Search

'Days alive and at home' is a validated measure that estimates the time spent at home, defined as the place of residence before admission to hospital. We evaluated this metric in older adults after hip fracture surgery and assessed two follow-up durations, 30 and 90 days. Patients aged ≥ 70 years who underwent hip fracture surgery were identified retrospectively via hospital admission and government mortality records. Patients who successfully returned home and were still alive within 90 days of surgery were distinguished from those who were not. Regression models were used to examine which variables were associated with failure to return home and number of days at home among those who did return, within 90 days of surgery. We analysed the records of 825 patients. Median (IQR [range]) number of days at home within 90 days (n = 788) was 54 (0-76 [0-88]) days and within 30 days (n = 797) it was 2 (0-21 [0-28]) days. Out of these, 274 (35%) patients did not return home within 90 days and 374 (47%) within 30 days after surgery. Known peri-operative risk-factors such as older age, pre-operative anaemia and postoperative acute renal impairment were associated with failure to return home. This study supports days alive and at home as a useful patient-centred outcome measure in older adults after hip fracture surgery. We recommend that this metric should be used in clinical trials and measured at 90, rather than 30, postoperative days. As nearly half of this patient population did not return home within 30 days, the shorter time-period catches fewer meaningful events.

BACKGROUND: Pre-operative anaemia has been associated independently with worse outcomes after cardiac surgery in adults and is often caused by absolute or functional iron deficiency. Iron deficiency is a continuum ending with anaemia, and therefore it is plausible that pre-operative early or 'non-anaemic' iron deficiency may also be associated with worse outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: We have designed a prospective, observational study to determine if there is an association between non-anaemic iron deficiency and worse outcomes after cardiac surgery in adults. Patients without anaemia undergoing elective cardiac surgery will be allocated to an iron-deficient and an iron-replete group based on standard pre-operative blood tests (ferritin, transferrin saturation and C-reactive protein). The primary outcome is days alive and at home on postoperative day 30. The key secondary outcomes are days alive and at home on postoperative day 90 and readmission to acute care. Other secondary outcomes include health-related quality of life questionnaires, quality of postoperative recovery, postoperative complications, changes in haemoglobin concentration, and requirement for allogeneic blood products. The planned study sample size is 240 patients per group, which has 83% power to detect a median difference of 1.25 days in the primary outcome. The study commenced in March 2018, and recently completed recruitment, with data audit and cleaning ongoing. DISCUSSION: This study will be conducted using a rigorous, prospective observational design; it will provide peak bodies and clinicians with high-quality evidence concerning the associations between non-anaemic iron deficiency and patient-centred outcomes after elective cardiac surgery. Our primary and key secondary outcomes are known to have great importance to clinicians and patients alike and align with the recommendations of the StEP-COMPAC group for outcomes in prospective peri-operative research. The de

BACKGROUND: Compared with anaemia before surgery, the underlying pathogenesis and implications of postoperative anaemia are largely unknown. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analysed prospective data obtained from 2983 adult patients across 47 centres enrolled in a clinical trial evaluating restrictive and liberal intravenous fluids. The primary endpoint was persistent disability or death up to 90 days after surgery. Secondary endpoints included major septic complications, hospital stay, and patient quality of recovery using a 15-item quality of recovery (QoR-15) score, hospital re-admissions, and disability-free survival up to 12 months after surgery. Anaemia and disability were defined according to the WHO definitions. Multivariable regression was used to adjust for baseline risk and surgery. RESULTS: A total of 2983 patients met inclusion criteria for this study, of which 78.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76.7-80.1%) had postoperative anaemia. Patients with postoperative anaemia had a higher adjusted risk of death or disability up to 90 days after surgery when compared with those without anaemia: 18.2% vs 9.2% (risk ratio [RR]=1.51; 95% CI, 1.10-2.07, P=0.011); lower QoR-15 scores on Day 3 and Day 30, 105 (95% CI, 87-119) vs 114 (95% CI, 99-128; P<0.001), and 130 (95% CI, 112-140) vs 139 (95% CI, 121-144; P<0.011), respectively; higher adjusted risk of a composite of mortality/septic complications, 2.01 (95% CI, 1.55-42.67; P<0.001); unplanned admission to ICU (RR=2.65; 95% CI, 1.65-4.23; P<0.001); and longer median (inter-quartile range [IQR]) hospital stays, 6.6 (4.4-12.4) vs 3.7 (2.5-6.5) days (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative anaemia is common and is independently associated with poor outcomes after surgery. Optimal prevention and treatment strategies need to be investigated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04978285 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Surveys provide evidence on practice, attitudes, and knowledge. However, conducting good survey research is harder than it looks. The authors aim to provide guidance to both researchers and readers in conducting and interpreting survey research. Like all research, surveys should have clear research question(s) using the smallest possible number of high-quality, essential, survey questions (items) that will interest the target population. Both researchers and readers should put themselves in the position of the respondents. The survey questions should provide reproducible results (reliable), measure what they are supposed to measure (valid), and take less than 10 min to answer. Good survey research reports provide results with valid and reliable answers to the research question with an adequate response rate (at least 40%) and adequate precision (margin of error ideally 5% or less). Possible biases among those who did not respond (nonresponders) must be carefully analyzed and discussed. Quantitative results can be combined with qualitative results in mixed-methods research to provide greater insight.

