Core Outcome Measures for Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (COMPAC): a modified Delphi process to develop a core outcome set for trials in perioperative care and anaesthesia

Pharmacologic Treatment Strategies for Delirium in Hospitalized Adults: Past, Present, and Future

Despite the use of multidomain prevention strategies, delirium still frequently occurs in hospitalized adults. With delirium often associated with undesirable symptoms and deleterious outcomes, including cognitive decline, treatment is important. Risk-factor reduction and the protocolized use of multidomain, nonpharmacologic bundles remain the mainstay of delirium treatment. There is a current lack of strong evidence to suggest any pharmacologic intervention to treat delirium will help resolve it faster, reduce its symptoms (other than agitation), facilitate hospital throughput, or improve post-hospital outcomes including long-term cognitive function. With the exception of dexmedetomidine as a treatment of severe delirium-associated agitation in the ICU, current practice guidelines do not recommend the routine use of any pharmacologic intervention to treat delirium in any hospital population. Future research should focus on identifying and evaluating new pharmacologic delirium treatment interventions and addressing key challenges and gaps surrounding delirium treatment research.

New set of indicators with consensus definition for anaesthesia-related severe morbidity: A scoping review followed by a Delphi study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Monitoring anaesthesia-related severe morbidity constitutes a good opportunity for assessing quality and safety of care in anaesthesia. Several recent studies attempted to describe and define indicators for anaesthesia-related severe morbidity with limitations: no formal experts' consensus process, overlap with surgical complications, no consensual definitions, inapplicability in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to provide a set of indicators for anaesthesia-related severe morbidity based on outcomes and using clinically useful consensual definitions.

DESIGN

1/ scoping review of studies published in 2010-2021 on outcomes of anaesthesia-related severe morbidity with different definitions; 2/ International experts' consensus on indicators for anaesthesia-related severe morbidity with specific definitions using a Delphi process.

MAIN RESULTS

After including 142 studies, 68 outcomes for anaesthesia-related severe morbidity were identified and organized in 34 indicators divided into 8 categories (cardiovascular, respiratory, sepsis, renal, neurological, medication error, digestive and others). The indicators were then submitted to the experts. After 2 Delphi rounds, the 26 indicators retained by the experts with their corresponding consensual definition were: acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, pulmonary embolism and thrombosis, bronchospasm or laryngospasm, pneumonia, inhalation pneumonitis, pneumothorax, difficult or impossible intubation, atelectasis, self-extubation or accidental extubation, sepsis or septic shock, transient ischemic attack, postoperative confusion or delirium, post-puncture headache, medication error, liver failure, unplanned intensive care unit admission, multiple-organ failure.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a new consensual set of indicators for anaesthesia-related severe morbidity with specific definitions, that could be easily applied in clinical practice as in research.

A survey and analysis of peri-operative quality indicators promoted by National Societies of Anaesthesiologists in Europe: The EQUIP project

BACKGROUND

To capture preventable peri-operative patient harm and guide improvement initiatives, many quality indicators (QIs) have been developed. Several National Anaesthesiologist Societies (NAS) in Europe have implemented quality indicators. To date, the definitions, validity and dissemination of such quality indicators, and their comparability with validated published indicators are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to identify all quality indicators promoted by NAS in Europe, to assess their characteristics and to compare them with published validated quality indicators.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study with mixed methods analysis. Using a survey questionnaire, representatives of 37 NAS were asked if their society provided quality indicators to their members and, if so, to provide the list, definitions and details of quality indicators. Characteristics of reported quality indicators were analysed.

SETTING

The 37 NAS affiliated with the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) at the time. Data collection, translations: March 2018 to February 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

Representatives of all 37 NAS completed the survey.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

QIs reported by NAS.

RESULTS

Only 12 (32%) of the 37 NAS had made a set of quality indicators available to their members. Data collection was mandatory in six (16.2%) of the 37 countries. We identified 163 individual quality indicators, which were most commonly descriptive (60.1%), anaesthesia-specific (50.3%) and related to intra-operative care (21.5%). They often measured structures (41.7%) and aspects of safety (35.6%), appropriateness (20.9%) and prevention (16.6%). Patient-centred care (3.7%) was not well covered. Only 11.7% of QIs corresponded to published validated or well established quality indicator sets.

CONCLUSIONS

Few NAS in Europe promoted peri-operative quality indicators. Most of them differed from published sets of validated indicators and were often related to the structural dimension of quality. There is a need to establish a European-wide comprehensive core set of usable and validated quality indicators to monitor the quality of peri-operative care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

No registration.

Effectiveness of dexmedetomidine on patient-centred outcomes in surgical patients: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine is increasingly used for surgical patients requiring general anaesthesia. However, its effectiveness on patient-centred outcomes remains uncertain. Our main objective was to evaluate the patient-centred effectiveness of intraoperative dexmedetomidine for adult patients requiring surgery under general anaesthesia.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL from inception to October 2023. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intraoperative use of dexmedetomidine with placebo, opioid, or usual care in adult patients requiring surgery under general anaesthesia were included. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. We synthesised data using a random-effects Bayesian regression framework to derive effect estimates and the probability of a clinically important effect. For continuous outcomes, we pooled instruments with similar constructs using standardised mean differences (SMDs) and converted SMDs and credible intervals (CrIs) to their original scale when appropriate. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Our primary outcome was quality of recovery after surgery. To guide interpretation on the original scale, the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) instrument was used (range 0-150 points, minimally important difference [MID] of 6 points).

RESULTS

We identified 49,069 citations, from which 44 RCTs involving 5904 participants were eligible. Intraoperative dexmedetomidine administration was associated with improvement in postoperative QoR-15 (mean difference 9, 95% CrI 4-14, n=21 RCTs, moderate certainty of evidence). We found 99% probability of any benefit and 88% probability of achieving the MID. There was a reduction in chronic pain incidence (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% CrI 0.19-0.79, n=7 RCTs, low certainty of evidence). There was also increased risk of clinically significant hypotension (OR 1.98, 95% CrI 0.84-3.92, posterior probability of harm 94%, n=8 RCTs) and clinically significant bradycardia (OR 1.74, 95% CrI 0.93-3.34, posterior probability of harm 95%, n=10 RCTs), with very low certainty of evidence for both. There was limited evidence to inform other secondary patient-centred outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo or standard of care, intraoperative dexmedetomidine likely results in meaningful improvement in the quality of recovery and chronic pain after surgery. However, it might increase clinically important bradycardia and hypotension.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL

PROSPERO (CRD42023439896).

Data Infrastructure for Improvement in Perioperative Medicine: Experience at a London Tertiary Hospital

Adoption of electronic health record systems offers an opportunity to collate massive volumes of complex information about patient care. Healthcare data can inform performance management, enable predictive analytics and enhance strategic decision making. A data-driven approach to improving patient care is vital to address the growing burden of morbidity and mortality associated with major surgery. We describe our methodology for transforming and utilising process of care data in an electronic health record system to develop a registry for quality improvement purposes in patients undergoing major surgery at a single UK hospital. We highlight development of our data-driven vision, technical aspects of processing raw data into metrics relevant to clinical decision making, alongside challenges encountered. Finally, we outline how our data infrastructure supports clinical governance, quality improvement and research. In sharing our experiences, we hope to enable others to embed and access the transformative clinical insights that healthcare data can yield.

Effectiveness and safety of enhanced postoperative care units for non-cardiac, non-neurological surgery: a systematic review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The proposed systematic review will evaluate the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of enhanced post-operative care (EPC) units on patient and health service outcomes in adult patients following non-cardiac, non-neurological surgery.

INTRODUCTION

The increase in surgical procedures globally has placed a significant economic and societal burden on health care systems. Recognizing this challenge, EPC units have emerged as a model of care, bridging the gap between traditional, ward-level care and intensive care. EPC offers benefits such as higher staff-to-patient ratios, close patient monitoring (eg, invasive monitoring), and access to critical interventions (eg, vasopressor support). However, there is a lack of well-established guidelines and empirical evidence regarding the safety and effectiveness of EPC units for adult patients following surgery.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This review will include studies involving adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing any elective or emergency non-cardiac, non-neurological surgery, who have been admitted to an EPC unit. Experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational study designs will be eligible.

