Defining predictors of responsiveness to advanced therapies in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis: protocol for the IBD-RESPONSE and nested CD-metaRESPONSE prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study in precision medicine.

INTRODUCTION: Characterised by chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) symptoms including diarrhoea, abdominal pain and fatigue can significantly impact patient's quality of life. Therapeutic developments in the last 20 years have revolutionised treatment. However, clinical trials and real-world data show primary non-response rates up to 40%. A significant challenge is an inability to predict which treatment will benefit individual patients.Current understanding of IBD pathogenesis implicates complex interactions between host genetics and the gut microbiome. Most cohorts studying the gut microbiota to date have been underpowered, examined single treatments and produced heterogeneous results. Lack of cross-treatment comparisons and well-powered independent replication cohorts hampers the ability to infer real-world utility of predictive signatures.IBD-RESPONSE will use multi-omic data to create a predictive tool for treatment response. Future patient benefit may include development of biomarker-based treatment stratification or manipulation of intestinal microbial targets. IBD-RESPONSE and downstream studies have the potential to improve quality of life, reduce patient risk and reduce expenditure on ineffective treatments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This prospective, multicentre, observational study will identify and validate a predictive model for response to advanced IBD therapies, incorporating gut microbiome, metabolome, single-cell transcriptome, human genome, dietary and clinical data. 1325 participants commencing advanced therapies will be recruited from ~40 UK sites. Data will be collected at baseline, week 14 and week 54. The primary outcome is week 14 clinical response. Secondary outcomes include clinical remission, loss of response in week 14 responders, corticosteroid-free response/remission, time to treatment escalation and change in patient-reported outcome measures. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 5 (ref: 21/WA/0228). Recruitment is ongoing. Following study completion, results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings. Publications will be summarised at www.ibd-response.co.uk. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN96296121.

Minithoracotomy vs Conventional Sternotomy for Mitral Valve Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The safety and effectiveness of mitral valve repair via thoracoscopically-guided minithoracotomy (minithoracotomy) compared with median sternotomy (sternotomy) in patients with degenerative mitral valve regurgitation is uncertain. Objective: To compare the safety and effectiveness of minithoracotomy vs sternotomy mitral valve repair in a randomized trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pragmatic, multicenter, superiority, randomized clinical trial in 10 tertiary care institutions in the UK. Participants were adults with degenerative mitral regurgitation undergoing mitral valve repair surgery. Interventions: Participants were randomized 1:1 with concealed allocation to receive either minithoracotomy or sternotomy mitral valve repair performed by an expert surgeon. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was physical functioning and associated return to usual activities measured by change from baseline in the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) version 2 physical functioning scale 12 weeks after the index surgery, assessed by an independent researcher masked to the intervention. Secondary outcomes included recurrent mitral regurgitation grade, physical activity, and quality of life. The prespecified safety outcomes included death, repeat mitral valve surgery, or heart failure hospitalization up to 1 year. Results: Between November 2016 and January 2021, 330 participants were randomized (mean age, 67 years, 100 female [30%]); 166 were allocated to minithoracotomy and 164 allocated to sternotomy, of whom 309 underwent surgery and 294 reported the primary outcome. At 12 weeks, the mean between-group difference in the change in the SF-36 physical function T score was 0.68 (95% CI, -1.89 to 3.26). Valve repair rates (≈ 96%) were similar in both groups. Echocardiography demonstrated mitral regurgitation severity as none or mild for 92% of participants at 1 year with no difference between groups. The composite safety outcome occurred in 5.4% (9 of 166) of patients undergoing minithoracotomy and 6.1% (10 of 163) undergoing sternotomy at 1 year. Conclusions and relevance: Minithoracotomy is not superior to sternotomy in recovery of physical function at 12 weeks. Minithoracotomy achieves high rates and quality of valve repair and has similar safety outcomes at 1 year to sternotomy. The results provide evidence to inform shared decision-making and treatment guidelines. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN13930454.

