Search

Background: Since the publication of the 2010 Canadian antiplatelet guidelines, several large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the role of aspirin (ASA) use in primary prevention. We evaluated the effect of ASA use, compared with no ASA, on ischemic and bleeding events in patients without known atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases. Methods: We updated a published systematic review and meta-analysis by searching MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL for the period up to March 2023. We included RCTs that enrolled patients for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases, and compared use of ASA to no ASA. We assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB tool, and certainty of evidence using the grading recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) criteria. The primary efficacy outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction, or stroke). The primary safety outcomes were intracranial hemorrhage and extracranial major bleeding events. We used a random-effects model to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: We included 14 RCTs (n = 167,587) at overall low RoB, with a median follow-up of 5 years. Compared to no ASA, ASA use reduced the incidence of MACE (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86-0.94), with a higher risk of intracranial hemorrhage (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13-1.56) and extracranial major bleeding (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.36-2.06). In prespecified subgroups of age, sex, and diabetes, effect estimates were consistent. Conclusions: ASA use in primary prevention is associated with a consistent reduction in MACE, but at the expense of major bleeding events. Patient values and preferences should be taken into account when considering ASA use for primary prevention. Résumé: Contexte: Depuis la publication, en 2010, des lignes directrices canadiennes sur les agents antiplaquettaires, plusieurs importants essais contrôlés randomisés (ECR) ont été menés pour évaluer le rôle de l’aspirine (AAS) en prévention primaire. Nous avons comparé l’effet de l’AAS à la non-utilisation de l’AAS sur les événements ischémiques et hémorragiques chez des patients présentant une maladie cardiovasculaire athéroscléreuse (MCVAS) connue. Méthodologie: Nous avons mis à jour une revue systématique et une méta-analyse déjà publiées en effectuant une recherche dans les bases de données MEDLINE, Embase et CENTRAL jusqu’en mars 2023. Nous avons inclus les ECR ayant porté sur la prévention primaire de la MCVAS chez les patients et comparé l’AAS et la non-utilisation de l’AAS. Nous avons évalué le risque de biais à l’aide de l’outil RoB de Cochrane, et le degré de certitude des données probantes au moyen des critères GRADE. Le principal critère d’évaluation de l’efficacité était les événements cardiovasculaires indésirables majeurs (ECIM; décès, infarctus du myocarde ou accident vasculaire cérébral). Les principaux critères d’évaluation de l’innocuité étaient les hémorragies intracrâniennes (HIC) et les saignements extracrâniens majeurs (SECM). Nous avons utilisé un modèle à effets aléatoires afin de générer les rapports de risque (RR) et les intervalles de confiance (IC) à 95 % regroupés. Résultats: Nous avons inclus 14 ECR (n = 167 587) associés à un faible risque de biais et dont le suivi médian était de 5 ans. Comparativement à la non-utilisation d’AAS, l’AAS a réduit les ECIM (RR : 0,90; IC à 95 % : 0,86-0,94), mais était associé à un risque plus élevé d’HIC (RR : 1,33; IC à 95 % : 1,13-1,56) et de SECM (RR : 1,67; IC à 95 % : 1,36-2,06). Les estimations de l’effet étaient constantes dans les sous-groupes définis au préalable selon l’âge, le sexe et le diabète. Conclusion: En prévention primaire, l’AAS est associé à une réduction systématique des ECIM, mais au détriment de manifestations hémorragiques majeures. Les valeurs et les préférences du patient doivent être prises en compte lorsqu’on envisage l’AAS en prévention primaire.