METHODS

This review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. The search strategy will identify published and unpublished studies from the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and Scopus, as well as gray literature sources, from 2010 to the present. Two independent reviewers will screen studies, extract data, and critically appraise selected studies using standardized JBI assessment tools. Where feasible, a statistical meta-analysis will be performed to combine study findings. The certainty of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023455269.

The way towards ethical anesthesia care: no aim - no game - no fame or blame?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review explores the intricacies of ethical anesthesia, exploring the necessity for precision anesthesia and its impact on patient-reported outcomes. The primary objective is to advocate for a defined aim, promoting the implementation of rules and feedback systems. The ultimate goal is to enhance precision anesthesia care, ensuring patient safety through the implementation of a teamwork and the integration of feedback mechanisms.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent strategies in the field of anesthesia have evolved from intraoperative monitorization to a wider perioperative patient-centered precision care. Nonetheless, implementing this approach encounters significant obstacles. The article explores the evidence supporting the need for a defined aim and applicable rules for precision anesthesia's effectiveness. The implementation of the safety culture is underlined. The review delves into the teamwork description with structured feedback systems.

SUMMARY

Anesthesia is a multifaceted discipline that involves various stakeholders. The primary focus is delivering personalized precision care. This review underscores the importance of establishing clear aims, defined rules, and fostering effective and well tolerated teamwork with accurate feedback for improving patient-reported outcomes. The Safe Brain Initiative approach, emphasizing algorithmic monitoring and systematic follow-up, is crucial in implementing a fundamental and standardized reporting approach within patient-centered anesthesia care practice.

Impact of spinal or epidural anaesthesia on perioperative outcomes in adult noncardiac surgery: a narrative review of recent evidence

Spinal and epidural anaesthesia and analgesia are important anaesthetic techniques, familiar to all anaesthetists and applied to patients undergoing a range of surgical procedures. Although the immediate effects of a well-conducted neuraxial technique on nociceptive and sympathetic pathways are readily observable in clinical practice, the impact of such techniques on patient-centred perioperative outcomes remains an area of uncertainty and active research. The aim of this review is to present a narrative synthesis of contemporary clinical science on this topic from the most recent 5-year period and summarise the foundational scholarship upon which this research was based. We searched electronic databases for primary research, secondary research, opinion pieces, and guidelines reporting the relationship between neuraxial procedures and standardised perioperative outcomes over the period 2018-2023. Returned citation lists were examined seeking additional studies to contextualise our narrative synthesis of results. Articles were retrieved encompassing the following outcome domains: patient comfort, renal, sepsis and infection, postoperative cancer, cardiovascular, and pulmonary and mortality outcomes. Convincing evidence of the beneficial effect of epidural analgesia on patient comfort after major open thoracoabdominal surgery outcomes was identified. Recent evidence of benefit in the prevention of pulmonary complications and mortality was identified. Despite mechanistic plausibility and supportive observational evidence, there is less certain experimental evidence to support a role for neuraxial techniques impacting on other outcome domains. Evidence of positive impact of neuraxial techniques is best established for the domains of patient comfort, pulmonary complications, and mortality, particularly in the setting of major open thoracoabdominal surgery. Recent evidence does not strongly support a significant impact of neuraxial techniques on cancer, renal, infection, or cardiovascular outcomes after noncardiac surgery in most patient groups.

Efficacy of different routes of acetaminophen administration for postoperative pain in children: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Acetaminophen is the most common drug used to treat acute pain in the pediatric population, given its wide safety margin, low cost, and multiple routes for administration. We sought to determine the most efficacious route of acetaminophen administration for postoperative acute pain relief in the pediatric surgical population.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included children aged between 30 days and 17 yr who underwent any type of surgical procedure and that evaluated the analgesic efficacy of different routes of administration of acetaminophen for the treatment of postoperative pain. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, CINAHL, LILACs, and Google Scholar databases for trials published from inception to 16 April 2023. We assessed the risk of bias in the included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1.0 tool. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Our primary outcome was postoperative pain using validated pain scales.

RESULTS

We screened 2,344 studies and included 14 trials with 829 participants in the analysis. We conducted a network meta-analysis for the period from zero to two hours, including six trials with 496 participants. There was no evidence of differences between intravenous vs rectal routes of administration of acetaminophen (difference in means, -0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.62 to 0.06; very low certainty of the evidence) and intravenous vs oral acetaminophen (difference in means, -0.60; 95% CI, -1.20 to 0.01; low certainty of the evidence). For the comparison of oral vs rectal routes, we found evidence favouring the oral route (difference in means, -0.88; 95% CI, -1.44 to -0.31; low certainty of the evidence). Few trials reported secondary outcomes of interest; when comparing the oral and rectal routes in the incidence of nausea and vomiting, there was no evidence of differences (relative risk, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.78).

CONCLUSION

The available evidence on the effect of the administration route of acetaminophen on postoperative pain in children is very uncertain. The outcomes of postoperative pain control and postoperative vomiting may differ very little between the oral and rectal route. Better designed and executed RCTs are required to address this important clinical question.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42021286495); first submitted 19 November 2021.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of thoracic epidural analgesia versus other analgesic techniques in patients post-oesophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Oesophageal cancer surgery represents a high perioperative risk of complications to patients, such as postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Postoperative analgesia may influence these risks, but the most favourable analgesic technique is debated. This review aims to provide an updated evaluation of whether thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) has benefits compared to other analgesic techniques in patients undergoing oesophagectomy surgery. Our hypothesis is that TEA reduces pain scores and PPCs compared to intravenous opioid analgesia in patients post-oesophagectomy.

METHODS

Electronic databases PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomised trials of analgesic interventions in patients undergoing oesophagectomy surgery. Only trials including thoracic epidural analgesia compared with other analgesic techniques were included. The primary outcome was a composite of respiratory infection, atelectasis and respiratory failure (PPCs), with pain scores at rest and on movement as secondary outcomes. Data was pooled using random effect models and reported as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Data from a total of 741 patients in 10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from 1993 to 2023 were included. Nine trials were open surgery, and one trial was laparoscopic. Relative to intravenous opioids, TEA significantly reduced a composite of PPCs (risk ratio (RR) 3.88; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.98-7.61; n = 222; 3 RCTs) and pain scores (0-100-mm visual analogue scale or VAS) at rest at 24 h (MD 9.02; 95% CI 5.88-12.17; n = 685; 10 RCTs) and 48 h (MD 8.64; 95% CI 5.91-11.37; n = 685; 10 RCTs) and pain scores on movement at 24 h (MD 14.96; 95% CI 5.46-24.46; n = 275; 4 RCTs) and 48 h (MD 16.60; 95% CI 8.72-24.47; n = 275; 4 RCTs).

CONCLUSIONS

Recent trials of analgesic technique in oesophagectomy surgery are restricted by small sample size and variation of outcome measurement. Despite these limitations, current evidence indicates that thoracic epidural analgesia reduces the risk of PPCs and severe pain, compared to intravenous opioids in patients following oesophageal cancer surgery. Future research should include minimally invasive surgery, non-epidural regional techniques and record morbidity, using core outcome measures with standardised endpoints.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023484720).

The Impact of Preoperative Combined Pectoserratus and/or Interpectoral Plane (Pectoralis Type II) Blocks on Opioid Consumption, Pain, and Overall Benefit of Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, and Triple-blinded Trial

OBJECTIVE

Acute postoperative pain remains a major obstacle in minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS). Evidence of the analgesic benefit of chest wall blocks is limited. This study was designed to assess the influence of combined pectoserratus plane block plus interpectoral plane block (PSPB + IPPB) on postoperative pain and the overall benefit of analgesia compared with placebo.

DESIGN

A prospective, randomized, triple-blinded study was conducted.

