Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectiveTo systematically review the impact of prehabilitation on objectively measured physical activity (PA) levels in elective surgery patients.Data sourcesArticles published in Web of Science Core Collections, PubMed, Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOHost), PsycInfo (EBSCOHost) and CENTRAL through August 2020.Study selectionStudies that met the following criteria: (1) written in English, (2) quantitatively described the effect(s) of a PA intervention among elective surgery patients prior to surgery and (3) used and reported objective measures of PA in the study.Data extraction and synthesisParticipant characteristics, intervention details, PA measurement, and clinical and health-related outcomes were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed following the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity, therefore narrative synthesis was used.Results6533 unique articles were identified in the search; 21 articles (based on 15 trials) were included in the review. There was little evidence to suggest that prehabilitation is associated with increases in objectively measured PA, but this may be due to insufficient statistical power as most (n=8) trials included in the review were small feasibility/pilot studies. Where studies tested associations between objectively measured PA during the intervention period and health-related outcomes, significant beneficial associations were reported. Limitations in the evidence base precluded any assessment via meta-regression of the association between objectively measured PA and clinical or health-related outcomes.ConclusionsAdditional large-scale studies are needed, with clear and consistent reporting of objective measures including accelerometry variables and outcome variables, to improve our understanding of the impact of changes in PA prior to surgery on surgical and health-related outcomes.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019151475.

ObjectiveTo compare clinical and health economic outcomes after manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy (intervention) and conventional median sternotomy (usual care).DesignA single-blind, randomised controlled trial.SettingSingle centre UK National Health Service tertiary hospital.ParticipantsAdult patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery.InterventionsIntervention was manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy performed using a 5–7 cm midline incision. Usual care was median sternotomy performed using a midline incision from the sternal notch to the xiphisternum.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received a red cell transfusion postoperatively and within 7 days of index surgery. Secondary outcomes included proportion of patients receiving a non-red cell blood component transfusion and number of units transfused within 7 days and during index hospital stay, quality of life and cost-effectiveness analyses.Results270 patients were randomised, received surgery and contributed to the intention to treat analysis. No difference between mini and conventional sternotomy in red-cell transfusion within 7 days was found; 23/135 patients in each arm received a transfusion, OR 1.0 (95% CI 0.5 to 2.0) and risk difference 0.0 (95% CI −0.1 to 0.1). Mini-sternotomy reduced chest drain losses (mean 181.6 mL (SD 138.7) vs conventional, mean 306·9 mL (SD 348.6)); this did not reduce red-cell transfusions. Mean valve size and postoperative valve function were comparable between mini-sternotomy and conventional groups; 23 mm vs 24 mm and 6/134 moderate or severe aortic regurgitation vs 3/130, respectively. Mini-sternotomy resulted in longer bypass (82.7 min (SD 23.5) vs 59.6 min (SD 15.1)) and cross-clamp times (64.1 min (SD 17.1) vs 46·3 min (SD 10.7)). Conventional sternotomy was more cost-effective with only a 5.8% probability of mini-sternotomy being cost-effective at a willingness to pay of £20 000/QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Years).ConclusionsAVR via mini-sternotomy did not reduce red blood cell transfusion within 7 days following surgery when compared with conventional sternotomy.Trial registration numberISRCTN29567910; Results.

IntroductionCharacterised by chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) symptoms including diarrhoea, abdominal pain and fatigue can significantly impact patient’s quality of life. Therapeutic developments in the last 20 years have revolutionised treatment. However, clinical trials and real-world data show primary non-response rates up to 40%. A significant challenge is an inability to predict which treatment will benefit individual patients.Current understanding of IBD pathogenesis implicates complex interactions between host genetics and the gut microbiome. Most cohorts studying the gut microbiota to date have been underpowered, examined single treatments and produced heterogeneous results. Lack of cross-treatment comparisons and well-powered independent replication cohorts hampers the ability to infer real-world utility of predictive signatures.IBD-RESPONSE will use multi-omic data to create a predictive tool for treatment response. Future patient benefit may include development of biomarker-based treatment stratification or manipulation of intestinal microbial targets. IBD-RESPONSE and downstream studies have the potential to improve quality of life, reduce patient risk and reduce expenditure on ineffective treatments.Methods and analysisThis prospective, multicentre, observational study will identify and validate a predictive model for response to advanced IBD therapies, incorporating gut microbiome, metabolome, single-cell transcriptome, human genome, dietary and clinical data. 1325 participants commencing advanced therapies will be recruited from ~40 UK sites. Data will be collected at baseline, week 14 and week 54. The primary outcome is week 14 clinical response. Secondary outcomes include clinical remission, loss of response in week 14 responders, corticosteroid-free response/remission, time to treatment escalation and change in patient-reported outcome measures.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 5 (ref: 21/WA/0228). Recruitment is ongoing. Following study completion, results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings. Publications will be summarised at www.ibd-response.co.uk.Trial registration number ISRCTN96296121.