Prehabilitation in elective patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a randomised control trial (THE PrEPS TRIAL) - a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Prehabilitation prior to surgery has been shown to reduce postoperative complications, reduce length of hospital stay and improve quality of life after cancer and limb reconstruction surgery. However, there are minimal data on the impact of prehabilitation in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, despite the fact these patients are generally older and have more comorbidities and frailty. This trial will assess the feasibility and impact of a prehabilitation intervention consisting of exercise and inspiratory muscle training on preoperative functional exercise capacity in adult patients awaiting elective cardiac surgery, and determine any impact on clinical outcomes after surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PrEPS is a randomised controlled single-centre trial recruiting 180 participants undergoing elective cardiac surgery. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to standard presurgical care or standard care plus a prehabilitation intervention. The primary outcome will be change in functional exercise capacity measured as change in the 6 min walk test distance from baseline. Secondary outcomes will evaluate the impact of prehabilitation on preoperative and postoperative outcomes including; respiratory function, health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, frailty, and postoperative complications and resource use. This trial will evaluate if a prehabilitation intervention can improve preoperative physical function, inspiratory muscle function, frailty and quality of life prior to surgery in elective patients awaiting cardiac surgery, and impact postoperative outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: A favourable opinion was given by the Sheffield Research Ethics Committee in 2019. Trial findings will be disseminated to patients, clinicians, commissioning groups and through peer-reviewed publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13860094.

Preventing cardiotoxicity in patients with breast cancer and lymphoma: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (PROACT).

INTRODUCTION: Anthracyclines are included in chemotherapy regimens to treat several different types of cancer and are extremely effective. However, it is recognised that a significant side effect is cardiotoxicity; anthracyclines can cause irreversible damage to cardiac cells and ultimately impaired cardiac function and heart failure, which may only be evident years after exposure. The PROACT trial will establish the effectiveness of the ACE inhibitor enalapril maleate (enalapril) in preventing cardiotoxicity in patients with breast cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PROACT is a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point, superiority trial which will recruit adult patients being treated for breast cancer and NHL at NHS hospitals throughout England. The trial aims to recruit 106 participants, who will be randomised to standard care (high-dose anthracycline-based chemotherapy) plus enalapril (intervention) or standard care alone (control). Patients randomised to the intervention arm will receive enalapril (starting at 2.5 mg two times per day and titrating up to a maximum dose of 10 mg two times per day), commencing treatment at least 2 days prior to starting chemotherapy and finishing 3 weeks after their last anthracycline dose. The primary outcome is the presence or absence of cardiac troponin T release at any time during anthracycline treatment, and 1 month after the last dose of anthracycline. Secondary outcomes will focus on cardiac function measured using echocardiogram assessment, adherence to enalapril and side effects. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: A favourable opinion was given following research ethics committee review by West Midlands-Edgbaston REC, Ref: 17/WM/0248. Trial findings will be disseminated through engagement with patients, the oncology and cardiology communities, NHS management and commissioning groups and through peer-reviewed publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03265574.

MET-PREVENT: metformin to improve physical performance in older people with sarcopenia and physical prefrailty/frailty - protocol for a double-blind, randomised controlled proof-of-concept trial.

INTRODUCTION: Skeletal muscle dysfunction is central to both sarcopenia and physical frailty, which are associated with a wide range of adverse outcomes including falls and fractures, longer hospital stays, dependency and the need for care. Resistance training may prevent and treat sarcopenia and physical frailty, but not everyone can or wants to exercise. Finding alternatives is critical to alleviate the burden of adverse outcomes associated with sarcopenia and physical frailty. This trial will provide proof-of-concept evidence as to whether metformin can improve physical performance in older people with sarcopenia and physical prefrailty or frailty. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MET-PREVENT is a parallel group, double-blind, placebo-controlled proof-of-concept trial. Trial participants can participate from their own homes, including completing informed consent and screening assessments. Eligible participants with low grip strength or prolonged sit-to-stand time together with slow walk speed will be randomised to either oral metformin hydrochloride 500 mg tablets or matched placebo, taken three times a day for 4 months. The recruitment target is 80 participants from two secondary care hospitals in Newcastle and Gateshead, UK. Local primary care practices will act as participant identification centres. Randomisation will be performed using a web-based minimisation system with a random element, balancing on sex and baseline walk speed. Participants will be followed up for 4 months post-randomisation, with outcomes collected at baseline and 4 months. The primary outcome measure is the four metre walk speed at the 4-month follow-up visit. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been approved by the Liverpool NHS Research Ethics Committee (20/NW/0470), the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority (EudraCT 2020-004023-16) and the UK Health Research Authority (IRAS 275219). Results will be made available to participants, their families, patients with sarcopenia, the public, regional and national clinical teams, and the international scientific community. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN29932357.

