ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine is increasingly used for surgical patients requiring general anaesthesia. However, its effectiveness on patient-centred outcomes remains uncertain. Our main objective was to evaluate the patient-centred effectiveness of intraoperative dexmedetomidine for adult patients requiring surgery under general anaesthesia. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL from inception to October 2023. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intraoperative use of dexmedetomidine with placebo, opioid, or usual care in adult patients requiring surgery under general anaesthesia were included. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. We synthesised data using a random-effects Bayesian regression framework to derive effect estimates and the probability of a clinically important effect. For continuous outcomes, we pooled instruments with similar constructs using standardised mean differences (SMDs) and converted SMDs and credible intervals (CrIs) to their original scale when appropriate. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Our primary outcome was quality of recovery after surgery. To guide interpretation on the original scale, the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) instrument was used (range 0-150 points, minimally important difference [MID] of 6 points). RESULTS: We identified 49,069 citations, from which 44 RCTs involving 5904 participants were eligible. Intraoperative dexmedetomidine administration was associated with improvement in postoperative QoR-15 (mean difference 9, 95% CrI 4-14, n=21 RCTs, moderate certainty of evidence). We found 99% probability of any benefit and 88% probability of achieving the MID. There was a reduction in chronic pain incidence (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% CrI 0.19-0.79, n=7 RCTs, low certainty of evidence). There was also increased risk of clinically significant hypotension (OR 1.98, 95% CrI 0.84-3.92, posterior probability of harm 94%, n=8 RCTs) and clinically significant bradycardia (OR 1.74, 95% CrI 0.93-3.34, posterior probability of harm 95%, n=10 RCTs), with very low certainty of evidence for both. There was limited evidence to inform other secondary patient-centred outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo or standard of care, intraoperative dexmedetomidine likely results in meaningful improvement in the quality of recovery and chronic pain after surgery. However, it might increase clinically important bradycardia and hypotension. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO (CRD42023439896).
Subject(s)
Bayes Theorem , Dexmedetomidine , Dexmedetomidine/therapeutic use , Humans , Anesthesia, General/methods , Patient-Centered Care , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Treatment Outcome , Pain, Postoperative/drug therapy , Analgesics, Non-Narcotic/therapeutic useABSTRACT
Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for clinical trials worldwide, threatening premature closure and trial integrity. Every phase of research operations was affected, often requiring modifications to protocol design and implementation. Objectives: To identify the barriers, solutions, and opportunities associated with continuing critical care trials that were interrupted during the pandemic, and to generate suggestions for future trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-methods study performed an explanatory sequential analysis involving a self-administered electronic survey and focus groups of principal investigators (PIs) and project coordinators (PCs) conducting adult and pediatric individual-patient randomized trials of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible trials were actively enrolling patients on March 11, 2020. Data were analyzed between September 2023 and January 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Importance ratings of barriers to trial conduct and completion, solutions employed, opportunities arising, and suggested strategies for future trials. Quantitative data examining barriers were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Data addressing solutions, opportunities, and suggestions were analyzed by qualitative content analysis. Integration involved triangulation of data sources and perspectives about 13 trials, synthesized by an interprofessional team incorporating reflexivity and member-checking. Results: A total of 13 trials run by 29 PIs and PCs (100% participation rate) were included. The highest-rated barriers (on a 5-point scale) to ongoing conduct during the pandemic were decisions to pause all clinical research (mean [SD] score, 4.7 [0.8]), focus on COVID-19 studies (mean [SD] score, 4.6 [0.8]), and restricted family presence in hospitals (mean [SD] score, 4.1 [0.8]). Suggestions to enable trial progress and completion included providing scientific leadership, implementing technology for communication and data management, facilitating the informed consent process, adapting the protocol as necessary, fostering site engagement, initiating new sites, streamlining ethics and contract review, and designing nested studies. The pandemic necessitated new funding opportunities to sustain trial enrollment. It increased public awareness of critical illness and the importance of randomized trial evidence. Conclusions and Relevance: While underscoring the vital role of research in society and drawing the scientific community together with a common purpose, the pandemic signaled the need for innovation to ensure the rigor and completion of ongoing trials. Lessons learned to optimize research procedures will help to ensure a vibrant clinical trials enterprise in the future.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Care , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Canada , Clinical Trials as Topic , Research Design , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , Focus Groups , AdultABSTRACT