SETTING

The setting was the operating room and intensive care unit of a university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 60 patients undergoing elective right-lateral MICS were enrolled.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to preoperative PSPB + IPPB with 30 mL of ropivacaine 0.5% or saline.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary endpoint was total intravenous morphine milligram equivalents administered in the first 24 hours after extubation. Secondary endpoints included the Overall Benefit of Analgesia Score (OBAS) at 24 hours after extubation and repeated Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Values for intravenous morphine milligram equivalents administered in the first 24 hours after extubation were significantly lower (median [interquartile range]: 4.2 mg [2.1 - 7.9] v 8.3 mg [4.2 - 15.7], p = 0.025; mean difference: 6.7 mg [0.94 - 12 mg], p = 0.024, Cohen's d: 0.64 [0.09 - 1.2]). Moreover, OBAS at 24 hours and VAS after extubation were significantly lower (4.0 [3.0 - 6.0] v 7.0 [3.0 - 9.0], p = 0.043; 0.0 cm [0.0 - 2.0] v 1.5 cm [0.3 - 3.0], p = 0.030). VAS did not differ between groups at later points.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative PSPB + IPPB reduced 24-hour postextubation opioid consumption, pain at extubation, and OBAS. Given its low risk and expedient placement, it could be a helpful addition to MICS protocols. Future studies should evaluate these findings in multicenter settings and further elucidate the optimal timing of block placement.

Peripheral Nerve Blocks in the Preoperative Management of Hip Fractures: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the comparative efficacy of peripheral nerve block types for preoperative pain management of hip fractures.

METHODS

We searched Cochrane, Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar for randomized clinical trials. We included participants aged more than 16 years with hip fractures who received peripheral nerve blocks or analgesics for preoperative pain management. The primary outcomes were defined as absolute pain score 2 hours after block placement, preoperative consumption of morphine equivalents, and length of hospital stay. We used a random-effects network meta-analysis conceptualized in the Bayesian framework. Confidence of evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA).

RESULTS

We included 63 randomized controlled studies (4,778 participants), of which only a few had a low risk of bias. The femoral nerve block, 3-in-1 block, fascia iliaca compartment block, and pericapsular nerve group block yielded significantly lowered pain scores at 2 hours after block placement compared with those with no block (standardized mean differences [SMD]: -1.1; 95% credible interval [CrI]: -1.7 to -0.48, [confidence of evidence: low]; SMD: -1.8; 95% CrI: -3.0 to -0.55, [low]; SMD: -1.4; 95% CrI: -2.0 to -0.72, [low]; SMD: -2.3; 95% CrI: -3.2 to -1.4, [moderate], respectively). The pericapsular nerve group block, 3-in-1 block, fascia iliaca compartment block, and femoral nerve block resulted in lower pain scores than the no-block group. Additionally, the pericapsular nerve group block yielded a lower pain score than femoral nerve block or fascia iliaca compartment block (SMD: -1.21; 95% CrI: -2.18 to -0.23, [very low]: SMD: -0.92; 95% CrI: -1.70 to -0.16, [low]). However, both the fascia iliaca compartment block and femoral nerve block did not show a reduction in morphine consumption compared with no block. To our knowledge, no studies have compared the pericapsular nerve group block with other methods regarding morphine consumption. Furthermore, no significant difference was observed between peripheral nerve blocks and no block in terms of the length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with no block, preoperative peripheral nerve blocks for hip fractures appear to reduce pain 2 hours after block placement. Comparing different blocks, pericapsular nerve group block might be superior to fascia iliaca compartment block and femoral nerve block for pain relief, though the confidence evidence was low in most comparisons because of the moderate to high risk of bias in many of the included studies and the high heterogeneity of treatment strategies across studies. Therefore, further high-quality research is needed.

Preoperative N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and myocardial injury after stopping or continuing renin-angiotensin system inhibitors in noncardiac surgery: a prespecified analysis of a phase 2 randomised controlled multicentre trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with elevated preoperative plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP >100 pg ml-1) experience more complications after noncardiac surgery. Individuals prescribed renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors for cardiometabolic disease are at particular risk of perioperative myocardial injury and complications. We hypothesised that stopping RAS inhibitors before surgery increases the risk of perioperative myocardial injury, depending on preoperative risk stratified by plasma NT-proBNP concentrations.

METHODS

In a preplanned analysis of a phase 2a trial in six UK centres, patients ≥60 yr old undergoing elective noncardiac surgery were randomly assigned either to stop or continue RAS inhibitors before surgery. The pharmacokinetic profile of individual RAS inhibitors determined for how long they were stopped before surgery. The primary outcome, masked to investigators, clinicians, and patients, was myocardial injury (plasma high-sensitivity troponin-T ≥15 ng L-1 or a ≥5 ng L-1 increase, when preoperative high-sensitivity troponin-T ≥15 ng L-1) within 48 h after surgery. The co-exposures of interest were preoperative plasma NT-proBNP (< or >100 pg ml -1) and stopping or continuing RAS inhibitors.

RESULTS

Of 241 participants, 101 (41.9%; mean age 71 [7] yr; 48% females) had preoperative NT-proBNP >100 pg ml -1 (median 339 [160-833] pg ml-1), of whom 9/101 (8.9%) had a formal diagnosis of cardiac failure. Myocardial injury occurred in 63/101 (62.4%) subjects with NT-proBNP >100 pg ml-1, compared with 45/140 (32.1%) subjects with NT-proBNP <100 pg ml -1 {odds ratio (OR) 3.50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.05-5.99); P<0.0001}. For subjects with preoperative NT-proBNP <100 pg ml-1, 30/75 (40%) who stopped RAS inhibitors had myocardial injury, compared with 15/65 (23.1%) who continued RAS inhibitors (OR for stopping 2.22 [95% CI 1.06-4.65]; P=0.03). For preoperative NT-proBNP >100 pg ml-1, myocardial injury rates were similar regardless of stopping (62.2%) or continuing (62.5%) RAS inhibitors (OR for stopping 0.98 [95% CI 0.44-2.22]).

CONCLUSIONS

Stopping renin-angiotensin system inhibitors in lower-risk patients (preoperative NT-proBNP <100 pg ml -1) increased the likelihood of myocardial injury before noncardiac surgery.

Celebrating the state of the art and innovations in regional anaesthesia in the British Journal of Anaesthesia

To coincide with the annual scientific meeting of Regional Anaesthesia UK in London 2024, where there is a joint scientific session with the British Journal of Anaesthesia, a special regional anaesthesia edition of the journal has been produced. This editorial offers some highlights from the manuscripts contained within the special edition.

Peripheral regional anaesthesia and outcomes: a narrative review of the literature from 2013 to 2023

The use of peripheral regional anaesthesia continues to increase, yet the evidence supporting its use and impact on relevant outcomes often lacks scientific rigour, especially when considering the use of specific blocks for a particular surgical indication. In this narrative review, we consider the relevant literature in a 10-yr period from 2013. We performed a literature search (MEDLINE and EMBASE) for articles reporting randomised controlled trials and other comparative trials of peripheral regional anaesthetic blocks vs systemic analgesia in adult patients undergoing surgery. We evaluated measures of effective treatment and complications. A total of 128 studies met our inclusion criteria. There remains variability in the technical conduct of blocks and the outcomes used to evaluate them. There is a considerable body of evidence to support the use of interscalene blocks for shoulder surgery. Saphenous nerve (motor-sparing) blocks provide satisfactory analgesia after knee surgery and are preferred to femoral nerve blocks which are associated with falls when patients are mobilised early as part of enhanced recovery programmes. There are additional surgical indications where the efficacy of cervical plexus, intercostal nerve, and ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks have been demonstrated. In the past 10 yr, there has been a consolidation of the evidence indicating benefit of peripheral nerve blocks for specific indications. There remains great scope for rigorous, multicentre, randomised controlled trials of many peripheral nerve blocks. These would benefit from an agreed set of patient-centred outcomes.

Patient-centered precision care in anaesthesia - the PC-square (PC) 2 approach

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review navigates the landscape of precision anaesthesia, emphasising tailored and individualized approaches to anaesthetic administration. The aim is to elucidate precision medicine principles, applications, and potential advancements in anaesthesia. The review focuses on the current state, challenges, and transformative opportunities in precision anaesthesia.

RECENT FINDINGS

The review explores evidence supporting precision anaesthesia, drawing insights from neuroscientific fields. It probes the correlation between high-dose intraoperative opioids and increased postoperative consumption, highlighting how precision anaesthesia, especially through initiatives like Safe Brain Initiative (SBI), could address these issues. The SBI represents multidisciplinary collaboration in perioperative care. SBI fosters effective communication among surgical teams, anaesthesiologists, and other medical professionals.

