Hypotension-Avoidance Versus Hypertension-Avoidance Strategies in Noncardiac Surgery : An International Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Among patients having noncardiac surgery, perioperative hemodynamic abnormalities are associated with vascular complications. Uncertainty remains about what intraoperative blood pressure to target and how to manage long-term antihypertensive medications perioperatively.

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.

Measurement properties of the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 for evaluating functional status after inpatient surgery

BACKGROUND

Expert recommendations propose the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 as a core outcome measure in surgical studies, yet data on its long-term measurement properties remain limited. These were evaluated in a secondary analysis of the Measurement of Exercise Tolerance before Surgery (METS) prospective cohort.

METHODS

Participants were adults (40 years of age or older) who underwent inpatient non-cardiac surgery. The 12-item WHODAS and EQ-5DTM-3L questionnaires were administered preoperatively (in person) and 1 year postoperatively (by telephone). Responsiveness was characterized using standardized response means (SRMs) and correlation coefficients between change scores. Construct validity was evaluated using correlation coefficients between 1-year scores and comparisons of WHODAS scores across clinically relevant subgroups.

RESULTS

The analysis included 546 patients. There was moderate correlation between changes in WHODAS and various EQ-5DTM subscales. The strongest correlation was between changes in WHODAS and changes in the functional domains of the EQ-5D-3L-for example, mobility (Spearman's rho 0.40, 95 per cent confidence interval [c.i.] 0.32 to 0.48) and usual activities (rho 0.45, 95 per cent c.i. 0.30 to 0.52). When compared across quartiles of EQ-5D index change, median WHODAS scores followed expected patterns of change. In subgroups with expected functional status changes, the WHODAS SRMs ranged from 'small' to 'large' in the expected directions of change. At 1 year, the WHODAS demonstrated convergence with the EQ-5D-3L functional domains, and good discrimination between patients with expected differences in functional status.

CONCLUSION

The WHODAS questionnaire has construct validity and responsiveness as a measure of functional status at 1 year after major surgery.

Tranexamic Acid in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

Perioperative bleeding is common in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Tranexamic acid is an antifibrinolytic drug that may safely decrease such bleeding.

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.).

Rationale and design of the PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3): a randomized controlled trial evaluating tranexamic acid and a strategy to minimize hypotension in noncardiac surgery

Background

For patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, bleeding and hypotension are frequent and associated with increased mortality and cardiovascular complications. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic agent with the potential to reduce surgical bleeding; however, there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety in noncardiac surgery. Although usual perioperative care is commonly consistent with a hypertension-avoidance strategy (i.e., most patients continue their antihypertensive medications throughout the perioperative period and intraoperative mean arterial pressures of 60 mmHg are commonly accepted), a hypotension-avoidance strategy may improve perioperative outcomes.

Methods

The PeriOperative Ischemic Evaluation (POISE)-3 Trial is a large international randomized controlled trial designed to determine if TXA is superior to placebo for the composite outcome of life-threatening, major, and critical organ bleeding, and non-inferior to placebo for the occurrence of major arterial and venous thrombotic events, at 30 days after randomization. Using a partial factorial design, POISE-3 will additionally determine the effect of a hypotension-avoidance strategy versus a hypertension-avoidance strategy on the risk of major cardiovascular events, at 30 days after randomization. The target sample size is 10,000 participants. Patients ≥45 years of age undergoing noncardiac surgery, with or at risk of cardiovascular and bleeding complications, are randomized to receive a TXA 1 g intravenous bolus or matching placebo at the start and at the end of surgery. Patients, health care providers, data collectors, outcome adjudicators, and investigators are blinded to the treatment allocation. Patients on ≥ 1 chronic antihypertensive medication are also randomized to either of the two blood pressure management strategies, which differ in the management of patient antihypertensive medications on the morning of surgery and on the first 2 days after surgery, and in the target mean arterial pressure during surgery. Outcome adjudicators are blinded to the blood pressure treatment allocation. Patients are followed up at 30 days and 1 year after randomization.

Discussion

Bleeding and hypotension in noncardiac surgery are common and have a substantial impact on patient prognosis. The POISE-3 trial will evaluate two interventions to determine their impact on bleeding, cardiovascular complications, and mortality.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03505723. Registered on 23 April 2018.