Surgical patients are often transfused to manage bleeding and anemia. Best practices for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion administration in patient having noncardiac surgery remains controversial and a robust evaluation and description of perioperative transfusion practices is lacking. We characterized perioperative hemoglobin concentrations and transfusion practices from the prospective VISION cohort which included 39,222 patients aged ≥45 years who had inpatient noncardiac surgery. Variations in transfusion practices were analyzed using hierarchical mixed models, and associations with mortality and complications were evaluated using a nested frailty survival model. Within the cohort, 16.1% (nâ¯=â¯6296) were given perioperative RBC transfusions, with the fraction declining from 20% to 13% over the 6-year study period. The proportion of patients transfused varied by surgery type from 6.4% for low-risk operations (i.e., minor surgery) to 31.5% for orthopedic surgeries. Variations were largely associated with patient hemoglobin concentrations, but also with center (range: 3.7%-27.3%) and country (0.4%-25.3%). Even after adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, comorbidities and type of surgery, both center and country were significant sources of variation in transfusion practices. Among transfused participants, 60.4% (nâ¯=â¯3728/6170) had at least 1 hemoglobin concentration ≤80g/L and 86.0% (nâ¯=â¯5305/6170) had at least 1 hemoglobin concentration ≤90g/L, suggesting that relatively restrictive transfusion strategies were used in most. The proportion of patients receiving at least 1 RBC transfusion declined from 20% to 13% over 6 years. However, there was considerable unexplained variation in transfusion practices.
Subject(s)
Anemia , Erythrocyte Transfusion , Hemoglobins , Perioperative Care , Humans , Middle Aged , Female , Male , Aged , Erythrocyte Transfusion/statistics & numerical data , Perioperative Care/methods , Perioperative Care/statistics & numerical data , Hemoglobins/analysis , Anemia/therapy , Anemia/epidemiology , Prospective Studies , Surgical Procedures, Operative/statistics & numerical data , Surgical Procedures, Operative/adverse effects , Blood Transfusion/statistics & numerical data , Blood Transfusion/methodsABSTRACT
Aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) is a devastating condition with high mortality and morbidity. The outcome measures used in aSAH clinical research vary making it challenging to compare and combine different studies. Additionally, there may be a mismatch between the outcomes prioritized by patients, caregivers, and health care providers and those selected by researchers. We conducted an international, online, multiple round Delphi study to develop consensus on domains (where a domain is a health concept or aspect) prioritized by key stakeholders including those with lived experience of aSAH, health care providers, and researchers, funders, or industry professionals. One hundred seventy-five people participated in the survey, 59% of whom had lived experience of aSAH. Over three rounds, 32 domains reached the consensus threshold pre-defined as 70% of participants rating the domain as being critically important. During the fourth round, participants ranked the importance of each of these 32 domains. The top ten domains ranked highest to lowest were (1) Cognition and executive function, (2) Aneurysm obliteration, (3) Cerebral infarction, (4) Functional outcomes including ability to walk, (5) Delayed cerebral ischemia, (6) The overall quality of life as reported by the SAH survivor, (7) Changes to emotions or mood (including depression), (8) The basic activities of daily living, (9) Vasospasm, and (10) ICU complications. Our findings confirm that there is a mismatch between domains prioritized by stakeholders and outcomes used in clinical research. Our future work aims to address this mismatch through the development of a core outcome set in aSAH research.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Most solid organ transplants originate from donors meeting criteria for death by neurological criteria (DNC). Within the organ donor, physiological responses to brain death increase the risk of ischaemia reperfusion injury and delayed graft function. Donor preconditioning with calcineurin inhibition may reduce this risk. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We designed a multicentre placebo-controlled pilot randomised trial involving nine organ donation hospitals and all 28 transplant programmes in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Québec. We planned to enrol 90 DNC donors and their approximately 324 organ recipients, totalling 414 participants. Donors receive an intravenous infusion of either tacrolimus 0.02 mg/kg over 4 hours prior to organ retrieval, or a matching placebo, while monitored in an intensive care unit for any haemodynamic changes during the infusion. Among all study organ recipients, we record measures of graft function for the first 7 days in hospital and we will record graft survival after 1 year. We examine the feasibility of this trial with respect to the proportion of all eligible donors enrolled and the proportion of all eligible transplant recipients consenting to receive a CINERGY organ transplant and to allow the use of their health data for study purposes. We will report these feasibility outcomes as proportions with 95% CIs. We also record any barriers encountered in the launch and in the implementation of this trial with detailed source documentation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We will disseminate trial results through publications and presentations at participating sites and conferences. This study has been approved by Health Canada (HC6-24-c241083) and by the Research Ethics Boards of all participating sites and in Québec (MP-31-2020-3348) and Clinical Trials Ontario (Project #3309). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05148715.