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex reduces residual neuromuscular blockade after anaesthesia, potentially preventing postoperative pulmonary complications. However, definitive evidence is lacking. We therefore conducted a feasibility and pilot trial for a large randomised controlled trial of sugammadex, neostigmine, and postoperative pulmonary complications. METHODS: Patients aged ≥40 years having elective or expedited abdominal or intrathoracic surgery were recruited in Australia and Hong Kong. Perioperative care was at the discretion of clinicians, except for the use of rocuronium and/or vecuronium for neuromuscular blockade and the randomised intervention (sugammadex or neostigmine) for reversal. Feasibility measurements included recruitment, crossover, acceptability, completeness, and workload. Trial coordinator feedback was systematically sought. Patient-reported quality of life was measured using the EQ-5D-5L score. The primary pilot outcome was the incidence of new pulmonary complications up to hospital discharge (or postoperative day 7 if still in hospital). RESULTS: Among 150 eligible patients, 120 consented to participate (recruitment rate 80%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 73 to 86%). The randomised intervention was administered without crossover to 115 of 117 patients who received reversal (98%, 95% CI 94 to 100%). The protocol was acceptable or highly acceptable to the anaesthetist in 108 of 116 cases (93%, 95% CI 87 to 97%; missing = 4). Four patients of the 120 patients were lost to follow-up at 3 months (3.3%, 95% CI 0.9 to 8.3%). Case report forms were complete at 3 months for all remaining patients. The median time to complete trial processes was 3.5 h (range 2.5-4.5 h). Trial coordinators reported no barriers to trial processes. Patients were aged 64 (standard deviation 11) years, 70 (58%) were male and 50 (42%) were female, and planned surgeries were thoracic (23 [19%]), upper abdominal (41 [34%]), and lower abdominal (56 [47%]). The primary outcome was obser

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly affected access to elective surgery, largely because of concerns for patients and healthcare workers. A return to normal surgery workflow depends on the prevalence and transmission of coronavirus in elective surgical patients. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of active SARS-coronavirus-2 infection during a second wave among patients admitted to hospital for elective surgery in Victoria. METHODS: Prospective cohort study across eight hospitals in Victoria during July-August 2020 was conducted enrolling adults and children admitted to hospital for elective surgery or interventional procedure requiring general anaesthesia. Study outcomes included a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 in the preoperative period (primary outcome), and for those with a negative test preoperatively, the incidence of a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 in the post-operative period. RESULTS: We enrolled 4965 elective adult and paediatric surgical patients from 15 July to 31 August 2020. Four patients screened negative on questionnaire but had a positive PCR test for coronavirus, resulting in a Bayesian estimated prevalence of 0.12% (95% probability interval 0-0.26%). There were no reports of healthcare worker infections linked to elective surgery during and up to 2 weeks after the study period. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic elective surgical patients during a second wave was approximately 1 in 833. Given the very low likelihood of coronavirus transmission, and with existing current hospital capacity, recommencement of elective surgery should be considered. A coronavirus screening checklist should be mandated for surgical patients.

