Search

Introduction Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a recognised postsurgical risk. Current prevention methods involve low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), graduated compression stockings (GCS), and intermittent pneumatic compression devices (IPCDs). Australian guidelines, commonly adopted by surgeons, recommend LMWH with GCS and/or IPCDs. IPCDs pose clinical risks, increase care burden, are poorly tolerated, and are costly single-use plastic items. Utilising only LMWH and GCS, without IPCDs, could be more practical, patient-friendly, and cost-effective, with added environmental benefits.Methods This is a multicentre, prospective, two-arm randomised controlled non-inferiority trial at five New South Wales (NSW) hospitals, in Australia. We propose to randomise 4130 participants in a 1:1 ratio between arm A: LMWH+GCS+IPCDs (n=2065) or arm B: LMWH+GCS (n=2065). The primary outcome of interest is symptomatic VTE (deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism) identified at the day 30 phone follow-up (FU), confirmed by ultrasound or imaging. Radiologists interpreting the lower-extremity ultrasonography will be blinded to intervention allocation. Secondary outcomes are quality of life at baseline, days 30 and 90 FU using the 5-level European Quality of Life Score, compliance and adverse events with IPCDs, GCS, and LMWH, as well as healthcare costs (from the perspective of the patient and the hospital), and all-cause mortality. The trial has 90% power to detect a 2% non-inferiority margin to detect a reduction rate of VTE from 4% to 2%.Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee (2022/ETH02276) protocol V.10, 13 July 2023. Study findings will be presented at local and national conferences and in scientific research journals.Trial registration number ANZCTR12622001527752

Introduction The Australian population presenting with surgical pathology is becoming older, frailer and more comorbid. Shared decision-making is rapidly becoming the gold standard of care for patients considering high-risk surgery to ensure that appropriate, value-based healthcare decisions are made. Positive benefits around patient perception of decision-making in the immediacy of the decision are described in the literature. However, short-term and long-term holistic patient-centred outcomes and cost implications for the health service require further examination to better understand the full impact of shared decision-making in this population.Methods We propose a novel multidisciplinary shared decision-making model of care in the perioperative period for patients considering high-risk surgery in the fields of general, vascular and head and neck surgery. We assess it in a two arm prospective randomised controlled trial. Patients are randomised to either ‘standard’ perioperative care, or to a multidisciplinary (surgeon, anaesthetist and end-of-life care nurse practitioner or social worker) shared decision-making consultation. The primary outcome is decisional conflict prior to any surgical procedure occurring. Secondary outcomes include the patient’s treatment choice, how decisional conflict changes longitudinally over the subsequent year, patient-centred outcomes including life impact and quality of life metrics, as well as morbidity and mortality. Additionally, we will report on healthcare resource use including subsequent admissions or representations to a healthcare facility up to 1 year.Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee (2019/ETH13349). Study findings will be presented at local and national conferences and within scientific research journals.Trial registration number ACTRN12619001543178.