Dataset Information

A pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial of fluid loading in high-risk surgical patients undergoing major elective surgery--the FOCCUS study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Fluid strategies may impact on patient outcomes in major elective surgery. We aimed to study the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pre-operative fluid loading in high-risk surgical patients undergoing major elective surgery.

Methods

This was a pragmatic, non-blinded, multi-centre, randomised, controlled trial. We sought to recruit 128 consecutive high-risk surgical patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. The patients underwent pre-operative fluid loading with 25 ml/kg of Ringer's solution in the six hours before surgery. The control group had no pre-operative fluid loading. The primary outcome was the number of hospital days after surgery with cost-effectiveness as a secondary outcome.

Results

A total of 111 patients were recruited within the study time frame in agreement with the funder. The median pre-operative fluid loading volume was 1,875 ml (IQR 1,375 to 2,025) in the fluid group compared to 0 (IQR 0 to 0) in controls with days in hospital after surgery 12.2 (SD 11.5) days compared to 17.4 (SD 20.0) and an adjusted mean difference of 5.5 days (median 2.2 days; 95% CI -0.44 to 11.44; P = 0.07). There was a reduction in adverse events in the fluid intervention group (P = 0.048) and no increase in fluid based complications. The intervention was less costly and more effective (adjusted average cost saving: £2,047; adjusted average gain in benefit: 0.0431 quality adjusted life year (QALY)) and has a high probability of being cost-effective.

Conclusions

Pre-operative intravenous fluid loading leads to a non-significant reduction in hospital length of stay after high-risk major surgery and is likely to be cost-effective. Confirmatory work is required to determine whether these effects are reproducible, and to confirm whether this simple intervention could allow more cost-effective delivery of care.

Trial registration

Prospective Clinical Trials, ISRCTN32188676.

SUBMITTER: Cuthbertson BH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3388651 | biostudies-literature | 2011

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial of fluid loading in high-risk surgical patients undergoing major elective surgery--the FOCCUS study.

Cuthbertson Brian H BH Campbell Marion K MK Stott Stephen A SA Elders Andrew A Hernández Rodolfo R Boyers Dwayne D Norrie John J Kinsella John J Brittenden Julie J Cook Jonathan J Rae Daniela D Cotton Seonaidh C SC Alcorn David D Addison Jennifer J Grant Adrian A

Critical care (London, England) 20111216 6

<h4>Introduction</h4>Fluid strategies may impact on patient outcomes in major elective surgery. We aimed to study the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pre-operative fluid loading in high-risk surgical patients undergoing major elective surgery.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a pragmatic, non-blinded, multi-centre, randomised, controlled trial. We sought to recruit 128 consecutive high-risk surgical patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. The patients underwent pre-operative fluid loading wi ...[more]

PMID: 22177541

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPostoperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing major emergency gastrointestinal surgery are a major burden on healthcare systems. Optimal management of perioperative intravenous fluids may reduce mortality rates and improve outcomes from surgery. Previous small trials of cardiac-output guided haemodynamic therapy algorithms in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery have suggested this intervention results in reduced complications and a modest reduction in mortality. However, this existing evidence is based mainly on elective (planned) surgery, with little evaluation in the emergency setting. There are fundamental clinical and pathophysiological differences between the planned and emergency surgical setting which may influence the effects of this intervention. A large definitive trial in emergency surgery is needed to confirm or refute the potential benefits observed in elective surgery and to inform widespread clinical practice.MethodsThe FLO-ELA trial is a multi-centre, parallel-group, open, randomised controlled trial. 3138 patients aged 50 and over undergoing major emergency gastrointestinal surgery will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio using minimisation to minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring to guide protocolised administration of intra-venous fluid, or usual care without cardiac output monitoring. The trial intervention will be carried out during surgery and for up to 6 h postoperatively. The trial is funded through an efficient design call by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme and uses existing routinely collected datasets for the majority of data collection. The primary outcome is the number of days alive and out of hospital within 90 days of randomisation. Participants and those delivering the intervention will not be blinded to treatment allocation. Participant recruitment started in September 2017 with a 1-year internal pilot phase and is ongoing at the time of publication.DiscussionThis will be the largest contemporary randomised trial examining the effectiveness of perioperative cardiac output-guided haemodynamic therapy in patients undergoing major emergency gastrointestinal surgery. The multi-centre design and broad inclusion criteria support the external validity of the trial. Although the clinical teams delivering the trial interventions will not be blinded, significant trial outcome measures are objective and not subject to detection bias.Trial registrationISRCTN 14729158. Registered on 02 May 2017.

Project description:Background: Surgical resection remains the primary curative treatment for intra-cavity cancer. Low physical fitness and psychological factors such as depression are predictive of post-operative morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay. Prolonged post-operative morbidity is associated with persistently elevated risk of premature death. We aim to investigate whether a structured, responsive exercise training programme, a psychological support programme or combined exercise and psychological support, delivered between treatment decision and major intra-cavity surgery for cancer, can reduce length of hospital stay, compared with standard care. Methods: WesFit is a pragmatic , 2x2 factorial-design, multi-centre, randomised-controlled trial, with planned recruitment of N=1560. Participants will be randomised to one of four groups. Group 1 (control) will receive usual pre-operative care, Group 2 (exercise) patients will undergo 2/3 aerobic, high-intensity interval training sessions per week supervised by personal trainers. Group 3 (psychological support) patients are offered 1 session per week at a local cancer support centre. Group 4 will receive both exercise and psychological support. All patients undergo baseline and pre-operative cardiopulmonary exercise testing, complete self-report questionnaires and will be followed up at 30 days, 12 weeks and 12 months post-operatively. Primary outcome is post-operative length-of-stay. Secondary outcomes include disability-adjusted survival at 1-year postoperatively, post-operative morbidity, and health-related quality of life. Exploratory investigations include objectively measured changes in physical fitness assessed by cardiopulmonary exercise test, disease-free and overall mortality at 1-year postoperatively, longer-term physical activity behaviour change, pre-operative radiological tumour regression, pathological tumour regression, pre and post-operative body composition analysis, health economics analysis and nutritional characterisation and its relationship to post-operative outcome. Conclusions: The WesFit trial will be a randomised controlled study investigating whether a high-intensity exercise training programme +/- psychological intervention results in improvements in clinical and patient reported outcomes in patients undergoing major inter-cavity resection of cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03509428 (26/04/2018).