BACKGROUND: Determining the cost-effectiveness and sustainability of patient blood management programmes relies on quantifying the economic burden of preoperative anaemia. This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the hospital costs attributable to preoperative anaemia in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent major abdominal surgery between 2010 and 2018 were included. The association between preoperative patient haemoglobin (Hb) concentration and hospital costs was evaluated by curve estimation based on the least-square method. The in-hospital cost of index admission was calculated using an activity-based costing methodology. Multivariable regression analysis and propensity score matching were used to estimate the effects of Hb concentration on variables related directly to hospital costs. RESULTS: A total of 1286 patients were included. The median overall cost was US $18 476 (i.q.r.13 784-27 880), and 568 patients (44.2 per cent) had a Hb level below 13.0 g/dl. Patients with a preoperative Hb level below 9.0 g/dl had total hospital costs that were 50.6 (95 per cent c.i. 14.1 to 98.9) per cent higher than those for patients with a preoperative Hb level of 9.0-13.0 g/dl (P < 0.001), 72.5 (30.6 to 128.0) per cent higher than costs for patients with a Hb concentration of 13.1-15.0 g/dl (P < 0.001), and 62.4 (21.8 to 116.7) per cent higher than those for patients with a Hb level greater than 15.0 g/dl (P < 0.001). Multivariable general linear modelling showed that packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusions were a principal cost driver in patients with a Hb concentration below 9.0 g/dl. CONCLUSION: Patients with the lowest Hb concentration incurred the highest hospital costs, which were strongly associated with increased PRBC transfusions. Costs and possible complications may be decreased by treating preoperative anaemia, particularly more severe anaemia.

Background: The glucocorticoid dexamethasone prevents nausea and vomiting after surgery, but there is concern that it may increase the risk of surgical-site infection. less... Methods: In this pragmatic, international, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned 8880 adult patients who were undergoing nonurgent, noncardiac surgery of at least 2 hours' duration, with a skin incision length longer than 5 cm and a postoperative overnight hospital stay, to receive 8 mg of intravenous dexamethasone or matching placebo while under anesthesia. Randomization was stratified according to diabetes status and trial center. The primary outcome was surgical-site infection within 30 days after surgery. The prespecified noninferiority margin was 2.0 percentage points. Results: A total of 8725 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat population (4372 in the dexamethasone group and 4353 in the placebo group), of whom 13.2% (576 in the dexamethasone group and 572 in the placebo group) had diabetes mellitus. Of the 8678 patients included in the primary analysis, surgical-site infection occurred in 8.1% (354 of 4350 patients) assigned to dexamethasone and in 9.1% (394 of 4328) assigned to placebo (risk difference adjusted for diabetes status, -0.9 percentage points; 95.6% confidence interval [CI], -2.1 to 0.3; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The results for superficial, deep, and organ-space surgical-site infections and in patients with diabetes were similar to those of the primary analysis. Postoperative nausea and vomiting in the first 24 hours after surgery occurred in 42.2% of patients in the dexamethasone group and in 53.9% in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.82). Hyperglycemic events in patients without diabetes occurred in 22 of 3787 (0.6%) in the dexamethasone group and in 6 of 3776 (0.2%) in the placebo group. Conclusions: Dexamethasone was noninferior to placebo with respect to the incidence of surgical-site infection within 30 days after

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: Investigation of several serious adverse events in our organization highlighted that medications were managed inappropriately when patients have oral intake restrictions. The aim of this work was to identify the barriers to optimal medication management when patients have restrictions on their oral intake. METHOD: Data were feedback and comments obtained between 2011 and 2014 from a hospital-wide quality assurance project. Data had not been purposefully collected and were in response to a general request for feedback regarding managing oral medications when patients have oral intake restrictions. Data came from a range of clinical staff and from various forums associated with the quality assurance project, including 37 presentations, 34 group meetings, and over 50 one-on-one meetings, as well as emails and other sources. Data were analysed using the thematic analysis approach. Data were coded inductively, and the domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework were used to categorize the data. Subthemes and themes were then developed. RESULTS: Barriers could be broadly grouped into systems-level issues (organizational guidance and work environment) and the individual person-level issues (staff knowledge and beliefs). These barriers highlight the complexity of the medication management task. The lack of standardized guidance and consistent terminology regarding medication administration when patients have restrictions on oral intake, particularly when fasting or nil by mouth, were important systems factors, as were workflow issues and the "culture" of the environment in which staff practiced. Lack of knowledge about medication administration, social influences, and role interpretation were important individual person factors. CONCLUSION: Systems- and individual person-level issues were significant contributors to inappropriate medication management when patients have oral intake restrictions. Many of the barriers may be addressed with sy

