Laura Pasin

Aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery

BACKGROUND There is substantial variability in the perioperative administration of aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, both among patients who are already on an aspirin regimen and among those who are not. METHODS Using a 2-by-2 factorial trial design, we randomly assigned 10,010 patients who were preparing to undergo noncardiac surgery and were at risk for vascular complications to receive aspirin or placebo and clonidine or placebo. The results of the aspirin trial are reported here. The patients were stratified according to whether they had not been taking aspirin before the study (initiation stratum, with 5628 patients) or they were already on an aspirin regimen (continuation stratum, with 4382 patients). Patients started taking aspirin (at a dose of 200 mg) or placebo just before surgery and continued it daily (at a dose of 100 mg) for 30 days in the initiation stratum and for 7 days in the continuation stratum, after which patients resumed their regular aspirin regimen. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 30 days. RESULTS The primary outcome occurred in 351 of 4998 patients (7.0%) in the aspirin group and in 355 of 5012 patients (7.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the aspirin group, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 1.15; P=0.92). Major bleeding was more common in the aspirin group than in the placebo group (230 patients [4.6%] vs. 188 patients [3.8%]; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01, to 1.49; P=0.04). The primary and secondary outcome results were similar in the two aspirin strata. CONCLUSIONS Administration of aspirin before surgery and throughout the early postsurgical period had no significant effect on the rate of a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction but increased the risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; POISE-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01082874.).

Clonidine in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND Marked activation of the sympathetic nervous system occurs during and after noncardiac surgery. Low-dose clonidine, which blunts central sympathetic outflow, may prevent perioperative myocardial infarction and death without inducing hemodynamic instability. METHODS We performed a blinded, randomized trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design to allow separate evaluation of low-dose clonidine versus placebo and low-dose aspirin versus placebo in patients with, or at risk for, atherosclerotic disease who were undergoing noncardiac surgery. A total of 10,010 patients at 135 centers in 23 countries were enrolled. For the comparison of clonidine with placebo, patients were randomly assigned to receive clonidine (0.2 mg per day) or placebo just before surgery, with the study drug continued until 72 hours after surgery. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 30 days. RESULTS Clonidine, as compared with placebo, did not reduce the number of primary-outcome events (367 and 339, respectively; hazard ratio with clonidine, 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 1.26; P=0.29). Myocardial infarction occurred in 329 patients (6.6%) assigned to clonidine and in 295 patients (5.9%) assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.30; P=0.18). Significantly more patients in the clonidine group than in the placebo group had clinically important hypotension (2385 patients [47.6%] vs. 1854 patients [37.1%]; hazard ratio 1.32; 95% CI, 1.24 to 1.40; P<0.001). Clonidine, as compared with placebo, was associated with an increased rate of nonfatal cardiac arrest (0.3% [16 patients] vs. 0.1% [5 patients]; hazard ratio, 3.20; 95% CI, 1.17 to 8.73; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS Administration of low-dose clonidine in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery did not reduce the rate of the composite outcome of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction; it did, however, increase the risk of clinically important hypotension and nonfatal cardiac arrest. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; POISE-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01082874.).

Anaesthetic drugs and survival: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized trials in cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND Many studies have compared desflurane, isoflurane, sevoflurane, total i.v. anaesthesia (TIVA), or all in cardiac surgery to assess their effects on patient survival. METHODS We performed standard pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analyses; the latter allows indirect assessments if any of the anaesthetic agents were not compared in head-to-head trials. Pertinent studies were identified using BioMedCentral, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (last updated in June 2012). RESULTS We identified 38 randomized trials with survival data published between 1991 and 2012, with most studies (63%) done in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patients with standard cardiopulmonary bypass. Standard meta-analysis showed that the use of a volatile agent was associated with a reduction in mortality when compared with TIVA at the longest follow-up available [25/1994 (1.3%) in the volatile group vs 43/1648 (2.6%) in the TIVA arm, odds ratio (OR)=0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33-0.81, P-value for effect=0.004, number needed to treat 74, I(2)=0%] with results confirmed in trials with low risk of bias, in large trials, and when including only CABG studies. Bayesian network meta-analysis showed that sevoflurane (OR=0.31, 95% credible interval 0.14-0.64) and desflurane (OR=0.43, 95% credible interval 0.21-0.82) were individually associated with a reduction in mortality when compared with TIVA. CONCLUSIONS Anaesthesia with volatile agents appears to reduce mortality after cardiac surgery when compared with TIVA, especially when sevoflurane or desflurane is used. A large, multicentre trial is warranted to confirm that long-term survival is significantly affected by the choice of anaesthetic.