Delirium is common after cardiac surgery and is associated with adverse outcomes. Administration of benzodiazepines before and after cardiac surgery is associated with delirium; guidelines recommend minimizing their use. Benzodiazepine administration during cardiac surgery remains common because of its recognized benefits. The Benzodiazepine-Free Cardiac Anesthesia for Reduction of Postoperative Delirium (B-Free) trial is a randomized cluster crossover trial evaluating whether an institutional policy of restricting intraoperative benzodiazepine administration (ie, ≥ 90% of patients do not receive benzodiazepines during cardiac surgery), as compared with a policy of liberal intraoperative benzodiazepine administration (ie, ≥ 90% of patients receive ≥ 0.03 mg/kg midazolam equivalent), reduces delirium. Hospitals performing ≥ 250 cardiac surgeries a year are included if their cardiac anesthesia group agrees to apply both benzodiazepine policies per their randomization, and patients are assessed for postoperative delirium every 12 hours in routine clinical care. Hospitals apply the restricted or liberal benzodiazepine policy during 12 to 18 crossover periods of 4 weeks each. Randomization for all periods takes place in advance of site startup; sites are notified of their allocated policy during the last week of each crossover period. Policies are applied to all patients undergoing cardiac surgery during the trial period. The primary outcome is the incidence of delirium at up to 72 hours after surgery. The B-Free trial will enroll ≥ 18,000 patients undergoing cardiac surgery at 20 hospitals across North America. Delirium is common after cardiac surgery, and benzodiazepines are associated with the occurrence of delirium. The B-Free trial will determine whether an institutional policy restricting the administration of benzodiazepines during cardiac surgery reduces the incidence of delirium after cardiac surgery.Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT03928236 (First registered April 26, 2019). Résumé: L’état confusionnel est fréquent après une chirurgie cardiaque et il est associé à des complications. L’administration de benzodiazépines avant et après une chirurgie cardiaque est associée à l’état confusionnel; dans les lignes directrices, on recommande de réduire leur utilisation au minimum. L’administration de benzodiazépines pendant une chirurgie cardiaque demeure fréquente, en raison des leurs bienfaits reconnus. L’essai B-Free (Benzodiazepine-Free Cardiac Anesthesia for Reduction of Postoperative Delirium ou l’anesthésie sans benzodiazépine en contexte de chirurgie cardiaque pour la réduction de l’état confusionnel postopératoire) est un essai à répartition aléatoire par grappes et avec permutation, visant à évaluer si une politique institutionnelle de restriction de l’administration peropératoire de benzodiazépines (c.-à-d. que ≥ 90 % des patients ne reçoivent pas de benzodiazépines durant une chirurgie cardiaque) réduit l’état confusionnel, comparativement à une politique d’administration peropératoire libérale de benzodiazépines (c.-à-d. que ≥ 90 % des patients reçoivent ≥ 0,03 mg/kg d’équivalent du midazolam). Des hôpitaux effectuant au moins 250 chirurgies cardiaques par année sont inclus dans l’essai si leurs équipes d’anesthésie cardiaque acceptent d’appliquer les deux politiques relatives aux benzodiazépines en vertu de la répartition aléatoire et si les patients sont évalués toutes les 12 heures, en ce qui a trait à l’état confusionnel postopératoire, dans le cadre des soins cliniques habituels. Les hôpitaux mettent en œuvre la politique d’administration restreinte ou libérale de benzodiazépines durant 12 à 18 périodes de permutation de 4 semaines chacune. La répartition aléatoire de l’ensemble des périodes a lieu avant le début de l’essai à l’hôpital; les établissements sont avisés de la politique qui leur est attribuée au cours de la dernière semaine de chaque période de permutation. Les politiques sont appliquées à tous les patients qui subissent une chirurgie cardiaque durant la période de l’essai. Le critère d’évaluation principal est l’incidence de l’état confusionnel dans les 72 heures suivant l’intervention chirurgicale. L’étude B-Free inclura au moins 18 000 patients qui subiront une chirurgie cardiaque dans 20 hôpitaux en l’Amérique du Nord. L’état confusionnel est fréquent après une chirurgie cardiaque, et les benzodiazépines sont associées à la survenue de l’état confusionnel. L’essai B-Free permettra de déterminer si une politique institutionnelle de restriction de l’administration de benzodiazépines durant une chirurgie cardiaque réduit l’incidence de l’état confusionnel après une telle chirurgie.Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT03928236 (First registered April 26, 2019).

Abstract Background Peripheral nerve block is a common anesthetic technique used during orthopedic upper limb surgery. Injection of local anesthetics around the target nerve inhibits the action of voltage-dependent sodium channels, inhibiting neurotransmission of pain impulses and providing motor immobility. Compared to general anesthesia, it could improve functional recovery by inhibiting nociceptive impulses and inflammation, thus reducing postoperative pain and immobilization and improving postoperative rehabilitation. This systematic review evaluates the impact of peripheral nerve block versus general anesthesia on postoperative functional recovery following orthopedic upper limb surgery. Methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINHAL, EMBASE, and Scopus trial databases from inception until September 2021 for studies comparing peripheral nerve block to general anesthesia. We collected data on functional recovery, range of motion, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and return to work. We pooled studies using a random-effects model and summarized the quality of evidence with the GRADE approach. Results We assessed 373 citations and 19 full-text articles for eligibility, and included six studies. Six studies reported on functional recovery, but failed to detect a significant superiority of peripheral nerve block over general anesthesia (3 RCT studies, N = 160; SMD -0.15; CI at 95% -0.60–0.3; I2 = 45%; p = 0.07; low quality of evidence and 3 observational studies, N = 377; SMD -0.35; CI at 95% -0.71–0.01; I2 = 64%; p = 0.06; very low quality of evidence). Conclusions Current literature is limited and fails to identify the benefit of peripheral nerve block on functional recovery. More studies are needed to assess the impact on long-term recovery. Considering the potential impact on clinical practice and training, a prospective study on functional recovery is ongoing (NCT04541745). Trial registration PROSPERO ID CRD42018116298. Registered on December 4, 2018.

