Search

Background Risk prediction models are used for many purposes in emergency surgery, including critical care triage and benchmarking. Several risk prediction models have been developed, and some are used for purposes other than those for which they were developed. We aim to provide an overview of the existing literature on risk prediction models used in emergency surgery and highlight knowledge gaps. Methods We will conduct a scoping review on risk prediction models used for patients undergoing emergency surgery in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We will search Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library and include all study designs. We aim to answer the following questions: (1) What risk prediction models are used in emergency surgery? (2) Which variables are used in these models? (3) Which surgical specialties are the models used for? (4) Have the models been externally validated? (5) Where have the models been externally validated? (6) What purposes were the models developed for? (7) What are the strengths and limitations of the included models? We will summarize the results descriptively. The certainty of evidence will be evaluated using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Conclusion The outlined scoping review will summarize the existing literature on risk prediction models used in emergency surgery and highlight knowledge gaps., Background: Risk prediction models are used for many purposes in emergency surgery, including critical care triage and benchmarking. Several risk prediction models have been developed, and some are used for purposes other than those for which they were developed. We aim to provide an overview of the existing literature on risk prediction models used in emergency surgery and highlight knowledge gaps. Methods: We will conduct a scoping review on risk prediction models used for patients undergoing emergency surgery in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We will search Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library and include all study designs. We aim to answer the following questions: (1) What risk prediction models are used in emergency surgery? (2) Which variables are used in these models? (3) Which surgical specialties are the models used for? (4) Have the models been externally validated? (5) Where have the models been externally validated? (6) What purposes were the models developed for? (7) What are the strengths and limitations of the included models? We will summarize the results descriptively. The certainty of evidence will be evaluated using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Conclusion: The outlined scoping review will summarize the existing literature on risk prediction models used in emergency surgery and highlight knowledge gaps.

Background An increasing number of patients undergo surgical procedures worldwide each year, and despite advances in quality and care, morbidity and mortality rates remain high. Perioperative hypotension is a well-described condition, and is associated with adverse outcomes. Both fluids and vasoactive agents are commonly used to treat hypotension, however, whether one vasoactive agent is preferable over another has yet to be explored. Methods In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) statement, we plan to conduct a scoping review of studies assessing the use of vasoactive agents in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. We will provide an overview of indications, agents used and outcomes assessed. We will assess and report the certainty of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results We will provide descriptive analyses of the included studies accompanied by tabulated results. Conclusion The outlined scoping review will provide a summary of the body of evidence on the use of vasoactive agents in the non-cardiac surgical population.

Background: Epidural analgesia is an effective technique advocated worldwide for postoperative analgesia after a wide range of surgical procedures. Despite the benefits of epidural analgesia for pain management, systematic education of ward nurses in managing epidural analgesia appears to be lacking. Methods: The aim of the proposed scoping review is to map the body of evidence and identify training programmes for healthcare professionals in the safe management of postoperative epidural analgesia. The methodology will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). In addition, the five main steps set forth by Arksey and O'Malley and refined by Levac for guidance of the process will be used. The scoping review will include any study design of any date, design, setting and duration. Results: We will present results descriptively, accompanied with visual presentations as tables and graphs. Conclusion: The outlined scoping review will provide an overview of existing training programmes for healthcare professionals in the safe management of postoperative epidural analgesia and map the body of available evidence on the topic. The study may support the development of a training programme for ward nurses caring for patients receiving postoperative epidural analgesia.

