Search

BACKGROUND Consensus recommendations regarding the threshold levels of cardiac troponin elevations for the definition of perioperative myocardial infarction and clinically important periprocedural myocardial injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery range widely (from >10 times to >= 70 times the upper reference limit for the assay). Limited evidence is available to support these recommendations. METHODS We undertook an international prospective cohort study involving patients 18 years of age or older who underwent cardiac surgery. High-sensitivity cardiac troponin I measurements (upper reference limit, 26 ng per liter) were obtained 3 to 12 hours after surgery and on days 1, 2, and 3 after surgery. We performed Cox analyses using a regression spline that explored the relationship between peak troponin measurements and 30-day mortality, adjusting for scores on the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II (which estimates the risk of death after cardiac surgery on the basis of 18 variables, including age and sex). RESULTS Of 13,862 patients included in the study, 296 (2.1%) died within 30 days after surgery. Among patients who underwent isolated coronary-artery bypass grafting or aortic-valve replacement or repair, the threshold troponin level, measured within 1 day after surgery, that was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio of more than 1.00 for death within 30 days was 5670 ng per liter (95% confidence interval [CI], 1045 to 8260), a level 218 times the upper reference limit. Among patients who underwent other cardiac surgery, the corresponding threshold troponin level was 12,981 ng per liter (95% CI, 2673 to 16,591), a level 499 times the upper reference limit. CONCLUSIONS The levels of high-sensitivity troponin I after cardiac surgery that were associated with an increased risk of death within 30 days were substantially higher than levels currently recommended to define clinically important periprocedural myocardial injury. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; VISION Cardiac Surgery ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01842568.)

Background Cardiac and major vascular surgeries are common surgical procedures associated with high rates of postsurgical complications and related hospital readmission. In-hospital remote automated monitoring (RAM) and virtual hospital-to-home patient care systems have major potential to improve patient outcomes following cardiac and major vascular surgery. However, the science of deploying and evaluating these systems is complex and subject to risk of implementation failure. Objective As a precursor to a randomized controlled trial (RCT), this user testing study aimed to examine user performance and acceptance of a RAM and virtual hospital-to-home care intervention, using Philip’s Guardian and Electronic Transition to Ambulatory Care (eTrAC) technologies, respectively. Methods Nurses and patients participated in systems training and individual case-based user testing at two participating sites in Canada and the United Kingdom. Participants were video recorded and asked to think aloud while completing required user tasks and while being rated on user performance. Feedback was also solicited about the user experience, including user satisfaction and acceptance, through use of the Net Promoter Scale (NPS) survey and debrief interviews. Results A total of 37 participants (26 nurses and 11 patients) completed user testing. The majority of nurse and patient participants were able to complete most required tasks independently, demonstrating comprehension and retention of required Guardian and eTrAC system workflows. Tasks which required additional prompting by the facilitator, for some, were related to the use of system features that enable continuous transmission of patient vital signs (eg, pairing wireless sensors to the patient) and assigning remote patient monitoring protocols. NPS scores by user group (nurses using Guardian: mean 8.8, SD 0.89; nurses using eTrAC: mean 7.7, SD 1.4; patients using eTrAC: mean 9.2, SD 0.75), overall NPS scores, and participant debrief interviews indicated nurse and patient satisfaction and acceptance of the Guardian and eTrAC systems. Both user groups stressed the need for additional opportunities to practice in order to become comfortable and proficient in the use of these systems. Conclusions User testing indicated a high degree of user acceptance of Philips’ Guardian and eTrAC systems among nurses and patients. Key insights were provided that informed refinement of clinical workflow training and systems implementation. These results were used to optimize workflows before the launch of an international RCT of in-hospital RAM and virtual hospital-to-home care for patients undergoing cardiac and major vascular surgery.

Worldwide, more than 230 million adults have major noncardiac surgery each year. Although surgery can improve quality and duration of life, it can also precipitate major complications. Moreover, a substantial proportion of deaths occur after discharge. Current systems for monitoring patients postoperatively, on surgical wards and after transition to home, are inadequate. On the surgical ward, vital signs evaluation usually occurs only every 4-8 hours. Reduced in-hospital ward monitoring, followed by no vital signs monitoring at home, leads to thousands of cases of undetected/delayed detection of hemodynamic compromise. In this article we review work to date on postoperative remote automated monitoring on surgical wards and strategy for advancing this field. Key considerations for overcoming current barriers to implementing remote automated monitoring in Canada are also presented.

