Search

Background: Perioperative infection and sepsis are of fundamental concern to perioperative clinicians. However, standardised endpoints are either poorly defined or not routinely implemented. The Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative was established to derive a set of standardised endpoints for use in perioperative clinical trials. Methods: We undertook a systematic review to identify measures of infection and sepsis used in the perioperative literature. A multi-round Delphi consensus process that included more than 60 clinician researchers was then used to refine a recommended list of outcome measures. Results: A literature search yielded 1857 titles of which 255 met inclusion criteria for endpoint extraction. A long list of endpoints, with definitions and timescales, was generated and those potentially relevant to infection and sepsis circulated to the theme subgroup and then the wider StEP-COMPAC working group, undergoing a three-stage Delphi process. The response rates for Delphi rounds 1, 3, and 3 were 89% (n=8), 67% (n=62), and 80% (n=8), respectively. A set of 13 endpoints including fever, surgical site, and organ-specific infections as defined by the US Centres for Disease Control and Sepsis-3 are proposed for future use. Conclusions: We defined a consensus list of standardised endpoints related to infection and sepsis for perioperative trials using an established and rigorous approach. Each endpoint was evaluated with respect to validity, reliability, feasibility, and patient centredness. One or more of these should be considered for inclusion in future perioperative clinical trials assessing infection, sepsis, or both, thereby permitting synthesis and comparison of future results.

Background: The Standardising Endpoints for Perioperative Medicine group was established to derive an appropriate set of endpoints for use in clinical trials related to anaesthesia and perioperative medicine. Anaesthetic or analgesic technique during cancer surgery with curative intent may influence the risk of recurrence or metastasis. However, given the current equipoise in the existing literature, prospective, randomised, controlled trials are necessary to test this hypothesis. As such, a cancer subgroup was formed to derive endpoints related to research in onco-anaesthesia based on a current evidence base, international consensus and expert guidance. Methods: We undertook a systematic review to identify measures of oncological outcome used in the oncological, surgical, and wider literature. A multiround Delphi consensus process that included up to 89 clinician–researchers was then used to refine a recommended list of endpoints. Results: We identified 90 studies in a literature search, which were the basis for a preliminary list of nine outcome measures and their definitions. A further two were added during the Delphi process. Response rates for Delphi rounds one, two, and three were 88% (n=9), 82% (n=73), and 100% (n=10), respectively. A final list of 10 defined endpoints was refined and developed, of which six secured approval by ≥70% of the group: cancer health related quality of life, days alive and out of hospital at 90 days, time to tumour progression, disease-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival (and 5-yr overall survival). Conclusion: Standardised endpoints in clinical outcomes studies will support benchmarking and pooling (meta-analysis) of trials. It is therefore recommended that one or more of these consensus-derived endpoints should be considered for inclusion in clinical trials evaluating a causal effect of anaesthesia–analgesia technique on oncological outcomes.

Background: There is a need for robust, clearly defined, patient-relevant outcome measures for use in randomised trials in perioperative medicine. Our objective was to establish standard outcome measures for postoperative pulmonary complications research. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Web of Science, SciELO, and the Korean Journal Database. Definitions were extracted from included manuscripts. We then conducted a three-stage Delphi consensus process to select the optimal outcome measures in terms of methodological quality and overall suitability for perioperative trials. Results: From 2358 records, the full texts of 81 manuscripts were retrieved, of which 45 met the inclusion criteria. We identified three main categories of outcome measure specific to perioperative pulmonary outcomes: (i) composite outcome measures of multiple pulmonary outcomes (27 definitions); (ii) pneumonia (12 definitions); and (iii) respiratory failure (six definitions). These were rated by the group according to suitability for routine use. The majority of definitions were given a low score, and many were imprecise, difficult to apply consistently, or both, in large patient populations. A small number of highly rated definitions were identified as appropriate for widespread use. The group then recommended four outcome measures for future use, including one new definition. Conclusions: A large number of postoperative pulmonary outcome measures have been used, but most are poorly defined. Our four recommended outcome measures include a new definition of postoperative pulmonary complications, incorporating an assessment of severity. These definitions will meet the needs of most clinical effectiveness trials of treatments to improve postoperative pulmonary outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Maximising patient comfort during and after surgery is a primary concern of anaesthetists and other perioperative clinicians, but objective measures of what constitutes patient comfort in the perioperative period remain poorly defined. The Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative was established to derive a set of standardised endpoints for use in perioperative clinical trials. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review to identify measures of patient comfort used in the anaesthetic, surgical, and other perioperative literature. A multi-round Delphi consensus process that included up to 89 clinician researchers was then used to refine a recommended list of outcome measures. RESULTS: We identified 122 studies in a literature search, which were the basis for a preliminary list of 24 outcome measures and their definitions. The response rates for Delphi Rounds 1, 2, and 3 were 100% (n=22), 90% (n=79), and 100% (n=13), respectively. A final list of six defined endpoints was identified: pain intensity (at rest and during movement) at 24 h postoperatively, nausea and vomiting (0-6 h, 6-24 h, and overall), one of two quality-of-recovery (QoR) scales (QoR score or QoR-15), time to gastrointestinal recovery, time to mobilisation, and sleep quality. CONCLUSIONS: As standardised outcomes will support benchmarking and pooling (meta-analysis) of trials, one or more of these recommended endpoints should be considered for inclusion in clinical trials assessing patient comfort and pain after surgery.