Randomized Evidence for Reduction of Perioperative Mortality

OBJECTIVE With more than 220 million major surgical procedures performed annually, perioperative interventions leading to even minor mortality reductions would save thousands of lives per year. This international consensus conference aimed to identify all nonsurgical interventions that increase or reduce perioperative mortality as suggested by randomized evidence. DESIGN AND SETTING A web-based international consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS More than 1,000 physicians from 77 countries participated in this web-based consensus conference. INTERVENTIONS Systematic literature searches (MEDLINE/PubMed, June 8, 2011) were used to identify the papers with a statistically significant effect on mortality together with contacts with experts. Interventions were considered eligible for evaluation if they (1) were published in peer-reviewed journals, (2) dealt with a nonsurgical intervention (drug/technique/strategy) in adult patients undergoing surgery, and (3) provided a statistically significant mortality increase or reduction as suggested by a randomized trial or meta-analysis of randomized trials. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Fourteen interventions that might change perioperative mortality in adult surgery were identified. Interventions that might reduce mortality include chlorhexidine oral rinse, clonidine, insulin, intra-aortic balloon pump, leukodepletion, levosimendan, neuraxial anesthesia, noninvasive respiratory support, hemodynamic optimization, oxygen, selective decontamination of the digestive tract, and volatile anesthetics. In contrast, aprotinin and extended-release metoprolol might increase mortality. CONCLUSIONS Future research and health care funding should be directed toward studying and evaluating these interventions.

Noninvasive ventilation and survival in acute care settings: a comprehensive systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials.

Objective:Noninvasive ventilation is increasingly applied to prevent or treat acute respiratory failure, but its benefit on survival is still controversial for many indications. We performed a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials focused on the effect of noninvasive ventilation on mortality. Data Sources:BioMedCentral, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials (updated December 31, 2013) were searched. Study Selection:We included all the randomized controlled trials published in the last 20 years performed in adults, reporting mortality, comparing noninvasive ventilation to any other treatment for prevention or treatment of acute respiratory failure or as a tool allowing an earlier extubation. Studies with unclear methodology, comparing two noninvasive ventilation modalities, or in palliative settings were excluded. Data Extraction:We extracted data on mortality, study design, population, clinical setting, comparator, and follow-up duration. Data Synthesis:Seventy-eight studies were analyzed. Noninvasive ventilation was associated with a reduction in mortality (12.6% in the noninvasive ventilation group vs 17.8% in the control arm; risk ratio = 0.73 [0.66–0.81]; p < 0.001; number needed to treat = 19 with 7,365 patients included) at the longest available follow-up. Mortality was reduced when noninvasive ventilation was used to treat (14.2% vs 20.6%; risk ratio = 0.72; p < 0.001; number needed to treat = 16, with survival improved in pulmonary edema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation, acute respiratory failure of mixed etiologies, and postoperative acute respiratory failure) or to prevent acute respiratory failure (5.3% vs 8.3%; risk ratio = 0.64 [0.46–0.90]; number needed to treat = 34, with survival improved in postextubation ICU patients), but not when used to facilitate an earlier extubation. Overall results were confirmed for hospital mortality. Patients randomized to noninvasive ventilation maintained the survival benefit even in studies allowing crossover of controls to noninvasive ventilation as rescue treatment. Conclusions:This comprehensive metaanalysis suggests that noninvasive ventilation improves survival in acute care settings. The benefit could be lost in some subgroups of patients if noninvasive ventilation is applied late as a rescue treatment. Whenever noninvasive ventilation is indicated, an early adoption should be promoted.