Evidence in perioperative care is insufficient. There is an urgent need for large perioperative research programmes, including pragmatic randomised trials, testing daily clinical treatments and unanswered question, thereby providing solid evidence for effects of interventions given to a large and growing number of patients undergoing surgery and anaesthesia. This may be achieved through large collaborations. Collaboration for Evidence-based Practice and Research in Anaesthesia (CEPRA) is a novel collaborative research network founded to pursue evidence-based answers to major clinical questions in perioperative medicine. The aims of CEPRA are to (1) improve clinical treatment and outcomes and optimise the use of resources for patients undergoing anaesthesia and perioperative care, and (2) disseminate results and inform caretakers, patients and relatives, and policymakers of evidence-based treatments in anaesthesia and perioperative medicine. CEPRA is inclusive in its concept. We aim to extend our collaboration with all relevant clinical collaborators and patient associations and representatives. Although initiated in Denmark, CEPRA seeks to develop an international network infrastructure, for example, with other Nordic countries. The work of CEPRA will follow the highest methodological standards. The organisation aims to structure and optimise any element of the research collaboration to reduce economic costs and harness benefits from well-functioning research infrastructure. This includes successive continuation of trials, harmonisation of outcomes, and alignment of data management systems. This paper presents the initiation and visions of the CEPRA network. CEPRA aims to be inclusive, patient-focused, methodologically sound, and to optimise all aspects of research logistics. This will translate into faster research conduct, reliable results, and accelerated clinical implementation of results, thereby benefiting millions of patients whilst being cost and labour-s

Aims Describe and compare incidences across age groups of rehospitalization, repeated aortic surgery, and death in patients who survived surgery and hospitalization for type A aortic dissection. Methods and results From Danish nationwide registries, we identified patients hospitalized with Stanford type A aortic dissections (2006-2018). Survivors of hospitalization and surgery on the ascending aorta and/or aortic arch comprised the study population (n = 606, 36 (38.9%) 69 years old (group III)). During the first year, 62.5% were re-hospitalized and 1.4% underwent repeated aortic surgery with no significant differences across age groups (P = 0.68 and P = 0.39, respectively). Further, 5.9% died (group I: 3.0%, group II: 8.3%, group III: 7.4%, P = 0.04). After 10 years, 8.0% had undergone repeated aortic surgery (group I: 11.5%, group II: 8.5%, group III: 1.6%, P = 0.04) and 10.2% (group I), 17.0% (group II), and 22.2% (group III) had died (P = 0.01). Using multivariable Cox regression analysis, we described long-term outcomes comparing age groups. No age differences were found in one-year outcomes, while age > 69 years compared with age < 60 years was associated with a lower rate of repeated aortic surgery [hazard ratio 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04-0.78] and a higher rate of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 2.44, 95% CI 1.37-4.34) in the 10-year analyses. Conclusion Rehospitalisations in the first year after discharge were common in all age groups, but survival was high. Repeated aortic surgery was significantly more common among younger than older patients.

Background: Many elderly patients are receiving antithrombotics, which may increase intra-operative blood loss. We aimed to assess whether chronic antithrombotic therapy was associated with intra-operative transfusion of packed red blood cells in patients at least 80 years of age undergoing elective procedures. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of the prospective, observational European multicentre study entitled POSE (peri-interventional outcome study in the elderly) including 9497 surgical patients aged 80 years and older in 177 centres from October 2017 to December 2018. In this secondary analysis we included POSE patients who underwent elective procedures and with available data on chronic antithrombotic therapy. The primary outcome was intra-operative transfusion of packed red blood cells and results were analysed using multiple logistic regression model. We adjusted for the following predetermined explanatory variables: Age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anaesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System, baseline haemoglobin concentration, disseminated cancer, and type and severity of surgery. Results: A total of 7174 patients were included of whom 4073 (56.8%) were on antithrombotic therapy. Among patients on antithrombotic therapy 191 (4.7%) received intra-operative blood transfusion compared with 98 (3.2%) of patients not on chronic antithrombotic therapy (crude odds ratio: 1.51, 95% CI 1.18–1.94). Following multiple logistic regression analysis, the adjusted odds ratio was 0.98; 0.73–1.32. We found that chronic antithrombotic therapy was associated with intra-operative transfusion of packed red blood cells in elderly patients undergoing elective procedures in an unadjusted analysis, but not in a multivariate adjusted model.

