METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study in 13 international ICUs involving mechanically ventilated cardiac surgery patients with an ICU stay of at least 72 h. Collected data included the energy and protein prescription, type of and time to the initiation of nutrition, and actual quantity of energy and protein delivered (maximum: 12 days).
RESULTS: Among 237 enrolled patients, enteral nutrition (EN) was started, on average, 45 h after ICU admission (range, 0-277 h; site average, 53 [range, 10-79 h]). EN was prescribed for 187 (79%) patients and combined EN and parenteral nutrition in 33 (14%). Overall, patients received 44.2% (0.0%-117.2%) of the prescribed energy and 39.7% (0.0%-122.8%) of the prescribed protein. At a site level, the average nutrition adequacy was 47.5% (30.5%-78.6%) for energy and 43.6% (21.7%-76.6%) for protein received from all nutrition sources.
CONCLUSION: Critically ill cardiac surgery patients with prolonged ICU stay experience significant delays in starting EN and receive low levels of energy and protein. There exists tremendous variability in site performance, whereas achieving optimal nutrition performance is doable.
DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature followed by a consensus-based voting process.
SETTING: A web-based international consensus conference.
PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred fifty-one physicians from 46 countries.
INTERVENTIONS: The authors performed a systematic literature search and identified all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing a significant increase in unadjusted landmark mortality among surgical or critically ill patients. The authors reviewed such studies during a meeting by a core group of experts. Studies selected after such review advanced to web-based voting by clinicians in relation to agreement, clinical practice, and willingness to include each intervention in international guidelines.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The authors selected 12 RCTs dealing with 12 interventions increasing mortality: diaspirin-crosslinked hemoglobin (92% of agreement among web voters), overfeeding, nitric oxide synthase inhibitor in septic shock, human growth hormone, thyroxin in acute kidney injury, intravenous salbutamol in acute respiratory distress syndrome, plasma-derived protein C concentrate, aprotinin in high-risk cardiac surgery, cysteine prodrug, hypothermia in meningitis, methylprednisolone in traumatic brain injury, and albumin in traumatic brain injury (72% of agreement). Overall, a high consistency (ranging from 80% to 90%) between agreement and clinical practice was observed.
CONCLUSION: The authors identified 12 clinical interventions showing increased mortality supported by randomized controlled trials with nonconflicting evidence, and wide agreement upon clinicians on a global scale.
METHODS: We conducted an observational substudy of patients who had POAF, were at elevated cardiovascular risk, and were enrolled in the PeriOperative Ischemic Evaluation (POISE)-1, 2 and 3 trials between 2002 and 2021. POAF was defined as new, clinically important atrial fibrillation occurring within 30 days after surgery. We assessed the use of rhythm-control and anticoagulation treatment in response to POAF, at hospital discharge and at 30 days after surgery. We assessed for temporal trends using multivariable logistic regression.
RESULTS: Of the 27,896 patients included, 545 (1.9%) developed clinically important POAF. Patients received rhythm-control treatment in 48.6% of cases. The level of use of rhythm-control treatment increased over the course of the trials (POISE-1 vs POISE-2 vs POISE-3; 40.9% vs 49.5% vs 59.1%). A later randomization date was associated independently with use of rhythm-control treatment (odds ratio, 1.05 per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.09). Anticoagulation treatment was prescribed in 21% of POAF cases. The level of anticoagulation treatement use was higher in POISE-3, compared to that in the 2 previous trials (POISE-1 vs POISE-2 vs POISE-3-16.4% vs 16.5% vs 33.6%). A later randomization date was associated independently with use of anticoagulation treatment (odds ratio, 1.06 per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.11).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the absence of randomized controlled trials, the level of use of rhythm-control and anticoagulation treatment for POAF is rising. High-quality trials are needed urgently to determine whether these interventions are safe and effective in this population.
DESIGN: Single blinded, international, multicenter randomized controlled trial with 1:1 allocation ratio.
SETTING: Tertiary and University hospitals.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients (n=10,600) undergoing coronary artery bypass graft will be randomized to receive either volatile anesthetic as part of the anesthetic plan, or total intravenous anesthesia.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary end point of the study will be one-year mortality (any cause). Secondary endpoints will be 30-day mortality; 30-day death or non-fatal myocardial infarction (composite endpoint); cardiac mortality at 30day and at one year; incidence of hospital re-admission during the one year follow-up period and duration of intensive care unit, and hospital stay. The sample size is based on the hypothesis that volatile anesthetics will reduce 1-year unadjusted mortality from 3% to 2%, using a two-sided alpha error of 0.05, and a power of 0.9.
CONCLUSIONS: The trial will determine whether the simple intervention of adding a volatile anesthetic, an intervention that can be implemented by all anesthesiologists, can improve one-year survival in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
Objective: To conduct a substudy of POISE-3 to determine whether a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy reduces the risk of acute kidney injury compared with a hypertension-avoidance strategy.
Design: Randomized clinical trial with 1:1 randomization to the intervention (a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy) or control (a hypertension-avoidance strategy).
