Explore the vast range of titles available.

Each year, cardiac complications occur within 30 days after major noncardiac surgery in more than 10 million people worldwide; postoperative mortality is 1.5%. Enhanced patient monitoring and measurement of natriuretic hormone and troponin levels may improve outcomes. Although major noncardiac surgery has the potential to improve the quality and prolong the duration of a patient’s life, surgery may also precipitate complications such as death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction or injury, cardiac arrest, or congestive heart failure. 1 In this article, we review what is known about the epidemiology and mechanisms of perioperative cardiac complications (i.e., from induction of anesthesia to within 30 days after surgery), preoperative methods of predicting these complications, perioperative cardiac interventions, and postoperative monitoring. Epidemiology and Mechanisms of Perioperative Cardiac Complications Worldwide, more than 200 million adults undergo major noncardiac surgery each year, 2 , . . .

In a pragmatic trial, more than 30,000 patients requiring blood transfusion were randomly assigned to receive blood after short-term storage or long-term storage. In-hospital mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups. Red-cell transfusion is one of the most common medical interventions. 1 Blood is stored for up to 42 days before transfusion. Biochemical, structural, and functional changes during storage may reduce oxygen delivery to tissues, and the release of extracellular vesicles and cell-free DNA during storage may cause a hypercoagulable state. 2 Observational studies have suggested that prolonged blood storage is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. 3 Randomized, controlled trials have not shown harm in transfusing red-cell units with a longer duration versus a shorter duration of storage. However, most of these trials have been restricted to high-risk populations and have . . .

Guidelines exist for the surgical treatment of hip fracture, but the effect of early surgery on mortality and other outcomes that are important for patients remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect of early surgery on the risk of death and common postoperative complications among elderly patients with hip fracture. We searched electronic databases (including MEDLINE and EMBASE), the archives of meetings of orthopedic associations and the bibliographies of relevant articles and questioned experts to identify prospective studies, published in any language, that evaluated the effects of early surgery in patients undergoing procedures for hip fracture. Two reviewers independently assessed methodologic quality and extracted relevant data. We pooled data by means of the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model, which is based on the inverse variance method. We identified 1939 citations, of which 16 observational studies met our inclusion criteria. These studies had a total of 13 478 patients for whom mortality data were complete (1764 total deaths). Based on the five studies that reported adjusted risk of death (4208 patients, 721 deaths), irrespective of the cut-off for delay (24, 48 or 72 hours), earlier surgery (i.e., within the cut-off time) was associated with a significant reduction in mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.96, p = 0.01). Unadjusted data indicated that earlier surgery also reduced in-hospital pneumonia (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37-0.93, p = 0.02) and pressure sores (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34-0.69, p < 0.001). Interpretation: Earlier surgery was associated with a lower risk of death and lower rates of postoperative pneumonia and pressure sores among elderly patients with hip fracture. These results suggest that reducing delays may reduce mortality and complications.

The authors, who are experienced clinical trialists, propose a framework for expediting the conduct of clinical trials and reducing what they perceive as unnecessary bureaucracy in current trial regulations. Since their widespread introduction in the middle of the 20th century, randomized trials of sufficiently large size have provided reliable assessments of the safety and efficacy of treatments that have produced substantial improvements in health. 1 During the past decade, however, increasingly onerous regulation and related bureaucracy have made trials much more difficult and costly to conduct, slowing further improvements. 2 , 3 This adverse regulatory environment hinders important research and urgently needs to be changed for the benefit of patients and public health. As one example of the current problems (Table 1), the requirement to obtain approval from many different bodies before . . .

