The relative merits of using a high-sensitivity cardiac Troponin T assay compared to a non-high-sensitivity Troponin T assay after noncardiac surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Troponin elevation after noncardiac surgery is associated with an elevated risk of 30-day mortality. Little is known about relative merit of using a high-sensitivity Troponin T (hsTnT), the 5th-generation assay, versus the non-high sensitivity Troponin T (non-hsTnT), the 4th-generation assay, in the noncardiac surgery setting. We aimed to identify whether hsTnT can identify additional patients at risk that would have gone undetected with non-hsTnT measurement. METHODS: The VISION Study included 40,004 noncardiac surgery patients with postoperative troponin measurements. Among them, 1806 patients had both 4th-generation non-hsTnT and 5th-generation hsTnT concomitant measurements (4451 paired results). We compared the absolute concentrations, the timing, and the impact of different thresholds on predicting 30-day major cardiovascular complications (composite of death, nonfatal cardiac arrest, coronary revascularization, and congestive heart failure). RESULTS: Based on the manufacturers' threshold of 14 ng/L, 580 (32.1%) patients had postoperative hsTnT concentrations greater than the threshold, while their non-hsTnT concentrations were below the manufacturer's threshold. These 580 patients had higher risk of major cardiovascular events (OR 2.33; CI 95% 1.04-5.23; p=0.049) than patients with hsTnT concentrations below the manufacturer threshold. Among patients with myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, only 54% would be detected by the 4th-generation non-hsTnT assay at 6-12 hours postoperative as compared to 86% with the 5th-generation hsTnT assay (P value <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Within the first 3 postoperative days, 5th-generation hsTnT identified at least 1 in 3 patients with troponin elevation that would have gone undetected by 4th-generation non-hsTnT using published thresholds in this setting. Furthermore, 5th-generation hsTnT identified patients with an elevation earlier than 4th-generation non-hsTnT, indicating potential to improve postoperative risk stratification.

Incidence and risk factors of chronic postoperative pain in same-day surgery: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The amount of same-day surgery has increased markedly worldwide in recent decades, but there remains limited evidence on chronic postsurgical pain in this setting. METHODS: We assessed pain 90 days after ambulatory surgery in an international, multicentre prospective cohort study of patients ≥45 years old with comorbidities or ≥65 years old. Pain was assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory. Chronic postsurgical pain was defined as a change ≥1 in self-rated average pain at the surgical site between baseline and 90 days, and moderate to severe chronic postsurgical pain as a score ≥4 in self-rated average pain at the surgical site at 90 days. Risk factors for chronic postsurgical pain were identified using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Between November 2021 and January 2023, a total of 2054 participants were included, and chronic postsurgical pain occurred in 12% of participants, of whom 93.1% had new chronic pain at the surgical site (i.e., participants without pain prior to surgery). Moderate to severe chronic postsurgical pain occurred in 9% of overall participants. Factors associated with chronic postsurgical pain were: active smoking (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.76), orthopaedic surgery (OR 4.7; 95% CI 2.24 to 9.7), plastic surgery (OR 4.3; 95% CI 1.97 to 9.2), breast surgery (OR 2.74; 95% CI 1.29 to 5.8), vascular surgery (OR 2.71; 95% CI 1.09 to 6.7), and ethnicity (i.e., Hispanic/Latino ethnicity OR 3.41; 95% CI 1.68 to 6.9 and First Nations/Native persons OR 4.0; 95% CI 1.05 to 15.4). CONCLUSIONS: Persistent postsurgical pain after same-day surgery is common, usually moderate to severe in nature, and occurs mostly in patients without chronic pain prior to surgery.