Project description:ImportanceDelirium is a common, serious, and potentially preventable problem for older adults, associated with adverse outcomes. Coupled with its preventable nature, these adverse sequelae make delirium a significant public health concern; understanding its economic costs is important for policy makers and health care leaders to prioritize care.ObjectiveTo evaluate current 1-year health care costs attributable to postoperative delirium in older patients undergoing elective surgery.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective cohort study included 497 patients from the Successful Aging after Elective Surgery (SAGES) study, an ongoing cohort study of older adults undergoing major elective surgery. Patients were enrolled from June 18, 2010, to August 8, 2013. Eligible patients were 70 years or older, English-speaking, able to communicate verbally, and scheduled to undergo major surgery at 1 of 2 Harvard-affiliated hospitals with an anticipated length of stay of at least 3 days. Eligible surgical procedures included total hip or knee replacement; lumbar, cervical, or sacral laminectomy; lower extremity arterial bypass surgery; open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair; and open or laparoscopic colectomy. Data were analyzed from October 15, 2019, to September 15, 2020.ExposuresMajor elective surgery and hospitalization.Main outcomes and measuresCumulative and period-specific costs (index hospitalization, 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year follow-up) were examined using Medicare claims and extensive clinical data. Total inflation-adjusted health care costs were determined using data from Medicare administrative claims files for the 2010 to 2014 period. Delirium was rated using the Confusion Assessment Method. We also examined whether increasing delirium severity was associated with higher cumulative and period-specific costs. Delirium severity was measured with the Confusion Assessment Method-Severity long form. Regression models were used to determine costs associated with delirium after adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics.ResultsOf the 566 patients who were eligible for the study, a total of 497 patients (mean [SD] age, 76.8 [5.1] years; 281 women [57%]; 461 White participants [93%]) were enrolled after exclusion criteria were applied. During the index hospitalization, 122 patients (25%) developed postoperative delirium, whereas 375 (75%) did not. Patients with delirium had significantly higher unadjusted health care costs than patients without delirium (mean [SD] cost, $146 358 [$140 469] vs $94 609 [$80 648]). After adjusting for relevant confounders, the cumulative health care costs attributable to delirium were $44 291 (95% CI, $34 554-$56 673) per patient per year, with the majority of costs coming from the first 90 days: index hospitalization ($20 327), subsequent rehospitalizations ($27 797), and postacute rehabilitation stays ($2803). Health care costs increased directly and significantly with level of delirium severity (none-mild, $83 534; moderate, $99 756; severe, $140 008), suggesting an exposure-response relationship. The adjusted mean cumulative costs attributable to severe delirium were $56 474 (95% CI, $40 927-$77 440) per patient per year. Extrapolating nationally, the health care costs attributable to postoperative delirium were estimated at $32.9 billion (95% CI, $25.7 billion-$42.2 billion) per year.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that the economic outcomes of delirium and severe delirium after elective surgery are substantial, rivaling costs associated with cardiovascular disease and diabetes. These results highlight the need for policy imperatives to address delirium as a large-scale public health issue.

Project description:BackgroundPostoperative complications impact on early and long-term patients' outcome. Appropriate perioperative fluid management is pivotal in this context; however, the most effective perioperative fluid management is still unclear. The enhanced recovery after surgery pathways recommend a perioperative zero-balance, whereas recent findings suggest a more liberal approach could be beneficial. We conducted this trial to address the impact of restrictive vs. liberal fluid approaches on overall postoperative complications and mortality.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid) and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials register databases, published from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2019. We included RCTs enrolling adult patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery and comparing the use of restrictive/liberal approaches enrolling at least 15 patients in each subgroup. Studies involving cardiac, non-elective surgery, paediatric or obstetric surgeries were excluded.ResultsAfter full-text examination, the metanalysis finally included 18 studies and 5567 patients randomised to restrictive (2786 patients; 50.0%) or liberal approaches (2780 patients; 50.0%). We found no difference in the occurrence of severe postoperative complications between restrictive and liberal subgroups [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.009 (- 0.02; 0.04); p value = 0.62; I2 (95% CI) = 38.6% (0-66.9%)]. This result was confirmed also in the subgroup of five studies having a low overall risk of bias. The liberal approach was associated with lower overall renal major events, as compared to the restrictive [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.06 (0.02-0.09); p value = 0.001]. We found no difference in either early (p value = 0.33) or late (p value = 0.22) postoperative mortality between restrictive and liberal subgroups CONCLUSIONS: In major abdominal elective surgery perioperative, the choice between liberal or restrictive approach did not affect overall major postoperative complications or mortality. In a subgroup analysis, a liberal as compared to a restrictive perioperative fluid policy was associated with lower overall complication renal major events, as compared to the restrictive.Trial registrationCRD42020218059; Registration: February 2020, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=218059 .

Dataset Information

A pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial of fluid loading in high-risk surgical patients undergoing major elective surgery--the FOCCUS study.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

A pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial of fluid loading in high-risk surgical patients undergoing major elective surgery--the FOCCUS study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets