Search

Uncertainty exists around management of long-term antihypertensive medications around the time of noncardiac surgery and intraoperative blood pressures to target. This trial assigned patients to hypotension-avoidance versus hypertension-avoidance strategies in the preoperative setting and assessed differences in vascular death, nonfatal myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, stroke, and cardiac arrest. Visual Abstract. Hypotension-Avoidance Versus Hypertension-Avoidance Strategies in Noncardiac Surgery: Uncertainty exists around management of long-term antihypertensive medications around the time of noncardiac surgery and intraoperative blood pressures to target. This trial assigned patients to hypotension-avoidance versus hypertension-avoidance strategies in the preoperative setting and assessed differences in vascular death, nonfatal myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, stroke, and cardiac arrest. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Accurate identification of patients at risk of early postoperative deterioration allows needs-based allocation of patients to appropriate levels of care. This study aimed to record the incidence of early postoperative deterioration and identify factors predictive of at-risk patients. Doing so may assist future evidence-based perioperative planning and allocation of patients to high-acuity facilities. Methods With ethical approval, data from elective non-cardiac surgical patients were collected between May and August 2013. Patient and surgical factors potentially related to postoperative deterioration were collected from preoperative assessment records. Data on deterioration in the postanaesthesia care unit ( PACU), and on the wards were collected prospectively for a period of 72 h postoperatively. Patient factors, surgical factors and PACU events were compared with ward events using binomial logistic regression analysis. Results Of the 747 patients, postoperative deterioration was common both in PACU (155 (20.1%) patients) and on the wards (125 (16.7%)). Common ward events included hypotension (64 (8.2%)) and desaturation (59 (6.2%)). A rapid response team call occurred for 33 (4.4%) patients and an unplanned ICU admission for seven (0.9%) patients. A history of atrial fibrillation and chronic liver disease, duration of surgery and excessive sedation in PACU, among others, were strongly associated with subsequent ward deterioration. However, measures of surgical complexity were not. Conclusions Patient factors, duration of surgery and events in PACU can be predictive of subsequent early postoperative ward clinical deterioration. Such information may aid appropriate perioperative decision-making with respect to postoperative utilization of high-acuity facilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]