One-year Outcomes after Discharge from Noncardiac Surgery and Association between Predischarge Complications and Death after Discharge: Analysis of the VISION Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: In previous analyses, myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, major bleeding, and sepsis were independently associated with most deaths in the 30 days after noncardiac surgery, but most of these deaths occurred during the index hospitalization for surgery. The authors set out to describe outcomes after discharge from hospital up to 1 yr after inpatient noncardiac surgery and associations between predischarge complications and postdischarge death up to 1 yr after surgery. METHODS: This study was an analysis of patients discharged after inpatient noncardiac surgery in a large international prospective cohort study across 28 centers from 2007 to 2013 of patients aged 45 yr or older followed to 1 yr after surgery. The study estimated (1) the cumulative postdischarge incidence of death and other outcomes up to a year after surgery and (2) the adjusted time-varying associations between postdischarge death and predischarge complications including myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, major bleeding, sepsis, infection without sepsis, stroke, congestive heart failure, clinically important atrial fibrillation or flutter, amputation, venous thromboembolism, and acute kidney injury managed with dialysis. RESULTS: Among 38,898 patients discharged after surgery, the cumulative 1-yr incidence was 5.8% (95% CI, 5.5 to 6.0%) for all-cause death and 24.7% (95% CI, 24.2 to 25.1%) for all-cause hospital readmission. Predischarge complications were associated with 33.7% (95% CI, 27.2 to 40.2%) of deaths up to 30 days after discharge and 15.0% (95% CI, 12.0 to 17.9%) up to 1 yr. Most of the association with death was due to myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (15.6% [95% CI, 9.3 to 21.9%] of deaths within 30 days, 6.4% [95% CI, 4.1 to 8.7%] within 1 yr), major bleeding (15.0% [95% CI, 8.3 to 21.7%] within 30 days, 4.7% [95% CI, 2.2 to 7.2%] within 1 yr), and sepsis (5.4% [95% CI, 2.2 to 8.6%] within 30 days, 2.1% [95% CI, 1.0 to 3.1%] within 1 yr). CONCLUSIONS: One in 18 patients 45 yr old or older discharged after inpatient noncardiac surgery died within 1 yr, and one quarter were readmitted to the hospital. The risk of death associated with predischarge perioperative complications persists for weeks to months after discharge.

Association of Preoperative Growth Differentiation Factor-15 Concentrations and Postoperative Cardiovascular Events after Major Noncardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The association between growth differentiation factor-15 concentrations and cardiovascular disease has been well described. The study hypothesis was that growth differentiation factor-15 may help cardiac risk stratification in noncardiac surgical patients, in addition to clinical evaluation. METHODS: The objective of the study was to determine whether preoperative serum growth differentiation factor-15 is associated with the composite primary outcome of myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery and vascular death at 30 days and can improve cardiac risk prediction in noncardiac surgery. This is a prospective cohort study of patients 45 yr or older having major noncardiac surgery. The association between preoperative growth differentiation factor-15 and the primary outcome was determined after adjusting for the Revised Cardiac Risk Index. Preoperative N-terminal-pro hormone brain natriuretic peptide was also added to compare predictive performance with growth differentiation factor-15. RESULTS: Between October 27, 2008, and October 30, 2013, a total of 5,238 patients were included who had preoperative growth differentiation factor-15 measured (median, 1,325; interquartile range, 880 to 2,132 pg/ml). The risk of myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery and vascular death was 99 of 1,705 (5.8%) for growth differentiation factor-15 less than 1,000 pg/ml, 161 of 1,332 (12.1%) for growth differentiation factor-15 1,000 to less than 1,500 pg/ml, 302 of 1476 (20.5%) for growth differentiation factor-15 1,500 to less than 3,000 pg/ml, and 247 of 725 (34.1%) for growth differentiation factor-15 concentrations 3,000 pg/ml or greater. Compared to patients who had growth differentiation factor-15 concentrations less than 1,000 pg/ml, the corresponding adjusted hazard ratio for each growth differentiation factor-15 category was 1.93 (95% CI, 1.50 to 2.48), 3.04 (95% CI, 2.41 to 3.84), and 4.8 (95% CI, 3.76 to 6.14), respectively. The addition of growth differentiation factor-15 improved cardiac risk classification by 30.1% (301 per 1,000 patients) compared to Revised Cardiac Risk Index alone. It also provided additional risk classification beyond the combination of preoperative N-terminal-pro hormone brain natriuretic peptide and Revised Cardiac Risk Index (16.1%; 161 per 1,000 patients). CONCLUSIONS: Growth differentiation factor-15 is strongly associated with 30-day risk of major cardiovascular events and significantly improved cardiac risk prediction in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

Hypotension-Avoidance Versus Hypertension-Avoidance Strategies in Noncardiac Surgery : An International Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Among patients having noncardiac surgery, perioperative hemodynamic abnormalities are associated with vascular complications. Uncertainty remains about what intraoperative blood pressure to target and how to manage long-term antihypertensive medications perioperatively. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of a hypotension-avoidance and a hypertension-avoidance strategy on major vascular complications after noncardiac surgery. DESIGN: Partial factorial randomized trial of 2 perioperative blood pressure management strategies (reported here) and tranexamic acid versus placebo. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03505723). SETTING: 110 hospitals in 22 countries. PATIENTS: 7490 patients having noncardiac surgery who were at risk for vascular complications and were receiving 1 or more long-term antihypertensive medications. INTERVENTION: In the hypotension-avoidance strategy group, the intraoperative mean arterial pressure target was 80 mm Hg or greater; before and for 2 days after surgery, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors were withheld and the other long-term antihypertensive medications were administered only for systolic blood pressures 130 mm Hg or greater, following an algorithm. In the hypertension-avoidance strategy group, the intraoperative mean arterial pressure target was 60 mm Hg or greater; all antihypertensive medications were continued before and after surgery. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was a composite of vascular death and nonfatal myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, stroke, and cardiac arrest at 30 days. Outcome adjudicators were masked to treatment assignment. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in 520 of 3742 patients (13.9%) in the hypotension-avoidance group and in 524 of 3748 patients (14.0%) in the hypertension-avoidance group (hazard ratio, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.12]; P = 0.92). Results were consistent for patients who used 1 or more than 1 antihypertensive medication in the long term. LIMITATION: Adherence to the assigned strategies was suboptimal; however, results were consistent across different adherence levels. CONCLUSION: In patients having noncardiac surgery, our hypotension-avoidance and hypertension-avoidance strategies resulted in a similar incidence of major vascular complications. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and Research Grant Council of Hong Kong.