SUMMARY

Precision anaesthesia tailors care to individual patients, incorporating genomic insights, personalised drug regimens, and advanced monitoring techniques. From EEG to cerebral/somatic oximetry, these methods enhance precision. Standardised reporting, patient-reported outcomes, and continuous quality improvement, alongside initiatives like SBI, contribute to improved patient outcomes. Precision anaesthesia, underpinned by collaborative programs, emerges as a promising avenue for enhancing perioperative care.

Intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies and patient-centred outcomes after surgery: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Postoperative patient-centred outcome measures are essential to capture the patient's experience after surgery. Although a large number of pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies (i.e. opioid alternatives) are used for patients undergoing surgery, it remains unclear which strategies are most promising in terms of patient-centred outcome improvements. This scoping review had two main objectives: (1) to map and describe evidence from clinical trials assessing the patient-centred effectiveness of pharmacologic intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies in adult surgical patients, and (2) to identify promising pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases from inception to February 2023. We included trials investigating the use of opioid minimisation strategies in adult surgical patients and reporting at least one patient-centred outcome. Study screening and data extraction were conducted independently by at least two reviewers.

RESULTS

Of 24,842 citations screened for eligibility, 2803 trials assessed the effectiveness of intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies. Of these, 457 trials (67,060 participants) met eligibility criteria, reporting at least one patient-centred outcome. In the 107 trials that included a patient-centred primary outcome, patient wellbeing was the most frequently used domain (55 trials). Based on aggregate findings, dexmedetomidine, systemic lidocaine, and COX-2 inhibitors were promising strategies, while paracetamol, ketamine, and gabapentinoids were less promising. Almost half of the trials (253 trials) did not report a protocol or registration number.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers should prioritise and include patient-centred outcomes in the assessment of opioid minimisation strategy effectiveness. We identified three potentially promising pharmacologic intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies that should be further assessed through systematic reviews and multicentre trials. Findings from our scoping review may be influenced by selective outcome reporting bias.

STUDY REGISTRATION

OSF - https://osf.io/7kea3.

Effectiveness of dexmedetomidine during surgery under general anaesthesia on patient-centred outcomes: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis protocol

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.

Cohort profile: the China surgery and anesthesia cohort (CSAC)

The China Surgery and Anaesthesia Cohort (CSAC) study was launched in July 2020 and is an ongoing prospective cohort study recruiting patients aged 40-65 years who underwent elective surgeries with general anaesthesia across four medical centres in China. The general objective of the CSAC study is to improve our understanding of the complex interaction between environmental and genetic components as well as to determine their effects on a wide range of interested surgery/anaesthesia-related outcomes. To achieve this goal, we collected enriched phenotypic data, e.g., sociodemographic characteristics, lifestyle factors, perioperative neuropsychological changes, anaesthesia- and surgery-related complications, and medical conditions, at recruitment, as well as through both active (at 1, 3, 7 days and 1, 3, 6, 12 months after surgery) and passive (for more than 1 year after surgery) follow-up assessments. We also obtained omics data from blood samples. In addition, COVID-19-related information was collected from all participants since January 2023, immediately after COVID-19 restrictions were eased in China. As of July 18, 2023, 12,766 participants (mean age = 52.40 years, 57.93% were female) completed baseline data collection (response rate = 94.68%), among which approximately 70% donated blood and hair samples. The follow-up rates within 12 months after surgery were > 92%. Our initial analyses have demonstrated the incidence of and risk factors for chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) and postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) among middle-aged Chinese individuals, which may prompt further mechanistic exploration and facilitate the development of effective interventions for preventing those conditions. Additional studies, such as genome-wide association analyses for identifying the genetic determinants of CPSP and POCD, are ongoing, and their findings will be released in the future.

Deep neuromuscular blockade in adults undergoing an abdominal laparoscopic procedure

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery is the preferred option for many procedures. To properly perform laparoscopic surgery, it is essential that sudden movements and abdominal contractions in patients are prevented, as it limits the surgeon's view. There has been a growing interest in the potential beneficial effect of deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) in laparoscopic surgery. Deep NMB improves the surgical field by preventing abdominal contractions, and it is thought to decrease postoperative pain. However, it is uncertain if deep NMB improves intraoperative safety and thereby improves clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of deep neuromuscular blockade versus no, shallow, or moderate neuromuscular blockade during laparoscopic intra- or transperitoneal procedures in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 31 July 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adults undergoing laparoscopic intra- or transperitoneal procedures comparing deep NMB to moderate, shallow, or no NMB. We excluded trials that did not report any of the primary or secondary outcomes of our review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. health-related quality of life, and 3. proportion of participants with serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 4. proportion of participants with non-serious adverse events, 5. readmissions within three months, 6. short-term pain scores, 7. measurements of postoperative recovery, and 8. operating time. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 randomised clinical trials with 3898 participants. Most trials included participants undergoing intraperitoneal oncological resection surgery. We present the Peto fixed-effect model for most dichotomous outcomes as only sparse events were reported. Comparison 1: deep versus moderate NMB Thirty-eight trials compared deep versus moderate NMB. Deep NMB may have no effect on mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 115.43; 12 trials, 1390 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Deep NMB likely results in little to no difference in health-related quality of life up to four days postoperative (mean difference (MD) 4.53 favouring deep NMB on the Quality of Recovery-40 score, 95% CI 0.96 to 8.09; 5 trials, 440 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; mean difference lower than the mean clinically important difference of 10 points). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of deep NMB on intraoperatively serious adverse events (deep NMB 38/1150 versus moderate NMB 38/1076; Peto OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.52; 21 trials, 2231 participants; very low-certainty evidence), short-term serious adverse events (up to 60 days) (deep NMB 37/912 versus moderate NMB 42/852; Peto OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.42; 16 trials, 1764 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and short-term non-serious adverse events (Peto OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.35; 11 trials, 1232 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Deep NMB likely does not alter the duration of surgery (MD -0.51 minutes, 95% CI -3.35 to 2.32; 34 trials, 3143 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain if deep NMB alters the length of hospital stay (MD -0.22 days, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.06; 19 trials, 2084 participants; low-certainty evidence) or pain scores one hour after surgery (MD -0.31 points on the numeric rating scale, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.03; 22 trials, 1823 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mean clinically important difference 1 point) and 24 hours after surgery (MD -0.60 points on the numeric rating scale, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.15; 16 trials, 1404 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mean clinically important difference 1 point). Comparison 2: deep versus shallow NMB Three trials compared deep versus shallow NMB. The trials did not report on mortality and health-related quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of deep NMB compared to shallow NMB on the proportion of serious adverse events (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 5.57; 2 trials, 158 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Comparison 3: deep versus no NMB One trial compared deep versus no NMB. There was no mortality in this trial, and health-related quality of life was not reported. The proportion of serious adverse events was 0/25 in the deep NMB group and 1/25 in the no NMB group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the effects of deep NMB compared to moderate NMB on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Deep NMB likely results in little to no difference in health-related quality of life and duration of surgery compared to moderate NMB, and it may have no effect on the length of hospital stay. Due to the very low-certainty evidence, we do not know what the effect is of deep NMB on non-serious adverse events, pain scores, or readmission rates. Randomised clinical trials with adequate reporting of all adverse events would reduce the current uncertainties. Due to the low number of identified trials and the very low certainty of evidence, we do not know what the effect of deep NMB on serious adverse events is compared to shallow NMB and no NMB. We found no trials evaluating mortality and health-related quality of life.

REMAP Periop: a randomised, embedded, multifactorial adaptive platform trial protocol for perioperative medicine to determine the optimal enhanced recovery pathway components in complex abdominal surgery patients within a US healthcare system

INTRODUCTION

Implementation of enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) has resulted in improved patient-centred outcomes and decreased costs. However, there is a lack of high-level evidence for many ERP elements. We have designed a randomised, embedded, multifactorial, adaptive platform perioperative medicine (REMAP Periop) trial to evaluate the effectiveness of several perioperative therapies for patients undergoing complex abdominal surgery as part of an ERP. This trial will begin with two domains: postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis and regional/neuraxial analgesia. Patients enrolled in the trial will be randomised to arms within both domains, with the possibility of adding additional domains in the future.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In the PONV domain, patients are randomised to optimal versus supraoptimal prophylactic regimens. In the regional/neuraxial domain, patients are randomised to one of five different single-injection techniques/combination of techniques. The primary study endpoint is hospital-free days at 30 days, with additional domain-specific secondary endpoints of PONV incidence and postoperative opioid consumption. The efficacy of an intervention arm within a given domain will be evaluated at regular interim analyses using Bayesian statistical analysis. At the beginning of the trial, participants will have an equal probability of being allocated to any given intervention within a domain (ie, simple 1:1 randomisation), with response adaptive randomisation guiding changes to allocation ratios after interim analyses when applicable based on prespecified statistical triggers. Triggers met at interim analysis may also result in intervention dropping.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The core protocol and domain-specific appendices were approved by the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board. A waiver of informed consent was obtained for this trial. Trial results will be announced to the public and healthcare providers once prespecified statistical triggers of interest are reached as described in the core protocol, and the most favourable interventions will then be implemented as a standardised institutional protocol.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04606264.

