Search

Summary: Randomised controlled trials are the gold standard in clinical research, but remain rare due to their expense and a perceived lack of 'real‐world' applicability. At the same time, there has been an exponential increase in routinely collected data which presents opportunities for audit, quality improvement, adverse event reporting and more efficient clinical research. Registry‐based research benefits from reduced cost, large sample size and real‐world applicability, with methodological developments, particularly registry‐based randomised controlled trials and causal inference techniques, showing promise. Limitations include data quality and validity, the need for data linkage, the restrictions of fixed data fields, regulatory barriers, and privacy and security concerns. However, the principal factor hampering current efforts is a lack of anaesthesia‐specific datasets in the UK and the fact that most surgical registries do not collect any anaesthetic data. This presents an opportunity for anaesthetists, through enhanced engagement and collaboration, to influence and improve the design of these datasets and increase the value and volume of data collected. Better datasets, coupled with a growing appreciation of new analysis methodologies, would allow significant progress towards realising the potential of routinely collected data for patient benefit. At the same time, work should begin on the development of a minimum dataset for anaesthesia to underpin new data sharing networks and, ideally, a national registry of anaesthesia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Interventions from randomised controlled trials can only be replicated if they are reported in sufficient detail. The results of trials can only be confidently interpreted if the delivery of the intervention was systematic and the protocol adhered to. We systematically reviewed trials of anaesthetic interventions published in 12 journals from January 2016 to September 2019. We assessed the detail with which interventions were reported, using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for non‐pharmacological treatments. We analysed 162 interventions reported by 78 trials in 18,675 participants. Detail sufficiently precise to replicate the intervention was reported for 111 (69%) interventions. Intervention standardisation was reported for 135 (83%) out of the 162 interventions, and protocol adherence was reported for 20 (12%) interventions. Sixty (77%) out of the 78 trials reported the administrative context in which interventions were delivered and 36 (46%) trials detailed the expertise of the practitioners. We conclude that bespoke reporting tools should be developed for anaesthetic interventions and interventions in other areas such as critical care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diabetic foot disease is a source of major patient suffering and societal costs. Investing in evidence-based international guidelines on diabetic foot disease is likely among the most cost-effective forms of health care expenditure, provided the guidelines are outcome focused, evidence based, and properly implemented. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published and updated international guidelines since 1999. The 2019 updates are based on formulating relevant clinical questions and outcomes, rigorous systematic reviews of the literature, and recommendations that are specific, and unambiguous along with their transparent rationale, all using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. We herein describe the development of the 2019 IWGDF guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease, which consists of six chapters, each prepared by a separate working group of international experts. These documents provide guidelines related to diabetic foot disease on prevention; offloading; peripheral artery disease; infection; wound healing interventions; and classification of diabetic foot ulcers. Based on these six chapters, the IWGDF Editorial Board also produced a set of practical guidelines. Each guideline underwent extensive review by the members of the IWGDF Editorial Board as well as independent international experts in each field. We believe that adoption and implementation of the 2019 IWGDF guidelines by health care providers, public health agencies, and policymakers will result in improved prevention and management of diabetic foot disease and a subsequent worldwide reduction in the patient and societal burden this disease causes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of British Journal of Surgery is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of British Journal of Surgery is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Case series and a post hoc subgroup analysis of a large randomized trial have suggested a potential benefit in treating ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) using endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with local anaesthesia (LA) rather than general anaesthesia (GA). The uptake and outcomes of LA in clinical practice remain unknown. Methods: The UK National Vascular Registry was interrogated for patients presenting with rAAA managed with EVAR under different modes of anaesthesia between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2016. The primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included: the number of centres performing EVAR under LA; the proportion of patients receiving this technique; duration of hospital stay; and postoperative complications. Results: Some 3101 patients with rAAA were treated in 72 hospitals during the study: 2306 underwent on open procedure and 795 had EVAR (LA, 319; GA, 435; regional anaesthesia, 41). Overall, 56 of 72 hospitals (78 per cent) offered LA for EVAR of rAAA. Baseline characteristics and morphology were similar across the three EVAR subgroups. Patients who had surgery under LA had a lower in‐hospital mortality rate than patients who received GA (59 of 319 (18·5 per cent) versus 122 of 435 (28·0 per cent)), and this was unchanged after adjustment for factors known to influence survival (adjusted hazard ratio 0·62, 95 per cent c.i. 0·45 to 0·85; P = 0·003). Median hospital stay and postoperative morbidity from other complications were similar. Conclusion: The use of LA for EVAR of rAAA has been adopted widely in the UK. Mortality rates appear lower than in patients undergoing EVAR with GA. Improves 30‐day survival [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this study was to develop a 48‐h mortality risk score, which included morphology data, for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm presenting to an emergency department, and to assess its predictive accuracy and clinical effectiveness in triaging patients to immediate aneurysm repair, transfer or palliative care. Methods: Data from patients in the IMPROVE (Immediate Management of the Patient With Ruptured Aneurysm: Open Versus Endovascular Repair) randomized trial were used to develop the risk score. Variables considered included age, sex, haemodynamic markers and aortic morphology. Backwards selection was used to identify relevant predictors. Predictive performance was assessed using calibration plots and the C‐statistic. Validation of the newly developed and other previously published scores was conducted in four external populations. The net benefit of treating patients based on a risk threshold compared with treating none was quantified. Results: Data from 536 patients in the IMPROVE trial were included. The final variables retained were age, sex, haemoglobin level, serum creatinine level, systolic BP, aortic neck length and angle, and acute myocardial ischaemia. The discrimination of the score for 48‐h mortality in the IMPROVE data was reasonable (C‐statistic 0·710, 95 per cent c.i. 0·659 to 0·760), but varied in external populations (from 0·652 to 0·761). The new score outperformed other published risk scores in some, but not all, populations. An 8 (95 per cent c.i. 5 to 11) per cent improvement in the C‐statistic was estimated compared with using age alone. Conclusion: The assessed risk scores did not have sufficient accuracy to enable potentially life‐saving decisions to be made regarding intervention. Focus should therefore shift to offering repair to more patients and reducing non‐intervention rates, while respecting the wishes of the patient and family. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]