Background: Perioperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) after cardiac surgery is associated with an increased risk of stroke. However, the efficacy and safety of using anticoagulation therapy in this population are unknown. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing use of anticoagulation therapy vs no anticoagulation therapy in patients with POAF after cardiac surgery. Outcomes included arterial thromboembolism (ie, stroke ± systemic embolism) and bleeding. Data were pooled using fixed-effects models. We reported summary risk ratios (RRs) for studies with multivariable adjustment and estimated absolute risk differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Nine observational studies met eligibility criteria. No randomized trials were identified. Of the 254,200 POAF patients included, 27.3% received anticoagulation. Six studies reported outcomes after long-term follow-up (median 5.0 years; range 4.2-10.0). The risk of arterial thromboembolism was lower in patients receiving anticoagulation therapy (RR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-0.99; I2 = 57%; P = 0.04; 6 studies). The estimated short-term and long-term absolute risk reductions in arterial thromboembolism with use of anticoagulation therapy were 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4-1.4) and 2 events per 1000 person-years (95% CI, 0-4), respectively. The risk of bleeding was higher in patients receiving anticoagulation therapy (RR 3.22; 95% CI, 2.82-3.68; I2 = 98%; P < 0.001; 2 studies). The estimated short-term and long-term absolute risk increases in bleeding with use of anticoagulation therapy were 0.5% (95% CI, 0.4-0.6) and 42 events per 1000 person-years (95% CI, 35-51), respectively. Conclusions: Use of anticoagulation therapy is associated with a small reduction in the risk of arterial thromboembolism, but also an increased risk of bleeding. Randomized controlled trials are needed to address this issue. Résumé: Introduction: La fibrillation auriculaire périopératoire (FAPO) après l’intervention chirurgicale au cœur est associée à une augmentation du risque d’accident vasculaire cérébral (AVC). Toutefois, on ne connaît pas l’efficacité et l’innocuité de la l’anticoagulothérapie de cette population. Méthodes: Nous avons réalisé une revue systématique et une méta-analyse d’études qui comparaient l’utilisation de l’anticoagulothérapie vs l’absence d’anticoagulothérapie chez les patients atteints de FAPO après l’intervention chirurgicale au cœur. Les résultats étaient notamment la thromboembolie artérielle (c.-à-d. l'AVC ± l’embolie systémique) et les hémorragies. Nous avons regroupé les données à l’aide de modèles à effets fixes. Nous avons rapporté les risques relatifs (RR) sommaires d’études avec l’ajustement multivarié et l’estimation des différences du risque absolu avec des intervalles de confiance (IC) à 95 %. Résultats: Neuf études observationnelles répondaient aux critères d’admissibilité. Aucun essai à répartition aléatoire n’a été trouvé. Parmi les 254 200 patients atteints de FAPO sélectionnés, 27,3 % avaient reçu une anticoagulation. Six études révélaient des résultats après le suivi à long terme (médiane 5,0 ans ; fourchette 4,2-10,0). Le risque de thromboembolie artérielle était plus faible chez les patients qui avaient reçu une anticoagulothérapie (RR 0,83 ; IC à 95 %, 0,69-0,99 ; I2 = 57 % ; P = 0,04 ; six études). Les estimations de réduction du risque absolu à court terme et à long terme lors de thromboembolie artérielle avec l’utilisation de l’anticoagulothérapie étaient respectivement de 0,8 % (IC à 95 %, 0,4-1,4) et de deux événements par 1000 personnes-années (IC à 95 %, 0-4). Le risque d’hémorragie était plus élevé chez les patients qui avaient reçu une anticoagulothérapie (RR 3,22 ; IC à 95 %, 2,82-3,68 ; I2 = 98 % ; P < 0,001 ; deux études). Les estimations d’augmentation du risque absolu à court terme et à long terme des hémorragies avec l’utilisation de l’anticoagulothérapie étaient respectivement de 0,5 % (IC à 95 %, 0,4-0,6) et de 42 événements par 1000 personnes-années (IC à 95 %, 35-51). Conclusions: L’utilisation de l’anticoagulothérapie est associée à une réduction minime du risque de thromboembolie artérielle, mais aussi à une augmentation du risque d’hémorragie. Des essais cliniques à répartition aléatoire sont nécessaires pour aborder cette question.

OBJECTIVES:. The optimal timing of coronary angiography remains unclear following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) without ST elevation on electrocardiogram. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early angiography versus delayed angiography following OHCA without ST elevation. DATA SOURCES:. The databases MEDLINE, PubMed EMBASE, and CINHAL, as well as unpublished sources from inception to March 9, 2022. STUDY SELECTION:. A systematic search was performed for randomized controlled trials of adult patients after OHCA without ST elevation who were randomized to early as compared to delayed angiography. DATA EXTRACTION:. Reviewers screened and abstracted data independently and in duplicate. The certainty of evidence was assessed for each outcome using the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The protocol was preregistered (CRD 42021292228). DATA SYNTHESIS:. Six trials were included (n = 1,590 patients). Early angiography probably has no effect on mortality (relative risk [RR] 1.04; 95% CI 0.94–1.15; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on survival with good neurologic outcome (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.87–1.07; low certainty) or ICU length of stay (LOS) (mean difference 0.41 days fewer; 95% CI –1.3 to 0.5 d; low certainty). Early angiography has an uncertain effect on adverse events. CONCLUSIONS:. In OHCA patients without ST elevation, early angiography probably has no effect on mortality and may have no effect on survival with good neurologic outcome and ICU LOS. Early angiography has an uncertain effect on adverse events.