Mortality in multicenter critical care trials: An analysis of interventions with a significant effect

Objectives:We aimed to identify all treatments that affect mortality in adult critically ill patients in multicenter randomized controlled trials. We also evaluated the methodological aspects of these studies, and we surveyed clinicians’ opinion and usual practice for the selected interventions. Data Sources:MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were searched. Further articles were suggested for inclusion from experts and cross-check of references. Study Selection:We selected the articles that fulfilled the following criteria: publication in a peer-reviewed journal; multicenter randomized controlled trial design; dealing with nonsurgical interventions in adult critically ill patients; and statistically significant effect in unadjusted landmark mortality. A consensus conference assessed all interventions and excluded those with lack of reproducibility, lack of generalizability, high probability of type I error, major baseline imbalances between intervention and control groups, major design flaws, contradiction by subsequent larger higher quality trials, modified intention to treat analysis, effect found only after adjustments, and lack of biological plausibility. Data Extraction:For all selected studies, we recorded the intervention and its comparator, the setting, the sample size, whether enrollment was completed or interrupted, the presence of blinding, the effect size, and the duration of follow-up. Data Synthesis:We found 15 interventions that affected mortality in 24 multicenter randomized controlled trials. Median sample size was small (199 patients) as was median centers number (10). Blinded trials enrolled significantly more patients and involved more centers. Multicenter randomized controlled trials showing harm also involved significantly more centers and more patients (p = 0.016 and p = 0.04, respectively). Five hundred fifty-five clinicians from 61 countries showed variable agreement on perceived validity of such interventions. Conclusions:We identified 15 treatments that decreased/increased mortality in critically ill patients in 24 multicenter randomized controlled trials. However, design affected trial size and larger trials were more likely to show harm. Finally, clinicians view of such trials and their translation into practice varied.

Reducing Mortality in Acute Kidney Injury Patients: Systematic Review and International Web-Based Survey

OBJECTIVE To identify all interventions that increase or reduce mortality in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) and to establish the agreement between stated beliefs and actual practice in this setting. DESIGN AND SETTING Systematic literature review and international web-based survey. PARTICIPANTS More than 300 physicians from 62 countries. INTERVENTIONS Several databases, including MEDLINE/PubMed, were searched with no time limits (updated February 14, 2012) to identify all the drugs/techniques/strategies that fulfilled all the following criteria: (a) published in a peer-reviewed journal, (b) dealing with critically ill adult patients with or at risk for acute kidney injury, and (c) reporting a statistically significant reduction or increase in mortality. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Of the 18 identified interventions, 15 reduced mortality and 3 increased mortality. Perioperative hemodynamic optimization, albumin in cirrhotic patients, terlipressin for hepatorenal syndrome type 1, human immunoglobulin, peri-angiography hemofiltration, fenoldopam, plasma exchange in multiple-myeloma-associated AKI, increased intensity of renal replacement therapy (RRT), CVVH in severely burned patients, vasopressin in septic shock, furosemide by continuous infusion, citrate in continuous RRT, N-acetylcysteine, continuous and early RRT might reduce mortality in critically ill patients with or at risk for AKI; positive fluid balance, hydroxyethyl starch and loop diuretics might increase mortality in critically ill patients with or at risk for AKI. Web-based opinion differed from consensus opinion for 30% of interventions and self-reported practice for 3 interventions. CONCLUSION The authors identified all interventions with at least 1 study suggesting a significant effect on mortality in patients with or at risk of AKI and found that there is discordance between participant stated beliefs and actual practice regarding these topics.