BACKGROUND: The mounting pressure on the Australian healthcare system is driving a continual exploration of areas to improve patient care and access and to maximize utilization of our workforce. We hypothesized that there would be support by anesthetists employed at our hospital for the design, development, and potential implementation of an anesthesia-led nurse practitioner (NP) model for low-risk colonoscopy patients. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, mixed methods study to ascertain the attitudes and acceptability of anesthetists towards a proposed anesthesia-led NP model for low-risk colonoscopy patients. An online survey using commercial software and theoretical questions pertaining to participants' attitudes towards an anesthesia-led NP model was e-mailed to consultant anesthetists. Participants were also invited to participate in a voluntary 20-min face-to-face interview. RESULTS: A total of 60 survey responses were received from a pool of 100 anesthetists (response rate = 60%, accounting for 8.04% margin of error). Despite the theoretical benefits of improved patient access to colonoscopy services, most anesthetists were not willing to participate in the supervision and training of NPs. The predominant themes underlying their lack of support for the program were a perception that patient safety would be compromised compared to the current model of anesthesia-led care, the model does not meet the Australian and New Zealand College of Anesthetists guidelines for procedural sedation and analgesia, and the program may be a public liability prone to litigation in the event of an adverse outcome. Concerns about consumer acceptance and cost-effectiveness were also raised. Finally, participants thought the model should be pilot tested to better understand consumer attitudes, logistical feasibility, patient and proceduralist attitudes, clinical governance, and, importantly, patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: Most anesthetists working in a single-center university ho

BACKGROUND: Individuals with obesity frequently present for anaesthesia and surgery. Good communication during the preoperative consultation can optimise the provision of relevant health information and guide improvement of health status preoperatively. METHODS: We planned a systematic literature review to assess existing guidelines and evidence of effectiveness for how anaesthetists should communicate with patients who have obesity in the preoperative period about perioperative risks and weight management. Database searches used keywords related to perioperative weight loss conversations. We found no papers that directly addressed our aim. The literature identified as most relevant was analysed in the form of a narrative review. RESULTS: The majority of suggestions for weight loss conversations came from primary care. Four primary themes potentially relevant to anaesthetists were identified: barriers to such conversations, communication tools, language and communication and specific recommendations. Identified barriers included lack of skills, training, poor remuneration, pessimism and time constraints for clinicians. Established discussion tools including the '5A's' approach (Assess, Advise, Agree, Assist, Arrange) and motivational interviewing may hold promise to improve preoperative conversations. The papers highlighted a need for empathetic language, including use of patient-specific language where possible. CONCLUSIONS: There are currently no published guidelines for how anaesthetists could most effectively discuss weight in the perioperative period with patients who have obesity. Much of the literature for obesity communication is based on the primary care setting. The perioperative period may represent an increased time of receptiveness for patients. Guidelines for discussions about weight management and associated perioperative risk are suggested.

Background: Individuals with obesity frequently present for anaesthesia and surgery. Good communication during the preoperative consultation can optimise the provision of relevant health information and guide improvement of health status preoperatively. Methods: We planned a systematic literature review to assess existing guidelines and evidence of effectiveness for how anaesthetists should communicate with patients who have obesity in the preoperative period about perioperative risks and weight management. Database searches used keywords related to perioperative weight loss conversations. We found no papers that directly addressed our aim. The literature identified as most relevant was analysed in the form of a narrative review. Results: The majority of suggestions for weight loss conversations came from primary care. Four primary themes potentially relevant to anaesthetists were identified: barriers to such conversations, communication tools, language and communication and specific recommendations. Identified barriers included lack of skills, training, poor remuneration, pessimism and time constraints for clinicians. Established discussion tools including the ‘5A’s’ approach (Assess, Advise, Agree, Assist, Arrange) and motivational interviewing may hold promise to improve preoperative conversations. The papers highlighted a need for empathetic language, including use of patientspecific language where possible. Conclusions: There are currently no published guidelines for how anaesthetists could most effectively discuss weight in the perioperative period with patients who have obesity. Much of the literature for obesity communication is based on the primary care setting. The perioperative period may represent an increased time of receptiveness for patients. Guidelines for discussions about weight management and associated perioperative risk are suggested.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate associations between maternal body mass index (BMI) at delivery (using pregnancy-specific BMI cut-off values 5 kg/m2 higher in each of the WHO groups) and clinical, theatre utilisation and health economic outcomes for women undergoing caesarean section (CS). DESIGN: A prospective multicentre observational study. SETTING: Seven secondary or tertiary referral obstetric hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand and four hundred and fifty-seven women undergoing all categories of CS. DATA COLLECTION: Height and weight were recorded at the initial antenatal visit and at delivery. We analysed the associations between delivery BMI (continuous and pregnancy-specific cut-off values) and total theatre time, surgical time, anaesthesia time, maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes, total hospital admission and theatre costs. RESULTS: Mean participant characteristics were: age 32 years, gestation at delivery 38.4 weeks and delivery BMI 32.2 kg/m2. Fifty-five per cent of participants were overweight, obese or super-obese using delivery pregnancy-specific BMI cut-off values. As BMI increased, total theatre time, surgical time and anaesthesia time increased. Super-obese participants had approximately 27% (17 min, p<0.001) longer total theatre time, 20% (9 min, p<0.001), longer surgical time and 40% (11 min, p<0.001) longer anaesthesia time when compared with normal BMI participants. Increased BMI at delivery was associated with increased risk of maternal intensive care unit admission (relative risk 1.07, p=0.045), but no increased risk of neonatal admission to higher acuity care. Total hospital admission costs were 15% higher in super-obese women compared with normal BMI women and theatre costs were 27% higher in super-obese women. CONCLUSIONS: Increased maternal BMI was associated with increased total theatre time, surgical and anaesthesia time, increased total hospital admission costs and theatre costs. Clinicians and health administrators should consider the