Non-anemic iron deficiency predicts prolonged hospitalisation following surgical aortic valve replacement: a single-centre retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency has deleterious effects in patients with cardiopulmonary disease, independent of anemia. Low ferritin has been associated with increased mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, but modern indices of iron deficiency need to be explored in this population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective single-centre observational study of 250 adults in a UK academic tertiary hospital undergoing median sternotomy for non-emergent isolated aortic valve replacement. We characterised preoperative iron status using measurement of both plasma ferritin and soluble transferrin receptor (sTfR), and examined associations with clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Measurement of plasma sTfR gave a prevalence of iron deficiency of 22%. Patients with non-anemic iron deficiency had clinically significant prolongation of total hospital stay (mean increase 2.2 days; 95% CI: 0.5-3.9; P = 0.011) and stay within the cardiac intensive care unit (mean increase 1.3 days; 95% CI: 0.1-2.5; P = 0.039). There were no deaths. Defining iron deficiency as a plasma ferritin < 100 µg/L identified 60% of patients as iron deficient and did not predict length of stay. No significant associations with transfusion requirements were evident using either definition of iron deficiency. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that when defined using sTfR rather than ferritin, non-anemic iron deficiency predicts prolonged hospitalisation following surgical aortic valve replacement. Further studies are required to clarify the role of contemporary laboratory indices in the identification of preoperative iron deficiency in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. An interventional study of intravenous iron targeted at preoperative non-anemic iron deficiency is warranted.

Impact of prehabilitation on objectively measured physical activity levels in elective surgery patients: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the impact of prehabilitation on objectively measured physical activity (PA) levels in elective surgery patients. DATA SOURCES: Articles published in Web of Science Core Collections, PubMed, Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOHost), PsycInfo (EBSCOHost) and CENTRAL through August 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that met the following criteria: (1) written in English, (2) quantitatively described the effect(s) of a PA intervention among elective surgery patients prior to surgery and (3) used and reported objective measures of PA in the study. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Participant characteristics, intervention details, PA measurement, and clinical and health-related outcomes were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed following the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity, therefore narrative synthesis was used. RESULTS: 6533 unique articles were identified in the search; 21 articles (based on 15 trials) were included in the review. There was little evidence to suggest that prehabilitation is associated with increases in objectively measured PA, but this may be due to insufficient statistical power as most (n=8) trials included in the review were small feasibility/pilot studies. Where studies tested associations between objectively measured PA during the intervention period and health-related outcomes, significant beneficial associations were reported. Limitations in the evidence base precluded any assessment via meta-regression of the association between objectively measured PA and clinical or health-related outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Additional large-scale studies are needed, with clear and consistent reporting of objective measures including accelerometry variables and outcome variables, to improve our understanding of the impact of changes in PA prior to surgery on surgical and health-related outcomes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019151475.

Minimally invasive versus conventional sternotomy for Mitral valve repair: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (UK Mini Mitral).

INTRODUCTION: Numbers of patients undergoing mitral valve repair (MVr) surgery for severe mitral regurgitation have grown and will continue to rise. MVr is routinely performed via median sternotomy; however, there is a move towards less invasive surgical approaches.There is debate within the clinical and National Health Service (NHS) commissioning community about widespread adoption of minimally invasive MVr surgery in the absence of robust research evidence; implementation requires investment in staff and infrastructure.The UK Mini Mitral trial will provide definitive evidence comparing patient, NHS and clinical outcomes in adult patients undergoing MVr surgery. It will establish the best surgical approach for MVr, setting a standard against which emerging percutaneous techniques can be measured. Findings will inform optimisation of cost-effective practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: UK Mini Mitral is a multicentre, expertise based randomised controlled trial of minimally invasive thoracoscopically guided right minithoracotomy versus conventional sternotomy for MVr. The trial is taking place in NHS cardiothoracic centres in the UK with established minimally invasive mitral valve surgery programmes. In each centre, consenting and eligible patients are randomised to receive surgery performed by consultant surgeons who meet protocol-defined surgical expertise criteria. Patients are followed for 1 year, and consent to longer term follow-up.Primary outcome is physical functioning 12 weeks following surgery, measured by change in Short Form Health Survey (SF-36v2) physical functioning scale. Early and 1 year echo data will be reported by a core laboratory. Estimates of key clinical and health economic outcomes will be reported up to 5 years.The primary economic outcome is cost effectiveness, measured as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained over 52 weeks following index surgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: A favourable opinion was given by Wales REC 6 (16/WA/0156). Trial findings will be disseminated to patients, clinicians, commissioning groups and through peer reviewed publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13930454.

Mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and health economic outcomes after manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy (intervention) and conventional median sternotomy (usual care). DESIGN: A single-blind, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Single centre UK National Health Service tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention was manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy performed using a 5-7 cm midline incision. Usual care was median sternotomy performed using a midline incision from the sternal notch to the xiphisternum. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received a red cell transfusion postoperatively and within 7 days of index surgery. Secondary outcomes included proportion of patients receiving a non-red cell blood component transfusion and number of units transfused within 7 days and during index hospital stay, quality of life and cost-effectiveness analyses. RESULTS: 270 patients were randomised, received surgery and contributed to the intention to treat analysis. No difference between mini and conventional sternotomy in red-cell transfusion within 7 days was found; 23/135 patients in each arm received a transfusion, OR 1.0 (95% CI 0.5 to 2.0) and risk difference 0.0 (95% CI -0.1 to 0.1). Mini-sternotomy reduced chest drain losses (mean 181.6 mL (SD 138.7) vs conventional, mean 306·9 mL (SD 348.6)); this did not reduce red-cell transfusions. Mean valve size and postoperative valve function were comparable between mini-sternotomy and conventional groups; 23 mm vs 24 mm and 6/134 moderate or severe aortic regurgitation vs 3/130, respectively. Mini-sternotomy resulted in longer bypass (82.7 min (SD 23.5) vs 59.6 min (SD 15.1)) and cross-clamp times (64.1 min (SD 17.1) vs 46·3 min (SD 10.7)). Conventional sternotomy was more cost-effective with only a 5.8% probability of mini-sternotomy being cost-effective at a willingness to pay of £20 000/QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Years). CONCLUSIONS: AVR via mini-sternotomy did not reduce red blood cell transfusion within 7 days following surgery when compared with conventional sternotomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN29567910; Results.

Manubrium-limited ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement (MAVRIC): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve replacement is one of the most common cardiac surgical procedures performed worldwide. Conventional aortic valve replacement surgery is performed via a median sternotomy; the sternum is divided completely from the sternal notch to the xiphisternum. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement, using a new technique called manubrium-limited ministernotomy, divides only the manubrium from the sternal notch to 1 cm below the manubrio-sternal junction. More than one third of patients undergoing conventional sternotomy develop clinically significant bleeding requiring post-operative red blood cell transfusion. Case series data suggest a potentially clinically significant difference in red blood cell transfusion requirements between the two techniques. Given the implications for National Health Service resources and patient outcomes, a definitive trial is needed. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a single-centre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial comparing aortic valve replacement surgery using manubrium-limited ministernotomy (intervention) and conventional median sternotomy (usual care). Two hundred and seventy patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio between the intervention and control arms, stratified by baseline logistic EuroSCORE and haemoglobin value. Patients will be followed for 12 weeks from discharge following their index operation. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who receive a red blood cell transfusion post-operatively within 7 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes include red blood cell and blood product transfusions, blood loss, re-operation rates, sternal wound pain, quality of life, markers of inflammatory response, hospital discharge, health care utilisation, cost and cost effectiveness and adverse events. DISCUSSION: This is the first trial to examine aortic valve replacement via manubrium-limited ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy when comparing red blood cell transfusion rates following surgery. Surgical trials present significant challenges; strengths of this trial include a rigorous research design, standardised surgery performed by experienced consultant cardiothoracic surgeons, an agreed anaesthetic regimen, patient blinding and consultant-led patient recruitment. The MAVRIC trial will demonstrate that complex surgical trials can be delivered to exemplary standards and provide the community with the knowledge required to inform future care for patients requiring aortic valve replacement surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) ISRCTN29567910 . Registered on 3 February 2014.

Management of colorectal cancer presenting with synchronous liver metastases.