The prevalence and impact of perioperative atrial fibrillation (AF) during an admission for major emergency abdominal surgery are sparsely examined. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the 30-day and 1-year outcomes (AF-related hospitalization, stroke, and all-cause mortality) in patients with and without perioperative AF to their major emergency abdominal surgery. All patients without a history of AF who underwent major emergency abdominal surgery from 2000 to 2019 and discharged alive were identified using Danish nationwide registries. Patients with and without perioperative AF (defined as new-onset AF during the index hospitalization) were matched 1:4 on age, gender, year of surgery, and type of surgery. The cumulative incidences and hazard ratios of outcomes were assessed using a multivariable Cox regression analysis comparing patients with and without perioperative AF. A total of 2% of patients were diagnosed with perioperative AF. The matched cohort comprised 792 and 3,168 patients with and without perioperative AF, respectively (median age 78 years [twenty-fifth to seventy-fifth percentile 70 to 83 years]; 43% men). Cumulative incidences of AF-related hospitalizations, stroke, and mortality 1 year after discharge were 30% versus 3.4%, 3.4% versus 2.7%, and 35% versus 22% in patients with and without perioperative AF, respectively. The 30-day outcomes were similarly elevated among patients with perioperative AF. Perioperative AF during an admission for major emergency abdominal surgery was associated with higher 30-day and 1-year rates of AF-related hospitalization and mortality and similar rates of stroke. These findings suggest that perioperative AF is a prognostic marker of increased morbidity and mortality in relation to major emergency abdominal surgery and warrants further investigation.

Risk prediction models are frequently used to identify high-risk patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. The National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) developed a risk prediction model specifically for emergency laparotomy patients, which was recently updated. In this study, we validated the updated NELA model in an external population. Furthermore, we compared it with three other risk prediction models: the original NELA model, the Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity (P-POSSUM) model, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS). We included adult patients undergoing emergency laparotomy at Zealand University Hospital, from March 2017 to January 2019, and Herlev Hospital, from November 2017 to January 2020. Variables included in the risk prediction models were collected retrospectively from the electronic patient records. Discrimination of the risk prediction models was evaluated with area under the curve (AUC) statistics, and calibration was assessed with Cox calibration regression. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Out of 1226 included patients, 146 patients (11.9%) died within 30 days. AUC (95% confidence interval) for 30-day mortality was 0.85 (0.82–0.88) for the updated NELA model, 0.84 (0.81–0.87) for the original NELA model, 0.81 (0.77–0.84) for the P-POSSUM model, and 0.76 (0.72–0.79) for the ASA-PS model. Calibration showed underestimation of mortality risk for both the updated NELA, original NELA and P-POSSUM models. The updated NELA risk prediction model performs well in this external validation study and may be used in similar settings. However, the model should only be used to discriminate between low- and high-risk patients, and not for prediction of individual risk due to underestimation of mortality.

Background: Hyperoxia and oxidative stress may be associated with increased risk of myocardial injury. The authors hypothesized that a perioperative inspiratory oxygen fraction of 0.80 versus 0.30 would increase the degree of myocardial injury within the first 3 days of surgery, and that an antioxidant intervention would reduce degree of myocardial injury versus placebo. Methods: A 2 × 2 factorial, randomized, blinded, multicenter trial enrolled patients older than 45 yr who had cardiovascular risk factors undergoing major noncardiac surgery. Factorial randomization allocated patients to one of two oxygen interventions from intubation and at 2 h after surgery, as well as antioxidant intervention or matching placebo. Antioxidants were 3 g IV vitamin C and 100 mg/kg N-acetylcysteine. The primary outcome was the degree of myocardial injury assessed by the area under the curve for high-sensitive troponin within the first 3 postoperative days. Results: The authors randomized 600 participants from April 2018 to January 2020 and analyzed 576 patients for the primary outcome. Baseline and intraoperative characteristics did not differ between groups. The primary outcome was 35 ng · day/l (19 to 58) in the 80% oxygen group; 35 ng · day/l (17 to 56) in the 30% oxygen group; 35 ng · day/l (19 to 54) in the antioxidants group; and 33 ng · day/l (18 to 57) in the placebo group. The median difference between oxygen groups was 1.5 ng · day/l (95% CI, -2.5 to 5.3; P = 0.202) and -0.5 ng · day/l (95% CI, -4.5 to 3.0; P = 0.228) between antioxidant groups. Mortality at 30 days occurred in 9 of 576 patients (1.6%; odds ratio, 2.01 [95% CI, 0.50 to 8.1]; P = 0.329 for the 80% vs. 30% oxygen groups; and odds ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.214 to 2.99]; P = 0.732 for the antioxidants vs. placebo groups). Conclusions: Perioperative interventions with high inspiratory oxygen fraction and antioxidants did not change the degree of myocardial injury within the first 3 days of surgery. This implies