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore the perceptions and experiences of surgical nurses before and after introducing the Medications and Oral Restrictions Policy (the Policy). BACKGROUND: The Policy was developed following extensive consultation, and evidence-based strategies were considered for its implementation. However, it is possible uptake did not meet expectations. DESIGN: Focus group interviews. METHODS: Three focus groups were conducted in November 2015 around 'what worked, what didn't and why, before and after hospital-wide implementation of the Policy.' Data were coded and analysed using an inductive-deductive thematic analysis approach. The COREQ checklist guided reporting. RESULTS: The three groups consisted of 16, 14 and six surgical nurses. Before the Policy, there was confusion, lack of clarity and guidance, and lack of experience and confidence in managing medications when patients had oral restrictions. After the Policy rollout, there was a sense of 'knowing what to do' because of improved clarity and decision support; but there were also problems with: not everyone knowing about the policy, particularly due to staff movement and turnover; and, individual interpretation of the policy including use of its signs outside of context, and decision-making processes. CONCLUSION: Exploration of nurses' perceptions of a medication-related policy change found that while the Policy provided clarity and decision support for some, it made little difference for others. Limited reach of the policy was an issue despite an effort to address this at the outset, as well as variations in interpretation of the policy and subsequent decision-making. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: How individuals interpret information and their understanding of the context behind the policy or guideline may affect implementation and should be considered alongside other barriers when implementing medication-related initiatives. Furthermore, implementation strategies that are independent of on

INTRODUCTION: Frailty is of increasing importance to perioperative and critical care medicine, as the proportion of older patients increases globally. Evidence continues to emerge of the considerable impact frailty has on adverse outcomes from both surgery and critical care, which has led to a proliferation of different frailty measurement tools in recent years. Despite this, there remains a lack of easily implemented, comprehensive frailty assessment tools specific to these complex populations. Development of a frailty index using routinely collected hospital data, able to leverage the automated aspects of an electronic medical record, would aid risk stratification and benefit clinicians and patients alike. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective observational study. 150 intensive care unit (ICU) patients aged ≥50 years and 200 surgical patients aged ≥65 years will be enrolled. The primary objective is to develop a frailty index. Secondary objectives include assessing its ability to predict in-hospital mortality and/or discharge to a new non-home location; the performance of the frailty index in predicting postoperative and ICU complications, as well as health-related quality of life at 6 months; to compare the performance of the frailty index against existing frailty measurement and risk stratification tools; and to assess its modification by patients' health assets. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee(20 January 2017, HREC/16/MH/321). Dissemination will be via international and national anaesthetic and critical care conferences, and publication in the peer-reviewed literature.

Pre-operative anaemia is typically diagnosed with a haemoglobin concentration < 120 g.l-1 for women and < 130 g.l-1 for men on the basis of limited evidence. This retrospective cohort study stratified women undergoing elective, major abdominal surgery based on pre-operative haemoglobin concentration: anaemic (< 120 g.l-1 ); borderline anaemic (120-129 g.l-1 ); and non-anaemic (> 130 g.l-1 ). Data from 1554 women were analysed. Women with borderline anaemia had a greater incidence of postoperative complications (55 (16%) vs. 110 (11%); p = 0.026), longer duration of hospital stay (median (IQR [range]) 3 (1-6 [0-69]) days vs. 2 (1-5 [0-80]) days; p = 0.017) and fewer days alive and out of hospital at postoperative day 30 (median (IQR [range]) 27 (23-29 [0-30]) vs. 28 (25-29 [0-30]) days; p = 0.017) compared with non-anaemic women. However, after matched cohort analysis, these outcome differences no longer remained statistically significant. After multivariable adjustment for procedure, Charlson comorbidity index and patient age, a negative relationship between logarithmic pre-operative haemoglobin concentration and duration of stay was found (parameter estimate (standard error) -0.006 (0.003) vs. 0.003 (0.003) for a haemoglobin concentration < 130 g.l-1 vs. > 130 g.l-1 , respectively; p = 0.03); the difference in duration of stay was approximately 50% greater for women with a haemoglobin concentration of 120 g.l-1 compared with those with a haemoglobin concentration of 130 g.l-1 . Although the contribution of borderline anaemia to the incidence of postoperative complications is uncertain, the current diagnostic criteria should be re-assessed.