High-sensitivity Troponin I Predicts Major Cardiovascular Events after Non-Cardiac Surgery: A Vascular Events in Non-Cardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation (VISION) Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS), based on measurement of troponin T, is associated with perioperative major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We therefore determined the high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI) thresholds associated with 30 day MACE after non-cardiac surgery. METHODS: We performed a nested biobank cohort study of 4553 patients from the Vascular Events in Non-Cardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation (VISION) Study. We measured hsTnI (ADVIA Centaur® hsTnI assay) on postoperative days 1 to 3 in patients ≥45 years undergoing non-cardiac surgery. An iterative Cox proportional hazard model determined peak postoperative hsTnI thresholds independently associated with MACE (i.e., death, myocardial infarction occurring on postoperative day 4 or after, non-fatal cardiac arrest, or congestive heart failure) within 30 days after surgery. RESULTS: MACE occurred in 89/4545 (2.0%) patients. Peak hsTnI values of <75 ng/L, 75 ng/L to <1000 ng/L, and ≥1000 ng/L were associated with 1.2% (95% CI, 0.9-1.6), 7.1% (95% CI, 4.8-10.5), and 25.9% (95% CI, 16.3-38.4) MACE, respectively. Compared to peak hsTnI <75 ng/L, values 75 ng/L to <1000 ng/L and ≥1000 ng/L were associated with adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) of 4.53 (95% CI, 2.75-7.48) and 16.17 (95% CI, 8.70-30.07), respectively. MACE was observed in 9% of patients with peak hsTnI ≥75 ng/L vs 1% in patients with peak hsTnI <75 ng/L (aHR 5.76; 95% CI, 3.64-9.11). A peak hsTnI ≥75 ng/L was associated with MACE in the presence (aHR 9.35; 95% CI, 5.28-16.55) or absence (aHR 3.99; 95% CI, 2.19-7.25) of ischemic features of myocardial injury. CONCLUSION: A peak postoperative hsTnI ≥75 ng/L was associated with >5-fold increase in the risk of 30 days MACE compared to levels <75 ng/L. This threshold could be used for MINS diagnosis when the ADVIA Centaur hsTnI assay is used.Clinicaltrials.gov Registration Number: NCT00512109.

NutriSup-PPN: A pilot randomized control trial of oral nutritional supplementation (ONS) and peripheral parenteral nutrition (PPN) in canadian, malnourished, hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hospitalized malnourished patients experience poor outcomes. Our study determined the feasibility of a novel nutritional care pathway which both rapidly identifies and treats malnourished medical inpatients accounting for the obstacles in nutritional optimization. In our interventional arm, we utilize peripheral parental nutrition (PPN) followed by oral nutritional supplementation (ONS) on a composite outcome of 30 day readmission, mortality and continued admission, as well other important clinical and nutritional outcomes. The study was registered under ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier no. NCT02632630. METHODS: NutriSUP-PPN was a 2 × 2 factorial pilot randomized trial. In two large Canadian hospitals, we recruited 100 adult patients >18 years, < 48 h from admission to a general medicine ward who were moderately or severely malnourished. Patients received: 1. PPN for 5 days and then enhanced ONS until 30 days post randomization; 2. PPN for 5 days and then standard ONS until 30 days; 3. Standard care for intravenous (IV) fluid administration for 5 days and then enhanced ONS until 30 days; 4. Standard care for IV fluid administration for 5 days and standard ONS until 30 days. Our primary outcome was a composite of 30 day readmission, continued admission and mortality. RESULTS: There was no significant differences in the composite outcome of 30 day readmission, continued admission or mortality between any interventional group and control. We did however note a trend in the PPN + ONS arm where only 4/22 patients versus 10/24 patients (p = 0.16) in the control (no PPN, no enhanced ONS) experienced an adverse outcome which was largely driven by a reduction of readmission in the ONS + PPN arm We demonstrated feasibility in recruitment, adherence to protocol, and safety. The incidence of sepsis was greater in the PPN arm compared to control (15.5% versus 4.2%) but was not statistically significant. Improvement in nutritional status for interventional arms were not significant compared to control. However, there was a trend of improvement in preventing decline of nutritional status in both the enhanced ONS arm and PPN + enhanced ONS arm. CONCLUSION: There are signals in our data, which suggest that the combination of PPN with ONS may improve both clinical and nutritional outcomes compared to PPN or ONS alone. We posit that a large, multi-center, definitive randomized control trial is now justified to determine if PPN for up to 5 days along with 30 days of ONS, versus standard of care, will improve a composite outcome of death, continued admission, and readmission at 30 days. However, because PPN was associated with a non-statistically significant increase in episodes of sepsis, future studies should ensure that sepsis episodes are well documented and monitored closely by the data safety monitoring board.