Subject(s)
Calcineurin Inhibitors , Delayed Graft Function , Kidney Transplantation , Tissue Donors , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Brain Death , Calcineurin Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Calcineurin Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Delayed Graft Function/prevention & control , Graft Survival/drug effects , Immunosuppressive Agents/administration & dosage , Immunosuppressive Agents/therapeutic use , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Ontario , Pilot Projects , Quebec , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Tacrolimus/therapeutic use , Tacrolimus/administration & dosageABSTRACT
Haemoglobin (Hb) thresholds and red blood cells (RBC) transfusion strategies in traumatic brain injury (TBI) are controversial. Our objective was to assess the association of Hb values with long-term outcomes in critically ill TBI patients. We conducted a secondary analysis of CENTER-TBI, a large multicentre, prospective, observational study of European TBI patients. All patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) with available haemoglobin data on admission and during the first week were included. During the first seven days, daily lowest haemoglobin values were considered either a continous variable or categorised as < 7.5 g/dL, between 7.5-9.5 and > 9.5 g/dL. Anaemia was defined as haemoglobin value < 9.5 g/dL. Transfusion practices were described as "restrictive" or "liberal" based on haemoglobin values before transfusion (e.g. < 7.5 g/dL or 7.5-9.5 g/dL). Our primary outcome was the Glasgow outcome scale extended (GOSE) at six months, defined as being unfavourable when < 5. Of 1590 included, 1231 had haemoglobin values available on admission. A mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 33 (SD 16), isolated TBI in 502 (40.7%) and a mean Hb value at ICU admission of 12.6 (SD 2.2) g/dL was observed. 121 (9.8%) patients had Hb < 9.5 g/dL, of whom 15 (1.2%) had Hb < 7.5 g/dL. 292 (18.4%) received at least one RBC transfusion with a median haemoglobin value before transfusion of 8.4 (IQR 7.7-8.5) g/dL. Considerable heterogeneity regarding threshold transfusion was observed among centres. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, the increase of haemoglobin value was independently associated with the decrease in the occurrence of unfavourable neurological outcomes (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.70-0.87). Congruous results were observed in patients with the lowest haemoglobin values within the first 7 days < 7.5 g/dL (OR 2.09; 95% CI 1.15-3.81) and those between 7.5 and 9.5 g/dL (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.07-2.42) compared to haemoglobin values > 9.5 g/dL. Results were consistent when considering mortality at 6 months as an outcome. The increase of hemoglobin value was associated with the decrease of mortality (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.76-1.00); haemoglobin values less than 7.5 g/dL was associated with an increase of mortality (OR 3.21; 95% CI 1.59-6.49). Anaemia was independently associated with long-term unfavourable neurological outcomes and mortality in critically ill TBI patients.Trial registration: CENTER-TBI is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02210221, last update 2022-11-07.
Subject(s)
Blood Transfusion , Brain Injuries, Traumatic , Critical Illness , Hemoglobins , Intensive Care Units , Humans , Brain Injuries, Traumatic/therapy , Brain Injuries, Traumatic/blood , Brain Injuries, Traumatic/mortality , Brain Injuries, Traumatic/complications , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Hemoglobins/analysis , Prospective Studies , Critical Illness/therapy , Adult , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Blood Transfusion/methods , Blood Transfusion/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Anemia/therapy , Anemia/blood , Treatment Outcome , Glasgow Outcome Scale , Erythrocyte Transfusion/methods , Erythrocyte Transfusion/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The effect of a liberal transfusion strategy as compared with a restrictive strategy on outcomes in critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults with moderate or severe traumatic brain injury and anemia to receive transfusion of red cells according to a liberal strategy (transfusions initiated at a hemoglobin level of ≤10 g per deciliter) or a restrictive strategy (transfusions initiated at ≤7 g per deciliter). The primary outcome was an unfavorable outcome as assessed by the score on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended at 6 months, which we categorized with the use of a sliding dichotomy that was based on the prognosis of each patient at baseline. Secondary outcomes included mortality, functional independence, quality of life, and depression at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 742 patients underwent randomization, with 371 assigned to each group. The analysis of the primary outcome included 722 patients. The median hemoglobin level in the intensive care unit was 10.8 g per deciliter in the group assigned to the liberal strategy and 8.8 g per deciliter in the group assigned to the restrictive strategy. An unfavorable outcome occurred in 249 of 364 patients (68.4%) in the liberal-strategy group and in 263 of 358 (73.5%) in the restrictive-strategy group (adjusted absolute difference, restrictive strategy vs. liberal strategy, 5.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.9 to 13.7). Among survivors, a liberal strategy was associated with higher scores on some but not all the scales assessing functional independence and quality of life. No association was observed between the transfusion strategy and mortality or depression. Venous thromboembolic events occurred in 8.4% of the patients in each group, and acute respiratory distress syndrome occurred in 3.3% and 0.8% of patients in the liberal-strategy and restrictive-strategy groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury and anemia, a liberal transfusion strategy did not reduce the risk of an unfavorable neurologic outcome at 6 months. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; HEMOTION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03260478.).