Background Mortality following major emergency abdominal surgery is high. Surgical delay is regarded as an important modifiable prognostic factor. Current care-bundles aim at reducing surgical delay, most often using a six-hour cut-off. We aimed to investigate the evidence supporting the in-hospital delay cutoffs currently used. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched. We included studies assessing in-hospital surgical delay in major emergency abdominal surgery patients. Studies were only included if they performed adjusted analysis. Surgical delay beyond six hours was the primary cutfrom interest. The primary outcome was mortality at longest follow-up. Meta-analyses were conducted if possible. Results Eleven observational studies were included with 16,772 participants. Two studies evaluated delay in unselected major emergency abdominal surgery patients. Three studies applied a six-hour cutoff, but only a study on acute mesenteric ischemia showed an association between delay and mortality. Meta-analysis showed no association with mortality at this cutoff. An association was seen between hourly delay and mortality risk estimate, 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 - 1.03), and on subgroup analysis of hourly delay in perforated peptic ulcer patients, risk estimate, 1.02 (95% CI, 1.0 - 1.03). All risk estimates had a very low Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation score. Conclusion Little evidence supports a six-hour cutoff in unselected major emergency abdominal surgical patients. We found an association between hourly delay and increased mortality; however, evidence supporting this was primarily in patients undergoing surgery for perforated peptic ulcer. This review is limited by the quality of the individual studies.

Background: Emergency abdominal surgery carries a high mortality, as patients are often frail with significant comorbidity. We aimed to evaluate the association between co-existing ischaemic vascular disease (IVD) and long-term mortality in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Methods: We included adult emergency abdominal surgical patients operated on 13 Danish hospitals between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2010. Appendectomies were excluded. Data were retrieved from the National Patient Registry (NPR) and the Danish Anaesthesia Database. Preoperative IVD status was retrieved from NPR. We used crude and adjusted Cox regression analysis. The primary outcome was mortality within eight years. The secondary outcome was mortality within 30 days. Results: We included 4864 patients, of which 2584 (53.7%) died within 8 years. Some 20.9% (1019/4864) had preoperative IVD. The adjusted association between preoperative IVD and mortality within 8 years was hazard ratio (HR) 1.10 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.20; P =.045). At 30 days, this association was HR 0.97 (95% CI, 0.84-1.13). Conclusion: In adult major emergency abdominal surgical patients, preoperative IVD was prevalent and associated with a 10% relative increase in long-term mortality, but not in short-term mortality.