Tranexamic Acid in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative bleeding is common in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Tranexamic acid is an antifibrinolytic drug that may safely decrease such bleeding. METHODS: We conducted a trial involving patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive tranexamic acid (1-g intravenous bolus) or placebo at the start and end of surgery (reported here) and, with the use of a partial factorial design, a hypotension-avoidance or hypertension-avoidance strategy (not reported here). The primary efficacy outcome was life-threatening bleeding, major bleeding, or bleeding into a critical organ (composite bleeding outcome) at 30 days. The primary safety outcome was myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, or symptomatic proximal venous thromboembolism (composite cardiovascular outcome) at 30 days. To establish the noninferiority of tranexamic acid to placebo for the composite cardiovascular outcome, the upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the hazard ratio had to be below 1.125, and the one-sided P value had to be less than 0.025. RESULTS: A total of 9535 patients underwent randomization. A composite bleeding outcome event occurred in 433 of 4757 patients (9.1%) in the tranexamic acid group and in 561 of 4778 patients (11.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67 to 0.87; absolute difference, -2.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.8 to -1.4; two-sided P<0.001 for superiority). A composite cardiovascular outcome event occurred in 649 of 4581 patients (14.2%) in the tranexamic acid group and in 639 of 4601 patients (13.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.14; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% CI, 1.14; absolute difference, 0.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.1 to 1.7; one-sided P = 0.04 for noninferiority). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, the incidence of the composite bleeding outcome was significantly lower with tranexamic acid than with placebo. Although the between-group difference in the composite cardiovascular outcome was small, the noninferiority of tranexamic acid was not established. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; POISE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03505723.).

Rationale and design of the PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3): a randomized controlled trial evaluating tranexamic acid and a strategy to minimize hypotension in noncardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: For patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, bleeding and hypotension are frequent and associated with increased mortality and cardiovascular complications. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic agent with the potential to reduce surgical bleeding; however, there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety in noncardiac surgery. Although usual perioperative care is commonly consistent with a hypertension-avoidance strategy (i.e., most patients continue their antihypertensive medications throughout the perioperative period and intraoperative mean arterial pressures of 60 mmHg are commonly accepted), a hypotension-avoidance strategy may improve perioperative outcomes. METHODS: The PeriOperative Ischemic Evaluation (POISE)-3 Trial is a large international randomized controlled trial designed to determine if TXA is superior to placebo for the composite outcome of life-threatening, major, and critical organ bleeding, and non-inferior to placebo for the occurrence of major arterial and venous thrombotic events, at 30 days after randomization. Using a partial factorial design, POISE-3 will additionally determine the effect of a hypotension-avoidance strategy versus a hypertension-avoidance strategy on the risk of major cardiovascular events, at 30 days after randomization. The target sample size is 10,000 participants. Patients ≥45 years of age undergoing noncardiac surgery, with or at risk of cardiovascular and bleeding complications, are randomized to receive a TXA 1 g intravenous bolus or matching placebo at the start and at the end of surgery. Patients, health care providers, data collectors, outcome adjudicators, and investigators are blinded to the treatment allocation. Patients on ≥ 1 chronic antihypertensive medication are also randomized to either of the two blood pressure management strategies, which differ in the management of patient antihypertensive medications on the morning of surgery and on the first 2 days after surgery, and in the target mean arterial pressure during surgery. Outcome adjudicators are blinded to the blood pressure treatment allocation. Patients are followed up at 30 days and 1 year after randomization. DISCUSSION: Bleeding and hypotension in noncardiac surgery are common and have a substantial impact on patient prognosis. The POISE-3 trial will evaluate two interventions to determine their impact on bleeding, cardiovascular complications, and mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03505723. Registered on 23 April 2018.

