Search

Introduction Long-term care (LTC) residents are frequently transferred to acute care hospitals. Transfer decisions should align with residents’ wishes and goals. Decision to transfer to hospital, when not aligned with the resident’s wishes, can result in transfers that are harmful to residents, leaving residents in a state of disability that could be considered worse than death. We aim to examine whether transfer to an acute care hospital is associated with subsequent new onset of severe permanent physical and cognitive disability in LTC residents.Method and analysis We will conduct a retrospective cohort study of all LTC residents ≥65 admitted to LTC homes between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2018 in Ontario, Canada. We will use health administrative data from the Continuing Care Reporting System (CCRS), National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS) and Registered Persons Databases (RPDB), which include data on emergency department visits, hospitalisations, demographic information and mortality. All participants will be followed until 31 March 2023. The exposure is any transfer from LTC to an emergency department or acute care hospital. The outcomes are (1) subsequent new permanent physical disability, (2) subsequent new permanent cognitive disability and (3) all-cause mortality. Due to the time-varying nature of the exposure and confounders, we will use an extended cause-specific Cox regression model to explore this relationship. We will fit marginal structural models (MSMs) to account for the known shortcomings of traditional regression modelling, such as collider bias. Lastly, we will use a preference-based instrumental variable approach to address unmeasured confounders.Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval was obtained through Bruyère Research Institute Ethics Committee (REB#M16-23-030). Study findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Findings will be disseminated in conferences and seminars.Trial registration Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JCDEY).

BackgroundIn patients with atherosclerotic occlusive diseases, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) report that antiplatelets, statins, and antihypertensives reduce the risk of major adverse cardiac events, need for revascularization procedures, mortality, and health care resource use. However, evidence suggests that these patients are not prescribed these medications adequately or do not adhere to them once prescribed. ObjectiveWe aim to systematically review and meta-analyze RCTs examining the effectiveness of implementation or adherence-supporting strategies for improving health care provider prescription of, or patient adherence to, guideline-recommended cardiovascular medications in patients with atherosclerotic occlusive disease. MethodsWe designed and reported the protocol according to the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis-Protocols) statement. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from their inception. RCTs examining implementation or adherence-supporting strategies for improving prescription of, or adherence to, guideline-recommended cardiovascular medications in adults with cerebrovascular disease, coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, or polyvascular disease (>1 of these diseases) will be included. Two investigators will independently review identified titles/abstracts and full-text studies, extract data, assess the risk of bias (using the Cochrane tool), and classify implementation or adherence-supporting strategies using the refined Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) taxonomy (for strategies aimed at improving prescription) and Behavior Change Wheel (BCW; for adherence-supporting strategies). We will narratively synthesize data describing which implementation or adherence-supporting strategies have been evaluated across RCTs, and their reported effectiveness at improving prescription of, or adherence to, guideline-recommended cardiovascular medications (primary outcomes) and patient-important outcomes and health care resource use (secondary outcomes) within refined EPOC taxonomy levels and BCW interventions and policies. Where limited clinical heterogeneity exists between RCTs, estimates describing the effectiveness of implementation or adherence-supporting strategies within different refined EPOC taxonomy levels and BCW interventions and policies will be pooled using random-effects models. Stratified meta-analyses and meta-regressions will assess if strategy effectiveness varies by recruited patient populations, prescriber types, clinical practice settings, and study design characteristics. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) will be used to communicate evidence certainty. ResultsThe search was completed on June 6, 2023. Database searches and the PubMed “related articles” feature identified 4319 unique citations for title/abstract screening. We are currently screening titles/abstracts. ConclusionsThese studies will identify which implementation and adherence-supporting strategies are being used (and in which combinations) across RCTs for improving the prescription of, or adherence to, guideline-recommended cardiovascular medications in adults with atherosclerotic occlusive diseases. They will also determine the effectiveness of currently trialed implementation and adherence-supporting strategies, and whether effectiveness varies by patient, prescriber, or clinical practice setting traits. Trial RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42023461317; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=461317; PROSPERO CRD42023461299; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=461299

Introduction Long-term care (LTC) residents require extensive assistance with daily activities due to physical and cognitive impairments. Medical treatment for LTC residents, when not aligned with residents’ wishes, can cause discomfort without providing substantial benefits. Predictive models can equip providers with tools to guide treatment recommendations that support person-centred medical decision-making. This study protocol describes the derivation and validation of time-to-event predictive models for (1) permanent loss of independence in physical function, (2) permanent severe cognitive impairment and (3) time alive with complete dependence for those with disability starting from the date of onset.Methods and analysis We will use population-based administrative health data from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences of all LTC residents in Ontario, Canada, to construct the derivation and internal validation cohorts. The external validation cohort will use data from LTC residents in Alberta, Canada. Predictors were identified based on existing literature, patient advisors and expert opinions (clinical and analytical). We identified 50 variables to predict the loss of independence in physical function, 58 variables to predict the loss of independence in cognitive function and 36 variables to predict the time spent in a state of dependence. We will use time-to-event models to predict the time to loss of independence and time spent in the state of disability. Full and reduced models (using a step-down procedure) will be developed for each outcome. Predictive performance will be assessed in both derivation and validation cohorts using overall measures of predictive accuracy, discrimination and calibration. We will create risk groups to present model risk estimates to users as median time-to-event. Risk groups will be externally validated within the Alberta LTC cohort.Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval was obtained through the Bruyère Research Institute Ethics Committee. Study findings will be submitted for publication and disseminated at conferences. The predictive algorithm will be available to the general public.