Up to a fifth of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) present with synchronous hepatic metastases. In patients with CRC who present without intestinal obstruction or perforation and in whom comprehensive whole-body imaging confirms the absence of extrahepatic disease, evidence indicates a state of equipoise between several different management pathways, none of which has demonstrated superiority. Neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy is advocated by current guidelines, but must be integrated with surgical management in order to remove the primary tumour and liver metastatic burden. Surgery for CRC with synchronous liver metastases can take a number of forms: the 'classic' approach, involving initial colorectal resection, interval chemotherapy and liver resection as the final step; simultaneous removal of the liver and bowel tumours with neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy; or a 'liver-first' approach (before or after systemic chemotherapy) with removal of the colorectal tumour as the final procedure. In patients with rectal primary tumours, the liver-first approach can potentially avoid rectal surgery in patients with a complete response to chemoradiotherapy. We overview the importance of precise nomenclature, the influence of clinical presentation on treatment options, and the need for accurate, up-to-date surgical terminology, staging tests and contemporary management options in CRC and synchronous hepatic metastatic disease, with an emphasis on multidisciplinary care.

Barriers to accurate diagnosis and effective management of heart failure have not changed in the past 10 years: a qualitative study and national survey.

OBJECTIVES: To explore changes in healthcare professionals' views about the diagnosis and management of heart failure since a study in 2003. DESIGN: Focus groups and a national online cross-sectional survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Focus groups (n=8 with a total of 56 participants) were conducted in the North East of England using a phenomenological framework and purposive sampling, informing a UK online survey (n=514). RESULTS: 4 categories were identified as contributing to variations in the diagnosis and management of heart failure. Three previously known categories included: uncertainty about clinical practice, the value of clinical guidelines and tensions between individual and organisational practice. A new category concerned uncertainty about end-of-life care. Survey responses found that confidence varied among professional groups in diagnosing left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD): 95% of cardiologists, 93% of general physicians, 66% of general practitioners (GPs) and 32% of heart failure nurses. For heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), confidence levels were much lower: 58% of cardiologists, 43% of general physicians, 7% of GPs and 6% of heart failure nurses. Only 5-35% of respondents used natriuretic peptides for LVSD or HFpEF. Confidence in interpreting test findings was fundamental to the use of all diagnostic tests. Clinical guidelines were reported to be helpful when diagnosing LVSD by 33% of nurses and 50-56% of other groups, but fell to 5-28% for HFpEF. Some GPs did not routinely initiate diuretics (23%), ACE-inhibitors (22%) or ß-blockers (38%) for LVSD for reasons including historical teaching, perceived side effects and burden of monitoring. For end-of-life care, there was no consensus about responsibility for heart failure management. CONCLUSIONS: Reported differences in the way heart failure is diagnosed and managed have changed little in the past decade. Variable access to diagnostic tests, modes of care delivery and non-uniform management approaches persist. The current National Health Service (NHS) context may not be conducive to addressing these issues.

Biodegradable stent or balloon dilatation for benign oesophageal stricture: pilot randomised controlled trial.

AIM: To undertake a randomised pilot study comparing biodegradable stents and endoscopic dilatation in patients with strictures. METHODS: This British multi-site study recruited seventeen symptomatic adult patients with refractory strictures. Patients were randomised using a multicentre, blinded assessor design, comparing a biodegradable stent (BS) with endoscopic dilatation (ED). The primary endpoint was the average dysphagia score during the first 6 mo. Secondary endpoints included repeat endoscopic procedures, quality of life, and adverse events. Secondary analysis included follow-up to 12 mo. Sensitivity analyses explored alternative estimation methods for dysphagia and multiple imputation of missing values. Nonparametric tests were used. RESULTS: Although both groups improved, the average dysphagia scores for patients receiving stents were higher after 6 mo: BS-ED 1.17 (95%CI: 0.63-1.78) P = 0.029. The finding was robust under different estimation methods. Use of additional endoscopic procedures and quality of life (QALY) estimates were similar for BS and ED patients at 6 and 12 mo. Concomitant use of gastrointestinal prescribed medication was greater in the stent group (BS 5.1, ED 2.0 prescriptions; P < 0.001), as were related adverse events (BS 1.4, ED 0.0 events; P = 0.024). Groups were comparable at baseline and findings were statistically significant but numbers were small due to under-recruitment. The oesophageal tract has somatic sensitivity and the process of the stent dissolving, possibly unevenly, might promote discomfort or reflux. CONCLUSION: Stenting was associated with greater dysphagia, co-medication and adverse events. Rigorously conducted and adequately powered trials are needed before widespread adoption of this technology.