Iron deficiency anaemia is strongly associated with poor outcomes after cardiac surgery. However, pre-operative non-anaemic iron deficiency (a probable anaemia precursor) has not been comprehensively examined in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, despite biological plausibility and evidence from other patient populations of negative effect on outcome. This exploratory retrospective cohort study aimed to compare an iron-deficient group of patients undergoing cardiac surgery with an iron-replete group. Consecutive non-anaemic patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting or single valve replacement in our institution between January 2013 and December 2015 were considered for inclusion. Data from a total of 277 patients were analysed, and were categorised by iron status and blood haemoglobin concentration into iron-deficient (n = 109) and iron-replete (n = 168) groups. Compared with the iron-replete group, patients in the iron-deficient group were more likely to be female (43% vs. 12%, iron-replete, respectively); older, mean (SD) age 64.4 (9.7) vs. 63.2 (10.3) years; and to have a higher pre-operative EuroSCORE (median IQR [range]) 3 (2-5 [0-10]) vs. 3 (2-4 [0-9]), with a lower preoperative haemoglobin of 141.6 (11.6) vs. 148.3 (11.7) g.l-1 . Univariate analysis suggested that iron-deficient patients had a longer hospital length of stay (7 (6-9 [2-40]) vs. 7 (5-8 [4-23]) days; p = 0.013) and fewer days alive and out of hospital at postoperative day 90 (83 (80-84 [0-87]) vs. 83 (81-85 [34-86]), p = 0.009). There was no evidence of an association between iron deficiency and either lower nadir haemoglobin or higher requirement for blood products during inpatient stay. After adjusting the model for pre-operative age, sex, renal function, EuroSCORE and haemoglobin, the mean increase in hospital length of stay in the iron-deficient group relative to the iron-replete group was 0.86 days (bootstrapped 95%CI -0.37 to 2.22, p = 0.098). This exploratory study su

The Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) has more than 200 accredited training sites in Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore, many of which participate in ANZCA Clinical Trials Network (CTN)-endorsed clinical trials. We undertook a survey of accredited sites to determine research capability, activity and potential. With ethics committee approval an electronic survey was distributed to accredited sites in July 2015. Of 207 accredited sites, 167 were sent the questionnaire (after eliminating ineligible sites) and 128 responded. Response rates for Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore were 100%, 100%, 35%, 25% and 75% respectively. Forty-four (34%) of 128 responding sites had a head of research; 101 (80%) of 126 responding sites were active in research; 42 (33%) of 126 responding sites had no publications since January 2011 and 15 (12%) had >50 publications; 95 (76%) of 125 responding sites had at least one specialist anaesthetist engaged in research (median = 4 [range 1-25]); and 45 (36%) of 125 responding sites had at least one research coordinator (median = 2 [range 1-15]). Fifty-eight (28%) of the 207 accredited sites were identified as participating in recent ANZCA CTN-endorsed clinical trials. Research capability and activity were higher in these sites. This survey has identified a strong base upon which to expand clinical trial activity, and regions, sectors, investigators and research coordinators who may benefit from additional support.

Introduction The optimal intravenous fluid regimen for patients undergoing major abdominal surgery is unclear. However, results from many small studies suggest a restrictive regimen may lead to better outcomes. A large, definitive clinical trial evaluating perioperative fluid replacement in major abdominal surgery, therefore, is required. Methods/analysis We designed a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial (the RELIEF trial). A total of 3000 patients were enrolled in this study and randomly allocated to a restrictive or liberal fluid regimen in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by centre and planned critical care admission. The expected fluid volumes in the first 24 hour from the start of surgery in restrictive and liberal groups were ≤3.0 L and ≥5.4 L, respectively. Patient enrolment is complete, and follow-up for the primary end point is ongoing. The primary outcome is disability-free survival at 1 year after surgery, with disability defined as a persistent (at least 6 months) reduction in functional status using the 12-item version of the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule. Ethics/dissemination The RELIEF trial has been approved by the responsible ethics committees of all participating sites. Participant recruitment began in March 2013 and was completed in August 2016, and 1-year follow-up will conclude in August 2017. Publication of the results of the RELIEF trial is anticipated in early 2018.