Intervention: If the presurgery systolic blood pressure (SBP) is <130 mmHg, all antihypertensive medications are withheld on the morning of surgery. If the SBP is ≥130 mmHg, some medications (but not angiotensin receptor blockers [ACEIs], angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], or renin inhibitors) may be continued in a stepwise manner. During surgery, the patients' mean arterial pressure (MAP) is maintained at ≥80 mmHg. During the first 48 hours after surgery, some antihypertensive medications (but not ACEIs, ARBs, or renin inhibitors) may be restarted in a stepwise manner if the SBP is ≥130 mmHg.
Control: Patients receive their usual antihypertensive medications before and after surgery. The patients' MAP is maintained at ≥60 mmHg from anesthetic induction until the end of surgery.
Setting: Recruitment from 108 centers in 22 countries from 2018 to 2021.
Patients: Patients (~6800) aged ≥45 years having noncardiac surgery who have or are at risk of atherosclerotic disease and who routinely take antihypertensive medications.
Measurements: The primary outcome of the substudy is postoperative acute kidney injury, defined as an increase in serum creatinine concentration of either ≥26.5 μmol/L (≥0.3 mg/dL) within 48 hours of randomization or ≥50% within 7 days of randomization.
Methods: The primary analysis (intention-to-treat) will examine the relative risk and 95% confidence interval of acute kidney injury in the intervention versus control group. We will repeat the primary analysis using alternative definitions of acute kidney injury and examine effect modification by preexisting chronic kidney disease, defined as a prerandomization estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2.
Results: Substudy results will be analyzed in 2022.
Limitations: It is not possible to mask patients or providers to the intervention; however, objective measures will be used to assess acute kidney injury.
Conclusions: This substudy will provide generalizable estimates of the effect of a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy on the risk of acute kidney injury.
METHODS: We conducted a trial involving patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive tranexamic acid (1-g intravenous bolus) or placebo at the start and end of surgery (reported here) and, with the use of a partial factorial design, a hypotension-avoidance or hypertension-avoidance strategy (not reported here). The primary efficacy outcome was life-threatening bleeding, major bleeding, or bleeding into a critical organ (composite bleeding outcome) at 30 days. The primary safety outcome was myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, or symptomatic proximal venous thromboembolism (composite cardiovascular outcome) at 30 days. To establish the noninferiority of tranexamic acid to placebo for the composite cardiovascular outcome, the upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the hazard ratio had to be below 1.125, and the one-sided P value had to be less than 0.025.
RESULTS: A total of 9535 patients underwent randomization. A composite bleeding outcome event occurred in 433 of 4757 patients (9.1%) in the tranexamic acid group and in 561 of 4778 patients (11.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67 to 0.87; absolute difference, -2.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.8 to -1.4; two-sided P<0.001 for superiority). A composite cardiovascular outcome event occurred in 649 of 4581 patients (14.2%) in the tranexamic acid group and in 639 of 4601 patients (13.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.14; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% CI, 1.14; absolute difference, 0.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.1 to 1.7; one-sided P = 0.04 for noninferiority).
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, the incidence of the composite bleeding outcome was significantly lower with tranexamic acid than with placebo. Although the between-group difference in the composite cardiovascular outcome was small, the noninferiority of tranexamic acid was not established. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; POISE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03505723.).
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of a hypotension-avoidance and a hypertension-avoidance strategy on major vascular complications after noncardiac surgery.
DESIGN: Partial factorial randomized trial of 2 perioperative blood pressure management strategies (reported here) and tranexamic acid versus placebo. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03505723).
SETTING: 110 hospitals in 22 countries.
PATIENTS: 7490 patients having noncardiac surgery who were at risk for vascular complications and were receiving 1 or more long-term antihypertensive medications.
INTERVENTION: In the hypotension-avoidance strategy group, the intraoperative mean arterial pressure target was 80 mm Hg or greater; before and for 2 days after surgery, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors were withheld and the other long-term antihypertensive medications were administered only for systolic blood pressures 130 mm Hg or greater, following an algorithm. In the hypertension-avoidance strategy group, the intraoperative mean arterial pressure target was 60 mm Hg or greater; all antihypertensive medications were continued before and after surgery.
MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was a composite of vascular death and nonfatal myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, stroke, and cardiac arrest at 30 days. Outcome adjudicators were masked to treatment assignment.
RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in 520 of 3742 patients (13.9%) in the hypotension-avoidance group and in 524 of 3748 patients (14.0%) in the hypertension-avoidance group (hazard ratio, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.12]; P = 0.92). Results were consistent for patients who used 1 or more than 1 antihypertensive medication in the long term.
LIMITATION: Adherence to the assigned strategies was suboptimal; however, results were consistent across different adherence levels.
CONCLUSION: In patients having noncardiac surgery, our hypotension-avoidance and hypertension-avoidance strategies resulted in a similar incidence of major vascular complications.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and Research Grant Council of Hong Kong.