The liver-first approach to the management of colorectal cancer with synchronous hepatic metastases: a systematic review.

IMPORTANCE: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of the liver-first approach to the management of patients with colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases. OBJECTIVE: To review current evidence for the liver-first approach to the management of patients with colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases. EVIDENCE REVIEW: PubMed, EMBASE, the Science Citation Index, the Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, and the Derwent Innovations Index were searched for the period from January 2000 to May 2012 using terms describing colorectal cancer, liver metastases, and surgery. A predefined protocol for data extraction was used to retrieve data on the design of each study including demographic profile, distribution of primary and hepatic metastatic disease, management of chemotherapy, surgery, the sequence of intervention, disease progression, the numbers completing treatment algorithm, and outcome and survival. FINDINGS: The literature search identified 417 articles, of which 4 cohort study reports described the liver-first approach and reported survival data. There was good agreement between studies on the sequence of treatment using the liver-first approach. The preferred algorithm was systemic chemotherapy, followed by liver resection, then chemoradiotherapy for those patients with rectal lesions, and colorectal resection as the last operative step. Two protocols provided further adjuvant chemotherapy after colorectal resection. Of 121 patients starting treatment, 90 (74%) completed the specified treatment protocol. Disease progression during the protocol period occurred in 23 patients (19%). There was wide variation in survival despite apparently similar protocols. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The liver-first approach for patients with colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases is possible but is associated with a wide range of survival outcomes, despite protocol similarities between studies. There is a need for a well-designed clinical trial comparing this liver-first approach with the classic (bowel-first) approach.

Utility of biomarkers in the differential diagnosis of heart failure in older people: findings from the heart failure in care homes (HFinCH) diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: The performance of biomarkers for heart failure (HF) in older residents in long-term care is poorly understood and has not differentiated between left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS: This is the first diagnostic accuracy study in this population to assess the differential diagnostic performance and acceptability of a range of biomarkers against a clinical diagnosis using portable echocardiography. A total of 405 residents, aged 65-100 years (mean 84.2), in 33 UK long-term care facilities were enrolled between April 2009 and June 2010. RESULTS: For undifferentiated HF, BNP or NT-proBNP were adequate rule-out tests but would miss one in three cases (BNP: sensitivity 67%, NPV 86%, cut-off 115 pg/ml; NT-proBNP: sensitivity 62%, NPV 87%, cut-off 760 pg/ml). Using higher test cut-offs, both biomarkers were more adequate tests of LVSD, but would still miss one in four cases (BNP: sensitivity 76%, NPV 97%, cut-off 145 pg/ml; NT-proBNP: sensitivity 73%, NPV 97%, cut-off 1000 pg/ml). At these thresholds one third of subjects would test positive and require an echocardiogram. Applying a stricter 'rule out' threshold (sensitivity 90%), only one in 10 cases would be missed, but two thirds of subjects would require further investigation. Biomarkers were less useful for HFpEF (BNP: sensitivity 63%, specificity 61%, cut-off 110 pg/ml; NT-proBNP: sensitivity 68%, specificity 56%, cut-off 477 pg/ml). Novel biomarkers (Copeptin, MR-proADM, and MR-proANP) and common signs and symptoms had little diagnostic utility. CONCLUSIONS: No test, individually or in combination, adequately balanced case finding and rule-out for heart failure in this population; currently, in-situ echocardiography provides the only adequate diagnostic assessment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN19781227.

High prevalence of undetected heart failure in long-term care residents: findings from the Heart Failure in Care Homes (HFinCH) study.