Aims The aim of this review was to assess the effect of concomitant surgical atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation on postoperative freedom from AF and patient-important outcomes. Methods and results We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases from inception to May 2016 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating surgical AF ablation using any lesion set vs. no surgical AF ablation in adults with AF undergoing cardiac surgery. We performed screening, risk-of-bias evaluation, and data collection independently and in duplicate. We evaluated risk of bias with the modified Cochrane tool, quality of evidence using GRADE framework, and pooled data with a random-effects model. Of the 23 included studies, only one was considered at low risk of bias. Surgical AF ablation was associated with more freedom from AF at 12 months [relative risk (RR) = 2.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.92-2.80; P

BACKGROUND Cardiac and major vascular surgeries are common surgical procedures associated with high rates of postsurgical complications and related hospital readmission. In-hospital remote automated monitoring (RAM) and virtual hospital-to-home patient care systems have major potential to improve patient outcomes following cardiac and major vascular surgery. However, the science of deploying and evaluating these systems is complex and subject to risk of implementation failure. OBJECTIVE As a precursor to a randomized controlled trial (RCT), this user testing study aimed to examine user performance and acceptance of a RAM and virtual hospital-to-home care intervention, using Philip’s Guardian and Electronic Transition to Ambulatory Care (eTrAC) technologies, respectively. METHODS Nurses and patients participated in systems training and individual case-based user testing at two participating sites in Canada and the United Kingdom. Participants were video recorded and asked to think aloud while completing required user tasks and while being rated on user performance. Feedback was also solicited about the user experience, including user satisfaction and acceptance, through use of the Net Promoter Scale (NPS) survey and debrief interviews. RESULTS A total of 37 participants (26 nurses and 11 patients) completed user testing. The majority of nurse and patient participants were able to complete most required tasks independently, demonstrating comprehension and retention of required Guardian and eTrAC system workflows. Tasks which required additional prompting by the facilitator, for some, were related to the use of system features that enable continuous transmission of patient vital signs (eg, pairing wireless sensors to the patient) and assigning remote patient monitoring protocols. NPS scores by user group (nurses using Guardian: mean 8.8, SD 0.89; nurses using eTrAC: mean 7.7, SD 1.4; patients using eTrAC: mean 9.2, SD 0.75), overall NPS scores, and participant debrief interviews indicated nurse and patient satisfaction and acceptance of the Guardian and eTrAC systems. Both user groups stressed the need for additional opportunities to practice in order to become comfortable and proficient in the use of these systems. CONCLUSIONS User testing indicated a high degree of user acceptance of Philips’ Guardian and eTrAC systems among nurses and patients. Key insights were provided that informed refinement of clinical workflow training and systems implementation. These results were used to optimize workflows before the launch of an international RCT of in-hospital RAM and virtual hospital-to-home care for patients undergoing cardiac and major vascular surgery.

Background Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) induces a systemic inflammatory reaction that may contribute to postoperative complications. Preventing this reaction with steroids may improve outcomes. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the impact of prophylactic steroids on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing on-pump cardiac surgery. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing perioperative corticosteroid administration with a control group in adults undergoing CPB. Outcomes of interest included mortality, myocardial infarction, and new onset atrial fibrillation. We assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Results Fifty-six RCTs published between 1977 and 2015 were included in this meta-analysis. Mortality was not significantly different between groups [3.0% (215/7258 patients) in the steroid group and 3.5% (252/7202 patients) in the placebo group; relative risk (RR), 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.71–1.01; P=0.07; I2 = 0%]. Myocardial injury was more frequent in the steroid group [8.0% (560/6989 patients), compared with 6.9% (476/6929 patients); RR, 1.17, 95% CI, 1.04–1.31; P=0.008; I2=0%]. New onset atrial fibrillation was lower in the steroid group [25.7% (1792/6984 patients) compared with 28.3% (1969/6964 patients), RR, 0.91, 95% CI, 0.86–0.96, P=0.0005, I2=43%]; this beneficial effect was limited to small trials (P for interaction Conclusions After randomising 16 013 patients, steroid administration at the time of cardiac surgery had an unclear impact on mortality, increased the risk of myocardial injury, and the impact on atrial fibrillation should be viewed with caution given that large trials showed no effect.