We report a study to design and evaluate an app to support pregnancy information provided to women through an Australian health service. As part of a larger project to provide prenatal resources for culturally and linguistically diverse groups, this study focused on the design and reception of an app with the local Vietnamese community and health professionals of a particular hospital. Our study had three stages: an initial design workshop with the hospital; prototype design and development; prototype-based interviews with health professionals and focus groups with Vietnamese women. We explore how an app of this sort must be designed for a range of different use scenarios, considering its use by consumers with a multiplicity of differing viewpoints about its nature and purpose in relation to pregnancy care.

The 2015 National Anaesthesia Day survey found obesity is a growing medical concern.

In an incidental finding, during a study of plasma chemistry after crystalloid infusion, participants reported subjective cognitive changes, particularly slower thinking, after saline but not Hartmann's (Ringer's lactate) solution. The authors tested the hypothesis that saline infusion would produce greater adverse cognitive changes than Plasmalyte infusion. The authors conducted a randomized, cross-over, multiple blinded study of healthy adult volunteers. On separate days, participants received 30 ml/kg over 1 h of either 0.9% saline or Plasmalyte with the order randomly allocated. Plasma chemistry was tested on venous samples. As part of a battery of cognitive tests our primary endpoint was the reaction time index after infusion. The authors studied 25 participants. Plasma chloride was greater after saline than after Plasmalyte: mean difference 5.4 mM (95% CI, 4.1-6.6 mM; P < 0.001). Saline was also associated with greater metabolic acidosis: base-excess 2.5 mM more negative (95% CI, 1.9-3.0 mM more negative; P < 0.001). There was no evidence of a difference in the reaction time index between the two interventions: mean reaction time index 394 ms (SD, 72) after saline versus 385 ms (SD, 55) after Plasmalyte. Difference: saline 9 ms slower (95% CI, 30 ms slower to 12 ms faster; P = 0.39). There were minimal differences in the other cognitive and mood tests. Despite expected differences in plasma chemistry, the authors found that measures of cognition did not differ after infusions of Plasmalyte or saline.

Perioperative medicine is difficult to define, and thus, its progress may be hindered until internationally accepted definitions can be established within the field. The immediate agenda for perioperative physicians should be to agree upon such definitions in order to facilitate advancements in research, audits and outcome measurements. The REASON study, looking at institutions throughout New Zealand and Australia, confirmed that postoperative complications and mortality are important areas for multicentre trials.

BACKGROUND: As with other types of research, there are concerns about reporting of survey research in anesthesia journals. We hypothesized that use of survey reporting items would be inconsistent in survey research reported in anesthesia journals. METHODS: After a literature review we constructed a 17-item reporting list for a limited systematic review of survey reporting in 6 anesthesia journals. We identified survey reports by MEDLINE (PubMed) search for January 2000 to April 2009. RESULTS: The initial search identified 347 publications. Of these, we excluded 107 because they were not questionnaire surveys (often audits), were reviews, or were letters. We therefore identified 240 surveys published as full survey reports. From the 17-item reporting list, the median number of items recorded was 9 (interquartile range: 7 to 10; range 2 to 15). The number (and percentage) of surveys reporting specific items ranged widely for different items: from 9 surveys (4%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2% to 7%) for sample size to 240 surveys (100%; 95% CI: 98% to 100%) for response rate. In addition to sample size, the 5 least frequently reported items included the following: reporting confidence intervals, 21 surveys (9%; 95% CI: 6% to 13%); stating a hypothesis, 23 of 240 surveys (10%; 95% CI: 7% to 14%); accounting for nonresponders, 61 surveys (25%; 95% CI: 20% to 31%); and survey design, 67 surveys (28%; 95% CI: 33% to 34%). CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistent reporting may compromise the transparency and reproducibility of survey reports.