This is the first of 2 articles evaluating cardiac events in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. In this article, we review the magnitude of the problem, the pathophysiology of these events, approaches to risk assessment and communication of risk. The number of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery worldwide is growing, and annually 500,000 to 900,000 of these patients experience perioperative cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) or nonfatal cardiac arrest. Although the evidence is limited, a substantial proportion of fatal perioperative MIs may not share the same pathophysiology as nonoperative MIs. A clearer understanding of the pathophysiology is needed to direct future research evaluating prophylactic, acute and long-term interventions. Researchers have developed tools to facilitate the estimation of perioperative cardiac risk. Studies suggest that the Lee index is the most accurate generic perioperative cardiac risk index. The limitations of the studies evaluating the ability of noninvasive cardiac tests to predict perioperative cardiac risk reveals considerable uncertainty as to the role of these popular tests. Similarly, there is uncertainty as to the predictive accuracy of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association algorithm for cardiac risk assessment. Patients are likely to benefit from improved estimation and communication of cardiac risk because the majority of noncardiac surgeries are elective and accurate risk estimation is important to allow informed patient and physician decision-making.

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is associated with clinically significant short- and long-term complications after noncardiac surgery. Our aim was to describe the incidence of clinically important POAF after noncardiac surgery and establish the prognostic value of N-terminal pro–brain-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in this context. The Vascular events In noncardiac Surgery patIents cOhort evaluatioN (VISION) Study was a prospective cohort study involving patients aged 45 years and older who had inpatient noncardiac surgery that was performed between August 2007 and November 2013. We determined 30-day incidence of clinically important POAF (i.e., resulting in angina, congestive heart failure, symptomatic hypotension or requiring treatment) using logistic regression models to analyze the association between preoperative NT-proBNP and POAF. In 37 664 patients with no history of atrial fibrillation, we found that the incidence of POAF was 1.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9%–1.1%; 369 events); 3.2% (95% CI 2.3%–4.4%) in patients undergoing major thoracic surgery, 1.3% (95% CI 1.2%–1.5%) in patients undergoing major nonthoracic surgery and 0.2% (95% CI 0.1%–0.3%) in patients undergoing low-risk surgery. In a subgroup of 9789 patients with preoperative NT-proBNP measurements, the biomarker improved the prediction of POAF risk over conventional prognostic factors (likelihood ratio test p < 0.001; fraction of new information from NT-proBNP was 16%). Compared with a reference NT-proBNP measurement set at 100 ng/L, adjusted odds ratios for the occurrence of POAF were 1.31 (95% CI 1.15–1.49) at 200 ng/L, 2.07 (95% CI 1.27–3.36) at 1500 ng/L and 2.39 (95% CI 1.26–4.51) at 3000 ng/L. We determined that the incidence of clinically important POAF after noncardiac surgery was 1.0%. We also found that preoperative NT-proBNP levels were associated with POAF independent of established prognostic factors. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT00512109

Curcumin, a popular herbal supplement from the plant turmeric, has prevented ischemic reperfusion and toxin-induced injury in many animal studies and a single-centre randomized human trial. We sought to test whether perioperative oral curcumin (compared with placebo) affects the inflammatory response and risk of postrepair complications after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in humans. We conducted a parallel-group, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of patients from 10 hospitals in Canada who were scheduled to undergo elective repair of an unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (November 2011 to November 2014). Patients in the treatment group received perioperative oral curcumin (2000-mg doses 8 times over 4 d). Patients, health care providers and local research staff were unaware of the treatment assignment. The primary outcomes were median concentrations of 4 bio markers indicating injury and inflammation (postoperative urine interleukin-18 and perioperative rise in serum creatinine, plasma N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide and plasma high-sensitivity C-reactive protein). Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups (606 patients overall; median age 76 yr). More than 85% of patients in each group took more than 80% of their scheduled capsules. Neither curcumin nor placebo significantly affected any of the 4 biomarkers (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). Regarding the secondary outcomes, there was a higher risk of acute kidney injury with curcumin than with placebo (17% v. 10%, p = 0.01), but no between-group difference in the median length of hospital stay (5 v. 5 days, p > 0.9) or the risk of clinical events (9% v. 9%, p = 0.9). Curcumin had no beneficial effects when used in elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. These findings emphasize the importance of testing turmeric and curcumin before espousing their health benefits, as is currently done in the popular media. ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT01225094.