IntroductionSkeletal muscle dysfunction is central to both sarcopenia and physical frailty, which are associated with a wide range of adverse outcomes including falls and fractures, longer hospital stays, dependency and the need for care. Resistance training may prevent and treat sarcopenia and physical frailty, but not everyone can or wants to exercise. Finding alternatives is critical to alleviate the burden of adverse outcomes associated with sarcopenia and physical frailty. This trial will provide proof-of-concept evidence as to whether metformin can improve physical performance in older people with sarcopenia and physical prefrailty or frailty.Methods and analysisMET-PREVENT is a parallel group, double-blind, placebo-controlled proof-of-concept trial. Trial participants can participate from their own homes, including completing informed consent and screening assessments. Eligible participants with low grip strength or prolonged sit-to-stand time together with slow walk speed will be randomised to either oral metformin hydrochloride 500 mg tablets or matched placebo, taken three times a day for 4 months. The recruitment target is 80 participants from two secondary care hospitals in Newcastle and Gateshead, UK. Local primary care practices will act as participant identification centres. Randomisation will be performed using a web-based minimisation system with a random element, balancing on sex and baseline walk speed. Participants will be followed up for 4 months post-randomisation, with outcomes collected at baseline and 4 months. The primary outcome measure is the four metre walk speed at the 4-month follow-up visit.Ethics and disseminationThe trial has been approved by the Liverpool NHS Research Ethics Committee (20/NW/0470), the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority (EudraCT 2020-004023-16) and the UK Health Research Authority (IRAS 275219). Results will be made available to participants, their families, patients with sarcopenia, the public, regional and national clinical teams, and the international scientific community.Trial registration numberISRCTN29932357.

IntroductionAnthracyclines are included in chemotherapy regimens to treat several different types of cancer and are extremely effective. However, it is recognised that a significant side effect is cardiotoxicity; anthracyclines can cause irreversible damage to cardiac cells and ultimately impaired cardiac function and heart failure, which may only be evident years after exposure. The PROACT trial will establish the effectiveness of the ACE inhibitor enalapril maleate (enalapril) in preventing cardiotoxicity in patients with breast cancer and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy.Methods and analysisPROACT is a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point, superiority trial which will recruit adult patients being treated for breast cancer and NHL at NHS hospitals throughout England. The trial aims to recruit 106 participants, who will be randomised to standard care (high-dose anthracycline-based chemotherapy) plus enalapril (intervention) or standard care alone (control). Patients randomised to the intervention arm will receive enalapril (starting at 2.5 mg two times per day and titrating up to a maximum dose of 10 mg two times per day), commencing treatment at least 2 days prior to starting chemotherapy and finishing 3 weeks after their last anthracycline dose. The primary outcome is the presence or absence of cardiac troponin T release at any time during anthracycline treatment, and 1 month after the last dose of anthracycline. Secondary outcomes will focus on cardiac function measured using echocardiogram assessment, adherence to enalapril and side effects.Ethics and disseminationA favourable opinion was given following research ethics committee review by West Midlands—Edgbaston REC, Ref: 17/WM/0248. Trial findings will be disseminated through engagement with patients, the oncology and cardiology communities, NHS management and commissioning groups and through peer-reviewed publication.Trial registration numberNCT03265574.

