A vanguard randomised feasibility trial comparing three regimens of peri-operative oxygen therapy on recovery after major surgery.

International recommendations encourage liberal administration of oxygen to patients having surgery under general anaesthesia, ostensibly to reduce surgical site infection. However, the optimal oxygen regimen to minimise postoperative complications and enhance recovery from surgery remains uncertain. The hospital operating theatre randomised oxygen (HOT-ROX) trial is a multicentre, patient- and assessor-blinded, parallel-group, randomised clinical trial designed to assess the effect of a restricted, standard care, or liberal peri-operative oxygen therapy regimen on days alive and at home after surgery in adults undergoing prolonged non-cardiac surgery under general anaesthesia. Here, we report the findings of the internal vanguard feasibility phase of the trial undertaken in four large metropolitan hospitals in Australia and New Zealand that included the first 210 patients of a planned overall 2640 trial sample, with eight pre-specified endpoints evaluating protocol implementation and safety. We screened a total of 956 participants between 1 September 2019 and 26 January 2021, with data from 210 participants included in the analysis. Median (IQR [range]) time-weighted average intra-operative Fi O2 was 0.30 (0.26-0.35 [0.20-0.59]) and 0.47 (0.44-0.51 [0.37-0.68]) for restricted and standard care, respectively (mean difference (95%CI) 0.17 (0.14-0.20), p < 0.001). Median time-weighted average intra-operative Fi O2 was 0.83 (0.80-0.85 [0.70-0.91]) for liberal oxygen therapy (mean difference (95%CI) compared with standard care 0.36 (0.33-0.39), p < 0.001). All feasibility endpoints were met. There were no significant patient adverse events. These data support the feasibility of proceeding with the HOT-ROX trial without major protocol modifications.

The rapid and accurate categorisation of critically ill patients (RACE) to identify outcomes of interest for longitudinal studies: a feasibility study.

The capacity to measure the impact of an intervention on long-term functional outcomes might be improved if research methodology reflected our clinical approach, which is to individualise goals of care to what is achievable for each patient. The objective of this multicentre inception cohort study was to evaluate the feasibility of rapidly and accurately categorising patients, who were eligible for simulated enrolment into a clinical trial, into unique categories based on premorbid function. Once a patient met eligibility criteria a rapid 'baseline assessment' was conducted to categorise patients into one of eight specified groups. A subsequent 'gold standard' assessment was made by an independent blinded assessor once patients had recovered sufficiently to allow such an assessment to occur. Accuracy was predefined as agreement in >80% of assessments. One hundred and twenty-two patients received a baseline assessment and 104 (85%) were categorised to a unique category. One hundred and six patients survived to have a gold standard assessment performed, with 100 (94%) assigned to a unique category. Ninety-two patients had both a baseline and gold standard assessment, and these agreed in 65 (71%) patients. It was not feasible to rapidly and accurately categorise patients according to premorbid function.