Testing for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) may assist triage and clinical decision-making in patients presenting to the emergency department with symptoms of acute coronary syndrome; however, this could result in the misclassification of risk because of analytical variation or laboratory error. We sought to evaluate a new laboratory-based risk-stratification tool that incorporates tests for hs-cTn, glucose level and estimated glomerular filtration rate to identify patients at risk of myocardial infarction or death when presenting to the emergency department. We constructed the clinical chemistry score (CCS) (range 0–5 points) and validated it as a predictor of 30-day myocardial infarction (MI) or death using data from 4 cohort studies involving patients who presented to the emergency department with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome. We calculated diagnostic parameters for the CCS score separately using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT). For the combined cohorts (n = 4245), 17.1% of participants had an MI or died within 30 days. A CCS score of 0 points best identified low-risk participants: the hs-cTnI CCS had a sensitivity of 100% (95% confidence interval [CI] 99.5%–100%), with 8.9% (95% CI 8.1%–9.8%) of the population classified as being at low risk of MI or death within 30 days; the hs-cTnT CCS had a sensitivity of 99.9% (95% CI 99.2%–100%), with 10.5% (95% CI 9.6%–11.4%) of the population classified as being at low risk. The CCS had better sensitivity than hs-cTn alone (hs-cTnI < 5 ng/L: 96.6%, 95% CI 95.0%–97.8%; hs-cTnT < 6 ng/L: 98.2%, 95% CI 97.0%–99.0%). A CCS score of 5 points best identified patients at high risk (hs-cTnI CCS: specificity 96.6%, 95% CI 96.0%–97.2%; 11.2% [95% CI 10.3%–12.2%] of the population classified as being at high risk; hs-cTnT CCS: specificity 94.0%, 95% CI 93.1%–94.7%; 13.1% [95% CI 12.1%–14.1%] of the population classified as being at high risk) compared with using the overall 99th percentiles for the hs-cTn assays (specificity of hs-cTnI 93.2%, 95% CI 92.3–94.0; specificity of hs-cTnT 73.8%, 95% CI 72.3–75.2). The CCS score at the chosen cut-offs was more sensitive and specific than hs-cTn alone for risk stratification of patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected acute coronary syndrome. Study registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, nos. NCT01994577; NCT02355457

To evaluate the quality of reporting of abstracts describing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in four major general medical journals. Systematic survey of published RCT abstracts, with two reviewers independently extracting data. We searched MEDLINE and identified 227 RCT abstracts published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA), British Medical Journal ( BMJ), and The Lancet in the year 2006. Most abstracts identified the study as a randomized trial (98.7%), reported the objectives (92.5%), described the population (90.3%), detailed the intervention (81.5%), and defined the primary outcome (71.3%). Methodological quality was poorly reported: one (0.4%) described allocation concealment; 21 (9.3%) clearly specified blinding; 51 (22.5%) described intention-to-treat analysis; and 32 (14.1%) outlined losses to follow-up. Most of the abstracts reported the effect size and the confidence intervals (62.3%), but just half of them reported side effects or harms. The quality of reporting of RCT abstracts published in main general medical journals is suboptimal. Space limitations notwithstanding, with the recent recommendations from the CONSORT for Abstracts, it is expected that the transparency of abstract reporting can and should improve.

A P-value <0.05 is one metric used to evaluate the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT). We wondered how often statistically significant results in RCTs may be lost with small changes in the numbers of outcomes. A review of RCTs in high-impact medical journals that reported a statistically significant result for at least one dichotomous or time-to-event outcome in the abstract. In the group with the smallest number of events, we changed the status of patients without an event to an event until the P-value exceeded 0.05. We labeled this number the Fragility Index; smaller numbers indicated a more fragile result. The 399 eligible trials had a median sample size of 682 patients (range: 15–112,604) and a median of 112 events (range: 8–5,142); 53% reported a P-value <0.01. The median Fragility Index was 8 (range: 0–109); 25% had a Fragility Index of 3 or less. In 53% of trials, the Fragility Index was less than the number of patients lost to follow-up. The statistically significant results of many RCTs hinge on small numbers of events. The Fragility Index complements the P-value and helps identify less robust results.