We conducted a prospective study of non-cardiac surgical patients aged 70 years or more in 23 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. We studied 4158 consecutive patients of whom 2845 (68%) had pre-existing comorbidities. By day 30, 216 (5%) patients had died, and 835 (20%) suffered complications; 390 (9.4%) patients were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit. Pre-operative factors associated with mortality included: increasing age (80-89 years: OR 2.1 (95% CI 1.6-2.8), p < 0.001; 90+ years: OR 4.0 (95% CI 2.6-6.2), p < 0.001); worsening ASA physical status (ASA 3: OR 3.1 (95% CI 1.8-5.5), p < 0.001; ASA 4: OR 12.4 (95% CI 6.9-22.2), p < 0.001); a pre-operative plasma albumin < 30 g.l⁻¹ (OR: 2.5 (95% CI 1.8-3.5), p < 0.001); and non-scheduled surgery (OR 1.8 (95% CI 1.3-2.5), p < 0.001). Complications associated with mortality included: acute renal impairment (OR 3.3 (95% CI 2.1-5.0), p < 0.001); unplanned Intensive Care Unit admission (OR 3.1 (95% CI 1.9-4.9), p < 0.001); and systemic inflammation (OR 2.5 (95% CI 1.7-3.7), p < 0.001). Patient factors often had a stronger association with mortality than the type of surgery. Strategies are needed to reduce complications and mortality in older surgical patients.

We conducted a prospective study of non-cardiac surgical patients aged 70 years or more in 23 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. We studied 4158 consecutive patients of whom 2845 (68%) had pre-existing comorbidities. By day 30, 216 (5%) patients had died, and 835 (20%) suffered complications; 390 (9.4%) patients were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit. Pre-operative factors associated with mortality included: increasing age (80-89 years: OR 2.1 (95% CI 1.6-2.8), p < 0.001; 90+ years: OR 4.0 (95% CI 2.6-6.2), p < 0.001); worsening ASA physical status (ASA 3: OR 3.1 (95% CI 1.8-5.5), p < 0.001; ASA 4: OR 12.4 (95% CI 6.9-22.2), p < 0.001); a pre-operative plasma albumin < 30 g.l⁻¹ (OR: 2.5 (95% CI 1.8-3.5), p < 0.001); and non-scheduled surgery (OR 1.8 (95% CI 1.3-2.5), p < 0.001). Complications associated with mortality included: acute renal impairment (OR 3.3 (95% CI 2.1-5.0), p < 0.001); unplanned Intensive Care Unit admission (OR 3.1 (95% CI 1.9-4.9), p < 0.001); and systemic inflammation (OR 2.5 (95% CI 1.7-3.7), p < 0.001). Patient factors often had a stronger association with mortality than the type of surgery. Strategies are needed to reduce complications and mortality in older surgical patients.

In the search for the best available evidence, large randomized clinical trials have much to offer1-7. First, large trials (often with more than 1000 patients) can study major endpoints such as death and permanent disability. second, large trials can be powered to detect, with precise 95% confidence intervals, the modest differences in hard endpoints that are important to clinicians, patients and their families. Third, large trials can come close to reflecting real world clinical practice if the protocol is simple and the broadest possible range of patients are included from many hospitals. Fourth, subgroups from large patient samples can be analysed to generate further hypotheses and subsequent targeted clinical trials. Fifth, while observational studies can provide important data, a randomized trial will minimize biases that may taint the results, such as patient characteristics or other confounding factors differing between treatment arms. Finally, recent guidelines have further improved the information provided in trial reports7. There have been several large trials in anaesthesia and critical care medicine817. These include clear evidence of benefit for maintenance of normothermia and/or high inspired oxygen concentration in colorectal surgery8,9, intensive insulin therapy in critically ill patients10, bispectral index monitoring to prevent awareness", low-dose aspirin for hip surgery12, lowtidal volume ventilation in acute lung injury13, and recombinant human activated protein C for severe sepsis14. In contrast, there is no demonstrable benefit of low-dose dopamine or albumin in critically ill patients15'16. Successful large trials conducted by informal networks of Australasian anaesthetists11,17, and in critical care medicine, the Clinical Trials Group of the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS CTG)15,16,18, have led to publications in high profile general medical journals such as New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet. Following on

The history of assessing the acid-base equilibrium and associated disorders is intertwined with the evolution of the definition of an acid. In the 1950s clinical chemists combined the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation and the Bronsted-Lowry definition of an acid to produce the current bicarbonate ion-centred approach to metabolic acid-base disorders. Stewart repackaged pre-1950 ideas of acid-base in the late 1970s, including the Van Slyke definition of an acid. Stewart also used laws of physical chemistry to produce a new acid-base approach. This approach, using the strong ion difference (particularly the sodium chloride difference) and the concentration of weak acids (particularly albumin), pushes bicarbonate into a minor role as an acid-base indicator rather than as an important mechanism. The Stewart approach may offer new insights into acid-base disorders and therapies.