A Delphi Process to Identify Relevant Outcomes That May Be Associated With a Predictive Analytic Tool to Detect Hemodynamic Deterioration in the Intensive Care Unit

Background The critical care literature has seen an increase in the development and validation of tools using artificial intelligence for early detection of patient events or disease onset in the intensive care unit (ICU). The hemodynamic stability index (HSI) was found to have an AUC of 0.82 in predicting the need for hemodynamic intervention in the ICU. Future studies using this tool may benefit from targeting those outcomes that are more relevant to clinicians and most achievable. Methods A three-round Delphi study was conducted with a panel of 10 critical care physicians and three nurses in the United States to identify outcomes that may be most relevant and achievable with the HSI when evaluated for use in the ICU. To achieve criteria for relevance, at least 65% of panelists had to rate an outcome as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale. Results Nineteen of 24 outcomes that may be associated with the HSI achieved consensus for relevance. The Kemeny-Young approach was used to develop a matrix depicting the distribution of outcomes considering both relevance and achievability. "Reduces time spent in hemodynamic instability" and "reduces times to recognition of hemodynamic instability" were the highest-ranking outcomes considering both relevance and achievability. Conclusion This Delphi study was a feasible method to identify relevant outcomes that may be associated with an appropriate predictive analytic tool in the ICU. These findings can provide insight to researchers looking to study such tools to impact outcomes relevant to critical care practitioners. Future studies should test these tools in the ICU that target the most clinically relevant and achievable outcomes, such as time spent hemodynamically unstable or time until actionable nursing assessment or treatment.

Effectiveness of a digital vs face-to-face preoperative assessment: A randomized, noninferiority clinical trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Digitalizing the preoperative assessment clinic can be a solution to keep up with the growing demand for surgery. It remains unclear if a digital preoperative assessment clinic is as safe, and effective in terms of patient health outcomes and experience compared to face-to-face consultations. This study aimed to compare quality of recovery and mental state in patients undergoing a digital preoperative assessment versus regular face-to-face consultations.

DESIGN

This was a single centre, randomized (1:1), parallel, open-label, noninferiority trial.

SETTING

The preoperative clinic and preoperative unit of an urban secondary care hospital.

PATIENTS

All adult, Dutch speaking, ASA I-IV patients with access to an online computer who required surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Digital preoperative screening, consisting of an electronic screening questionnaire and web-based platform with personalized information and recommendations related to the procedure, or face-to-face screening, consisting of two 20-min in-hospital consultations.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary endpoint was quality of recovery, measured 48 h after surgery. The analysis followed a per-protocol principle, and only patients who underwent the intended screening were included in the analysis. The noninferiority margin was set at -6. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05535205, during the study on 09/08/2022, before analysing results.

MAIN RESULTS

Between March 1, 2021 and 30 august 2021, 480 patients were assessed for eligibility. 400 patients were randomly assigned to the digital group (n = 200) or face-to-face group (n = 201), of which respectively 117 and 124 patients were eventually included in the primary analysis. The mean quality of recovery score of patients undergoing digital screening (158) was non-inferior to that of patients undergoing face-to-face screening (155), with a mean difference of 3·2 points and a 97.5% lower confidence limit of -2.1 points. There were no adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

A digital preoperative screening is not inferior to face-to-face consultations in patients undergoing predominantly low to moderate risk surgery. Given its potential to reduce physician workload, reallocate healthcare resources, and lower healthcare costs, a digital preoperative screening may be a better choice for preoperative assessments.

Surgeon Sex and Long-Term Postoperative Outcomes Among Patients Undergoing Common Surgeries

Importance

Sex- and gender-based differences in a surgeon's medical practice and communication may be factors in patients' perioperative outcomes. Patients treated by female surgeons have improved 30-day outcomes. However, whether these outcomes persist over longer follow-up has not been assessed.

Objective

To examine whether surgeon sex is associated with 90-day and 1-year outcomes among patients undergoing common surgeries.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A population-based retrospective cohort study was conducted in adults in Ontario, Canada, undergoing 1 of 25 common elective or emergent surgeries between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2019. Analysis was performed between July 15 and October 20, 2022.

Exposure

Surgeon sex.

Main Outcomes and Measures

An adverse postoperative event, defined as the composite of death, readmission, or complication, was assessed at 90 days and 1 year following surgery. Secondarily, each of these outcomes was assessed individually. Outcomes were compared between patients treated by female and male surgeons using generalized estimating equations with clustering at the level of the surgical procedure, accounting for patient-, procedure-, surgeon-, anesthesiologist-, and facility-level covariates.

Results

Among 1 165 711 included patients, 151 054 were treated by a female and 1 014 657 by a male surgeon. Overall, 14.3% of the patients had 1 or more adverse postoperative outcomes at 90 days and 25.0% had 1 or more adverse postoperative outcomes 1 year following surgery. Among these, 2.0% of patients died within 90 days and 4.3% died within 1 year. Multivariable-adjusted rates of the composite end point were higher among patients treated by male than female surgeons at both 90 days (13.9% vs 12.5%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.13) and 1 year (25.0% vs 20.7%; AOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.12). Similar patterns were observed for mortality at 90 days (0.8% vs 0.5%; AOR 1.25; 95% CI, 1.12-1.39) and 1 year (2.4% vs 1.6%; AOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.13-1.36).

Conclusions and Relevance

After accounting for patient, procedure, surgeon, anesthesiologist, and hospital characteristics, the findings of this cohort study suggest that patients treated by female surgeons have lower rates of adverse postoperative outcomes including death at 90 days and 1 year after surgery compared with those treated by male surgeons. These findings further support differences in patient outcomes based on physician sex that warrant deeper study regarding underlying causes and potential solutions.

Consensus guidelines, Delphi methods, and evidence around anaesthetic technique for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Consensus guidelines on the anaesthetic management of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) have recently been published. The rigorous synthesis of expert opinion is invaluable when there are limited data, and these guidelines are a significant step forward. This review both guides practice and identifies important research questions. We challenge those working in this field to collaborate and produce the evidence for whether monitored anaesthesia care (MAC) is associated with a lower incidence of adverse events and better outcomes than general anaesthesia for ERCP.

Effect of inhaled anaesthetics on cognitive and psychiatric outcomes in critically ill adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sedation of critically ill patients with inhaled anaesthetics may reduce lung inflammation, time to extubation, and ICU length of stay compared with intravenous (i.v.) sedatives. However, the impact of inhaled anaesthetics on cognitive and psychiatric outcomes in this population is unclear. In this systematic review, we aimed to summarise the effect of inhaled anaesthetics on cognitive and psychiatric outcomes in critically ill adults.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO for case series, retrospective, and prospective studies in critically ill adults sedated with inhaled anaesthetics. Outcomes included delirium, psychomotor and neurological recovery, long-term cognitive dysfunction, ICU memories, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and instruments used for assessment.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included in distinct populations of post-cardiac arrest survivors (n=4), postoperative noncardiac patients (n=3), postoperative cardiac patients (n=2), and mixed medical-surgical patients (n=4). Eight studies reported delirium incidence, two neurological recovery, and two ICU memories. One study reported on psychomotor recovery, long-term cognitive dysfunction, anxiety, depression, and PTSD. A meta-analysis of five trials found no difference in delirium incidence between inhaled and i.v. sedatives (relative risk 0.95 [95% confidence interval: 0.59-1.54]). Compared with i.v. sedatives, inhaled anaesthetics were associated with fewer hallucinations and faster psychomotor recovery but no differences in other outcomes. There was heterogeneity in the instruments used and timing of these assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the limited evidence available, there is no difference in cognitive and psychiatric outcomes between adults exposed to volatile sedation or intravenous sedation in the ICU. Future studies should incorporate outcome assessment with validated tools during and after hospital stay.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL

PROSPERO CRD42021236455.