Effect of a Perioperative Hypotension-Avoidance Strategy Versus a Hypertension-Avoidance Strategy on the Risk of Acute Kidney Injury: A Clinical Research Protocol for a Substudy of the POISE-3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients who take antihypertensive medications continue taking them on the morning of surgery and during the perioperative period. However, growing evidence suggests this practice may contribute to perioperative hypotension and a higher risk of complications. This protocol describes an acute kidney injury substudy of the Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3) trial, which is testing the effect of a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy versus a hypertension-avoidance strategy in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a substudy of POISE-3 to determine whether a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy reduces the risk of acute kidney injury compared with a hypertension-avoidance strategy. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial with 1:1 randomization to the intervention (a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy) or control (a hypertension-avoidance strategy). INTERVENTION: If the presurgery systolic blood pressure (SBP) is <130 mmHg, all antihypertensive medications are withheld on the morning of surgery. If the SBP is ≥130 mmHg, some medications (but not angiotensin receptor blockers [ACEIs], angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], or renin inhibitors) may be continued in a stepwise manner. During surgery, the patients' mean arterial pressure (MAP) is maintained at ≥80 mmHg. During the first 48 hours after surgery, some antihypertensive medications (but not ACEIs, ARBs, or renin inhibitors) may be restarted in a stepwise manner if the SBP is ≥130 mmHg. CONTROL: Patients receive their usual antihypertensive medications before and after surgery. The patients' MAP is maintained at ≥60 mmHg from anesthetic induction until the end of surgery. SETTING: Recruitment from 108 centers in 22 countries from 2018 to 2021. PATIENTS: Patients (~6800) aged ≥45 years having noncardiac surgery who have or are at risk of atherosclerotic disease and who routinely take antihypertensive medications. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome of the substudy is postoperative acute kidney injury, defined as an increase in serum creatinine concentration of either ≥26.5 µmol/L (≥0.3 mg/dL) within 48 hours of randomization or ≥50% within 7 days of randomization. METHODS: The primary analysis (intention-to-treat) will examine the relative risk and 95% confidence interval of acute kidney injury in the intervention versus control group. We will repeat the primary analysis using alternative definitions of acute kidney injury and examine effect modification by preexisting chronic kidney disease, defined as a prerandomization estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. RESULTS: Substudy results will be analyzed in 2022. LIMITATIONS: It is not possible to mask patients or providers to the intervention; however, objective measures will be used to assess acute kidney injury. CONCLUSIONS: This substudy will provide generalizable estimates of the effect of a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy on the risk of acute kidney injury.

CONTEXTE: La plupart des patients qui prennent des médicaments antihypertenseurs continuent de les prendre le matin d'une intervention chirurgicale et pendant la période périopératoire. De plus en plus de preuves suggèrent que cette pratique pourrait entraîner l'hypotension périopératoire et augmenter le risque de complications. Ce protocole décrit une sous-étude sur l'insuffisance rénale aiguë (IRA) découlant de l'essai Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3). Cet essai teste l'effet d'une stratégie d'évitement de l'hypotension périopératoire par rapport à une stratégie d'évitement de l'hypertension chez des patients qui subissent une chirurgie non cardiaque. OBJECTIFS: Cette sous-étude de l'essai POISE-3 vise à déterminer si une stratégie d'évitement de l'hypotension périopératoire réduit le risque d'IRA comparativement à la stratégie d'évitement de l'hypertension. TYPE D'ÉTUDE: Essai clinique randomisé à répartition 1:1 au groupe intervention (stratégie d'évitement de l'hypotension périopératoire) ou au groupe témoin (stratégie d'évitement de l'hypertension). GROUPE INTERVENTION: Si la pression artérielle systolique (PAS) avant l'opération est <130 mmHg, tous les médicaments antihypertenseurs sont suspendus le matin de la chirurgie. Si la PAS est ≥130 mmHg, certains médicaments (excluant les inhibiteurs de l'enzyme de conversion de l'angiotensine [IECA], les antagonistes du récepteur de l'angiotensine [ARA] ou les inhibiteurs de la rénine) peuvent être poursuivis de façon graduelle. Pendant la chirurgie, la pression artérielle moyenne (PAM) du patient est maintenue à ≥80 mmHg. Dans les 48 heures suivant l'intervention chirurgicale, certains médicaments antihypertenseurs (excluant les IECA, les ARA ou les inhibiteurs de la rénine) peuvent être réintroduits par étapes si la PAS est ≥130 mmHg. GROUPE TÉMOIN: Les patients reçoivent leurs médicaments antihypertenseurs habituels avant et après la chirurgie. La PAM du patient est maintenue à ≥60 mmHg de l'induction de l'anesthésie à la fin de l'intervention chirurgicale. CADRE: Recrutement à partir de 108 centres dans 22 pays entre 2018 à 2021. SUJETS: Des patients (~6 800) âgés de 45 ans et plus atteints d'athérosclérose, ou présentant un risque de l'être, devant subir une chirurgie non cardiaque et prenant des médicaments antihypertenseurs sur une base régulière. MESURES: Le principal critère d'évaluation de cette sous-étude est une IRA postopératoire définie par une hausse d'au moins 26,5 µmol/L (≥0,3 mg/dL) de la créatinine sérique dans les 48 heures suivant la randomisation ou d'au moins 50 % dans les 7 jours suivant la randomisation. MÉTHODOLOGIE: L'analyse primaire (par intention de traiter) examinera le risque relatif d'une IRA et l'intervalle de confiance à 95 % dans le groupe intervention par rapport au groupe témoin. Nous répéterons l'analyse primaire en utilisant d'autres définitions de l'IRA et nous examinerons la modification de l'effet en présence d'une insuffisance rénale préexistante (définie par un DFGe prérandomisation <60 ml/min/1,73 m2). RÉSULTATS: Les résultats de cette sous-étude seront analysés en 2022. LIMITES: Il n'est pas possible de procéder à l'insu des patients ou des prestataires de soins pour cette intervention; des mesures objectives seront toutefois utilisées pour évaluer l'IRA. CONCLUSION: Cette sous-étude fournira des estimations généralisables de l'effet d'une stratégie visant à éviter l'hypotension périopératoire sur le risque d'insuffisance rénale aiguë.