Background: Tens of thousands of cardiac and vascular surgeries (CaVS) are performed on seniors in Canada and the United Kingdom each year to improve survival, relieve disease symptoms, and improve health-related quality of life (HRQL). However, chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP), undetected or delayed detection of hemodynamic compromise, complications, and related poor functional status are major problems for substantial numbers of patients during the recovery process. To tackle this problem, we aim to refine and test the effectiveness of an eHealth-enabled service delivery intervention, TecHnology-Enabled remote monitoring and Self-MAnagemenT—VIsion for patient EmpoWerment following Cardiac and VasculaR surgery (THE SMArTVIEW, CoVeRed), which combines remote monitoring, education, and self-management training to optimize recovery outcomes and experience of seniors undergoing CaVS in Canada and the United Kingdom. Objective: Our objectives are to (1) refine SMArTVIEW via high-fidelity user testing and (2) examine the effectiveness of SMArTVIEW via a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Methods: CaVS patients and clinicians will engage in two cycles of focus groups and usability testing at each site; feedback will be elicited about expectations and experience of SMArTVIEW, in context. The data will be used to refine the SMArTVIEW eHealth delivery program. Upon transfer to the surgical ward (ie, post-intensive care unit [ICU]), 256 CaVS patients will be reassessed postoperatively and randomly allocated via an interactive Web randomization system to the intervention group or usual care. The SMArTVIEW intervention will run from surgical ward day 2 until 8 weeks following surgery. Outcome assessments will occur on postoperative day 30; at week 8; and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. The primary outcome is worst postop pain intensity upon movement in the previous 24 hours (Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form), averaged across the previous 14 days. Secondary outcomes include a composite of postoperative complications related to hemodynamic compromise—death, myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke— all-cause mortality and surgical site infections, functional status (Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-12), depressive symptoms (Geriatric Depression Scale), health service utilization-related costs (health service utilization data from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences data repository), and patient-level cost of recovery (Ambulatory Home Care Record). A linear mixed model will be used to assess the effects of the intervention on the primary outcome, with an a priori contrast of weekly average worst pain intensity upon movement to evaluate the primary endpoint of pain at 8 weeks postoperation. We will also examine the incremental cost of the intervention compared to usual care using a regression model to estimate the difference in expected health care costs between groups. Results: Study start-up is underway and usability testing is scheduled to begin in the fall of 2016. Conclusions: Given our experience, dedicated industry partners, and related RCT infrastructure, we are confident we can make a lasting contribution to improving the care of seniors who undergo CaVS. [JMIR Res Protoc 2016;5(3):e149]

Introduction Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects 10% of patients undergoing cardiac surgery and is an independent risk factor for all-cause mortality, ischaemic stroke and heart failure. Surgical AF ablation has been shown to significantly improve maintenance of sinus rhythm, however, small to medium size trials conducted to date lack the power required to assess patient-important outcomes such as mortality, stroke, heart failure and health-related quality of life. Moreover, a recent randomised trial (RCT) suggested harm by surgical AF ablation with an almost threefold increase in the requirement for permanent pacemaker postablation. We aim to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate efficacy and safety of surgical AF ablation compared to no surgical ablation. Methods and analysis We will search Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE for RCTs evaluating the use of surgical AF ablation, including any lesion set, versus no surgical AF ablation in adults with AF undergoing any type of cardiac surgery. Outcomes of interest include mortality, embolic events, quality of life, rehospitalisation, freedom from AF and adverse events, including need for pacemaker and worsening heart failure. Independently and in duplicate, reviewers will screen references, assess eligibility of potentially relevant studies using predefined eligibility criteria and collect data using prepiloted forms. We will pool data using a random effects model and present results as relative risk with 95% CIs for dichotomous outcomes and as mean difference with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We will assess risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration tool, and quality of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Ethics and dissemination Our results will help guide clinical practice by providing the most comprehensive analysis of risks and benefits associated with the procedure. Our results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. Trial registration number CRD42015025988.