Introduction Home-based, virtually-supported care models may represent the most efficient and scalable approach to delivering prehabilitation services. However, virtual approaches to prehabilitation are understudied. This manuscript describes the protocol for an internal pilot randomised controlled trial of a virtually-delivered, multimodal prehabilitation intervention.Methods and analysis We will conduct a pragmatic, individual patient, internal pilot randomised controlled trial of home-based, virtually supported, multimodal prehabilitation compared with standard perioperative care in adults undergoing elective, inpatient thoracic, abdominal, pelvic and vascular surgery at five Canadian hospitals. Participants will be partially blinded; clinicians and outcome assessors will be fully blinded. The intervention consists of 3–12 weeks of a home-based, multimodal (exercise, nutrition and psychosocial support) prehabilitation programme supported through an online platform. The primary feasibility outcomes and their progression targets are (1) monthly recruitment of>6 participants at each centre, (2) intervention adherence of>75%, (3) retention of>90% of participants at the patient-reported primary outcome point of 30-days after surgery and (4) elicitation of patient, clinician and researcher-identified barriers to our pragmatic trial. A sample size of 144 participants will be adequate to estimate recruitment, adherence and retention rates with acceptable precision. All participants will be followed to either death or up to 1 year. As an internal pilot, if no substantive changes to the trial or intervention design are required, pilot participant outcome data will migrate, unanalysed by allocation, to the future full-scale trial.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been granted by Clinical Trials Ontario (Project ID: 4479) and our ethics review board (Protocol Approval #20230399–01T). Results will be disseminated through presentations at scientific conferences, peer-reviewed publications, partner organisations and engagement of social and traditional media.Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT06042491. Protocol, V.1.2, dated 6 June 2024.

Abstract Background Older adults with frailty have surgery at a high rate. Informal caregivers often support the postoperative transition in care. Despite the growing need for family and caregiver support for this population, little is known about the experience of providing informal care to older adults with frailty during the postoperative transition in care. The purpose of this study was to explore what is important during a postoperative transition in care for older adults with frailty from the perspective of informal caregivers. Methods This was a qualitative study using an interpretive description methodology. Seven informal caregivers to older adults [aged ≥ 65 years with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale score ≥ 4) who had an inpatient elective surgery] participated in a telephone-based, semi-structured interview. Audio files were transcribed and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results Four themes were constructed: (1) being informed about what to expect after surgery; (2) accessible communication with care providers; (3) homecare resources are needed for the patient; and (4) a support network for the caregivers. Theme 4 included two sub-themes: (a) respite and emotional support and (b) occupational support. Conclusions Transitions in care present challenges for informal caregivers of older adults with frailty, who play an important role in successful transitions. Future postoperative transitional care programs should consider making targeted information, accessible communication, and support networks available for caregivers as part of facilitating successful transitions in care.

Introduction Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an inexpensive and widely available medication that reduces blood loss and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in cardiac and orthopaedic surgeries. While the use of TXA in these surgeries is routine, its efficacy and safety in other surgeries, including oncologic surgeries, with comparable rates of transfusion are uncertain. Our primary objective is to evaluate whether a hospital-level policy implementation of routine TXA use in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery reduces RBC transfusion without increasing thrombotic risk.Methods and analysis A pragmatic, registry-based, blinded, cluster-crossover randomised controlled trial at 10 Canadian sites, enrolling patients undergoing non-cardiac surgeries at high risk for RBC transfusion. Sites are randomised in 4-week intervals to a hospital policy of intraoperative TXA or matching placebo. TXA is administered as 1 g at skin incision, followed by an additional 1 g prior to skin closure. Coprimary outcomes are (1) effectiveness, evaluated as the proportion of patients transfused RBCs during hospital admission and (2) safety, evaluated as the proportion of patients diagnosed with venous thromboembolism within 90 days. Secondary outcomes include: (1) transfusion: number of RBC units transfused (both at a hospital and patient level); (2) safety: in-hospital diagnoses of myocardial infarction, stroke, deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism; (3) clinical: hospital length of stay, intensive care unit admission, hospital survival, 90-day survival and the number of days alive and out of hospital to day 30; and (4) compliance: the proportion of enrolled patients who receive a minimum of one dose of the study intervention.Ethics and dissemination Institutional research ethics board approval has been obtained at all sites. At the completion of the trial, a plain language summary of the results will be posted on the trial website and distributed in the lay press. Our trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.Trial registration number NCT04803747.

