Search

Introduction In non-elderly adults, aortic valve replacement (AVR) with conventional prostheses yield poor long-term outcomes. Recent publications suggest a benefit of the Ross procedure over conventional AVR and highlight the need for high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCTs) on the optimal AVR. We have initiated a pilot trial assess two feasibility criteria and one assumption: (1) evaluate the capacity to enrol six patients per centre per year in at least five international centre, (2) validate greater than 90% compliance with allocation and (3) to validate the proportion of mechanical (≥65%) vs biological (≤35%) valves in the conventional arm.Methods and analysis Ross for Valve replacement In AduLts (REVIVAL) is a multinational, expertise-based RCT in adults aged 18–60 years undergoing AVR, comparing the Ross procedure versus one of the alternative approaches (mechanical vs stented or stentless bioprosthesis). The feasibility objectives will be assessed after randomising 60 patients; we will then make a decision regarding whether to expand the trial with the current protocol. We will ultimately examine the impact of the Ross procedure as compared with conventional AVR in non-elderly adults on survival free of valve-related life-threatening complications (major bleeding, systemic thromboembolism, valve thrombosis and valve reoperation) over the duration of follow-up. The objectives of the pilot trial will be analysed using descriptive statistics. In the full trial, the intention-to-treat principle will guide all primary analyses. A time-to-event analysis will be performed and Kaplan-Meier survival curves with comparison between groups using a log rank test will be presented.Ethics and dissemination REVIVAL will answer whether non-elderly adults benefit from the Ross procedure over conventional valve replacement. The final results at major meetings, journals, regional seminars, hospital rounds and via the Reducing Global Perioperative Risk Multimedia Resource Centre.Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03798782Protocol version January 29, 2019 (Final Version 1.0)

Introduction Perioperative benzodiazepines are used because of their anxiolytic, sedative and amnestic effects. Evidence has demonstrated an association of benzodiazepines with adverse neuropsychiatric effects. Nonetheless, because of their potential benefits, perioperative benzodiazepines continue to be used routinely. We seek to evaluate the body of evidence of the risks and benefits of benzodiazepine use during the perioperative period.Methods and analysis We will search Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science from inception to March 2019 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies evaluating the administration of benzodiazepine medications as compared with all other medications (or nothing) in patients undergoing cardiac and non-cardiac surgery. We will exclude studies assessing the use of benzodiazepines for procedural sedation or day surgery. We will examine the impact of giving these medications before, during and after surgery. Outcomes of interest include the incidence of delirium, duration of delirium, postprocedure cognitive change, the incidence of intraoperative awareness, patient satisfaction/quality of life/quality of recovery, length-of-stay (LOS) in the intensive care unit (ICU), hospital LOS and in-hospital mortality.Reviewers will screen references and assess eligibility using predefined criteria independently and in duplicate. Two reviewers will independently collect data using prepiloted forms. We will present results separately for RCTs and observational studies. We will pool data using a random effect model and present results as relative risk with 95% CIs for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We will pool adjusted ORs for observational studies. We will assess risk of bias for individual studies using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for RCTs. For observational studies, we will use tools designed by the Clinical Advances through Research and Information Translation group. Quality of evidence for each outcome will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Ethics and dissemination This systematic review involves no patient contact and no interaction with healthcare providers or systems. As such, we did not seek ethics board approval. We will disseminate the findings of our systematic review through the presentation at peer-reviewed conferences and by seeking publication in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration number CRD42019128144

Introduction Bleeding during cardiac surgery is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Tranexamic acid is an antifibrinolytic with proven efficacy in major surgeries. Current clinical practice guidelines recommend intraoperative use in cardiac procedures. However, several complications have been reported with tranexamic acid including seizures. This review intends to summarise the evidence examining the efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.Methods/design We will search MEDLINE, Embase, PubMED, ACPJC, CINAHL and the Cochrane trial registry for eligible randomised controlled trials, the search dates for all databases will be from inception until 1 January 2019, investigating the perioperative use of topical and/or intravenous tranexamic acid as a stand-alone antifibrinolytic agent compared with placebo in patients undergoing open cardiac surgery. We categorised outcomes as patient critical or patient important. Selected patient-critical outcomes are: mortality (intensive care unit, hospital and 30-day endpoints), reoperation within 24 hours, postoperative bleeding requiring transfusion of packed red blood cells, myocardial infarction, stroke, pulmonary embolism, bowel infarction, upper or lower limb deep vein thrombosis and seizures. Those outcomes, we perceived as clinical experts to be most patient valued and patients were not involved in outcomes selection process. We will not apply publication date, language, journal or methodological quality restrictions. Two reviewers will independently screen and identify eligible studies using predefined eligibility criteria and then review full reports of all potentially relevant citations. A third reviewer will resolve disagreements if consensus cannot be achieved. We will present the results as relative risk with 95% CIs for dichotomous outcomes and as mean difference or standardised mean difference for continuous outcomes with 95% CIs. We will assess the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Ethics and dissemination Formal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publicationTrial registration number CRD42018105904

Introduction Steroids In caRdiac Surgery trial (SIRS) is a large international randomised controlled trial of methylprednisolone or placebo in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with the use of a cardiopulmonary bypass pump. At the time of surgery, compared with placebo, methylprednisolone divided into two intravenous doses of 250 mg each may reduce the risk of postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI).Methods and analysis With respect to the study schedule, over 7000 substudy eligible patients from 81 centres in 18 countries were randomised in December 2013. The authors will use a logistic regression to estimate the adjusted OR of methylprednisolone versus placebo on the primary outcome of AKI in the 14 days following surgery (a postoperative increase in serum creatinine of ≥50%, or ≥26.5 μmol/L, from the preoperative value). The stage of AKI will also be considered, as will the outcome of AKI in those with and without preoperative chronic kidney disease. After receipt of grant funding, the authors began to record additional perioperative serum creatinine measurements in consecutive patients enrolled at substudy participating centres, and patients were invited to enroll in a 6-month serum creatinine collection. In these trial subpopulations, the authors will consider the outcome of AKI defined in alternate ways, and the outcome of a 6-month change in kidney function from the preoperative value.Ethics and dissemination The authors were competitively awarded a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for this SIRS AKI substudy. Ethics approval was obtained for additional serum creatinine recordings in consecutive patients enrolled at participating centres. The additional kidney data collection first began for patients enrolled after 1 March 2012. In patients who provided consent, the last 6-month kidney outcome data will be collected in 2014. The results will be reported no later than 2015.Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT00427388.