Patient satisfaction in anesthesiology: a narrative review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Healthcare is increasingly expanding its view in outcome discussions to integrate patient-reported outcomes such as patient satisfaction. Involving patients in the evaluation of services and the development of quality improvement strategies is paramount, especially in the service-oriented discipline of anaesthesiology.

RECENT FINDINGS

Currently, while the development of validated patient satisfaction questionnaires is well established, the use of rigorously tested scores in research and clinical practice is not standardized. Furthermore, most questionnaires are validated for specific settings, which limits our ability to draw relevant conclusions from them, especially considering the rapidly expanding scope of anaesthesia as a discipline and the addition of same-day surgery.

SUMMARY

For this manuscript, we review recent literature regarding patient satisfaction in the inpatient and ambulatory anaesthesia setting. We discuss ongoing controversies and briefly digress to consider management and leadership science regarding 'customer satisfaction'.

Evaluation of postoperative recovery: past, present and future

Postoperative recovery, as a window to observe perioperative treatment effect and patient prognosis, is a common outcome indicator in clinical research and has attracted more and more attention of surgeons and anaesthesiologists. Postoperative recovery is a subjective, multidimensional, long-term, complex process, so it is unreasonable to only use objective indicators to explain it. Currently, with the widespread use of patient-reported outcomes, various scales become the primary tools for assessing postoperative recovery. Through systematic search, we found 14 universal recovery scales, which have different structures, contents and measurement properties, as well as their own strengths and weaknesses. We also found that it is urgently necessary to perform further researches and develop a scale that can serve as the gold universal standard to evaluate postoperative recovery. In addition, with the rapid development of intelligent equipment, the establishment and validation of electronic scales is also an interesting direction.

Performance Comparison of Pulmonary Risk Scoring Systems in Lung Resection

OBJECTIVE

To validate and compare the performance of different pulmonary risk scoring systems to predict postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in lung resection surgery.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study SETTING: A historic single-center cohort of lung resection surgeries PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients undergoing lung resection surgery under 1-lung ventilation.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The accuracy of the following pulmonary risk scoring systems were used to predict pulmonary complications: the ARISCAT (Assess respiratory RIsk in Surgical patients in CATalonia), the LAS VEGAS (Local Assessment of VEntilatory management during General Anesthesia for Surgery), the SPORC (Score for Prediction of Postoperative Respiratory Complications), and a recent thoracic-specific risk score, named CARDOT. Discrimination and calibration were assessed using the concordance (c) index and the intercept of LOESS (locally estimated scatterplot)-smoothed curves, respectively. Additional models were constructed that incorporated predicted postoperative forced expiratory volume (ppoFEV1) into each scoring system. Of the 2,104 patients undergoing lung surgery, 123 developed postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs; 5.9%). All scoring systems had poor discriminatory power to predict PPCs (ARISCAT c-index 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.65; LAS VEGAS c-index 0.68, 95% CI 0.63-0.73; SPORC c-index 0.63, 95% CI 0.59-0.68; CARDOT c-index 0.64, 95% CI 0.58-0.70), but the inclusion of ppoFEV1 slightly improved the performance of LAS VEGAS (c-index 0.70, 95% CI 0.66-0.75) and CARDOT (c-index 0.68, 95% CI 0.62-0.73). Analysis of calibration showed a slight overestimation when using ARISCAT (intercept -0.28) and LAS VEGAS (intercept -0.27).

CONCLUSIONS

None of the scoring systems appeared to have adequate discriminatory power to predict PPCs among patients undergoing lung resection. An alternative risk score is necessary to better predict patients at risk of PPCs after thoracic surgery.

Low intra-abdominal pressure in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Guidelines do not provide clear recommendations with regard to the use of low intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) during laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the influence of low versus standard IAP during laparoscopic surgery on the key-outcomes in perioperative medicine as defined by the StEP-COMPAC consensus group.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials comparing low IAP (<10 mmHg) with standard IAP (10 mmHg or higher) during laparoscopic surgery without time, language, or blinding restrictions. According to the PRISMA guidelines, two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. Risk ratio (RR), and mean difference (MD), with 95% CIs were calculated using random-effects models with RevMan5. Main outcomes were based on StEP-COMPAC recommendations, and included postoperative complications, postoperative pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) scores, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Eighty-five studies in a wide range of laparoscopic procedures (7349 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. The available evidence indicates that the use of low IAP (<10 mmHg) leads to a lower incidence of mild (Clavien-Dindo grade 1-2) postoperative complications (RR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.53-0.86), lower pain scores (MD=-0.68, 95% CI: -0.82 to 0.54) and PONV incidence (RR=0.67, 95% CI: 0.51-0.88), and a reduced length of hospital stay (MD=-0.29, 95% CI: -0.46 to 0.11). Low IAP did not increase the risk of intraoperative complications (RR=1.15, 95% CI: 0.77-1.73).

CONCLUSIONS

Given the established safety and the reduced incidence of mild postoperative complications, lower pain scores, reduced incidence of PONV, and shorter length of stay, the available evidence supports a moderate to strong recommendation (1a level of evidence) in favor of low IAP during laparoscopic surgery.

Thoracic UltrasONOgraphy Reporting: The TUONO Consensus

The widespread use of the lung ultrasound (LUS) has not been followed by the development of a comprehensive standardized tool for its reporting in the intensive care unit (ICU) which could be useful to promote consistency and reproducibility during clinical examination. This work aims to define the essential features to be included in a standardized reporting tool and provides a structured model form to fully express the diagnostic potential of LUS and facilitate intensivists in the use of a LUS in everyday clinical ICU examination. We conducted a modified Delphi process to build consensus on the items to be integrated in a standardized report form and on its structure. A committee of 19 critical care physicians from 19 participating ICUs in Italy was formed, including intensivists experienced in ultrasound from both teaching hospitals and referral hospitals, and internationally renowned experts on the LUS. The consensus for 31 statements out of 33 was reached at the third Delphi round. A structured model form was developed based on the approved statements. The development of a standardized model as a backbone to report a LUS may facilitate the guidelines' application in clinical practice and increase inter-operator agreement. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effects of standardized reports in critically ill patients.

Quality indicators for anesthesia and perioperative medicine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Routine monitoring of care quality is fundamental considering the high reported rates of preventable perioperative morbidity and mortality. However, no set of valid and feasible quality indicators is available as the gold standard for comprehensive routine monitoring of the overall quality of perioperative care. The purpose of this review is to describe underlying difficulties, to summarize current trends and initiatives and to outline the perspectives in support of suitable perioperative quality indicators.

RECENT FINDINGS

Most perioperative quality indicators used in the clinical setting are based on low or no evidence. Evidence-based perioperative quality indicators validated for research purposes are not always applicable in routine care. Developing a core set of perioperative quality indicators for clinical practice may benefit from matching feasible routine indicators with evidence-based indicators validated for research, from evaluating additional new indicators, and from including patients' views.

SUMMARY

A core set of valid and feasible quality indicators is essential for monitoring perioperative care quality. The development of such a set may benefit from matching evidence-based indicators with feasible standard indicators and from including patients' views.

Understanding Outcomes After Major Surgery

The global volume of surgery is increasing. Adverse outcomes after surgery have resource implications and long-term impact on quality of life and consequently represent a significant and underappreciated public health issue. Standardization of outcome reporting is essential for evidence synthesis, risk stratification, perioperative care planning, and to inform shared decision-making. The association between short- and long-term outcomes, which persists when corrected for base-line risk, has significant implications for patients and providers and warrants further investigation. Candidate mechanisms include sustained inflammation and reduced physician activity, which may, in the future, be mitigated by targeted interventions.

Outcomes in pediatric anesthesia: towards a universal language

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The identification of valid, well defined and relevant outcomes is fundamental to provide a reliable and replicable measure that can be used to improve quality of clinical care and research output. The purpose of this review is to provide an update on what the pediatric anesthesia research community is pursuing on standardized and validated outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several initiatives by different research groups have been established during the last years. They all aim to find validated outcomes using the standardized methodology of COMET ( https://www.comet-initiative.org/ ). These initiatives focus on clinical and research outcomes on the field of anesthesia, perioperative medicine, pain and sedation in pediatric age.