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), rebleeding of the culprit aneurysm is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Blood pressure reduction to specific target levels, with the goal of preventing rebleeding, has been a mainstay of care prior to definitively securing the aneurysm. Clinical practice guidelines have recently changed and no longer recommend specific blood pressure targets. This survey aims to identify the reported practice patterns and beliefs regarding blood pressure management during the early phase of aSAH. METHODS: We conducted a self-administered, Web-based survey of critical care physicians and cerebrovascular neurosurgeons practicing in Canada. The questionnaire contained 21 items, including 3 case-based scenarios to elicit blood pressure target selection, both before and after aneurysm securing. RESULTS: In the presecured period, systolic blood pressures of 160 mm Hg (50% [144 of 287]) and 140 mm Hg (42% [120 of 287]) were the most frequently selected upper-limit targets. In the postsecured period, a systolic blood pressure of 180 mm Hg (32% [93 of 287]) was the most frequently selected upper-limit target, but there was a wide distribution of targets selected across all three cases ranging from 100 to > 200 mm Hg. A mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg was the most common lower-limit target in both the presecured and postsecured periods. There was little change in blood pressure targets with increasing clinical severity. Predictors of higher or lower blood pressure target selection and barriers to implementation of the desired target were identified. CONCLUSIONS: During the presecured period, nearly half of the reported upper-limit blood pressure targets are lower than previous guideline recommendations. These targets remain consistent despite increasing clinical severity and could potentially exacerbate cerebral ischemia and negatively impact clinical outcomes. In the postsecured period, there is wide variation in the reported blood pressure targets. A clinical trial is urgently needed to guide decision-making.
ABSTRACT
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity amongst trauma patients. Its treatment is focused on minimizing progression to secondary injury. Administration of propranolol for TBI maydecrease mortality and improve functional outcomes. However, it is our sense that its use has not been universally adopted due to low certainty evidence. The literature was reviewed to explore the mechanism of propranolol as a therapeutic intervention in TBI to guide future clinical investigations. Medline, Embase, and Scopus were searched for studies that investigated the effect of propranolol on TBI in animal models from inception until June 6, 2023. All routes of administration for propranolol were included and the following outcomes were evaluated: cognitive functions, physiological and immunological responses. Screening and data extraction were done independently and in duplicate. The risk of bias for each individual study was assessed using the SYCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies. Three hundred twenty-three citations were identified and 14 studies met our eligibility criteria. The data suggests that propranolol may improve post-TBI cognitive and motor function by increasing cerebral perfusion, reducing neural injury, cell death, leukocyte mobilization and p-tau accumulation in animal models. Propranolol may also attenuate TBI-induced immunodeficiency and provide cardioprotective effects by mitigating damage to the myocardium caused by oxidative stress. This systematic review demonstrates that propranolol may be therapeutic in TBI by improving cognitive and motor function while regulating T lymphocyte response and levels of myocardial reactive oxygen species. Oral or intravenous injection of propranolol following TBI is associated with improved cerebral perfusion, reduced neuroinflammation, reduced immunodeficiency, and cardio-neuroprotection in preclinical studies.
