Dataset Information

Enhanced PeriOperative Care and Health protection programme for the prevention of surgical site infections after elective abdominal surgery (EPOCH): study protocol of a randomised controlled, multicentre, superiority trial.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Surgical site infections (SSI) are a common postoperative complication. During the development of the new WHO guidelines on SSI prevention, also in the Netherlands was concluded that perioperative care could be optimised beyond the current standard practice. We selected a limited set of readily available, cheap and evidence-based interventions from these new guidelines that are not part of standard practice in the Netherlands and formulated an Enhanced PeriOperative Care and Health bundle (EPOCH). Here, we describe the protocol for an open-label, randomised controlled, parallel-group, superiority trial to test the effect of the EPOCH bundle added to (national) standard care in comparison to standard care alone on the incidence of SSI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:EPOCH consists of intraoperative high fractional inspired oxygen (0.80); goal-directed fluid therapy; active preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative warming; perioperative glucose control and treatment of severe hyperglycaemia (>10 mmoll-1) and standardised surgical site handling. Patients scheduled for elective abdominal surgery with an incision larger than 5 cm are eligible for inclusion. Participants are randomised daily, 1:1 according to variable block sizes, and stratified per participating centre to either EPOCH added to standard care or standard care only. The primary endpoint will be SSI incidence according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definition within 30 days as part of routine clinical follow-up. Four additional questionnaires will be sent out over the course of 90 days to capture disability and costs. Other secondary endpoints include anastomotic leakage, incidence of incisional hernia, serious adverse events, hospital readmissions, length of stay and cost effectiveness. Analysis of the primary endpoint will be on an intention-to-treat basis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics approval is granted by the Amsterdam UMC Medical Ethics Committee (reference 2015_121). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and summaries shared with stakeholders. This protocol is published before analysis of the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Registered in the Dutch Trial Register: NL5572.

SUBMITTER: de Jonge SW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7252990 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Enhanced PeriOperative Care and Health protection programme for the prevention of surgical site infections after elective abdominal surgery (EPOCH): study protocol of a randomised controlled, multicentre, superiority trial.

de Jonge Stijn W SW Wolfhagen Niels N Boldingh Quirine Jj QJ Bom Wouter J WJ Posthuma Linda M LM Scheijmans Jochem Cg JC van der Leeuw Bart Mf BM van der Hoeven Joost Ab JA Hering Jens Peter JP Sonneveld Dirk Ja DJ van Geffen Otto E OE Hendriks Eduard R ER Kluyver Ewoud B EB Demirkiran Ahmet A van Lonkhuijzen Luc Rcw LR Slotema Thomas T Draaisma Werner A WA Koopman Seppe Jsha SJ van Rossem Charles C CC Over Linda M LM van Duijvendijk Peter P Dijkgraaf Marcel Gw MG Hollmann Markus W MW Boermeester Marja A MA

BMJ open 20200525 5

<h4>Introduction</h4>Surgical site infections (SSI) are a common postoperative complication. During the development of the new WHO guidelines on SSI prevention, also in the Netherlands was concluded that perioperative care could be optimised beyond the current standard practice. We selected a limited set of readily available, cheap and evidence-based interventions from these new guidelines that are not part of standard practice in the Netherlands and formulated an Enhanced PeriOperative Care and ...[more]

