Feasibility pilot trial for the Trajectories of Recovery after Intravenous propofol versus inhaled VolatilE anesthesia (THRIVE) pragmatic randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Millions of patients receive general anaesthesia for surgery annually. Crucial gaps in evidence exist regarding which technique, propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) or inhaled volatile anaesthesia (INVA), yields superior patient experience, safety and outcomes. The aim of this pilot study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a large comparative effectiveness trial assessing patient experiences and outcomes after receiving propofol TIVA or INVA.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol was cocreated by a diverse team, including patient partners with personal experience of TIVA or INVA. The design is a 300-patient, two-centre, randomised, feasibility pilot trial. Patients 18 years of age or older, undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery requiring general anaesthesia with a tracheal tube or laryngeal mask airway will be eligible. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to propofol TIVA or INVA, stratified by centre and procedural complexity. The feasibility endpoints include: (1) proportion of patients approached who agree to participate; (2) proportion of patients who receive their assigned randomised treatment; (3) completeness of outcomes data collection and (4) feasibility of data management procedures. Proportions and 95% CIs will be calculated to assess whether prespecified thresholds are met for the feasibility parameters. If the lower bounds of the 95% CI are above the thresholds of 10% for the proportion of patients agreeing to participate among those approached and 80% for compliance with treatment allocation for each randomised treatment group, this will suggest that our planned pragmatic 12 500-patient comparative effectiveness trial can likely be conducted successfully. Other feasibility outcomes and adverse events will be described.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is approved by the ethics board at Washington University (IRB# 202205053), serving as the single Institutional Review Board for both participating sites. Recruitment began in September 2022. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications, internet-based educational materials and mass media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05346588.

Evaluating the patient experience with urological video visits at an academic medical center

BACKGROUND

Telemedicine utilization, including use of video visits, is growing rapidly. While much enthusiasm surrounds telemedicine, the successful implementation of video visits within health systems requires providers to evaluate patient's experience with the implemented technology and workflow.

METHODS

Twenty patients who completed a video visit in the Department of Urology at Michigan Medicine were contacted and asked if they would be willing to share their experience. Patients underwent a semi-structured telephone interview. Using an interview guide, patients were asked questions about the enrollment process, their overall impression of the visit, and feedback to improve the visit. Interview comments were categorized into three primary themes: usability, quality of the visit, and comparison to a traditional in-clinic visit.

RESULTS

Most patients who underwent a urological video visit were highly satisfied with their experience. Most patients also reported being able to join the video visit with minimal issues. However, some patients expressed issues downloading the application and interpreting our educational materials. In regard to quality of the visit, most patients were impressed and pleased. While there was no criticism regarding the picture-quality of the video visit, a few patients reported issues with the audio. It was apparent that quality of video was dependent on quality of the patient's internet connection. When comparing the video visit to a traditional in-clinic visit, patients-especially parents with children at home-found the video visit to be more efficient.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that patients were pleased with their urological video visit experience, and there were details about our workflow that would not have been evident without interviews. These findings suggest that while video visits are suitable alternatives to in-clinic appointments at academic medical centers, it is important for providers to obtain direct feedback from patients to identify workflow and technical issues.