Background: Patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery are at high risk of post-operative complications. Although post-operative treatment at an intermediate care unit may improve early outcome, there is a lack of studies on the long-term effects of such therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term effect of intermediate care versus standard surgical ward care on mortality in the Intermediate Care After Emergency Abdominal Surgery (InCare) trial. Methods: We included adult patients undergoing emergency major laparoscopy or laparotomy with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score of 10 or more, who participated in the InCare trial from October 2010 to November 2012. In the InCare trial, patients were randomized to either post-operative intermediate care or standard surgical ward care. The primary outcome was time to death within 6 years after surgery. We assessed mortality with Coxregression analysis. Results: A total of 286 patients were included. The all-cause 6-year landmark mortality was 52.8% (76 of 144 patients) in the intermediate care group and 47.9% (68 of 142 patients) in the ward care group. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality risk between the two groups (hazard ratio 1.06 (95% confidence interval 0.76-1.47), P =.73). Conclusion: We found no statistically significant difference in 6-year mortality between patients randomized to post-operative intermediate care or ward care after emergency abdominal surgery. However, we detected an absolute mortality risk reduction of 5% in favour of ward care, possibly due to random error.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery are at high risk of morbidity and mortality. Accurate identification of high-risk patients is important. The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score needs to be validated in a larger heterogeneous population before implementation. We aimed to assess the predictive value of the APACHE II score in emergency abdominal surgical patients. Furthermore, we compared the APACHE II score with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status score and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI).METHODS: We included adult patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery screened for enrolment in the InCare trial from October 2010 to November 2012. The APACHE II score was evaluated with area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) statistics. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality and admission to the intensive care unit.RESULTS: We included a total of 885 patients. All-cause 30-day mortality was 5.0%, 90-day mortality was 8.9%, and a total of 7.9% of the patients were admitted to the intensive care unit. The AUROC (95% confidence interval) of the APACHE II score was 0.72 (0.65-0.80) for 30-day mortality, 0.70 (0.64-0.76) for 90-day mortality and 0.65 (0.59-0.71) for admission to the intensive care unit. The CCI performed better in prediction of 90-day mortality (P = .04). All other results for the ASA score and CCI were comparable with the APACHE II score.CONCLUSION: The APACHE II score predicted mortality moderately and admission to intensive care unit poorly in emergency abdominal surgical patients.

Background: Myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery occurs in a high number of patients, resulting in increased mortality in the post-operative period. The use of high inspiratory oxygen concentrations may cause hyperoxia, which is associated with impairment of coronary blood flow. Furthermore, the surgical stress response increases reactive oxygen species, which is involved in several perioperative complications including myocardial injury and death. Avoidance of hyperoxia and substitution of reactive oxygen species scavengers may be beneficial. Our primary objective is to examine the effect of oxygen and added antioxidants for prevention of myocardial injury assessed by area under the curve for troponin measurements during the first three post-operative days. Methods: The VIXIE trial (VitamIn and oXygen Interventions and cardiovascular Events) is an investigator-initiated, blinded, 2 × 2 factorial multicentre clinical trial. We include 600 patients with cardiovascular risk factors undergoing major non-cardiac surgery. Participants are randomised to an inspiratory oxygen fraction of 0.80 or 0.30 during and for 2 hours after surgery and either an intravenous bolus of vitamin C and an infusion of N-acetylcysteine or matching placebo of both. The primary outcome is the area under the curve for high-sensitive cardiac troponin release during the first three post-operative days as a marker of the extent of myocardial injury. Secondary outcomes are mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal serious adverse events within 30 days. Perspective: The current trial will provide further evidence for clinicians on optimal administration of perioperative oxygen in surgical patients with cardiovascular risks and the clinical effects of two common antioxidants.

Background: Emergency abdominal surgery carries a considerable risk of mortality and post-operative complications, including pulmonary complications. In major elective surgery, epidural analgesia reduces mortality and pulmonary complications. We aimed to evaluate the association between epidural analgesia and mortality in emergency abdominal surgery. Methods: In this population-based cohort study with prospective data collection, we included adults undergoing emergency abdominal laparotomy or laparoscopy between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2010 at 13 Danish hospitals. Appendectomies were excluded. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and serious adverse events. We used binary logistic regression analyses (odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). Results: We included 4920 patients, of whom 1134 (23.0%) died within 90 days. Overall, 27.9% of the patients were treated with epidural analgesia perioperatively. This increased to 34.0% among patients undergoing major laparotomy. The crude and adjusted association between epidural analgesia and 90-day mortality was OR 0.99 (95%CI: 0.86-1.15, P =.94) and OR 0.80 (95%CI: 0.67-0.94; P =.01), respectively. For 30-day mortality the corresponding estimates were OR 0.90 (95% CI: 0.76-1.06, P =.21) and OR 0.75 (95% CI: 0.62-0.90, P <.01), respectively. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: In this population-based cohort study of adult patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery, we found that the use of epidural analgesia perioperatively was associated with a decreased risk of mortality in the adjusted analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Emergency major abdominal surgery carries a high mortality rate. The aim of this present study was to characterize a population of deceased abdominal surgical patients, to examine how many died unexpectedly and how many were subject to treatment limitations.MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included adult emergency abdominal surgical patients who died within 30 days postoperatively. We collected data from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2014, in a Danish tertiary care hospital (Herlev).RESULTS: A total of 138 patients were included which corresponded to a crude mortality rate of 16.5% in the population. Four percent (5 of 138) of the patients died unexpectedly without any prior signs of deterioration and 46% (65 of 138) experienced a complicated treatment course, 67% of which was treated in the intensive care unit (ICU). The remaining 50% (68 of 138) had treatment limitations, applied pre- or postoperatively, of which 4% were treated in the ICU ward.CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, we found a high number of patients with treatment limitations, offering one explanation to why so relatively few high-risk surgical patients are admitted to the ICU ward. Whether intermediary wards could serve as a viable alternative for these patients, securing a sufficient level of treatment without taking up scarce beds in the intensive care unit, remains an important question for future studies. Furthermore, five patients died unexpectedly, without any clear cause of death, proving that continual strides toward improving the overall process of postoperative care are still demanded.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To elicit knowledge of patient experiences of postoperative intermediate care in an intensive care unit and standard postoperative care in a surgical ward after emergency abdominal surgery.BACKGROUND: Emergency abdominal surgery is common, but little is known about how patients experience postoperative care. The patient population is generally older with multiple comorbidities, and the short-term postoperative mortality rate is 15-20%. Thus, vigilant surgeon and nursing attention is essential. The present study is a qualitative sub-study of a randomised trial evaluating postoperative intermediate care after emergency abdominal surgery, the InCare trial.DESIGN: A qualitative study with individual semi-structured interviews.METHODS: We analysed interviews using Systematic Text Condensation.RESULTS: Eighteen patients (nine intervention/nine controls) were strategically sampled from the InCare trial. Data analysis resulted in three distinct descriptions of intermediate care; two of standard surgical ward care. Intermediate care was described as 'luxury service' or 'a life saver.' The latter description was prevalent among patients with a perceived complicated disease course. Intermediate care patients felt constrained by continuous monitoring of vital signs as they recovered from surgery. Standard surgical ward care was described as either 'ok - no more, no less' or 'suboptimal'. Experiencing suboptimal care was related to patient perceptions of heavy staff workloads, lack of staff availability and subsequent concerns about the quality of care.CONCLUSION: Postoperative intermediate care enhanced perceptions of quality of care, specifically in patients with a perceived complicated disease course. Patients were eager to contribute actively to their recovery; however, intermediate care patients felt hindered in doing so by continuous monitoring of vital signs.RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Intermediate care

BACKGROUND: Emergency abdominal surgery carries a 15% to 20% short-term mortality rate. Postoperative medical complications are strongly associated with increased mortality. Recent research suggests that timely recognition and effective management of complications may reduce mortality. The aim of the present trial is to evaluate the effect of postoperative intermediate care following emergency major abdominal surgery in high-risk patients.Methods and design: The InCare trial is a randomised, parallel-group, non-blinded clinical trial with 1:1 allocation. Patients undergoing emergency laparotomy or laparoscopic surgery with a perioperative Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 10 or above, who are ready to be transferred to the surgical ward within 24 h of surgery are allocated to either intermediate care for 48 h, or surgical ward care. The primary outcome measure is all-cause 30-day mortality. We aim to enrol 400 patients in seven Danish hospitals. The sample size allows us to detect or refute a 34% relative risk reduction of mortality with 80% power. DISCUSSION: This trial evaluates the benefits and possible harm of intermediate care. The results may potentially influence the survival of many high-risk surgical patients. As a pioneer trial in the area, it will provide important data on the feasibility of future large-scale randomised clinical trials evaluating different levels of postoperative care.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01209663.