Beyond Wellness Monitoring: Continuous Multiparameter Remote Automated Monitoring of Patients.

The pursuit of more efficient patient-friendly health systems and reductions in tertiary health services use has seen enormous growth in the application and study of remote patient monitoring systems for cardiovascular patient care. While there are many consumer-grade products available to monitor patient wellness, the regulation of these technologies varies considerably, with most products having little to no evaluation data. As the science and practice of virtual care continues to evolve, clinicians and researchers can benefit from an understanding of more comprehensive solutions capable of monitoring multiple biophysical parameters (eg, oxygen saturation, heart rate) continuously and simultaneously. These devices, herein referred to as continuous multiparameter remote automated monitoring (CM-RAM) devices, have the potential to revolutionise virtual patient care. Through seamless integration of multiple biophysical signals, CM-RAM technologies can allow for the acquisition of high-volume big data for the development of algorithms to facilitate early detection of negative changes in patient health status and timely clinician response. In this article, we review key principles, architecture, and components of CM-RAM technologies. Work to date in this field and related implications are also presented, including strategic priorities for advancing the science and practice of CM-RAM.

Functional recovery following hospitalisation of patients diagnosed with COVID-19: a protocol for a longitudinal cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 is an international public health crisis with more than 132 million infections worldwide. Beyond acute infection, emerging data indicate patients diagnosed with COVID-19 may experience persistent sequelae similar to survivors of sepsis or acute respiratory syndromes, including mobility limitations and fatigue. However, there is limited evidence on the trajectory of functional recovery in those hospitalised with COVID-19. The primary aim of the Coronavirus Registry Functional Recovery (COREG-FR) study is to understand the trajectory of functional recovery among individuals hospitalised for COVID-19 over the medium (up to 6 months) and longer term (6-12 months) that will guide clinical care and optimal management of serious COVID-19 illness and recovery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: COREG-FR is a multicentre longitudinal cohort study. We will enrol a minimum of 211 adults age 18 years and older with COVID-19 from five hospitals. Participants will be followed from admission to hospital as an inpatient, to hospital discharge, and at 3-month, 6-month, 9-month and up to 12-month post-hospital discharge. We will conduct telephone interviews at ward admission and discharge, and telephone interviews plus in-person assessments of physical function and lung function at all remaining follow-ups. Our primary outcome is the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care mobility scale measured at all time points. We will conduct linear mixed effects regression analyses to explore determinants of functional outcomes after COVID-19 illness. Subgroup analyses based on age (≤65 vs >65 years), frailty status (Clinical Frailty Scale score ≤4 vs >5) and variants of concern will be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: COREG-FR has been approved by Research Ethics Boards at participating sites. We will disseminate this work through peer-reviewed manuscripts, presentations at national and international meetings and through the established COREG website (www.coregontario.ca). COREG-FR is designed as a data platform for future studies evaluating COVID-19 recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04602260; Pre-results.