Introduction Dexmedetomidine is a promising pharmaceutical strategy to minimise opioid use during surgery. Despite its growing use, it is uncertain whether dexmedetomidine can improve patient-centred outcomes such as quality of recovery and pain.Methods and analysis We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis following the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science and CINAHL approximately in October 2023. We will include randomised controlled trials evaluating the impact of systemic intraoperative dexmedetomidine on patient-centred outcomes. Patient-centred outcome definition will be based on the consensus definition established by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative (StEP-COMPAC). Our primary outcome will be the quality of recovery after surgery. Our secondary outcomes will be patient well-being, function, health-related quality of life, life impact, multidimensional assessment of postoperative acute pain, chronic pain, persistent postoperative opioid use, opioid-related adverse events, hospital length of stay and adverse events. Two reviewers will independently screen and identify trials and extract data. We will evaluate the risk of bias of trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 2.0). We will synthesise data using a random effects Bayesian model framework, estimating the probability of achieving a benefit and its clinical significance. We will assess statistical heterogeneity with the tau-squared and explore sources of heterogeneity with meta-regression. We have involved patient partners, clinicians, methodologists, and key partner organisations in the development of this protocol, and we plan to continue this collaboration throughout all phases of this systematic review.Ethics and dissemination Our systematic review does not require research ethics approval. It will help inform current clinical practice guidelines and guide development of future randomised controlled trials. The results will be disseminated in open-access peer-reviewed journals, presented at conferences and shared among collaborators and networks.PROSPERO registration number CRD42023439896.

Introduction Transfusions in surgery can be life-saving interventions, but inappropriate transfusions may lack clinical benefit and cause harm. Transfusion decision-making in surgery is complex and frequently informed by haemoglobin (Hgb) measurement in the operating room. Point-of-care testing for haemoglobin (POCT-Hgb) is increasingly relied on given its simplicity and rapid provision of results. POCT-Hgb devices lack adequate validation in the operative setting, particularly for Hgb values within the transfusion zone (60–100 g/L). This study aims to examine the accuracy of intraoperative POCT-Hgb instruments in non-cardiac surgery, and the association between POCT-Hgb measurements and transfusion decision-making.Methods and analysis PREMISE is an observational prospective method comparison study. Enrolment will occur when adult patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery require POCT-Hgb, as determined by the treating team. Three concurrent POCT-Hgb results, considered as index tests, will be compared with a laboratory analysis of Hgb (lab-Hgb), considered the gold standard. Participants may have multiple POCT-Hgb measurements during surgery. The primary outcome is the difference in individual Hgb measurements between POCT-Hgb and lab-Hgb, primarily among measurements that are within the transfusion zone. Secondary outcomes include POCT-Hgb accuracy within the entire cohort, postoperative morbidity, mortality and transfusion rates. The sample size is 1750 POCT-Hgb measurements to obtain a minimum of 652 Hgb measurements

Introduction Rapid population ageing and associated health issues such as frailty are a growing public health concern. While early identification and management of frailty may limit adverse health outcomes, the complex presentations of frailty pose challenges for clinicians. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a potential solution to support the early identification and management of frailty. In order to provide a comprehensive overview of current evidence regarding the development and use of AI technologies including machine learning and deep learning for the identification and management of frailty, this protocol outlines a scoping review aiming to identify and present available information in this area. Specifically, this protocol describes a review that will focus on the clinical tools and frameworks used to assess frailty, the outcomes that have been evaluated and the involvement of knowledge users in the development, implementation and evaluation of AI methods and tools for frailty care in clinical settings.Methods and analysis This scoping review protocol details a systematic search of eight major academic databases, including Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Ageline, Web of Science, Scopus and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Xplore using the framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley and enhanced by Levac et al and the Joanna Briggs Institute. The search strategy has been designed in consultation with a librarian. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, followed by full texts, for eligibility and then chart the data using a piloted data charting form. Results will be collated and presented through a narrative summary, tables and figures.Ethics and dissemination Since this study is based on publicly available information, ethics approval is not required. Findings will be communicated with healthcare providers, caregivers, patients and research and health programme funders through peer-reviewed publications, presentations and an infographic.Registration details OSF Registries (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/T54G8).

Introduction The ageing population has led to an increasing proportion of surgical patients with greater frailty and comorbidity. Complications and mortality within 30 days of a surgical procedure are often used to evaluate success in the perioperative period however these measures can potentially underestimate a substantial level of morbidity associated with surgery. Personal wearable technologies are now readily available and can offer detailed information on activity intensity, sedentary behaviour and sleeping patterns. These devices may provide important information perioperatively by acting as a non-invasive, and cost-efficient means to risk stratify patients.Methods and analysis The Peri-Operative Wearables in Elder Recover After Surgery (POWERS) study is a multicentre observational study of 200 older adults (≥65 years) having major elective non-cardiac surgery. The objectives are to characterise the association between preoperative and postoperative activity monitor measurements with postoperative disability and recovery, as well as characterise trajectories of activity and sleep in the perioperative period. Activity will be monitored with the ActiGraph GT3X device and measured for 7-day increments, preoperatively, and at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months postoperatively. Disability will be assessed using the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 assessed at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months postoperatively.Ethics and dissemination The POWERS study received research ethics board approval at all participating sites on 1 August 2019 (REB # 19-121 (CTO 1849)). Renewal was granted on 19 May 2022.

Introduction For close to a century opioid administration has been a standard of care to complement anaesthesia during surgery. Considering the worldwide opioid epidemic, this practice is now being challenged and there is a growing use of systemic pharmacological opioid minimising strategies. Our aim is to conduct a scoping review that will examine clinical trials that have evaluated the impact of intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies on patient-centred outcomes and identify promising strategies.Methods and analysis Our scoping review will follow the framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science and CINAHL from their inception approximately in March 2023. We will include randomised controlled trials, assessing the impact of systemic intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies on patient-centred outcomes. We define an opioid minimisation strategy as any non-opioid drug with antinociceptive properties administered during the intraoperative period. Patient-centred outcomes will be defined and classified based on the consensus definitions established by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative (StEP-COMPAC group) and informed by knowledge users and patient partners. We will use a coproduction approach involving interested parties. Our multidisciplinary team includes knowledge users, patient partners, methodologists and knowledge user organisations. Knowledge users will provide input on methods, outcomes, clinical significance of findings, implementation and feasibility. Patient partners will participate in assessing the relevance of our design, methods and outcomes and help to facilitate evidence translation. We will provide a thorough description of available clinical trials, compare their reported patient-centred outcome measures with established recommendations and identify promising strategies.Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required for the review. Our scoping review will inform future research including clinical trials and systematic reviews through identification of important intraoperative interventions. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, presentation at conferences and through our network of knowledge user collaborators.Registration Open Science Foundation (currently embargoed)

Introduction Prehabilitation is a high-priority intervention for patients, the public, clinicians and health systems. However, existing knowledge syntheses are generally low quality and do not provide insights regarding the relative efficacy of different prehabilitation components (eg, exercise, nutrition, psychosocial or cognitive interventions). The objective of the planned review is to evaluate the relative efficacy of different prehabilitation components to inform current care, implementation and future research.Methods and analysis We will perform a systematic review and component network meta-analysis (CNMA). We will use a peer-reviewed search strategy to identify all randomised trials of prehabilitation in adult surgical patients from Ovid Medline, Embase, the CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, along with grey literature. All stages of the review and data extraction process will be performed in duplicate, following recommended best practices. To compare the relative efficacy of different prehabilitation components (prespecified as exercise, nutrition, psychosocial or cognitive interventions), we will use CNMA, an extension of network meta-analysis that allows estimation of the contributions to efficacy of each component of a multicomponent intervention through direct and indirect comparisons. We will use additive CNMA models for critical outcomes (postoperative complications, patient-reported recovery, physical recovery and length of stay); standard care will be the common reference condition. Pre-specified sensitivity and subgroup analyses will be conducted.Ethics and dissemination This review of published data does not require ethical review. Results will be disseminated via scientific conferences, peer-reviewed publications, social and traditional media and via our research network to target partners and organisations.

Introduction Frailty is a strong predictor of adverse postoperative outcomes. Prehabilitation may improve outcomes after surgery for older people with frailty by addressing physical and physiologic deficits. The objective of this trial is to evaluate the efficacy of home-based multimodal prehabilitation in decreasing patient-reported disability and postoperative complications in older people with frailty having major surgery.Methods and analysis We will conduct a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of home-based prehabilitation versus standard care among consenting patients >60 years with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale>4) having elective inpatient major non-cardiac, non-neurologic or non-orthopaedic surgery. Patients will be partially blinded; clinicians and outcome assessors will be fully blinded. The intervention consists of >3 weeks of prehabilitation (exercise (strength, aerobic and stretching) and nutrition (advice and protein supplementation)). The study has two primary outcomes: in-hospital complications and patient-reported disability 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes include survival, lower limb function, quality of life and resource utilisation. A sample size of 750 participants (375 per arm) provides >90% power to detect a minimally important absolute difference of 8 on the 100-point patient-reported disability scale and a 25% relative risk reduction in complications, using a two-sided alpha value of 0.025 to account for the two primary outcomes. Analyses will follow intention to treat principles for all randomised participants. All participants will be followed to either death or up to 1 year.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been granted by Clinical Trials Ontario (Project ID: 1785) and our ethics review board (Protocol Approval #20190409-01T). Results will be disseminated through presentation at scientific conferences, through peer-reviewed publication, stakeholder organisations and engagement of social and traditional media.Trial registration number NCT04221295.

Background Frailty is a robust predictor of poor outcomes among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease yet is not measured in routine practice. We determined barriers and facilitators to measuring frailty in a hospital setting, designed and implemented a frailty-focused education intervention, and measured accuracy of frailty screening before and after education.Methods We conducted a pilot cross-sectional mixed-methods study on an inpatient respiratory ward over 6 months. We recruited registered nurses (RNs) with experience using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). RNs evaluated 10 clinical vignettes and assigned a frailty score using the CFS. A structured frailty-focused education intervention was delivered to small groups. RNs reassigned frailty scores to vignettes 1 week after education. Outcomes included barriers and facilitators to assessing frailty in hospital, and percent agreement of CFS scores between RNs and a gold standard (determined by geriatricians) before and after education.Results Among 26 RNs, the median (IQR) duration of experience using the CFS was 1.5 (1–4) months. Barriers to assessing frailty included the lack of clinical directives to measure frailty and large acute workloads. Having collateral history from family members was the strongest perceived facilitator for frailty assessment. The median (IQR) percent agreement with the gold-standard frailty score across all cases was 55.8% (47.2%–60.6%) prior to the educational intervention, and 57.2% (44.1%–70.2%) afterwards. The largest increase in agreement occurred in the ‘mildly frail’ category, 65.4%–81% agreement.Conclusions Barriers to assessing frailty in the hospital setting are external to the measurement tool itself. Accuracy of frailty assessment among acute care RNs was low, and frailty-focused rater training may improve accuracy. Subsequent work should focus on health system approaches to empower health providers to assess frailty, and on testing the effectiveness of frailty-focused education in large real-world settings.

Introduction Despite climate change being recognised as the greatest health threat of the 21st century, current medical education curricula do not reflect the urgency of the climate crisis. Preparing for climate-related health repercussions requires educational institutions to disseminate planetary health knowledge in a systematic way. We sought to evaluate the extent of the literature on the inclusion of planetary health in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education to guide curricular development.Methods and analysis A scoping review is being undertaken with a search strategy developed with a health sciences librarian. The search strategy was run on the following databases from inception to 22 June 2021: Medline, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Health, Scopus. This scoping review is being conducted as per methodology that has been previously outlined. Studies that discuss the implementation of planetary health education within undergraduate and postgraduate medical education will be included, whether they discuss formal inclusion or supplemental courses. To supplement our database search, data from the Health and Environment Adaptive Task Force’s National Report on Planetary Health Education, the Planetary Health Report Card and the Association for Medical Education in Europe Consensus Statement on Planetary Health and Education for Sustainable Healthcare will be included. As we anticipate varying methodologies, the data analysis will consist of both a quantitative and a qualitative component. Outcomes will be categorised within the domains of the Planetary Health Education Framework, which incorporates concepts of systems thinking, social justice and interconnection within nature as they apply to education for planetary health.Ethics and dissemination As no intervention or patient recruitment will be required, research ethics board approval is not applicable. We plan to disseminate our results via publication in a peer-reviewed journal or conference presentation.Trial registration number This protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/7M6GZ).

Introduction Older adults prioritise surviving surgery, but also preservation of their functional status and quality of life. Current approaches to measure postoperative recovery, which focus on death, complications and length of hospitalisation, may miss key relevant domains. We propose that postoperative disability is an important patient-centred outcome to measure intermediate-to-long recovery after major surgery in older adults.Methods and analysis The Functional Improvement Trajectories After Surgery (FIT After Surgery) study is a multicentre cohort study of 2000 older adults (≥65 years) having major non-cardiac surgery. Its objectives are to characterise the incidence, trajectories, risk factors and impact of new significant disability after non-cardiac surgery. Disability is assessed using WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 instrument and participants’ level-of-care needs. Disability assessments occur before surgery, and at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after surgery. The primary outcome is significantly worse WHODAS score or death at 6 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes are (1) significantly worse WHODAS score or death at 1 year after surgery, (2) increased care needs or death at 6 months after surgery and (3) increased care needs or death at 1 year after surgery. We will use multivariable logistic regression models to determine the association of preoperative characteristics and surgery type with outcomes, joint modelling to characterise longitudinal time trends in WHODAS scores over 12 months after surgery, and longitudinal latent class mixture models to identify clusters following similar trajectories of disability.Ethics and dissemination The FIT After Surgery study has received research ethics board approval at all sites. Recruitment began in December 2019 but was placed on hold in March 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Recruitment was gradually restarted in October 2020, with 1-year follow-up expected to finish in 2023. Publication of the primary results is anticipated to occur in 2024.

Introduction Overuse of cardiovascular healthcare services, defined as the provision of low-value (ineffective, harmful, cost-ineffective) tests, medications and procedures, may be common and associated with increased patient harm and health system inefficiencies and costs. We seek to systematically review the evidence for overuse of different cardiovascular healthcare services in high-income countries.Methods and analysis We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews from 2010 onwards. Two investigators will independently review titles and abstracts and full-text studies. We will include published English-language studies conducted in high-income countries that enrolled adults (mean/median age ≥18 years) and reported the incidence or prevalence of overuse of cardiovascular tests, medications or procedures; adjusted risk factors for overuse; or adjusted associations between overuse and outcomes (reported estimates of morbidity, mortality, costs or lengths of hospital stay). Acceptable methods of defining low-value care will include literature review and multidisciplinary iterative panel processes, healthcare services with reproducible evidence of a lack of benefit or harm, or clinical practice guideline or Choosing Wisely recommendations. Two investigators will independently extract data and evaluate study risk of bias in duplicate. We will calculate summary estimates of the incidence and prevalence of overuse of different cardiovascular healthcare services across studies unstratified and stratified by country; method of defining low-value care; the percentage of included females, different races, and those with low and high socioeconomic status or cardiovascular risk; and study risks of bias using random-effects models. We will also calculate pooled estimates of adjusted risk factors for overuse and adjusted associations between overuse and outcomes overall and stratified by country using random-effects models. We will use the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation to determine certainty in estimates.Ethics and dissemination No ethics approval is required for this study as it deals with published data. Results will be presented at meetings and published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration number CRD42021257490.

RationaleDespite the high prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and concurrent use of opioid therapy, no large-scale population studies have investigated whether opioid use and pre-existing OSA may interact synergistically to increase the risk of adverse health consequences. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a retrospective cohort study using provincial health administrative data to evaluate whether the combined presence of opioid use and OSA increases the risk of adverse health consequences, such as mortality, hospitalizations, and emergency department (ED) visits; and if it does, whether this co-occurrence has synergistic clinical relevance.MethodsWe included all adults who underwent a diagnostic sleep study in Ontario, Canada, between 2013 and 2016. Individuals were considered exposed to opioids if they filled a prescription that overlapped with the date of their sleep study (Opioid+). Individuals with at least a 50% probability of having a diagnosis of moderate to severe OSA (OSA+) were identified using a previously externally validated case-ascertainment model. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were all-cause or ischemic heart disease hospitalizations, all-cause ED visits, and motor vehicle collisions (MVC) requiring hospital or ED visit. We used multivariable Cox regression models to compare hazards between four mutually exclusive groups: (1) Opioid+ OSA+; (2) Opioid+ OSA-; (3) Opioid- OSA+, and (4) OSA- Opioid- (reference for comparison). Relative excess risks due to interaction (RERI) were calculated to test for additive interaction.ResultsOf 300,663 adults who underwent a sleep study, 15,713 (5.2%) were considered as Opioid+ and 128,351 (42.7%) as OSA+. Over a median of two years, 6,223 (2.1%) died from any cause. Regardless of OSA status, opioid use at the date of the sleep study was associated with an increased hazard for all-cause mortality with the greatest hazard associated with Opioid+ OSA- (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.75, 95% CI 1.57-1.94), but not Opioid+ OSA+ (aHR: 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.27) as hypothesized. Regardless of OSA status, opioid use at the date of the sleep study was associated with an increased hazard for all secondary outcomes. Opioid+ OSA+ was associated with the greatest hazards of all-cause hospitalizations (aHR 1.55, 95% CI 1.49-1.61) and MVC (aHR of 1.39; 95% CI 1.09-1.77); however, no statistically significant synergistic effects were observed.ConclusionsAdults referred for sleep disorder assessment who used opioids had a significantly increased hazard of adverse health outcomes than those who did not, regardless of whether they had a high probability of moderate to severe OSA. The use of opioids and OSA was associated with the greatest hazard of all-cause hospitalizations and MVC requiring hospital or ED visit. The interaction of opioids and OSA did not confer a synergistic risk for poor outcomes.

BackgroundPatients undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery for peripheral artery disease (PAD) have a high risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality and often have long hospital stays. Use of neuraxial or regional anesthesia instead of general anesthesia may represent one approach to improving outcomes and reducing resource use among these patients. ObjectiveThe aim is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether receipt of neuraxial or regional anesthesia instead of general anesthesia in adults undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery for PAD results in improved health outcomes and costs and a shorter length of hospitalization. MethodsWe will search electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the seven databases in Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and Google Scholar), review papers identified during the search, and included article bibliographies. We will include randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing the use of neuraxial or regional anesthesia instead of general anesthesia in adults undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery for PAD. Two investigators will independently evaluate the risk of bias. The primary outcome will be short-term (in-hospital or 30-day) mortality. Secondary outcomes will include longer-term mortality; major adverse cardiovascular, pulmonary, renal, and limb events; delirium; deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism; neuraxial or regional anesthesia–related complications; graft-related outcomes; length of operation and hospital stay; costs; and patient-reported or functional outcomes. We will calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. Heterogeneity will be explored using stratified meta-analyses and meta-regression. We will assess for publication bias using the Begg and Egger tests and use the trim-and-fill method to estimate the potential influence of this bias on summary estimates. Finally, we will use Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to make an overall rating of the quality of evidence in our effect estimates. ResultsThe protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). We executed the peer-reviewed search strategy on March 2, 2021. We completed the review of titles and abstracts on July 30, 2021, and plan to complete the review of full-text papers by September 30, 2021. We will complete full-text study data extraction and the risk-of-bias assessment by November 15, 2021, and conduct qualitative and then quantitative data synthesis and GRADE assessment of results by January 1, 2022, before drafting the manuscript. We anticipate that we will be able to submit the manuscript for peer review by the end of February 2022. ConclusionsThis study will synthesize existing evidence regarding whether receipt of neuraxial or regional anesthesia instead of general anesthesia in adults undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery for PAD results in improved health outcomes, graft patency, and costs and a shorter length of hospital stay. Study results will be used to inform practice and future research, including creation of a pilot and then multicenter randomized controlled trial. Trial RegistrationProspero CRD42021237060; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=237060 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)PRR1-10.2196/32170

BackgroundSurgical site infections (SSIs) are common, costly, and associated with increased morbidity and potential mortality after lower limb revascularization surgery (ie, arterial bypass, endarterectomy, and patch angioplasty). Identifying evidence-informed risk factors for SSI in patients undergoing these surgeries is therefore important. ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic studies to identify, synthesize, and determine the certainty in the cumulative evidence associated with reported risk factors for early and delayed SSI after lower limb revascularization surgery in adults with peripheral artery disease. MethodsWe will search MEDLINE, Embase, the seven databases in Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, review articles identified during the search, and included article bibliographies. We will include studies of adults (aged ≥18 years) with peripheral artery disease that report odds ratios, risk ratios, or hazard ratios adjusted for the presence of other risk factors or confounding variables and relating the potential risk factor of interest to the development of SSI after lower limb revascularization surgery. We will exclude studies that did not adjust for confounding, exclusively examined certain high-risk patient cohorts, or included >20% of patients who underwent surgery for indications other than peripheral artery disease. The primary outcomes will be early (in-hospital or ≤30 days) SSI and Szilagyi grade I (cellulitis involving the wound), grade II (infection involving subcutaneous tissue), and grade III (infection involving the vascular graft) SSI. Two investigators will independently extract data and evaluate the study risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Adjusted risk factor estimates with similar definitions will be pooled using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. Heterogeneity will be explored using stratified meta-analyses and meta-regression. Finally, we will use the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to determine certainty in the estimates of association between reported risk factors and the development of SSI. ResultsThe protocol was registered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews). We will execute the peer-reviewed search strategy on June 30, 2021, and then complete the review of titles and abstracts and full-text articles by July 30, 2021, and September 15, 2021, respectively. We will complete the full-text study data extraction and risk of bias assessment by November 15, 2021. We anticipate that we will be able to submit the manuscript for peer review by January 30, 2022. ConclusionsThis study will identify, synthesize, and determine the certainty in the cumulative evidence associated with risk factors for early and delayed SSI after lower limb revascularization surgery in patients with peripheral artery disease. The results will be used to inform practice, clinical practice statements and guidelines, and subsequent research. Trial RegistrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021242557; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=242557 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)PRR1-10.2196/28759

IntroductionThere has been limited study of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients at risk of limb loss. Our primary objective was to estimate the prevalence of disability in this patient population using the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0).Materials and methodsWe recruited patients referred to a limb-preservation clinic. Patients self-reported their disability status using the 12-domain WHODAS 2.0. Severity of disability in each domain was scored from 1 = none to 5 = extreme and the total normalized to a 100-point scale (total score ≥25 = clinically significant disability). We also asked patients about wound-specific concerns and wound-related discomfort or distress.ResultsWe included 162 patients. Reasons for clinic referral included arterial-insufficient (37.4%), postoperative (25.9%), and mixed etiology (10.8%) wounds. The mean WHODAS 2.0 disability score was 35.0 (standard deviation = 16.0). One-hundred-and-nineteen (73.5%) patients had clinically significant disability. Patients reported they had the greatest difficulty walking a long distance (mean score = 4.2), standing for long periods of time (mean score = 3.6), taking care of household responsibilities (mean score = 2.7), and dealing with the emotional impact of their health problems (mean score = 2.5). In the two-weeks prior to presentation, 87 (52.7%) patients expressed concern over their wound(s) and 90 (55.6%) suffered a moderate amount or great deal of wound-related discomfort or distress. In adjusted ordinary least squares regression models, although WHODAS 2.0 disability scores varied with changes in wound volume (p = 0.03) and total revised photographic wound assessment tool scores (pDiscussionThe majority of people at risk of limb loss report suffering a substantial burden of disability, pain, and wound-specific concerns. Research is needed to further evaluate the WHODAS 2.0 in a multicenter fashion among these patients and determine whether care and interventions may improve their PROs.

Objective To identify the advantages and disadvantages that group practices have on patients, physicians and healthcare systems.Study design A scoping review was performed based on the methodology proposed by Arksey and O’Malley, and refined by Levac et al. Titles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers. A quantitative analysis was performed to assess the type, year and region of publication, as well as the population studied. A qualitative descriptive analysis was performed to identify common themes.Study setting MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched from database inception to October 2018 for papers which assessed outcomes relevant to the research question.Results Our search strategy returned 2408 papers and 98 were included in the final analysis. Most papers were from the USA, were surveys and assessed physician outcomes. Advantages of group practices for patients included improved satisfaction and quality of care. Studies of physicians reported improved quality of life and income, while disadvantages included increased stress due to poor interpersonal relationships. Studies of healthcare systems reported improved efficiency and better utilisation of resources.Conclusions Group practices have many benefits for patients and physicians. However, further work needs to be done assessing patient outcomes and establishing the elements that make a group practice successful.

Abstract Background With over 230 million surgical procedures performed annually worldwide, better application of evidence in anesthesia and perioperative medicine may reduce widespread variation in clinical practice and improve patient care. However, a comprehensive summary of the complete available evidence has yet to be conducted. This scoping review aims to map the existing literature investigating perioperative anesthesia interventions and their potential impact on patient mortality, to inform future knowledge translation and ultimately improve perioperative clinical practice. Methods Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library databases from inception to March 2015. Study inclusion criteria were adult patients, surgical procedures requiring anesthesia, perioperative intervention conducted/organized by a professional with training in anesthesia, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and patient mortality as an outcome. Studies were screened for inclusion, and data was extracted in duplicate by pairs of independent reviewers. Data were extracted, tabulated, and reported thematically. Results Among the 10,505 publications identified, 369 RCTs (n = 147,326 patients) met the eligibility criteria. While 15 intervention themes were identified, only 7 themes (39 studies) had a significant impact on mortality: pharmacotherapy (n = 23), nutritional (n = 3), transfusion (n = 4), ventilation (n = 5), glucose control (n = 1), medical device (n = 2), and dialysis (n = 1). Conclusions By mapping intervention themes, this scoping review has identified areas requiring further systematic investigation given their potential value for reducing patient mortality as well as areas where continued investment may not be cost-effective given limited evidence for improving survival. This is a key starting point for future knowledge translation to optimize anesthesia practice.

Introduction People 65 years and older represent the fastest growing segment of the surgical population. Older age is associated with doubling of risk when undergoing emergency general surgery (EGS) procedures and often coexists with medical complexity and considerations of end-of-life care, creating prognostic and decisional uncertainty. Combined with the time-sensitive nature of EGS, it is challenging to gauge perioperative risk and ensure that clinical decisions are aligned with the patient values. Current preoperative risk prediction models for older EGS patients have major limitations regarding derivation and validation, and do not address the specific risk profile of older patients. Accurate and externally validated models specific to older patients are needed to inform care and decision making.Methods and analysis We will derive, internally and externally validate a multivariable model to predict 30-day mortality in EGS patients >65 years old. Our derivation sample will be individuals enrolled in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database between 2012 and 2016 having 1 of 7 core EGS procedures. Postulated predictor variables have been identified based on previous research, clinical and epidemiological knowledge. Our model will be derived using logistic regression penalised with elastic net regularisation and ensembled using bootstrap aggregation. The resulting model will be internally validated using k-fold cross-validation and bootstrap validation techniques and externally validated using population-based health administrative data. Discrimination and calibration will be reported at each step.Ethics and dissemination Ethics for NSQIP data use was obtained from the Ottawa Hospital Research Ethics Board; external validation will use routinely collected anonymised data legally exempt from research ethics review. The final risk score will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. We plan to further disseminate the model as an online calculator or application for clinical use. Future research will be required to test the clinical application of the final model.

IntroductionA significant proportion of red blood cell (RBC) transfusions are administered intraoperatively; yet there is limited evidence to guide transfusion decisions in this setting. The objective of this systematic review is to explore the availability, quality and content of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) reporting on the indication for allogenic RBC transfusion during surgery.MethodsMajor electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL), guideline clearinghouses and Google Scholar, will be systematically searched from inception to January 2019 for CPGs pertaining to indications for intraoperative allogenic RBC transfusion. Characteristics of eligible guidelines will be reported in a summary table. The AGREE II instrument will be used to appraise the quality of identified guidelines. Recommendations advising on indications for intraoperative RBC transfusion will be manually extracted and presented to allow for comparison of similarities and/or discrepancies in the literature.Ethics and disseminationThe results of this systematic review will be disseminated through relevant conferences and peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberCRD42018111487

BACKGROUND:Frailty is an important prognostic factor for adverse outcomes and increased resource use in the growing population of older surgical patients. We identified and appraised studies that tested interventions in populations of frail surgical patients to improve perioperative outcomes. METHODS:We systematically searched Cochrane, CINAHL, EMBASE and Medline to identify studies that tested interventions in populations of frail patients having surgery. All phases of study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were done in duplicate. Results were synthesized qualitatively per a prespecified protocol (CRD42016039909). RESULTS:We identified 2 593 titles; 11 were included for final analysis, representing 1 668 participants in orthopedic, general, cardiac, and mixed surgical populations. Only one study was multicenter and risk of bias was moderate to high in all studies. Interventions were applied pre- and postoperatively, and included exercise therapy (n = 4), multicomponent geriatric care protocols (n = 5), and blood transfusion triggers (n = 1); no specific surgical techniques were compared. Exercise therapy, applied pre-, or post-operatively, was associated with significant improvements in functional outcomes and improved quality of life. Multicomponent protocols suffered from poor compliance and difficulties in implementation. Transfusion triggers had no significant impact on mortality or other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:Despite a growing literature that demonstrates strong independent associations between frailty and adverse outcomes, few interventions have been tested to improve the outcomes of frail surgical patients, and most available studies are at substantial risk of bias. Multicenter, low risk of bias, studies of perioperative exercise are needed, while substantial efforts are required to develop and test other interventions to improve the outcomes of frail people having surgery.