BackgroundWearable continuous monitoring biosensor technologies have the potential to transform postoperative care with early detection of impending clinical deterioration. ObjectiveOur aim was to validate the accuracy of Cloud DX Vitaliti continuous vital signs monitor (CVSM) continuous noninvasive blood pressure (cNIBP) measurements in postsurgical patients. A secondary aim was to examine user acceptance of the Vitaliti CVSM with respect to comfort, ease of application, sustainability of positioning, and aesthetics. MethodsIncluded participants were ≥18 years old and recovering from surgery in a cardiac intensive care unit (ICU). We targeted a maximum recruitment of 80 participants for verification and acceptance testing. We also oversampled to minimize the effect of unforeseen interruptions and other challenges to the study. Validation procedures were according to the International Standards Organization (ISO) 81060-2:2018 standards for wearable, cuffless blood pressure (BP) measuring devices. Baseline BP was determined from the gold-standard ICU arterial catheter. The Vitaliti CVSM was calibrated against the reference arterial catheter. In static (seated in bed) and supine positions, 3 cNIBP measurements, each 30 seconds, were taken for each patient with the Vitaliti CVSM and an invasive arterial catheter. At the conclusion of each test session, captured cNIBP measurements were extracted using MediCollector BEDSIDE data extraction software, and Vitaliti CVSM measurements were extracted to a secure laptop through a cable connection. The errors of these determinations were calculated. Participants were interviewed about device acceptability. ResultsThe validation analysis included data for 20 patients. The average times from calibration to first measurement in the static position and to first measurement in the supine position were 133.85 seconds (2 minutes 14 seconds) and 535.15 seconds (8 minutes 55 seconds), respectively. The overall mean errors of determination for the static position were –0.621 (SD 4.640) mm Hg for systolic blood pressure (SBP) and 0.457 (SD 1.675) mm Hg for diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Errors of determination were slightly higher for the supine position, at 2.722 (SD 5.207) mm Hg for SBP and 2.650 (SD 3.221) mm Hg for DBP. The majority rated the Vitaliti CVSM as comfortable. This study was limited to evaluation of the device during a very short validation period after calibration (ie, that commenced within 2 minutes after calibration and lasted for a short duration of time). ConclusionsWe found that the Cloud DX’s Vitaliti CVSM demonstrated cNIBP measurement in compliance with ISO 81060-2:2018 standards in the context of evaluation that commenced within 2 minutes of device calibration; this device was also well-received by patients in a postsurgical ICU setting. Future studies will examine the accuracy of the Vitaliti CVSM in ambulatory contexts, with attention to assessment over a longer duration and the impact of excessive patient motion on data artifacts and signal quality. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03493867; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03493867

Abstract Background Peripheral nerve block is a single injection that inhibits the transmission of peripheral nerve impulses to the central nervous system. The inhibition of the nociceptive impulse may decrease the occurrence of muscle spasm following mobilization postoperatively. This mechanism may contribute to a better functional recovery following upper limb surgery. This systematic review will investigate the impact of peripheral nerve block on functional recovery after an upper limb surgery. Methods We will search studies comparing peripheral nerve block to general anesthesia for upper limb surgery in the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL, EMBASE, and Scopus. In duplicate, independent reviewers will assess eligibility, evaluate risk of bias, and abstract data on type of peripheral nerve block and functional outcome. Where possible, we will pool results using a random effects model. For each outcome, we will assess the quality of evidence using GRADE methodology. Discussion We aim to summarize the available evidence comparing functional recovery with peripheral nerve block versus general anesthesia for upper limb surgery. These data will inform the design of a trial on the topic. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018116298

Introduction Infective endocarditis (IE) is a severe and highly prevalent infection among people who inject drugs (PWID). While short-term (30-day) outcomes are similar between PWID and non-PWID, the long-term outcomes among PWID after IE are poor, with 1-year mortality rates in excess of 25%. Novel clinical interventions are needed to address the unique needs of PWID with IE, including increasing access to substance use treatment and addressing structural barriers and social determinants of health. Methods and analysis PWID with IE will be connected to a multidisciplinary team that will transition with them from hospital to the community. The six components of the Second Heart Team are: (1) peer support worker with lived experience, (2) systems navigator, (3) addiction medicine physician, (4) primary care physician, (5) infectious diseases specialist, (6) cardiovascular surgeon. A convergent mixed-methods study design will be used to test the feasibility of this intervention. We will concurrently collect quantitative and qualitative data and ‘mix’ at the interpretation stage of the study to answer our research questions. Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (Project No. 7012). Results will be presented at national and international conferences and submitted for publication in a scientific journal. Clinical trail registrarion Trial registration number: ISRCTN14968657 https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN14968657.