Perioperative Aspirin and Clonidine and Risk of Acute Kidney Injury A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Acute kidney injury, a common complication of surgery, is associated with poor outcomes and high health care costs. Some studies suggest aspirin or clonidine administered during the perioperative period reduces the risk of acute kidney injury; however, these effects are uncertain and each intervention has the potential for harm. OBJECTIVE To determine whether aspirin compared with placebo, and clonidine compared with placebo, alters the risk of perioperative acute kidney injury. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A 2 × 2 factorial randomized, blinded, clinical trial of 6905 patients undergoing noncardiac surgery from 88 centers in 22 countries with consecutive patients enrolled between January 2011 and December 2013. INTERVENTIONS Patients were assigned to take aspirin (200 mg) or placebo 2 to 4 hours before surgery and then aspirin (100 mg) or placebo daily up to 30 days after surgery, and were assigned to take oral clonidine (0.2 mg) or placebo 2 to 4 hours before surgery, and then a transdermal clonidine patch (which provided clonidine at 0.2 mg/d) or placebo patch that remained until 72 hours after surgery. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Acute kidney injury was primarily defined as an increase in serum creatinine concentration from the preoperative concentration by either an increase of 0.3 mg/dL or greater (≥26.5 μmol/L) within 48 hours of surgery or an increase of 50% or greater within 7 days of surgery. RESULTS Aspirin (n = 3443) vs placebo (n = 3462) did not alter the risk of acute kidney injury (13.4% vs 12.3%, respectively; adjusted relative risk, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96-1.25). Clonidine (n = 3453) vs placebo (n = 3452) did not alter the risk of acute kidney injury (13.0% vs 12.7%, respectively; adjusted relative risk, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.90-1.18). Aspirin increased the risk of major bleeding. In a post hoc analysis, major bleeding was associated with a greater risk of subsequent acute kidney injury (23.3% when bleeding was present vs 12.3% when bleeding was absent; adjusted hazard ratio, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.72-2.83). Similarly, clonidine increased the risk of clinically important hypotension. In a post hoc analysis, clinically important hypotension was associated with a greater risk of subsequent acute kidney injury (14.3% when hypotension was present vs 11.8% when hypotension was absent; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.14-1.58). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery, neither aspirin nor clonidine administered perioperatively reduced the risk of acute kidney injury. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01082874.

A Bayesian network meta-analysis on the effect of inodilatory agents on mortality

BACKGROUND Inodilators are commonly used in critically ill patients, but their effect on survival has not been properly studied to date. The objective of this work was to conduct a network meta-analysis on the effects of inodilators on survival in adult cardiac surgery patients, and to compare and rank drugs that have not been adequately compared in head-to-head trials. METHODS Relevant studies were independently searched in BioMedCentral, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials (updated on May 1, 2014). The criteria for inclusion were: random allocation to treatment with at least one group receiving dobutamine, enoximone, levosimendan, or milrinone and at least another group receiving the above inodilators or placebo, performed in cardiac surgical patients. The endpoint was to identify differences in mortality at longest follow-up available. RESULTS The 46 included trials were published between 1995 and 2014 and randomised 2647 patients. The Bayesian network meta-analysis found that only the use of levosimendan was associated with a decrease in mortality when compared with placebo (posterior mean of OR=0.48, 95% CrI 0.28 to 0.80). The posterior distribution of the probability for each inodilator to be the best and the worst drug showed that levosimendan is the best agent to improve survival after cardiac surgery. The sensitivity analyses performed did not produce different interpretative result. CONCLUSION Levosimendan seems to be the most efficacious inodilator to improve survival in cardiac surgery.

Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam as preanesthetic medication in children: a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

The preoperative period is a stressing occurrence for most people undergoing surgery, in particular children. Approximately 50–75% of children undergoing surgery develop anxiety which is associated with distress on emergence from anesthesia and with later postoperative behavioral problems. Premedication, commonly performed with benzodiazepines, reduces preoperative anxiety, facilitates separation from parents, and promotes acceptance of mask induction. Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective α2‐agonist with sedative and analgesic properties. A meta‐analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on dexmedetomidine versus midazolam was performed to evaluate its efficacy in improving perioperative sedation and analgesia, and in reducing postoperative agitation when used as a preanesthetic medication in children.