IntroductionNumbers of patients undergoing mitral valve repair (MVr) surgery for severe mitral regurgitation have grown and will continue to rise. MVr is routinely performed via median sternotomy; however, there is a move towards less invasive surgical approaches.There is debate within the clinical and National Health Service (NHS) commissioning community about widespread adoption of minimally invasive MVr surgery in the absence of robust research evidence; implementation requires investment in staff and infrastructure.The UK Mini Mitral trial will provide definitive evidence comparing patient, NHS and clinical outcomes in adult patients undergoing MVr surgery. It will establish the best surgical approach for MVr, setting a standard against which emerging percutaneous techniques can be measured. Findings will inform optimisation of cost-effective practice.Methods and analysisUK Mini Mitral is a multicentre, expertise based randomised controlled trial of minimally invasive thoracoscopically guided right minithoracotomy versus conventional sternotomy for MVr. The trial is taking place in NHS cardiothoracic centres in the UK with established minimally invasive mitral valve surgery programmes. In each centre, consenting and eligible patients are randomised to receive surgery performed by consultant surgeons who meet protocol-defined surgical expertise criteria. Patients are followed for 1 year, and consent to longer term follow-up.Primary outcome is physical functioning 12 weeks following surgery, measured by change in Short Form Health Survey (SF-36v2) physical functioning scale. Early and 1 year echo data will be reported by a core laboratory. Estimates of key clinical and health economic outcomes will be reported up to 5 years.The primary economic outcome is cost effectiveness, measured as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained over 52 weeks following index surgery.Ethics and disseminationA favourable opinion was given by Wales REC 6 (16/WA/0156). Trial findings will be disseminated to patients, clinicians, commissioning groups and through peer reviewed publication.Trial registration numberISRCTN13930454.

Background Iron deficiency has deleterious effects in patients with cardiopulmonary disease, independent of anemia. Low ferritin has been associated with increased mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, but modern indices of iron deficiency need to be explored in this population. Methods We conducted a retrospective single-centre observational study of 250 adults in a UK academic tertiary hospital undergoing median sternotomy for non-emergent isolated aortic valve replacement. We characterised preoperative iron status using measurement of both plasma ferritin and soluble transferrin receptor (sTfR), and examined associations with clinical outcomes. Results Measurement of plasma sTfR gave a prevalence of iron deficiency of 22%. Patients with non-anemic iron deficiency had clinically significant prolongation of total hospital stay (mean increase 2.2 days; 95% CI: 0.5–3.9; P  = 0.011) and stay within the cardiac intensive care unit (mean increase 1.3 days; 95% CI: 0.1–2.5; P  = 0.039). There were no deaths. Defining iron deficiency as a plasma ferritin < 100 µg/L identified 60% of patients as iron deficient and did not predict length of stay. No significant associations with transfusion requirements were evident using either definition of iron deficiency. Conclusions These findings indicate that when defined using sTfR rather than ferritin, non-anemic iron deficiency predicts prolonged hospitalisation following surgical aortic valve replacement. Further studies are required to clarify the role of contemporary laboratory indices in the identification of preoperative iron deficiency in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. An interventional study of intravenous iron targeted at preoperative non-anemic iron deficiency is warranted.

The performance of biomarkers for heart failure (HF) in older residents in long-term care is poorly understood and has not differentiated between left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). This is the first diagnostic accuracy study in this population to assess the differential diagnostic performance and acceptability of a range of biomarkers against a clinical diagnosis using portable echocardiography. A total of 405 residents, aged 65-100 years (mean 84.2), in 33 UK long-term care facilities were enrolled between April 2009 and June 2010. For undifferentiated HF, BNP or NT-proBNP were adequate rule-out tests but would miss one in three cases (BNP: sensitivity 67%, NPV 86%, cut-off 115 pg/ml; NT-proBNP: sensitivity 62%, NPV 87%, cut-off 760 pg/ml). Using higher test cut-offs, both biomarkers were more adequate tests of LVSD, but would still miss one in four cases (BNP: sensitivity 76%, NPV 97%, cut-off 145 pg/ml; NT-proBNP: sensitivity 73%, NPV 97%, cut-off 1000 pg/ml). At these thresholds one third of subjects would test positive and require an echocardiogram. Applying a stricter 'rule out' threshold (sensitivity 90%), only one in 10 cases would be missed, but two thirds of subjects would require further investigation. Biomarkers were less useful for HFpEF (BNP: sensitivity 63%, specificity 61%, cut-off 110 pg/ml; NT-proBNP: sensitivity 68%, specificity 56%, cut-off 477 pg/ml). Novel biomarkers (Copeptin, MR-proADM, and MR-proANP) and common signs and symptoms had little diagnostic utility. No test, individually or in combination, adequately balanced case finding and rule-out for heart failure in this population; currently, in-situ echocardiography provides the only adequate diagnostic assessment. Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN19781227.