OBJECTIVES:Vasopressors are not recommended by current trauma guidelines, but recent reports indicate that they are commonly used. We aimed to describe the early hemodynamic management of trauma patients outside densely populated urban centers. METHODS:We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study in a Canadian regional trauma center. All adult patients treated for traumatic injury in 2013 who died within 24 hours of admission or were transferred to the intensive care unit were included. A systolic blood pressure

Introduction Home-based, virtually-supported care models may represent the most efficient and scalable approach to delivering prehabilitation services. However, virtual approaches to prehabilitation are understudied. This manuscript describes the protocol for an internal pilot randomised controlled trial of a virtually-delivered, multimodal prehabilitation intervention.Methods and analysis We will conduct a pragmatic, individual patient, internal pilot randomised controlled trial of home-based, virtually supported, multimodal prehabilitation compared with standard perioperative care in adults undergoing elective, inpatient thoracic, abdominal, pelvic and vascular surgery at five Canadian hospitals. Participants will be partially blinded; clinicians and outcome assessors will be fully blinded. The intervention consists of 3–12 weeks of a home-based, multimodal (exercise, nutrition and psychosocial support) prehabilitation programme supported through an online platform. The primary feasibility outcomes and their progression targets are (1) monthly recruitment of>6 participants at each centre, (2) intervention adherence of>75%, (3) retention of>90% of participants at the patient-reported primary outcome point of 30-days after surgery and (4) elicitation of patient, clinician and researcher-identified barriers to our pragmatic trial. A sample size of 144 participants will be adequate to estimate recruitment, adherence and retention rates with acceptable precision. All participants will be followed to either death or up to 1 year. As an internal pilot, if no substantive changes to the trial or intervention design are required, pilot participant outcome data will migrate, unanalysed by allocation, to the future full-scale trial.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been granted by Clinical Trials Ontario (Project ID: 4479) and our ethics review board (Protocol Approval #20230399–01T). Results will be disseminated through presentations at scientific conferences, peer-reviewed publications, partner organisations and engagement of social and traditional media.Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT06042491. Protocol, V.1.2, dated 6 June 2024.

Objective To characterise sex and gender-based analysis (SGBA) and diversity metric reporting, representation of female/women participants in acute care trials and temporal changes in reporting before and after publication of the 2016 Sex and Gender Equity in Research guideline.Design Systematic review.Data sources We searched MEDLINE for trials published in five leading medical journals in 2014, 2018 and 2020.Study selection Trials that enrolled acutely ill adults, compared two or more interventions and reported at least one clinical outcome.Data abstraction and synthesis 4 reviewers screened citations and 22 reviewers abstracted data, in duplicate. We compared reporting differences between intensive care unit (ICU) and cardiology trials.Results We included 88 trials (75 (85.2%) ICU and 13 (14.8%) cardiology) (n=111 428; 38 140 (34.2%) females/women). Of 23 (26.1%) trials that reported an SGBA, most used a forest plot (22 (95.7%)), were prespecified (21 (91.3%)) and reported a sex-by-intervention interaction with a significance test (19 (82.6%)). Discordant sex and gender terminology were found between headings and subheadings within baseline characteristics tables (17/32 (53.1%)) and between baseline characteristics tables and SGBA (4/23 (17.4%)). Only 25 acute care trials (28.4%) reported race or ethnicity. Participants were predominantly white (78.8%) and male/men (65.8%). No trial reported gendered-social factors. SGBA reporting and female/women representation did not improve temporally. Compared with ICU trials, cardiology trials reported significantly more SGBA (15/75 (20%) vs 8/13 (61.5%) p=0.005).Conclusions Acute care trials in leading medical journals infrequently included SGBA, female/women and non-white trial participants, reported race or ethnicity and never reported gender-related factors. Substantial opportunity exists to improve SGBA and diversity metric reporting and recruitment of female/women participants in acute care trials.PROSPERO registration number CRD42022282565.

Background The LAAOS III (Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Study) clinical trial demonstrated that concomitant left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion leads to a lower risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism compared with no occlusion in participants with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2‐VASc score of ≥2 undergoing cardiac surgery for another indication. We report the cost implications of concomitant LAA occlusion during cardiac surgery. Methods and Results Using LAAOS III data, we compared the costs (in US dollars) associated with LAA occlusion to no occlusion from the perspective of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. We calculated the average cost per participant during the trial by applying Medicare reimbursement costs to cardiovascular events for all trial participants. We conducted sensitivity analyses, varying the cost of stroke ±25% and occlusion technique use. Cost neutrality was defined as a mean cost difference within ±5% of the cost per participant in the no‐occlusion group. Total study cost per participant was $3878 in the LAA occlusion group and $4490 in the no‐occlusion group, a mean difference of −$612 (95% CI, −$1276 to $45). The main drivers of cost savings were fewer stroke events during the trial (mean difference of −$1021). In sensitivity analyses, LAA occlusion was cost saving for suture and stapler techniques but more expensive with closure device. Conclusions Concomitant LAA occlusion was cost saving for participants in LAAOS III. Our findings support concomitant LAA occlusion as an economically dominant strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2‐VASc score of ≥2 undergoing cardiac surgery.

Hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), particularly those admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) are at high risk of morbidity and mortality. Several observational studies have described hemostatic derangements and thrombotic complications in patients with COVID-19. The aim of this review article is to summarize the current evidence on pathologic findings, pathophysiology, coagulation and hemostatic abnormalities, D-dimer’s role in prognostication epidemiology and risk factors of thrombotic complications, and the role of prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19. While existing evidence is limited in quality, COVID-19 appears to increase micro-and macro-vascular thrombosis rates in hospitalized and critically ill patients, which may contribute to the burden of disease. D-dimer can be used for risk stratification of hospitalized patients, but its role to guide anticoagulation therapy remains unclear. Evidence of higher quality is needed to address the role of therapeutic anticoagulation or high-intensity venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in COVID-19 patients. Take-home points: • The prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients is high, therefore, clinicians should have a high index of suspicion. • The pathophysiology of thrombosis is likely related to a combination of SARS-CoV-2 direct endothelial injury and dysregulated inflammation causing coagulation activation. • The current evidence on the value of D-dimer guided therapy is limited. • The rate of VTE post-hospital discharge is very low, supporting the safety of current discharge practice without VTE prophylaxis in most patients. • The role of higher-intensity VTE prophylaxis or therapeutic anticoagulation in critically ill COVID-19 patients without documented or suspected VTE remains uncertain. • Therapeutic anticoagulation in hospitalized non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 may improve outcomes but more research is warranted.

Abstract Purpose Existing clinical practice guidelines support the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); however, a recent large randomized clinical trial (RCT) has questioned this practice. Therefore, we updated a previous systematic review to determine the efficacy and safety of NMBAs in ARDS. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE (October 2012 to July 2019), the Cochrane (Central) database, and clinical trial registries ( ClinicalTrials.gov , ISRCTN Register, and WHO ICTRP) for RCTs comparing the effects of NMBA as a continuous infusion versus placebo or no NMBA infusion (but allowing intermittent NMBA boluses) on patient-important outcomes for adults with ARDS. Two independent reviewers assessed the methodologic quality of the primary studies and abstracted data. Results Seven RCTs, including four new RCTs, met eligibility criteria for this review. These trials enrolled 1598 patients with moderate to severe ARDS at centers in the USA, France, and China. All trials assessed short-term continuous infusions of cisatracurium or vecuronium. The pooled estimate for mortality outcomes showed significant statistical heterogeneity, which was only explained by a subgroup analysis by depth of sedation in the control arm. A continuous NMBA infusion did not improve mortality when compared to a light sedation strategy with no NMBA infusion (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% CI 0.86–1.15; moderate certainty; P = 0.93). On the other hand, continuous NMBA infusion reduced mortality when compared to deep sedation with as needed NMBA boluses (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.57–0.89; low certainty; P = 0.003). Continuous NMBA infusion reduced the rate of barotrauma (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.35–0.85, moderate certainty; P = 0.008) across eligible trials, but the effect on ventilator-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU-acquired weakness was uncertain. Conclusions Inconsistency in study methods and findings precluded the pooling of all trials for mortality. In a pre-planned sensitivity analysis, the impact of NMBA infusion on mortality depends on the strategy used in the control arm, showing reduced mortality when compared to deep sedation, but no effect on mortality when compared to lighter sedation. In both situations, a continuous NMBA infusion may reduce the risk of barotrauma, but the effects on other patient-important outcomes remain unclear. Future research, including an individual patient data meta-analysis, could help clarify some of the observed findings in this updated systematic review.

Introduction In non-elderly adults, aortic valve replacement (AVR) with conventional prostheses yield poor long-term outcomes. Recent publications suggest a benefit of the Ross procedure over conventional AVR and highlight the need for high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCTs) on the optimal AVR. We have initiated a pilot trial assess two feasibility criteria and one assumption: (1) evaluate the capacity to enrol six patients per centre per year in at least five international centre, (2) validate greater than 90% compliance with allocation and (3) to validate the proportion of mechanical (≥65%) vs biological (≤35%) valves in the conventional arm.Methods and analysis Ross for Valve replacement In AduLts (REVIVAL) is a multinational, expertise-based RCT in adults aged 18–60 years undergoing AVR, comparing the Ross procedure versus one of the alternative approaches (mechanical vs stented or stentless bioprosthesis). The feasibility objectives will be assessed after randomising 60 patients; we will then make a decision regarding whether to expand the trial with the current protocol. We will ultimately examine the impact of the Ross procedure as compared with conventional AVR in non-elderly adults on survival free of valve-related life-threatening complications (major bleeding, systemic thromboembolism, valve thrombosis and valve reoperation) over the duration of follow-up. The objectives of the pilot trial will be analysed using descriptive statistics. In the full trial, the intention-to-treat principle will guide all primary analyses. A time-to-event analysis will be performed and Kaplan-Meier survival curves with comparison between groups using a log rank test will be presented.Ethics and dissemination REVIVAL will answer whether non-elderly adults benefit from the Ross procedure over conventional valve replacement. The final results at major meetings, journals, regional seminars, hospital rounds and via the Reducing Global Perioperative Risk Multimedia Resource Centre.Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03798782Protocol version January 29, 2019 (Final Version 1.0)