Subject(s)
Brain Injuries, Traumatic , Propranolol , Propranolol/pharmacology , Propranolol/therapeutic use , Animals , Brain Injuries, Traumatic/drug therapy , Neuroprotective Agents/therapeutic use , Neuroprotective Agents/pharmacology , Humans , Disease Models, Animal , Drug Evaluation, Preclinical , Adrenergic beta-Antagonists/pharmacology , Adrenergic beta-Antagonists/therapeutic useABSTRACT
Background: Clinical trials suggest that therapeutic-dose heparin may prevent critical illness and vascular complications due to COVID-19, but knowledge gaps exist regarding the efficacy of therapeutic heparin including its comparative effect relative to intermediate-dose anticoagulation. Objectives: The authors performed 2 complementary secondary analyses of a completed randomized clinical trial: 1) a prespecified per-protocol analysis; and 2) an exploratory dose-based analysis to compare the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin with low- and intermediate-dose heparin. Methods: Patients who received initial anticoagulation dosed consistently with randomization were included. The primary outcome was organ support-free days (OSFDs), a combination of in-hospital death and days free of organ support through day 21. Results: Among 2,860 participants, 1,761 (92.8%) noncritically ill and 857 (89.1%) critically ill patients were treated per-protocol. Among noncritically ill per-protocol patients, the posterior probability that therapeutic-dose heparin improved OSFDs as compared with usual care was 99.3% (median adjusted OR: 1.36; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 1.07-1.74). Therapeutic heparin had a high posterior probability of efficacy relative to both low- (94.6%; adjusted OR: 1.26; 95% CrI: 0.95-1.64) and intermediate- (99.8%; adjusted OR: 1.80; 95% CrI: 1.22-2.62) dose thromboprophylaxis. Among critically ill per-protocol patients, the posterior probability that therapeutic heparin improved outcomes was low. Conclusions: Among noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who were randomized to and initially received therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, heparin, compared with usual care, was associated with improved OSFDs, a combination of in-hospital death and days free of organ support. Therapeutic heparin appeared superior to both low- and intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Team diversity is recognized not only as an equity issue but also a catalyst for improved performance through diversity in knowledge and practices. However, team diversity data in healthcare are limited and it is not known whether it may affect outcomes in surgery. This study examined the association between anaesthesia-surgery team sex diversity and postoperative outcomes. METHODS: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study of adults undergoing major inpatient procedures between 2009 and 2019. The exposure was the hospital percentage of female anaesthetists and surgeons in the year of surgery. The outcome was 90-day major morbidity. Restricted cubic splines were used to identify a clinically meaningful dichotomization of team sex diversity, with over 35% female anaesthetists and surgeons representing higher diversity. The association with outcomes was examined using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 709 899 index operations performed at 88 hospitals, 90-day major morbidity occurred in 14.4%. The median proportion of female anaesthetists and surgeons was 28 (interquartile range 25-31)% per hospital per year. Care in hospitals with higher sex diversity (over 35% female) was associated with reduced odds of 90-day major morbidity (OR 0.97, 95% c.i. 0.95 to 0.99; P = 0.02) after adjustment. The magnitude of this association was greater for patients treated by female anaesthetists (OR 0.92, 0.88 to 0.97; P = 0.002) and female surgeons (OR 0.83, 0.76 to 0.90; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Care in hospitals with greater anaesthesia-surgery team sex diversity was associated with better postoperative outcomes. Care in a hospital reaching a critical mass with over 35% female anaesthetists and surgeons, representing higher team sex-diversity, was associated with a 3% lower odds of 90-day major morbidity.
Subject(s)
Patient Care Team , Postoperative Complications , Humans , Female , Retrospective Studies , Male , Middle Aged , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Aged , Adult , Surgeons/statistics & numerical data , Surgical Procedures, Operative/statistics & numerical data , Physicians, Women/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Audit and Feedback (A&F) interventions based on quality indicators have been shown to lead to significant improvements in compliance with evidence-based care including de-adoption of low-value practices (LVPs). Our primary aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding a hypothetical A&F module targeting LVPs for trauma admissions to an existing quality assurance intervention targeting high-value care and risk-adjusted outcomes. A secondary aim was to assess how certain A&F characteristics might influence its cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using a probabilistic static decision analytic model in the Québec trauma care continuum. We considered the Québec Ministry of Health perspective. Our economic evaluation compared a hypothetical scenario in which the A&F module targeting LVPs is implemented in a Canadian provincial trauma quality assurance program to a status quo scenario in which the A&F module is not implemented. In scenarios analyses we assessed the impact of A&F characteristics on its cost-effectiveness. Results are presented in terms of incremental costs per LVP avoided. RESULTS: Results suggest that the implementation of A&F module (Cost = $1,480,850; Number of LVPs = 6,005) is associated with higher costs and higher effectiveness compared to status quo (Cost = $1,124,661; Number of LVPs = 8,228). The A&F module would cost $160 per LVP avoided compared to status quo. The A&F module becomes more cost-effective with the addition of facilitation visits; more frequent evaluation; and when only high-volume trauma centers are considered. CONCLUSION: A&F module targeting LVPs is associated with higher costs and higher effectiveness than status quo and has the potential to be cost-effective if the decision-makers' willingness-to-pay is at least $160 per LVP avoided. This likely represents an underestimate of true ICER due to underestimated costs or missed opportunity costs. Results suggest that virtual facilitation visits, frequent evaluation, and implementing the module in high-volume centers can improve cost-effectiveness.