Key Points Up to a 20% of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) present with synchronous hepatic metastases In patients who present without intestinal obstruction or perforation, comprehensive whole-body imaging is required to exclude extrahepatic disease Current evidence indicates a state of equipoise between several different management approaches for the treatment of CRC and synchronous liver metastatic disease, none of which has supportive randomized trial evidence Neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy is supported by current guidelines and can result in tumour downsizing, enabling some 'unresectable' liver metastases to be surgically removed Surgery can take the form of the 'classic' approach (colorectal resection, then interval chemotherapy followed by liver resection), synchronous removal of liver and bowel tumours, or a liver-first approach Clear superiority has not been demonstrated for any of these surgical interventions for CRC with synchronous liver metastases, although the mode of presentation can determine the approach used Around 20% of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) have synchronous hepatic metastases at the time of presentation, highlighting the need for appropriate diagnostic and staging assessments. Furthermore, various approaches to the therapeutic management of such patients are available, and the treatment strategy used is influenced by clinical presentation. Herein, these aspects of the management of patients with CRC and synchronous liver metastases are comprehensively reviewed, focusing on the integration of surgical approaches within a multidisciplinary framework. Up to a fifth of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) present with synchronous hepatic metastases. In patients with CRC who present without intestinal obstruction or perforation and in whom comprehensive whole-body imaging confirms the absence of extrahepatic disease, evidence indicates a state of equipoise between several different management pathways, none of which has demonstrated superiority. Neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy is advocated by current guidelines, but must be integrated with surgical management in order to remove the primary tumour and liver metastatic burden. Surgery for CRC with synchronous liver metastases can take a number of forms: the 'classic' approach, involving initial colorectal resection, interval chemotherapy and liver resection as the final step; simultaneous removal of the liver and bowel tumours with neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy; or a 'liver-first' approach (before or after systemic chemotherapy) with removal of the colorectal tumour as the final procedure. In patients with rectal primary tumours, the liver-first approach can potentially avoid rectal surgery in patients with a complete response to chemoradiotherapy. We overview the importance of precise nomenclature, the influence of clinical presentation on treatment options, and the need for accurate, up-to-date surgical terminology, staging tests and contemporary management options in CRC and synchronous hepatic metastatic disease, with an emphasis on multidisciplinary care.

Background Many older people in long-term care do not receive evidence-based diagnosis or management for heart failure; it is not known whether this can be achieved for this population. We initiated an onsite heart failure service, compared with ‘usual care’ with the aim of establishing the feasibility of accurate diagnosis and appropriate management. Methods A pilot randomised controlled trial which randomised residents from 33 care facilities in North-East England with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) to usual care or an onsite heart failure service. The primary outcome was the optimum prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-adrenergic antagonists at 6 months. Results Of 399 echocardiographically-screened residents aged 65–100 years, 30 subjects with LVSD were eligible; 28 (93%) consented and were randomised (HF service: 16; routine care: 12). Groups were similar at baseline; six month follow-up was completed for 25 patients (89%); 3 (11%) patients died. Results for the primary outcome were not statistically significant but there was a consistent pattern of increased drug use and titration to optimum dose in the intervention group (21% compared to 0% receiving routine care, p=0.250). Hospitalisation rates, quality of life and mortality at 6 months were similar between groups. Conclusions This study demonstrated the feasibility of an on-site heart failure service for older long-term care populations. Optimisation of medication appeared possible without adversely affecting quality of life; this questions clinicians’ concerns about adverse effects in this group. This has international implications for managing such patients. These methods should be replicated in a large-scale study to quantify the scale of benefit. Trial registration ISRCTN19781227 http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN19781227