Abstract Background Sepsis is a health problem of global importance; treatments focus on controlling infection and supporting failing organs. Recent clinical research suggests that intravenous vitamin C may decrease mortality in sepsis. We have designed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to ascertain the effect of vitamin C on the composite endpoint of death or persistent organ dysfunction at 28 days in patients with sepsis. Methods LOVIT (Lessening Organ dysfunction with VITamin C) is a multicenter, parallel-group, blinded (participants, clinicians, study personnel, Steering Committee members, data analysts), superiority RCT (minimum n = 800). Eligible patients have sepsis as the diagnosis for admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and are receiving vasopressors. Those admitted to the ICU for more than 24 h are excluded. Eligible patients are randomized to high-dose intravenous vitamin C (50 mg/kg every 6 h for 96 h) or placebo. The primary outcome is a composite of death or persistent organ dysfunction (need for vasopressors, invasive mechanical ventilation, or new and persisting renal replacement therapy) at day 28. Secondary outcomes include persistent organ dysfunction-free days to day 28, mortality and health-related quality of life at 6 months, biomarkers of dysoxia, inflammation, infection, endothelial function, and adverse effects (hemolysis, acute kidney injury, and hypoglycemia). Six subgroup analyses are planned. Discussion This RCT will provide evidence of the effect of high-dose intravenous vitamin C on patient-important outcomes in patients with sepsis. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03680274, first posted 21 September 2018.

Introduction Vasodilatory hypotension is common among intensive care unit (ICU) patients; vasopressors are considered standard of care. However, optimal mean arterial pressure (MAP) targets for vasopressor titration are unknown. The objective of the Optimal VAsopressor TitraTION in patients 65 years and older (OVATION-65) trial is to ascertain the effect of permissive hypotension (vasopressor titration to achieve MAP 60–65 mm Hg) versus usual care on biomarkers of organ injury in hypotensive patients aged ≥65 years.Methods and analysis OVATION-65 is an allocation-concealed randomised trial in 7 Canadian hospitals. Eligible patients are ≥65 years of age, in an ICU with vasodilatory hypotension, receiving vasopressors for ≤12 hours to maintain MAP ≥65 mm Hg during or after adequate fluid resuscitation, and expected to receive vasopressors for ≥6 additional hours. Patients are excluded for any of the following: active treatment for spinal cord or acute brain injury; vasopressors given solely for bleeding, ventricular failure or postcardiopulmonary bypass vasoplegia; withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments expected within 48 hours; death perceived as imminent; previous enrolment in OVATION-65; organ transplant within the last year; receiving extracorporeal life support or lack of physician equipoise. Patients are randomised to permissive hypotension versus usual care for up to 28 days. The primary outcome is high-sensitivity troponin T, a biomarker of cardiac injury, on day 3. Secondary outcomes include biomarkers of injury to other organs (brain, liver, intestine, skeletal muscle); lactate (a biomarker of global tissue dysoxia); resource utilisation; adverse events; mortality (90 days and 6 months) and cognitive function (6 months). Assessors of biomarkers, mortality and cognitive function are blinded to allocation.Ethics and dissemination This protocol has been approved at all sites. Consent is obtained from the eligible patient, the substitute decision-maker if the patient is incapable, or in a deferred fashion where permitted. End-of-grant dissemination plans include presentations, publications and social media platforms and discussion forums.Trial registration number NCT03431181.

Introduction Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common healthcare-associated infection in the intensive care unit (ICU). Probiotics are defined as live microorganisms that may confer health benefits when ingested. Prior randomised trials suggest that probiotics may prevent infections such as VAP and Clostridioides difficile–associated diarrhoea (CDAD). PROSPECT (Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial) is a multicentre, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial comparing the efficacy of the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG with usual care versus usual care without probiotics in preventing VAP and other clinically important outcomes in critically ill patients admitted to the ICU.Methods and analysis The objective of E-PROSPECT is to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of L. rhamnosus GG plus usual care versus usual care without probiotics in critically ill patients. E-PROSPECT will be performed from the public healthcare payer’s perspective over a time horizon from ICU admission to hospital discharge.We will determine probabilities of in-ICU and in-hospital events from all patients alongside PROSPECT. We will retrieve unit costs for each resource use item using jurisdiction-specific public databases, supplemented by individual site unit costs if such databases are unavailable. Direct costs will include medications, personnel costs, radiology/laboratory testing, operative/non-operative procedures and per-day hospital ‘hoteling’ costs not otherwise encompassed. The primary outcome is the incremental cost per VAP prevented between the two treatment groups. Other clinical events such as CDAD, antibiotic-associated diarrhoea and in-hospital mortality will be included as secondary outcomes. We will perform pre-specified subgroup analyses (medical/surgical/trauma; age; frailty status; antibiotic use; prevalent vs no prevalent pneumonia) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses for VAP, then generate confidence intervals using the non-parametric bootstrapping approach.Ethics and dissemination Study approval for E-PROSPECT was granted by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board of McMaster University on 29 July 2019. Informed consent was obtained from the patient or substitute decision-maker in PROSPECT. The findings of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number NCT01782755; Pre-results.