Subject(s)
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis , Hospitalization , Humans , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Feedback , Canada , Quality-Adjusted Life YearsABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Dexmedetomidine is a promising pharmaceutical strategy to minimise opioid use during surgery. Despite its growing use, it is uncertain whether dexmedetomidine can improve patient-centred outcomes such as quality of recovery and pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis following the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science and CINAHL approximately in October 2023. We will include randomised controlled trials evaluating the impact of systemic intraoperative dexmedetomidine on patient-centred outcomes. Patient-centred outcome definition will be based on the consensus definition established by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative (StEP-COMPAC). Our primary outcome will be the quality of recovery after surgery. Our secondary outcomes will be patient well-being, function, health-related quality of life, life impact, multidimensional assessment of postoperative acute pain, chronic pain, persistent postoperative opioid use, opioid-related adverse events, hospital length of stay and adverse events. Two reviewers will independently screen and identify trials and extract data. We will evaluate the risk of bias of trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 2.0). We will synthesise data using a random effects Bayesian model framework, estimating the probability of achieving a benefit and its clinical significance. We will assess statistical heterogeneity with the tau-squared and explore sources of heterogeneity with meta-regression. We have involved patient partners, clinicians, methodologists, and key partner organisations in the development of this protocol, and we plan to continue this collaboration throughout all phases of this systematic review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our systematic review does not require research ethics approval. It will help inform current clinical practice guidelines and guide development of future randomised controlled trials. The results will be disseminated in open-access peer-reviewed journals, presented at conferences and shared among collaborators and networks. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023439896.
Subject(s)
Anesthesia, General , Bayes Theorem , Dexmedetomidine , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Pain, Postoperative , Systematic Reviews as Topic , Humans , Dexmedetomidine/therapeutic use , Pain, Postoperative/drug therapy , Analgesics, Non-Narcotic/therapeutic use , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Patient-Centered Care , Quality of Life , Research DesignABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Postoperative patient-centred outcome measures are essential to capture the patient's experience after surgery. Although a large number of pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies (i.e. opioid alternatives) are used for patients undergoing surgery, it remains unclear which strategies are most promising in terms of patient-centred outcome improvements. This scoping review had two main objectives: (1) to map and describe evidence from clinical trials assessing the patient-centred effectiveness of pharmacologic intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies in adult surgical patients, and (2) to identify promising pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases from inception to February 2023. We included trials investigating the use of opioid minimisation strategies in adult surgical patients and reporting at least one patient-centred outcome. Study screening and data extraction were conducted independently by at least two reviewers. RESULTS: Of 24,842 citations screened for eligibility, 2803 trials assessed the effectiveness of intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies. Of these, 457 trials (67,060 participants) met eligibility criteria, reporting at least one patient-centred outcome. In the 107 trials that included a patient-centred primary outcome, patient wellbeing was the most frequently used domain (55 trials). Based on aggregate findings, dexmedetomidine, systemic lidocaine, and COX-2 inhibitors were promising strategies, while paracetamol, ketamine, and gabapentinoids were less promising. Almost half of the trials (253 trials) did not report a protocol or registration number. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should prioritise and include patient-centred outcomes in the assessment of opioid minimisation strategy effectiveness. We identified three potentially promising pharmacologic intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies that should be further assessed through systematic reviews and multicentre trials. Findings from our scoping review may be influenced by selective outcome reporting bias. STUDY REGISTRATION: OSF - https://osf.io/7kea3.