A survey of anaesthetists’ use of tranexamic acid in noncardiac surgery

Major bleeding in noncardiac surgery is common and associated with serious complications. The antifibrinolytic agent tranexamic acid (TXA) reduces bleeding and may reduce the risk of these complications. TXA also may have immunomodulatory effects that could reduce surgical site infection. Clinical trials of TXA in noncardiac surgery have been insufficiently powered to evaluate its efficacy and safety. Therefore, large randomised controlled trials of its use in noncardiac surgery are required. To ensure that future clinical trials are feasible and acceptable, we undertook a survey of Fellows of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA). Our aims were to ascertain current patterns of TXA administration and to assess the acceptability of randomising patients to intravenous TXA or placebo. A 12-item survey was electronically mailed to 1001 ANZCA Fellows. Two hundred and eighty nine responses were received and analysed (response rate 29%). Ninety-eight percent of respondents had used intravenous TXA in noncardiac surgery; 67% give TXA routinely for lower limb arthroplasty, with smaller proportions giving TXA for spinal surgery (40%) and other major orthopaedic surgery (28%). Almost half (49%) give TXA routinely for major trauma surgery. Thirty-six percent indicated that they did not give TXA for major vascular, abdominal, pelvic or thoracic surgery. The majority administered TXA as a single, fixed dose. Fifty-seven percent agreed that there is uncertainty about the relative risks and benefits of perioperative TXA in noncardiac surgery and 87% agreed that large definitive trials determining the safety and efficacy of perioperative TXA in noncardiac surgery are required. These results indicate that for ANZCA Fellows the use of TXA in noncardiac surgery is highly variable, that there is uncertainty about the safety and efficacy of TXA, and that a large trial would be acceptable.

Six-Month Outcomes after Restrictive or Liberal Transfusion for Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

We reported previously that, in patients undergoing cardiac surgery who were at moderate-to-high risk for death, a restrictive transfusion strategy was noninferior to a liberal strategy with respect to the composite outcome of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new-onset renal failure with dialysis by hospital discharge or 28 days after surgery, whichever came first. We now report the clinical outcomes at 6 months after surgery.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 5243 adults undergoing cardiac surgery to a restrictive red-cell transfusion strategy (transfusion if the hemoglobin concentration was <7.5 g per deciliter intraoperatively or postoperatively) or a liberal red-cell transfusion strategy (transfusion if the hemoglobin concentration was <9.5 g per deciliter intraoperatively or postoperatively when the patient was in the intensive care unit [ICU] or was <8.5 g per deciliter when the patient was in the non-ICU ward). The primary composite outcome was death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new-onset renal failure with dialysis occurring within 6 months after the initial surgery. An expanded secondary composite outcome included all the components of the primary outcome as well as emergency department visit, hospital readmission, or coronary revascularization occurring within 6 months after the index surgery. The secondary outcomes included the individual components of the two composite outcomes.

RESULTS

At 6 months after surgery, the primary composite outcome had occurred in 402 of 2317 patients (17.4%) in the restrictive-threshold group and in 402 of 2347 patients (17.1%) in the liberal-threshold group (absolute risk difference before rounding, 0.22 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.95 to 2.39; odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.18; P=0.006 for noninferiority). Mortality was 6.2% in the restrictive-threshold group and 6.4% in the liberal-threshold group (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.21). There were no significant between-group differences in the secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing cardiac surgery who were at moderate-to-high risk for death, a restrictive strategy for red-cell transfusion was noninferior to a liberal strategy with respect to the composite outcome of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new-onset renal failure with dialysis at 6 months after surgery. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; TRICS III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02042898 .).

Intravenous tranexamic acid and lower limb arthroplasty-a randomised controlled feasibility study

Tranexamic acid (TA) is widely reported to reduce bleeding and the risk of blood transfusion in patients undergoing lower limb arthroplasty. No study in this setting has had adequate power to examine for the effect of TA on either uncommon, but clinically important, adverse events or patient-centric endpoints. A large randomised controlled trial (RCT) is required to address these questions. As a preliminary feasibility study, we conducted an investigator-initiated, prospective, randomised, double blind placebo-controlled trial in 140 patients, aged 45 years or older, undergoing elective primary or revision hip or knee joint replacement. Subjects were randomised to receive intravenous (IV) TA or a placebo. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients receiving allogenic blood transfusion and the feasibility of extending our trial methodology to a large trial of TA in this population. Secondary endpoints included a range of adverse clinical and surgical events as well as several patient-centric questionnaires. Red blood cell transfusion occurred in 15% of all patients prior to discharge from hospital. Transfusion rates were significantly different between the TA and placebo groups (8.5% versus 21.7%, <i>P</i>=0.03). Three out of four feasibility endpoints were met, with recruitment being slower than expected. No significant differences were seen between groups in the secondary endpoints. Despite a lower rate of transfusion than that widely reported, IV TA reduced transfusion in patients undergoing lower limb arthroplasty. Our trial methodology would be feasible in the setting of a large multicentre study to investigate whether TA is safe and reduces bleeding in lower limb arthroplasty.

Aspirin in Patients With Previous Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty remains about the effects of aspirin in patients with prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) having noncardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate benefits and harms of perioperative aspirin in patients with prior PCI.

DESIGN

Nonprespecified subgroup analysis of a multicenter factorial trial. Computerized Internet randomization was done between 2010 and 2013. Patients, clinicians, data collectors, and outcome adjudicators were blinded to treatment assignment. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01082874).

SETTING

135 centers in 23 countries.

PATIENTS

Adults aged 45 years or older who had or were at risk for atherosclerotic disease and were having noncardiac surgery. Exclusions were placement of a bare-metal stent within 6 weeks, placement of a drug-eluting stent within 1 year, or receipt of nonstudy aspirin within 72 hours before surgery.

