ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:Cardiopulmonary bypass initiates a systemic inflammatory response syndrome that is associated with postoperative morbidity and mortality. Steroids suppress inflammatory responses and might improve outcomes in patients at high risk of morbidity and mortality undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass. We aimed to assess the effects of steroids in patients at high risk of morbidity and mortality undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass.METHODS:The Steroids In caRdiac Surgery (SIRS) study is a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial. We used a central computerised phone or interactive web system to randomly assign (1:1) patients at high risk of morbidity and mortality from 80 hospital or cardiac surgery centres in 18 countries undergoing cardiac surgery with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass to receive either methylprednisolone (250 mg at anaesthetic induction and 250 mg at initiation of cardiopulmonary bypass) or placebo. Patients were assigned with block randomisation with random block sizes of 2, 4, or 6 and stratified by centre. Patients aged 18 years or older were eligible if they had a European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation of at least 6. Patients were excluded if they were taking or expected to receive systemic steroids in the immediate postoperative period or had a history of bacterial or fungal infection in the preceding 30 days. Patients, caregivers, and those assessing outcomes were masked to allocation. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and a composite of death and major morbidity (ie, myocardial injury, stroke, renal failure, or respiratory failure) within 30 days, both analysed by intention to treat. Safety outcomes were also analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00427388...
Subject(s)
Extracorporeal Circulation , MethylprednisoloneABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Differences in medical care in the United States compared with Canada, including greater reliance on private funding and for-profit delivery, as well as markedly higher expenditures, may result in different health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review studies comparing health outcomes in the United States and Canada among patients treated for similar underlying medical conditions. METHODS: We identified studies comparing health outcomes of patients in Canada and the United States by searching multiple bibliographic databases and resources. We masked study results before determining study eligibility. We abstracted study characteristics, including methodological quality and generalizability. RESULTS: We identified 38 studies comparing populations of patients in Canada and the United States. Studies addressed diverse problems, including cancer, coronary artery disease, chronic medical illnesses and surgical procedures. Of 10 studies that included extensive statistical adjustment and enrolled broad populations, 5 favoured Canada, 2 favoured the United States, and 3 showed equivalent or mixed results. Of 28 studies that failed one of these criteria, 9 favoured Canada, 3 favoured the United States, and 16 showed equivalent or mixed results. Overall, results for mortality favoured Canada (relative risk 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.92-0.98, p= 0.002) but were very heterogeneous, and we failed to find convincing explanations for this heterogeneity. The only condition in which results consistently favoured one country was end-stage renal disease, in which Canadian patients fared better. INTERPRETATION: Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent.