Subject(s)
Analgesics, Opioid , Lidocaine , Adult , Humans , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Outcome Assessment, Health CareABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Distributed computations facilitate multi-institutional data analysis while avoiding the costs and complexity of data pooling. Existing approaches lack crucial features, such as built-in medical standards and terminologies, no-code data visualizations, explicit disclosure control mechanisms, and support for basic statistical computations, in addition to gradient-based optimization capabilities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We describe the development of the Collaborative Data Analysis (CODA) platform, and the design choices undertaken to address the key needs identified during our survey of stakeholders. We use a public dataset (MIMIC-IV) to demonstrate end-to-end multi-modal FL using CODA. We assessed the technical feasibility of deploying the CODA platform at 9 hospitals in Canada, describe implementation challenges, and evaluate its scalability on large patient populations. RESULTS: The CODA platform was designed, developed, and deployed between January 2020 and January 2023. Software code, documentation, and technical documents were released under an open-source license. Multi-modal federated averaging is illustrated using the MIMIC-IV and MIMIC-CXR datasets. To date, 8 out of the 9 participating sites have successfully deployed the platform, with a total enrolment of >1M patients. Mapping data from legacy systems to FHIR was the biggest barrier to implementation. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The CODA platform was developed and successfully deployed in a public healthcare setting in Canada, with heterogeneous information technology systems and capabilities. Ongoing efforts will use the platform to develop and prospectively validate models for risk assessment, proactive monitoring, and resource usage. Further work will also make tools available to facilitate migration from legacy formats to FHIR and DICOM.
Subject(s)
Health Facilities , Software , Humans , Delivery of Health Care , Machine Learning , CanadaABSTRACT
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Our primary objectives were to identify clinical practice guideline recommendations for children with acute mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) presenting to an emergency department (ED), appraise their overall quality, and synthesize the quality of evidence and the strength of included recommendations. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and medical association websites from January 2012 to May 2023 for clinical practice guidelines with at least 1 recommendation targeting pediatric mTBI populations presenting to the ED within 48 hours of injury for any diagnostic or therapeutic intervention in the acute phase of care (ED and inhospital). Pairs of reviewers independently assessed overall clinical practice guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. The quality of evidence on recommendations was synthesized using a matrix based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence-to-Decision framework. RESULTS: We included 11 clinical practice guidelines, of which 6 (55%) were rated high quality. These included 101 recommendations, of which 34 (34%) were based on moderate- to high-quality evidence, covering initial assessment, initial diagnostic imaging, monitoring/observation, therapeutic interventions, discharge advice, follow-up, and patient and family support. We did not identify any evidence-based recommendations in high-quality clinical practice guidelines for repeat imaging, neurosurgical consultation, or hospital admission. Lack of strategies and tools to aid implementation and editorial independence were the most common methodological weaknesses. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 34 recommendations based on moderate- to high-quality evidence that may be considered for implementation in clinical settings. Our review highlights important areas for future research. This review also underlines the importance of providing strategies to facilitate the implementation of clinical practice guideline recommendations for pediatric mTBI.
Subject(s)
Brain Concussion , Emergency Service, Hospital , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Child , Brain Concussion/therapy , Brain Concussion/diagnosis , Emergency Service, Hospital/standardsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This update summarizes key changes made to the protocol for the Frequency of Screening and Spontaneous Breathing Trial (SBT) Technique Trial-North American Weaning Collaborative (FAST-NAWC) trial since the publication of the original protocol. This multicenter, factorial design randomized controlled trial with concealed allocation, will compare the effect of both screening frequency (once vs. at least twice daily) to identify candidates to undergo a SBT and SBT technique [pressure support + positive end-expiratory pressure vs. T-piece] on the time to successful extubation (primary outcome) in 760 critically ill adults who are invasively ventilated for at least 24 h in 20 North American intensive care units. METHODS/DESIGN: Protocols for the pilot, factorial design trial and the full trial were previously published in J Clin Trials ( https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-0870.1000284 ) and Trials (https://doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3641-8). As planned, participants enrolled in the FAST pilot trial will be included in the report of the full FAST-NAWC trial. In response to the onset of the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic when approximately two thirds of enrollment was complete, we revised the protocol and consent form to include critically ill invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19. We also refined the statistical analysis plan (SAP) to reflect inclusion and reporting of participants with and without COVID-19. This update summarizes the changes made and their rationale and provides a refined SAP for the FAST-NAWC trial. These changes have been finalized before completion of trial follow-up and the commencement of data analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov NCT02399267.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Ventilator Weaning , Adult , Humans , Ventilator Weaning/methods , Critical Illness , Time Factors , North America , Respiration, Artificial , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Multicenter Studies as TopicABSTRACT