Maximising patient comfort during and after surgery is a primary concern of anaesthetists and other perioperative clinicians, but objective measures of what constitutes patient comfort in the perioperative period remain poorly defined. The Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative was established to derive a set of standardised endpoints for use in perioperative clinical trials.

Background Clinical indicators are powerful tools to quantify the safety and quality of patient care. Their validity is often unclear and definitions extremely heterogeneous. As part of the International Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative, this study aimed to derive a set of standardised and valid clinical outcome indicators for use in perioperative clinical trials. Methods We identified clinical indicators via a systematic review of the anaesthesia and perioperative medicine literature (PubMed/OVID, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library). We performed a three-stage Delphi consensus-gaining process that involved 54 clinician–researchers worldwide. Indicators were first shortlisted and the most suitable definitions for evaluation of quality and safety interventions determined. Indicators were then assessed for validity, reliability, feasibility, and clarity. Results We identified 167 clinical outcome indicators. Participation in the three Delphi rounds was 100% (n=13), 68% (n=54), and 85% (n= 6), respectively. A final list of eight outcome indicators was generated: surgical site infection at 30 days, stroke within 30 days of surgery, death within 30 days of coronary artery bypass grafting, death within 30 days of surgery, admission to the intensive care unit within 14 days of surgery, readmission to hospital within 30 days of surgery, and length of hospital stay (with or without in-hospital mortality). They were rated by the majority of experts as valid, reliable, easy to use, and clearly defined. Conclusions These clinical indicators can be confidently used as endpoints in clinical trials measuring quality, safety, and improvement in perioperative care. Registration PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016042102 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php? ID=CRD42016042102).

Background: The Standardising Endpoints for Perioperative Medicine group was established to derive an appropriate set of endpoints for use in clinical trials related to anaesthesia and perioperative medicine. Anaesthetic or analgesic technique during cancer surgery with curative intent may influence the risk of recurrence or metastasis. However, given the current equipoise in the existing literature, prospective, randomised, controlled trials are necessary to test this hypothesis. As such, a cancer subgroup was formed to derive endpoints related to research in onco-anaesthesia based on a current evidence base, international consensus and expert guidance.Methods: We undertook a systematic review to identify measures of oncological outcome used in the oncological, surgical, and wider literature. A multiround Delphi consensus process that included up to 89 clinician–researchers was then used to refine a recommended list of endpoints.Results: We identified 90 studies in a literature search, which were the basis for a preliminary list of nine outcome measures and their definitions. A further two were added during the Delphi process. Response rates for Delphi rounds one, two, and three were 88% (n=9), 82% (n=73), and 100% (n=10), respectively. A final list of 10 defined endpoints was refined and developed, of which six secured approval by ≥70% of the group: cancer health related quality of life, days alive and out of hospital at 90 days, time to tumour progression, disease-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival (and 5-yr overall survival).Conclusion: Standardised endpoints in clinical outcomes studies will support benchmarking and pooling (meta-analysis) of trials. It is therefore recommended that one or more of these consensus-derived endpoints should be considered for inclusion in clinical trials evaluating a causal effect of anaesthesia–analgesia technique on oncological outcomes.

Background: There is a need for robust, clearly defined, patient-relevant outcome measures for use in randomised trials in perioperative medicine. Our objective was to establish standard outcome measures for postoperative pulmonary complications research.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Web of Science, SciELO, and the Korean Journal Database. Definitions were extracted from included manuscripts. We then conducted a three-stage Delphi consensus process to select the optimal outcome measures in terms of methodological quality and overall suitability for perioperative trials.Results: From 2358 records, the full texts of 81 manuscripts were retrieved, of which 45 met the inclusion criteria. We identified three main categories of outcome measure specific to perioperative pulmonary outcomes: (i) composite outcome measures of multiple pulmonary outcomes (27 definitions); (ii) pneumonia (12 definitions); and (iii) respiratory failure (six definitions). These were rated by the group according to suitability for routine use. The majority of definitions were given a low score, and many were imprecise, difficult to apply consistently, or both, in large patient populations. A small number of highly rated definitions were identified as appropriate for widespread use. The group then recommended four outcome measures for future use, including one new definition.Conclusions: A large number of postoperative pulmonary outcome measures have been used, but most are poorly defined. Our four recommended outcome measures include a new definition of postoperative pulmonary complications, incorporating an assessment of severity. These definitions will meet the needs of most clinical effectiveness trials of treatments to improve postoperative pulmonary outcomes.