Introduction Perioperative benzodiazepines are used because of their anxiolytic, sedative and amnestic effects. Evidence has demonstrated an association of benzodiazepines with adverse neuropsychiatric effects. Nonetheless, because of their potential benefits, perioperative benzodiazepines continue to be used routinely. We seek to evaluate the body of evidence of the risks and benefits of benzodiazepine use during the perioperative period.Methods and analysis We will search Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science from inception to March 2019 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies evaluating the administration of benzodiazepine medications as compared with all other medications (or nothing) in patients undergoing cardiac and non-cardiac surgery. We will exclude studies assessing the use of benzodiazepines for procedural sedation or day surgery. We will examine the impact of giving these medications before, during and after surgery. Outcomes of interest include the incidence of delirium, duration of delirium, postprocedure cognitive change, the incidence of intraoperative awareness, patient satisfaction/quality of life/quality of recovery, length-of-stay (LOS) in the intensive care unit (ICU), hospital LOS and in-hospital mortality.Reviewers will screen references and assess eligibility using predefined criteria independently and in duplicate. Two reviewers will independently collect data using prepiloted forms. We will present results separately for RCTs and observational studies. We will pool data using a random effect model and present results as relative risk with 95% CIs for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We will pool adjusted ORs for observational studies. We will assess risk of bias for individual studies using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for RCTs. For observational studies, we will use tools designed by the Clinical Advances through Research and Information Translation group. Quality of evidence for each outcome will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Ethics and dissemination This systematic review involves no patient contact and no interaction with healthcare providers or systems. As such, we did not seek ethics board approval. We will disseminate the findings of our systematic review through the presentation at peer-reviewed conferences and by seeking publication in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration number CRD42019128144

Introduction Bleeding during cardiac surgery is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Tranexamic acid is an antifibrinolytic with proven efficacy in major surgeries. Current clinical practice guidelines recommend intraoperative use in cardiac procedures. However, several complications have been reported with tranexamic acid including seizures. This review intends to summarise the evidence examining the efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.Methods/design We will search MEDLINE, Embase, PubMED, ACPJC, CINAHL and the Cochrane trial registry for eligible randomised controlled trials, the search dates for all databases will be from inception until 1 January 2019, investigating the perioperative use of topical and/or intravenous tranexamic acid as a stand-alone antifibrinolytic agent compared with placebo in patients undergoing open cardiac surgery. We categorised outcomes as patient critical or patient important. Selected patient-critical outcomes are: mortality (intensive care unit, hospital and 30-day endpoints), reoperation within 24 hours, postoperative bleeding requiring transfusion of packed red blood cells, myocardial infarction, stroke, pulmonary embolism, bowel infarction, upper or lower limb deep vein thrombosis and seizures. Those outcomes, we perceived as clinical experts to be most patient valued and patients were not involved in outcomes selection process. We will not apply publication date, language, journal or methodological quality restrictions. Two reviewers will independently screen and identify eligible studies using predefined eligibility criteria and then review full reports of all potentially relevant citations. A third reviewer will resolve disagreements if consensus cannot be achieved. We will present the results as relative risk with 95% CIs for dichotomous outcomes and as mean difference or standardised mean difference for continuous outcomes with 95% CIs. We will assess the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Ethics and dissemination Formal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publicationTrial registration number CRD42018105904

Background: Most data on mortality and prognostic factors in patients with heart failure come from North America and Europe, with little information from other regions. Here, in the International Congestive Heart Failure (INTER-CHF) study, we aimed to measure mortality at 1 year in patients with heart failure in Africa, China, India, the Middle East, southeast Asia and South America; we also explored demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic variables associated with mortality. Methods: We enrolled consecutive patients with heart failure (3695 [66%] clinic outpatients, 2105 [34%] hospital in patients) from 108 centres in six geographical regions. We recorded baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and followed up patients at 6 months and 1 year from enrolment to record symptoms, medications, and outcomes. Time to death was studied with Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for demographic and clinical variables, medications, socioeconomic variables, and region. We used the explained risk statistic to calculate the relative contribution of each level of adjustment to the risk of death. Findings: We enrolled 5823 patients within 1 year (with 98% follow-up). Overall mortality was 16·5%: highest in Africa (34%) and India (23%), intermediate in southeast Asia (15%), and lowest in China (7%), South America (9%), and the Middle East (9%). Regional differences persisted after multivariable adjustment. Independent predictors of mortality included cardiac variables (New York Heart Association Functional Class III or IV, previous admission for heart failure, and valve disease) and non-cardiac variables (body-mass index, chronic kidney disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). 46% of mortality risk was explained by multivariable modelling with these variables; however, the remainder was unexplained. Interpretation: Marked regional differences in mortality in patients with heart failure persisted after multivariable adjustment for cardiac and non-cardiac factors. Therefore, variations in mortality between regions could be the result of health-care infrastructure, quality and access, or environmental and genetic factors. Further studies in large, global cohorts are needed. Funding: The study was supported by Novartis.