Importance: Adult trauma centers (ATCs) have been shown to decrease injury mortality and morbidity in major trauma, but a synthesis of evidence for pediatric trauma centers (PTCs) is lacking. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of PTCs compared with ATCs, combined trauma centers (CTCs), or nondesignated hospitals in reducing mortality and morbidity among children admitted to hospitals following trauma. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science through March 2023. Study Selection: Studies comparing PTCs with ATCs, CTCs, or nondesignated hospitals for pediatric trauma populations (aged ≤19 years). Data Extraction and Synthesis: This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool. A meta-analysis was conducted if more than 2 studies evaluated the same intervention-comparator-outcome and controlled minimally for age and injury severity. Subgroup analyses were planned for age, injury type and severity, trauma center designation level and verification body, country, and year of conduct. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess certainty of evidence. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): Primary outcomes were mortality, complications, functional status, discharge destination, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were resource use and processes of care, including computed tomography (CT) and operative management of blunt solid organ injury (SOI). Results: A total of 56 studies with 286â¯051 participants were included overall, and 34 were included in the meta-analysis. When compared with ATCs, PTCs were associated with a 41% lower risk of mortality (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.46-0.76), a 52% lower risk of CT use (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.26-0.89) and a 64% lower risk of operative management for blunt SOI (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.23-0.57). The OR for complications was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.41-1.56). There was no association for mortality for older children (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.47-1.06), and the association was closer to the null when PTCs were compared with CTCs (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53-0.99). Results remained similar for other subgroup analyses. GRADE certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, results suggested that PTCs were associated with lower odds of mortality, CT use, and operative management for SOI than ATCs for children admitted to hospitals following trauma, but certainty of evidence was very low. Future studies should strive to address selection and confounding biases.
Subject(s)
Quality of Life , Trauma Centers , Adult , Child , Humans , Adolescent , Hospitalization , Hospitals , Patient Discharge , Observational Studies as TopicABSTRACT
Anemia is very common in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), with approximately half of the aSAH patient population developing moderate anemia during their hospital stay. The available evidence (both physiologic and clinical) generally supports an association of anemia with unfavorable outcomes. Although aSAH shares a number of common mechanisms of secondary insult with other forms of acute brain injury, aSAH also has specific features that make it unique: an early phase (in which early brain injury predominates) and a delayed phase (in which delayed cerebral ischemia and vasospasm predominate). The effects of both anemia and transfusion are potentially variable between these phases, which may have unique considerations and possibly different risk-benefit profiles. Data on transfusion in this population are almost exclusively limited to observational studies, which suffer from significant heterogeneity and risk of bias. Overall, the results are conflicting, with the balance of the studies suggesting that transfusion is associated with unfavorable outcomes. The transfusion targets that are well established in other critically ill populations should not be automatically applied to patients with aSAH because of the unique disease characteristics of this population and the limited representation of aSAH in the clinical trials that established these targets. There are two upcoming clinical trials evaluating transfusion in aSAH that should help clarify specific transfusion targets. Until then, it is reasonable to base transfusion decisions on the current guidelines and use an individualized approach incorporating physiologic and clinical data when available.
Subject(s)
Anemia , Brain Injuries , Subarachnoid Hemorrhage , Humans , Erythrocyte Transfusion , Subarachnoid Hemorrhage/complications , Subarachnoid Hemorrhage/therapy , Anemia/etiology , Anemia/therapy , Cerebral InfarctionABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Lack of adherence to recommendations on pediatric orthopaedic injury care may be driven by lack of knowledge of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), heterogeneity in recommendations or concerns about their quality. We aimed to identify CPGs for pediatric orthopaedic injury care, appraise their quality, and synthesize the quality of evidence and the strength of associated recommendations. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science and websites of clinical organizations. CPGs including at least one recommendation targeting pediatric orthopaedic injury populations on any diagnostic or therapeutic intervention developed in the last 15 years were eligible. Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated CPG quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. We synthesized recommendations from high-quality CPGs using a recommendations matrix based on the GRADE Evidence-to-Decision framework. RESULTS: We included 13 eligible CPGs, of which 7 were rated high quality. Lack of stakeholder involvement and applicability (i.e., implementation strategies) were identified as weaknesses. We extracted 53 recommendations of which 19 were based on moderate or high-quality evidence. CONCLUSIONS: We provide a synthesis of recommendations from high-quality CPGs that can be used by clinicians to guide treatment decisions. Future CPGs should aim to use a partnership approach with all key stakeholders and provide strategies to facilitate implementation. This study also highlights the need for more rigorous research on pediatric orthopaedic trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II-therapeutic study.