INTERVENTION

Aspirin therapy (overall trial, n = 4998; subgroup, n = 234) or placebo (overall trial, n = 5012; subgroup, n = 236) initiated within 4 hours before surgery and continued throughout the perioperative period. Of the 470 subgroup patients, 99.9% completed follow-up.

MEASUREMENTS

The 30-day primary outcome was death or nonfatal myocardial infarction; bleeding was a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

In patients with prior PCI, aspirin reduced the risk for the primary outcome (absolute risk reduction, 5.5% [95% CI, 0.4% to 10.5%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.50 [CI, 0.26 to 0.95]; P for interaction = 0.036) and for myocardial infarction (absolute risk reduction, 5.9% [CI, 1.0% to 10.8%]; HR, 0.44 [CI, 0.22 to 0.87]; P for interaction = 0.021). The effect on the composite of major and life-threatening bleeding in patients with prior PCI was uncertain (absolute risk increase, 1.3% [CI, -2.6% to 5.2%]). In the overall population, aspirin increased the risk for major bleeding (absolute risk increase, 0.8% [CI, 0.1% to 1.6%]; HR, 1.22 [CI, 1.01 to 1.48]; P for interaction = 0.50).

LIMITATION

Nonprespecified subgroup analysis with small sample.

CONCLUSION

Perioperative aspirin may be more likely to benefit rather than harm patients with prior PCI.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Restrictive or Liberal Red-Cell Transfusion for Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

The effect of a restrictive versus liberal red-cell transfusion strategy on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery remains unclear.

METHODS

In this multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned 5243 adults undergoing cardiac surgery who had a European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) I of 6 or more (on a scale from 0 to 47, with higher scores indicating a higher risk of death after cardiac surgery) to a restrictive red-cell transfusion threshold (transfuse if hemoglobin level was <7.5 g per deciliter, starting from induction of anesthesia) or a liberal red-cell transfusion threshold (transfuse if hemoglobin level was <9.5 g per deciliter in the operating room or intensive care unit [ICU] or was <8.5 g per deciliter in the non-ICU ward). The primary composite outcome was death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new-onset renal failure with dialysis by hospital discharge or by day 28, whichever came first. Secondary outcomes included red-cell transfusion and other clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

The primary outcome occurred in 11.4% of the patients in the restrictive-threshold group, as compared with 12.5% of those in the liberal-threshold group (absolute risk difference, -1.11 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.93 to 0.72; odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.07; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Mortality was 3.0% in the restrictive-threshold group and 3.6% in the liberal-threshold group (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.16). Red-cell transfusion occurred in 52.3% of the patients in the restrictive-threshold group, as compared with 72.6% of those in the liberal-threshold group (odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.47). There were no significant between-group differences with regard to the other secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing cardiac surgery who were at moderate-to-high risk for death, a restrictive strategy regarding red-cell transfusion was noninferior to a liberal strategy with respect to the composite outcome of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new-onset renal failure with dialysis, with less blood transfused. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; TRICS III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02042898 .).

Perioperative Aspirin for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism: The PeriOperative ISchemia Evaluation-2 Trial and a Pooled Analysis of the Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

The PeriOperative ISchemia Evaluation-2 (POISE-2) trial compared aspirin with placebo after noncardiac surgery.

METHODS

The authors randomly assigned 10,010 patients undergoing noncardiac surgery to receive 200 mg aspirin or placebo 2 to 4 h before surgery and then 100 mg aspirin daily or placebo daily for up to 30 days after surgery. Herein, the authors report the effect of aspirin on venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, as well as an updated pooled analysis of randomized trials of antiplatelet therapy for VTE prevention in noncardiac surgery patients.

RESULTS

Six thousand five hundred forty-eight patients (65.4%) received anticoagulant prophylaxis. VTE occurred in 53 patients (1.1%) allocated to aspirin and in 60 patients (1.2%) allocated to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.28). Major or life-threatening bleeding occurred in 312 patients (6.3%) allocated to aspirin and in 256 patients (5.1%) allocated to placebo (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.44). Concomitant use of anticoagulant prophylaxis did not modify the effect of aspirin on VTE or bleeding. Pooled analysis of the POISE-2 and Pulmonary Embolism Prevention trials demonstrated that symptomatic VTE occurred in 173 (1.3%) of 13,724 patients allocated to aspirin and in 246 (1.8%) of 13,730 patients allocated to placebo (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.89; heterogeneity P = 0.27; I = 17%); the impact of aspirin was very similar in those who did and did not receive pharmacologic prophylaxis. Pooled estimates for symptomatic VTE were similar to the pooled estimates for any deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism from the POISE-2 trial, Pulmonary Embolism Prevention trial, and the Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Aspirin in the POISE-2 trial did not reduce VTE, but two thirds of patients received anticoagulant prophylaxis, there were few VTE events, and results were consistent with a wide range of aspirin effects. A pooled analysis of the randomized trials demonstrates evidence for the efficacy of aspirin for VTE prevention in hospitalized surgical patients.