Post-discharge after surgery Virtual Care with Remote Automated Monitoring-1 (PVC-RAM-1) technology versus standard care: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if virtual care with remote automated monitoring (RAM) technology versus standard care increases days alive at home among adults discharged after non-elective surgery during the covid-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 8 acute care hospitals in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 905 adults (≥40 years) who resided in areas with mobile phone coverage and were to be discharged from hospital after non-elective surgery were randomised either to virtual care and RAM (n=451) or to standard care (n=454). 903 participants (99.8%) completed the 31 day follow-up. INTERVENTION: Participants in the experimental group received a tablet computer and RAM technology that measured blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, temperature, and body weight. For 30 days the participants took daily biophysical measurements and photographs of their wound and interacted with nurses virtually. Participants in the standard care group received post-hospital discharge management according to the centre's usual care. Patients, healthcare providers, and data collectors were aware of patients' group allocations. Outcome adjudicators were blinded to group allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was days alive at home during 31 days of follow-up. The 12 secondary outcomes included acute hospital care, detection and correction of drug errors, and pain at 7, 15, and 30 days after randomisation. RESULTS: All 905 participants (mean age 63.1 years) were analysed in the groups to which they were randomised. Days alive at home during 31 days of follow-up were 29.7 in the virtual care group and 29.5 in the standard care group: relative risk 1.01 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.02); absolute difference 0.2% (95% confidence interval -0.5% to 0.9%). 99 participants (22.0%) in the virtual care group and 124 (27.3%) in the standard care group required acute hospital care: relative risk 0.80 (0.64 to 1.01); absolute difference 5.3% (-0.3% to 10.9%). More participants in the virtual care group than standard care group had a drug error detected (134 (29.7%) v 25 (5.5%); absolute difference 24.2%, 19.5% to 28.9%) and a drug error corrected (absolute difference 24.4%, 19.9% to 28.9%). Fewer participants in the virtual care group than standard care group reported pain at 7, 15, and 30 days after randomisation: absolute differences 13.9% (7.4% to 20.4%), 11.9% (5.1% to 18.7%), and 9.6% (2.9% to 16.3%), respectively. Beneficial effects proved substantially larger in centres with a higher rate of care escalation. CONCLUSION: Virtual care with RAM shows promise in improving outcomes important to patients and to optimal health system function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04344665.

Post Discharge after Surgery Virtual Care with Remote Automated Monitoring Technology (PVC-RAM): protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: After nonelective (i.e., semiurgent, urgent and emergent) surgeries, patients discharged from hospitals are at risk of readmissions, emergency department visits or death. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we are undertaking the Post Discharge after Surgery Virtual Care with Remote Automated Monitoring Technology (PVC-RAM) trial to determine if virtual care with remote automated monitoring (RAM) compared with standard care will increase the number of days adult patients remain alive at home after being discharged following nonelective surgery. METHODS: We are conducting a randomized controlled trial in which 900 adults who are being discharged after nonelective surgery from 8 Canadian hospitals are randomly assigned to receive virtual care with RAM or standard care. Outcome adjudicators are masked to group allocations. Patients in the experimental group learn how to use the study's tablet computer and RAM technology, which will measure their vital signs. For 30 days, patients take daily biophysical measurements and complete a recovery survey. Patients interact with nurses via the cellular modem-enabled tablet, who escalate care to preassigned and available physicians if RAM measurements exceed predetermined thresholds, patients report symptoms, a medication error is identified or the nurses have concerns they cannot resolve. The primary outcome is number of days alive at home during the 30 days after randomization. INTERPRETATION: This trial will inform management of patients after discharge following surgery in the COVID-19 pandemic and offer insights for management of patients who undergo nonelective surgery in a nonpandemic setting. Knowledge dissemination will be supported through an online multimedia resource centre, policy briefs, presentations, peer-reviewed journal publications and media engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04344665.

Assessing the Quality of Evidence Presented at the Annual Conferences of Diabetes Canada.

OBJECTIVES: Annual general meetings (AGMs) are often seen and promoted as great sources of contemporary information for the modern health-care professional. The quality of research evidence presented at these conferences, however, remains unclear. This paper evaluates the level of evidence (LoE) of research presented at the 2015 to 2019 AGMs of Diabetes Canada (DC). METHODS: Using the framework we first published to evaluate the LoE presented at the Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN) AGMs, 2 authors independently assigned eligible abstracts a study type and grade. Research assistants separately recorded corresponding author and city affiliations. RESULTS: Of 832 published abstracts, 68% (N=568) met the inclusion criteria. These abstracts were classified as follows: 12% Level I (highest quality); 30% Level II; 36% Level III; 14% Level IV and 8% Level V (lowest quality). The LoE remained consistent over the 5-year study period, as observed by the Jonckheere-Terpstra test (p=0.754). The LoE of DC AGMs was similar to that of CSN AGMs (p=0.125). The number of authors was positively associated with improved LoE (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Based on our novel auditing methodology, the LoE of DC AGMs is on par with other analyzed national AGMs. Adoption of this metric for all AGMs would aid in identifying unfavourable trends and alert planning and abstract selection committees of trends in LoE. Such studies will increase transparency for stakeholders and facilitate quality improvement initiatives.