SUMMARY

Clinical outcomes are measurements of changes in health, function or quality of life and they help evaluating quality of care. In order for them to be relevant in quantifying quality improvement, they need to be well defined, standardized and consistent across trials. A great effort from researchers has been made towards the identification of set of outcomes with these features.

Should Cell Salvage Be Used in Liver Resection and Transplantation? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of intraoperative blood cell salvage and autotransfusion (IBSA) use on red blood cell (RBC) transfusion and postoperative outcomes in liver surgery.

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative RBC transfusions are common in liver surgery and associated with increased morbidity. IBSA can be utilized to minimize allogeneic transfusion. A theoretical risk of cancer dissemination has limited IBSA adoption in oncologic surgery.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched from inception until May 2021. All studies comparing IBSA use with control in liver surgery were included. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently, in duplicate. The primary outcome was intraoperative allogeneic RBC transfusion (proportion of patients and volume of blood transfused). Core secondary outcomes included: overall survival and disease-free survival, transfusion-related complications, length of hospital stay, and hospitalization costs. Data from transplant and resection studies were analyzed separately. Random effects models were used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-one observational studies were included (16 transplant, 5 resection, n=3433 patients). Seventeen studies incorporated oncologic indications. In transplant, IBSA was associated with decreased allogeneic RBC transfusion [mean difference -1.81, 95% confidence interval (-3.22, -0.40), P =0.01, I 2 =86%, very-low certainty]. Few resection studies reported on transfusion for meta-analysis. No significant difference existed in overall survival or disease-free survival in liver transplant [hazard ratio (HR)=1.12 (0.75, 1.68), P =0.59, I 2 =0%; HR=0.93 (0.57, 1.48), P =0.75, I 2 =0%] and liver resection [HR=0.69 (0.45, 1.05), P =0.08, I 2 =0%; HR=0.93 (0.59, 1.45), P =0.74, I 2 =0%].

CONCLUSION

IBSA may reduce intraoperative allogeneic RBC transfusion without compromising oncologic outcomes. The current evidence base is limited in size and quality, and high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed.

Development and internal validation of a model for postoperative morbidity in adults undergoing major elective colorectal surgery: the peri-operative quality improvement programme (PQIP) colorectal risk model

Over 1.5 million major surgical procedures take place in the UK NHS each year and approximately 25% of patients develop at least one complication. The most widely used risk-adjustment model for postoperative morbidity in the UK is the physiological and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity. However, this model was derived more than 30 years ago and now overestimates the risk of morbidity. In addition, contemporary definitions of some model predictors are markedly different compared with when the tool was developed. A second model used in clinical practice is the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Programme risk model; this provides a risk estimate for a range of postoperative complications. This model, widely used in North America, is not open source and therefore cannot be applied to patient populations in other settings. Data from a prospective multicentre clinical dataset of 118 NHS hospitals (the peri-operative quality improvement programme) were used to develop a bespoke risk-adjustment model for postoperative morbidity. Patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent colorectal surgery were eligible for inclusion. Postoperative morbidity was defined using the postoperative morbidity survey at postoperative day 7. Thirty-one candidate variables were considered for inclusion in the model. Death or morbidity occurred by postoperative day 7 in 3098 out of 11,646 patients (26.6%). Twelve variables were incorporated into the final model, including (among others): Rockwood clinical frailty scale; body mass index; and index of multiple deprivation quintile. The C-statistic was 0.672 (95%CI 0.660-0.684), with a bootstrap optimism corrected C-statistic of 0.666 at internal validation. The model demonstrated good calibration across the range of morbidity estimates with a mean slope gradient of predicted risk of 0.959 (95%CI 0.894-1.024) with an index-corrected intercept of -0.038 (95%CI -0.112-0.036) at internal validation. Our model provides parsimonious case-mix adjustment to quantify risk of morbidity on postoperative day 7 for a UK population of patients undergoing major colorectal surgery. Despite the C-statistic of &lt; 0.7, our model outperformed existing risk-models in widespread use. We therefore recommend application in case-mix adjustment, where incorporation into a continuous monitoring tool such as the variable life adjusted display or exponentially-weighted moving average-chart could support high-level monitoring and quality improvement of risk-adjusted outcome at the population level.

Association Between Preoperative Hemodialysis Timing and Postoperative Mortality in Patients With End-stage Kidney Disease

Importance

For patients with end-stage kidney disease treated with hemodialysis, the optimal timing of hemodialysis prior to elective surgical procedures is unknown.

Objective

To assess whether a longer interval between hemodialysis and subsequent surgery is associated with higher postoperative mortality in patients with end-stage kidney disease treated with hemodialysis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Retrospective cohort study of 1 147 846 procedures among 346 828 Medicare beneficiaries with end-stage kidney disease treated with hemodialysis who underwent surgical procedures between January 1, 2011, and September 30, 2018. Follow-up ended on December 31, 2018.

Exposures

One-, two-, or three-day intervals between the most recent hemodialysis treatment and the surgical procedure. Hemodialysis on the day of the surgical procedure vs no hemodialysis on the day of the surgical procedure.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was 90-day postoperative mortality. The relationship between the dialysis-to-procedure interval and the primary outcome was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model.

Results

Of the 1 147 846 surgical procedures among 346 828 patients (median age, 65 years [IQR, 56-73 years]; 495 126 procedures [43.1%] in female patients), 750 163 (65.4%) were performed when the last hemodialysis session occurred 1 day prior to surgery, 285 939 (24.9%) when the last hemodialysis session occurred 2 days prior to surgery, and 111 744 (9.7%) when the last hemodialysis session occurred 3 days prior to surgery. Hemodialysis was also performed on the day of surgery for 193 277 procedures (16.8%). Ninety-day postoperative mortality occurred after 34 944 procedures (3.0%). Longer intervals between the last hemodialysis session and surgery were significantly associated with higher risk of 90-day mortality in a dose-dependent manner (2 days vs 1 day: absolute risk, 4.7% vs 4.2%, absolute risk difference, 0.6% [95% CI, 0.4% to 0.8%], adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.14 [95% CI, 1.10 to 1.18]; 3 days vs 1 day: absolute risk, 5.2% vs 4.2%, absolute risk difference, 1.0% [95% CI, 0.8% to 1.2%], adjusted HR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.19 to 1.31]; and 3 days vs 2 days: absolute risk, 5.2% vs 4.7%, absolute risk difference, 0.4% [95% CI, 0.2% to 0.6%], adjusted HR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.04 to 1.13]). Undergoing hemodialysis on the same day as surgery was associated with a significantly lower hazard of mortality vs no same-day hemodialysis (absolute risk, 4.0% for same-day hemodialysis vs 4.5% for no same-day hemodialysis; absolute risk difference, -0.5% [95% CI, -0.7% to -0.3%]; adjusted HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.84-0.91]). In the analyses that evaluated the interaction between the hemodialysis-to-procedure interval and same-day hemodialysis, undergoing hemodialysis on the day of the procedure significantly attenuated the risk associated with a longer hemodialysis-to-procedure interval (P<.001 for interaction).

Conclusions and Relevance

Among Medicare beneficiaries with end-stage kidney disease, longer intervals between hemodialysis and surgery were significantly associated with higher risk of postoperative mortality, mainly among those who did not receive hemodialysis on the day of surgery. However, the magnitude of the absolute risk differences was small, and the findings are susceptible to residual confounding.

European Society of Cardiology Quality Indicators for the Cardiovascular Preoperative Assessment and Management of patients considered for non-cardiac surgery. Developed in collaboration with the European Society of Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care

AIMS

To establish a set of quality indicators (QIs) for the cardiovascular (CV) assessment and management of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Quality Indicator Committee of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Society of Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care (ESAIC) in collaboration with Task Force members of the 2022 ESC Guidelines on CV assessment and management of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery followed the ESC methodology for QI development. This included 1) identification, by constructing a conceptual framework of care, of domains of the CV assessment and management of patients with risk factors or established cardiovascular disease (CVD) who are considered for or undergoing non-cardiac surgery, 2) development of candidate QIs following a systematic literature review, 3) selection of the final set of QIs using a modified Delphi method, 4) evaluation of the feasibility of the developed QIs. In total, eight main and nine secondary QIs were selected across six domains: 1) Structural framework (written policy), 2) Patient education and quality of life (CV risk discussion), 3) Peri-operative risk assessment (indication for diagnostic tests), 4) Peri-operative risk mitigation (use of hospital therapies), 5) Follow-up (post-discharge assessment) and 6) Outcomes (major CV events).

