity. DESIGN: Transfusion Requirements in Cardiac Surgery (TRICS) III was a multicenter, international, open-label randomized controlled trial of two commonly used transfusion strategies in patients having cardiac surgery using a noninferiority trial design (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02042898). SETTING: Eligible patients were randomized prior to surgery in a 1:1 ratio. PARTICIPANTS: Potential participants were 18 years or older undergoing planned cardiac surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) with a preoperative European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE I) of 6 or more. INTERVENTIONS: Five thousand patients; those allocated to a restrictive transfusion group received a red blood cell (RBC) transfusion if the hemoglobin concentration (Hb) was less than 7.5 g/dL intraoperatively and/or postoperatively. Patients allocated to a liberal transfusion strategy received RBC transfusion if the Hb was less than 9.5 g/dL intraoperatively or postoperatively in the intensive care unit or less than 8.5 g/dL on the ward. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new onset renal dysfunction requiring dialysis at hospital discharge or day 28, whichever comes first. The primary outcome was analyzed as a per-protocol analysis. The trial monitored adherence closely as adherence to the transfusion triggers is important in ensuring that measured outcomes reflect the transfusion strategy. CONCLUSION: By randomizing prior to surgery, the TRICS III trial captured the most acute reduction in hemoglobin during cardiopulmonary bypass.

Benzodiazepine administration during adult cardiac surgery: a survey of current practice among Canadian anesthesiologists working in academic centres.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines are commonly administered during cardiac surgery because of their limited effect on hemodynamics and presumed role in preventing intraoperative awareness. Recent concerns about an increased risk of delirium with benzodiazepines have resulted in decreased usage in the intensive care unit and in geriatric perioperative practice. Little is known, however, about current benzodiazepine usage in the setting of adult cardiac surgery. METHODS: We contacted all academic anesthesia departments in Canada to identify practicing attending cardiac anesthesiologists; this group constituted our sampling frame. Information regarding participant demographics, benzodiazepine usage, type, dose, and other administration details were obtained by electronic survey. Responses were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 243/346 (70%) of cardiac anesthesiologists. Eleven percent of respondents do not administer benzodiazepines. Midazolam was the most commonly used benzodiazepine, with a mean (standard deviation) dose of 4.9 (3.8) mg given to an average patient. When respondents were asked the proportion of patients that they gave benzodiazepines, the response was bimodal. The most common considerations that influenced benzodiazepine use were patient age (73%), patient anxiety (63%), history of alcohol/drug/benzodiazepine use (60%), and the presence of risk factors for intraoperative awareness (44%). CONCLUSIONS: Benzodiazepine use is common among academic cardiac anesthesiologists in Canada. Nonetheless, heterogeneity exists between individual practices, suggesting clinical equipoise between restrictive and liberal administration of benzodiazepines for cardiac anesthesia. L'administration de benzodiazépines pendant la chirurgie cardiaque chez l'adulte: évaluation de la pratique actuelle des anesthésiologistes canadiens exerçant en milieu universitaire.

The Perioperative Anticoagulant Use for Surgery Evaluation (PAUSE) Study for Patients on a Direct Oral Anticoagulant Who Need an Elective Surgery or Procedure: Design and Rationale.

Background The perioperative management of patients who take a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) for atrial fibrillation and require treatment interruption for an elective surgery/procedure is a common clinical scenario for which best practices are uncertain. The Perioperative Anticoagulant Use for Surgery Evaluation (PAUSE) study is designed to address this unmet clinical need. We discuss the rationale for the PAUSE design and analysis plan as well as the rationale supporting the perioperative DOAC protocol. Methods PAUSE is a prospective study with three parallel cohorts, one for each DOAC, to assess a standardized but patient-specific perioperative management protocol for DOAC-treated patients with atrial fibrillation. The perioperative protocol accounts for DOAC type, patient's renal function and surgery/procedure-related bleeding risk. The primary study aim is to demonstrate the safety of the PAUSE protocol for the perioperative management of each DOAC. The secondary aim is to determine the effect of the pre-procedure interruption on residual anticoagulation when measured by the dilute thrombin time for dabigatran and anti-factor Xa levels for rivaroxaban and apixaban. The study hypothesis is that the perioperative management protocol for each DOAC is safe for patient care, defined by expected risks for major bleeding of 1% (80% power to exclude 2%), and for arterial thromboembolism of 0.5% (80% power to exclude 1.5%) in each DOAC group. Conclusion The PAUSE study has the potential to establish a standard-of-care approach for the perioperative management of DOAC-treated patients. The PAUSE management protocol is designed to be easily applied in clinical practice, as it is standardized and also patient specific.

Restrictive or Liberal Red-Cell Transfusion for Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The effect of a restrictive versus liberal red-cell transfusion strategy on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery remains unclear. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned 5243 adults undergoing cardiac surgery who had a European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) I of 6 or more (on a scale from 0 to 47, with higher scores indicating a higher risk of death after cardiac surgery) to a restrictive red-cell transfusion threshold (transfuse if hemoglobin level was <7.5 g per deciliter, starting from induction of anesthesia) or a liberal red-cell transfusion threshold (transfuse if hemoglobin level was <9.5 g per deciliter in the operating room or intensive care unit [ICU] or was <8.5 g per deciliter in the non-ICU ward). The primary composite outcome was death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new-onset renal failure with dialysis by hospital discharge or by day 28, whichever came first. Secondary outcomes included red-cell transfusion and other clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in 11.4% of the patients in the restrictive-threshold group, as compared with 12.5% of those in the liberal-threshold group (absolute risk difference, -1.11 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.93 to 0.72; odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.07; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Mortality was 3.0% in the restrictive-threshold group and 3.6% in the liberal-threshold group (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.16). Red-cell transfusion occurred in 52.3% of the patients in the restrictive-threshold group, as compared with 72.6% of those in the liberal-threshold group (odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.47). There were no significant between-group differences with regard to the other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing cardiac surgery who were at moderate-to-high risk for death, a restrictive strategy regarding red-cell transfusion was noninferior to a liberal strategy with respect to the composite outcome of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new-onset renal failure with dialysis, with less blood transfused. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; TRICS III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02042898 .).