AIMS: Diagnosis of heart failure in older people in long-term care is challenging because of co-morbidities, cognitive deficit, polypharmacy, immobility, and poor access to services. This study aimed to ascertain heart failure prevalence and clinical management in this population. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 405 residents, aged 65-100 years, in 33 UK care facilities were prospectively enrolled between April 2009 and June 2010. The presence of heart failure was determined using European Society of Cardiology guidelines, modified where necessary for immobility. Evaluation of symptoms and signs, functional capacity, and quality of life, portable on-site echocardiography, and medical record review were completed in 399 cases. The point prevalence of heart failure was 22.8% [n = 91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 18.8-27.2%]; of these, 62.7% (n = 57, 95% CI 59.6-66.5%) had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and 37.3% had left ventricular systolic dysfunction (n = 34, 95% CI 34.8-40.5%). A total of 76% (n = 61) of previous diagnoses of heart failure were not confirmed, and up to 90% (n = 82) of study cases were new. No symptoms or signs were reliable predictors of heart failure. CONCLUSION: Heart failure was diagnosed in almost a quarter of residents: the prevalence was substantially higher than in other populations. The majority of heart failure cases were undiagnosed, while three-quarters of previously recorded cases were misdiagnosed. Common symptoms and signs appear to have little clinical utility in this population. Early, accurate differential diagnosis is key to the effective management of heart failure; this may be failing in long-term care facilities.

Feasibility of evidence-based diagnosis and management of heart failure in older people in care: a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many older people in long-term care do not receive evidence-based diagnosis or management for heart failure; it is not known whether this can be achieved for this population. We initiated an onsite heart failure service, compared with 'usual care' with the aim of establishing the feasibility of accurate diagnosis and appropriate management. METHODS: A pilot randomised controlled trial which randomised residents from 33 care facilities in North-East England with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) to usual care or an onsite heart failure service. The primary outcome was the optimum prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-adrenergic antagonists at 6 months. RESULTS: Of 399 echocardiographically-screened residents aged 65-100 years, 30 subjects with LVSD were eligible; 28 (93%) consented and were randomised (HF service: 16; routine care: 12). Groups were similar at baseline; six month follow-up was completed for 25 patients (89%); 3 (11%) patients died. Results for the primary outcome were not statistically significant but there was a consistent pattern of increased drug use and titration to optimum dose in the intervention group (21% compared to 0% receiving routine care, p=0.250). Hospitalisation rates, quality of life and mortality at 6 months were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the feasibility of an on-site heart failure service for older long-term care populations. Optimisation of medication appeared possible without adversely affecting quality of life; this questions clinicians' concerns about adverse effects in this group. This has international implications for managing such patients. These methods should be replicated in a large-scale study to quantify the scale of benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN19781227 http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN19781227

Using the method of judgement analysis to address variations in diagnostic decision making.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure is not a clear-cut diagnosis but a complex clinical syndrome with consequent diagnostic uncertainty. Judgment analysis is a method to help clinical teams to understand how they make complex decisions. The method of judgment analysis was used to determine the factors that influence clinicians' diagnostic decisions about heart failure. METHODS: Three consultants, three middle grade doctors, and two junior doctors each evaluated 45 patient scenarios. The main outcomes were: clinicians' decisions whether or not to make a diagnosis of suspected heart failure; the relative importance of key factors within and between clinician groups in making these decisions, and the acceptability of the scenarios. RESULTS: The method was able to discriminate between important and unimportant factors in clinicians' diagnostic decisions. Junior and consultant physicians tended to use patient information similarly, although junior doctors placed particular weight on the chest X-Ray. Middle-grade doctors tended to use information differently but their diagnostic decisions agreed with consultants more frequently (k = 0.47) than junior doctors and consultants (k = 0.23), or middle grade and junior grade doctors (k = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Judgment analysis is a potentially valuable method to assess influences upon diagnostic decisions, helping clinicians to manage the quality assurance process through evaluation of care and continuing professional development.

Critical care outreach: the need for effective decision-making in clinical practice (Part 1).

Since the publication of 'Comprehensive Critical Care' (2000) critical care outreach (CCOR) services have been developed to meet the needs of patients through critical care provision 'without walls'. Now embedded nationally, CCOR is a central part of health care delivery in the National Health Service (NHS). To date, approximately 75% of hospitals in England have introduced and developed the service according, at least to some extent, to local needs and resources. While this has resulted in a somewhat inconsistent approach to the development and configuration of these services, a number of common elements remain. Arguably, effective clinical decision-making by CCOR practitioners is fundamental to efficient patient care management and the success of these services. In its examination of CCOR service provision this, the first of two papers, addresses the theoretical background of clinical decision making and the knowledge that underpins practice in CCOR. In the second paper, through collaborative reflection and analysis of a case study, the authors bring these together in a process that illuminates the realities of clinical decision making for CCOR practitioners. From this, recommendations are made about the future development of CCOR practitioners and services.