CONCLUSION

We present the 2022 ESC/ESAIC QIs for the CV assessment and management of patients with risk factors or established CVD who are considered for or are undergoing non-cardiac surgery. These indicators are supported by evidence from the literature, underpinned by expert consensus and align with 2022 ESC Guidelines on CV assessment and management of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.

The Role of Exercise Before Cancer Treatment

OBJECTIVES

We aim to describe on the role of exercise in preparation for cancer treatments (prehabilitation) that include surgery and neoadjuvant or nonsurgical approaches. We discuss the evidence for the role of exercise and provide guidelines to exercise prescription and examples of the structure of prehabilitation exercise programs.

DATA SOURCE

We use peer-reviewed articles obtained through PubMed searches with search terms: exercise, oncology, cancer surgery, exercise physiology, respiratory exercises, prehabilitation, and behavior change.

CONCLUSION

The emergence of prehabilitation in preparing patients for cancer care has followed a rapidly upward trajectory over the past 20 years. Exercise prehabilitation remains the cornerstone of management, particularly in patients attending for major surgery. Multimodal approaches to supporting patients before cancer treatment are now well accepted and include screening and individualized treatments of functional, nutritional, and psychological impairments. Respiratory training before surgery and the addition of behavior change strategies to improve adherence to interventions and promote improved longer-term outcomes are now included in many prehabilitation programs. For exercise to be an effective treatment in improving fitness and strength, supervised aerobic and resistance exercises at moderate intensity are recommended. There remains debate regarding the use of higher-intensity exercise, the appropriate outcome to measure efficacy, and the mechanisms driving the efficacy of exercise.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

We provide background evidence and knowledge pertaining to the role and provision of exercise prehabilitation. Understanding screening, risk factors, and potential efficacy assists in knowing who to refer for prehabilitation and what the programs include. This enables more effective com munication with patients attending for cancer treatments.

Efficacy of High-Quality Nursing Service for the Patients during the Anesthesia Recovery Period: A Meta-Analysis

Background

To investigate the efficacy of high-quality nursing service for the patients during the anesthesia recovery period.

Methods

We used the National Library of Medicine (PubMed), Cochrane Library of Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and very important person (VIP) databases for conducting a systematic literature study. We employed the fixed-effects model for evaluating the standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The sensitivity and publication bias were estimated for determining the efficacy of high-quality nursing services during the recovery period of anesthesia.

Results

In our study, the result showed that the efficiency of recovery time of spontaneous respiration was significantly improved in the experimental group (SMD = -1.48, 95%CI = [-1.62, -1.34]). In this analysis, the extubation time of the experimental group was lower than that of the control group. In control group [WMD = -15.54, 95% CI (-21.24, -9.83), P < 0.00001], the improvement of extubation time was more obvious on high-quality nursing. Moreover, the incidence of agitation in the experimental group was lower than that of the control group, and the score of nursing satisfaction was higher than that in the control group (P = 0.01). The funnel plots identified no publication bias during the identification of efficacy.

Conclusions

The high-quality nursing care for patients during the resuscitation period can shorten the recovery time of their self-consciousness and self-breathing, reduce the occurrence rate of restlessness, improve patients' anxiety and depression, reduce complications, and play a certain clinical application effect.

Quality improvement initiative: how the setting up of an anaesthesia consultant-led perioperative outreach service addressed anaesthesia-specific issues to improve anaesthesia consult and surgery timings for hip fracture patients

Background

Surgery is recommended within 48 hours of hip fractures for better perioperative outcomes. Yet, such targets still commonly remain a challenge. Our institution is no exception.

As part of a hospital-wide initiative, our anaesthesia department focused on improving perioperative processes with aims to reduce the time to first anaesthesia consult and surgery for hip fracture patients. Acknowledging multiple causes for surgical delay, we decided first to address anaesthesia-specific factors—(a) first anaesthetist contact usually happens after surgery is offered which leaves a short runway for preoptimisation, (b) this is compounded by varying degrees of anaesthetist involvement for follow-up thereafter. (c) There is a need to calibrate our perioperative care standards and (d) enforce more consistent auditing in quality assurance. This project was conducted in a 1000-bed hospital serving eastern Singapore.

Intervention

We created an integrated anaesthesia consultant-led outreach service for hip fracture patients, based on a perioperative workflow system to provide proactive anaesthetist consults within 24 hours of admission in advance of surgical decision. This was streamlined with a coordinated follow-up system for preoptimisation until surgery.

Methods

Our quality improvement project applied the iterative Plan-Do-Study-Act model from pilot to sustainability stage. We collected data at baseline followed by 6-monthly audits from electronic databases.

Primary outcomes measured were time to first anaesthesia consult and surgery. Secondary outcomes included rate of critical care reviews and admission, mortality rate, length of stay and time to nerve blocks.

Results

Post implementation, our service reviewed >600 hip fracture patients. Median time to anaesthesia consult reduced significantly from 35.3 hours (2019) to 21.5 hours (2021) (p=0.029). Median time to surgery was reduced from 61.5 hours (2019) to 50 hours (2021) (p=0.897) with a 13.6% increase in patients operated <48 hours. Critical care admissions, 6-monthly and 12-monthly mortality rates and time to nerve block were reduced with a greater percentage of patients discharged within 10 days.

Conclusion

Our project focused on improving anaesthesia perioperative processes to address surgical delays in hip fracture patients. Our consultant-led anaesthesia service ensured that proactive anaesthesia care was delivered to provide sufficient time for preoptimisation with greater standardisation to follow-up, better communication and quality assurance.

Effectiveness of emergency surgery for five common acute conditions: an instrumental variable analysis of a national routine database

The effectiveness of emergency surgery vs. non-emergency surgery strategies for emergency admissions with acute appendicitis, gallstone disease, diverticular disease, abdominal wall hernia or intestinal obstruction is unknown. Data on emergency admissions for adult patients from 2010 to 2019 at 175 acute National Health Service hospitals in England were extracted from the Hospital Episode Statistics database. Cohort sizes were: 268,144 (appendicitis); 240,977 (gallstone disease); 138,869 (diverticular disease); 106,432 (hernia); and 133,073 (intestinal obstruction). The primary outcome was number of days alive and out of hospital at 90 days. The effectiveness of emergency surgery vs. non-emergency surgery strategies was estimated using an instrumental variable design and is reported for the cohort and pre-specified sub-groups (age, sex, number of comorbidities and frailty level). Average days alive and out of hospital at 90 days for all five cohorts were similar, with the following mean differences (95%CI) for emergency surgery minus non-emergency surgery after adjusting for confounding: -0.73 days (-2.10-0.64) for appendicitis; 0.60 (-0.10-1.30) for gallstone disease; -2.66 (-15.7-10.4) for diverticular disease; -0.07 (-2.40-2.25) for hernia; and 3.32 (-3.13-9.76) for intestinal obstruction. For patients with 'severe frailty', mean differences (95%CI) in days alive and out of hospital for emergency surgery were lower than for non-emergency surgery strategies: -21.0 (-27.4 to -14.6) for appendicitis; -5.72 (-11.3 to -0.2) for gallstone disease, -38.9 (-63.3 to -14.6) for diverticular disease; -19.5 (-26.6 to -12.3) for hernia; and - 34.5 (-46.7 to -22.4) for intestinal obstruction. For patients without frailty, the mean differences (95%CI) in days alive and out of hospital were: -0.18 (-1.56-1.20) for appendicitis; 0.93 (0.48-1.39) for gallstone disease; 5.35 (-2.56-13.28) for diverticular disease; 2.26 (0.37-4.15) for hernia; and 18.2 (14.8-22.47) for intestinal obstruction. Emergency surgery and non-emergency surgery strategies led to similar average days alive and out of hospital at 90 days for five acute conditions. The comparative effectiveness of emergency surgery and non-emergency surgery strategies for these conditions may be modified by patient factors.