Accuracy of Physicians in Differentiating Type 1 and Type 2 Myocardial Infarction Based on Clinical Information.

BACKGROUND: Physicians commonly judge whether a myocardial infarction (MI) is type 1 (thrombotic) vs type 2 (supply/demand mismatch) based on clinical information. Little is known about the accuracy of physicians' clinical judgement in this regard. We aimed to determine the accuracy of physicians' judgement in the classification of type 1 vs type 2 MI in perioperative and nonoperative settings. METHODS: We performed an online survey using cases from the Optical Coherence Tomographic Imaging of Thrombus (OPTIMUS) Study, which investigated the prevalence of a culprit lesion thrombus based on intracoronary optical coherence tomography (OCT) in patients experiencing MI. Four MI cases, 2 perioperative and 2 nonoperative, were selected randomly, stratified by etiology. Physicians were provided with the patient's medical history, laboratory parameters, and electrocardiograms. Physicians did not have access to intracoronary OCT results. The primary outcome was the accuracy of physicians' judgement of MI etiology, measured as raw agreement between physicians and intracoronary OCT findings. Fleiss' kappa and Gwet's AC1 were calculated to correct for chance. RESULTS: The response rate was 57% (308 of 536). Respondents were 62% male; median age was 45 years (standard deviation ± 11); 45% had been in practice for > 15 years. Respondents' overall accuracy for MI etiology was 60% (95% confidence interval [CI] 57%-63%), including 63% (95% CI 60%-68%) for nonoperative cases, and 56% (95% CI 52%-60%) for perioperative cases. Overall chance-corrected agreement was poor (kappa = 0.05), consistent across specialties and clinical scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Physician accuracy in determining MI etiology based on clinical information is poor. Physicians should consider results from other testing, such as invasive coronary angiography, when determining MI etiology.

CONTEXTE: Les médecins déterminent généralement s'ils sont en présence d'un infarctus du myocarde (IM) de type 1 (thrombotique) ou de type 2 (demande accrue ou apport réduit en oxygène) sur la base des renseignements cliniques. On en sait cependant très peu au sujet de la justesse du jugement clinique des médecins à cet égard. Nous avons donc cherché à déterminer si les médecins réussissent à distinguer correctement les IM de type 1 et de type 2 dans les contextes périopératoire et non opératoire. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Nous avons mené une enquête en ligne en utilisant les cas de l'étude OPTIMUS ( Op tical Coherence T omographic Im aging of Thromb us ), qui avait évalué la prévalence des lésions causant un thrombus au moyen de la tomographie par cohérence optique (TCO) endocoronaire chez les patients subissant un IM. Nous avons choisi au hasard quatre cas d'IM stratifiés en fonction de leur cause : deux cas en contexte périopératoire et deux cas en contexte non opératoire. Les médecins avaient accès aux antécédents médicaux, aux résultats des analyses de laboratoire et aux électrocardiogrammes des patients, mais pas aux résultats de la TCO endocoronaire. Le principal paramètre d'évaluation était la justesse du jugement du médecin concernant la cause de l'IM, mesurée en fonction de la concordance approximative entre le jugement du médecin et les observations à la TCO endocoronaire. Les coefficients de concordance kappa de Fleiss et AC1 de Gwet ont servi à corriger pour le hasard. RÉSULTATS: Le taux de réponse était de 57 % (308 sur 536). Des participants, 62 % étaient des hommes et 45 % exerçaient depuis plus de 15 ans; l'âge médian était de 45 ans (écart-type : ± 11). La justesse globale avec laquelle les répondants ont déterminé la cause des IM était de 60 % (intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % : 57-63 %) : 63 % (IC à 95 % : 60-68 %) dans le cas des IM en contexte non opératoire et 56 % (IC à 95 % : 52-60 %) dans le cas des IM en contexte périopératoire. La concordance globale corrigée pour le hasard était faible (kappa = 0,05) et demeurait constante, sans égard au domaine de spécialité ou au scénario clinique. CONCLUSIONS: La justesse du jugement des médecins évaluant la cause d'un IM en fonction des renseignements cliniques est faible. Les médecins devraient envisager de recourir à des tests additionnels, y compris la coronarographie invasive, avant de déterminer la cause d'un IM.