PMID: 32457082

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSurgical site infections (SSI) are frequent complications after elective abdominal surgery. We designed the Enhanced PeriOperative Care and Health Protection programme (EPO2CH) care bundle, comprising of intraoperative high fractional inspired oxygen; intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy; active preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative warming; glucose control and treatment of hyperglycaemia (> 10 mmol L- 1) in diabetics as well as non-diabetics; and wound irrigation before closure using an aqueous antiseptic. We hypothesise that EPO2CH added to standard care reduces the incidence of SSI compared to standard care alone for elective abdominal surgery.MethodsThis trial is designed as an open label, pragmatic randomised controlled parallel-group multicentre superiority trial. The primary endpoint is the incidence of SSI, defined by the Centers for Disease Control and prevention, within 30 days after surgery. The incidence of SSI is assessed using the Dutch national complication register and medical chart review. Secondary endpoints include the SSI incidence within 90 days, incidence of anastomotic leakage at 30 and 90 days, the incidence of incisional hernia within 1 year, mortality within 1 year and 5 years, quality of life, health and disability, and cost-effectiveness. Primarily, an intention-to-treat analysis will be performed to estimate the relative risk using a log binomial model. If not feasible, a logistic regression will be used to estimate the odds ratio. A per-protocol analysis will also be performed. Furthermore, the attributive effect of the distinct interventions will be explored.DiscussionThe results of the EPO2CH trial will determine if the EPO2CH bundle is effective to prevent SSI incidence for patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery. Details of the statistical analysis are described in this Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP).Trial registrationRegistration number: Dutch Trial Register Trial NL5572 . Registered on March 3, 2016. SAP version: V1.0, January 8, 2020. This SAP has been written based on study protocol V10.

Project description:BackgroundBody temperature is tightly regulated with hormonal and cellular metabolism for normal functioning; however perioperative hypothermia is common secondary to anesthesia and surgical exposure.Prevention and maintaining body temperature should be started 1-2hrs before induction of anesthesia, to do this both active and passive warming system are effective to prevent complications associated with perioperative hypothermia.MethodsThe aim of this systematic review is to develop a clear clinical practice protocol in prevention and management of perioperative hypothermia for elective adult surgical patients.The study is conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline 2020. After formulating clear criteria for the evidences to be included an appropriate method of searching was conducted by using the Pub Med, Google scholar and Cochrane library using the following MeSH terms: (inadvertent hypothermia AND anesthesia, hypothermia AND perioperative management and thermoregulation AND anesthesia) were used to draw evidences.After a reasonable amount of evidences were collected, appraisal and evaluation of study quality was based on WHO 2011 level of evidence and degree of recommendation. Final conclusions and recommendations are done by balancing the benefits and downsides of alternative management strategies for perioperative management of hypothermia.This systematic review registered with research registry unique identifying number (UIN) of "reviewregistry1253" in addition the overall AMSTAR 2 quality of this systematic review is moderate level.DiscussionPreserving a patient's body temperature during anesthesia and surgery is to minimize heat loss by reducing radiation and convection from the skin, evaporation from exposed surgical areas, and cooling caused by the introduction of cold intravenous fluids.ConclusionHypothermia is least monitored complication during anesthesia and surgery results cardiac abnormalities, impaired wound healing, increased surgical site infections, shivering and delayed postoperative recovery, and coagulopathies.

Project description:AIMS:Most cardiac surgery patients, with or without diabetes, develop perioperative hyperglycaemia, for which intravenous insulin is the only therapeutic option. This is labour-intensive and carries a risk of hypoglycaemia. We hypothesized that preoperative administration of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide reduces the number of patients requiring insulin for glycaemic control during cardiac surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS:In this randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, balanced (1:1), multicentre randomized, superiority trial, adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery in four Dutch tertiary hospitals were randomized to receive 0.6?mg subcutaneous liraglutide on the evening before surgery and 1.2?mg after induction of anaesthesia or matching placebo. Blood glucose was measured hourly and controlled using an insulin-bolus algorithm. The primary outcome was insulin administration for blood glucose >8.0?mmol/L in the operating theatre. Research pharmacists used centralized, stratified, variable-block, randomization software. Patients, care providers and study personnel were blinded to treatment allocation. RESULTS:Between June 2017 and August 2018, 278 patients were randomized to liraglutide (139) or placebo (139). All patients receiving at least one study drug injection were included in the intention-to-treat analyses (129 in the liraglutide group, 132 in the placebo group). In the liraglutide group, 55 (43%) patients required additional insulin compared with 80 (61%) in the placebo group and absolute difference 18% (95% confidence interval 5.9-30.0, P =?0.003). Dose and number of insulin injections and mean blood glucose were all significantly lower in the liraglutide group. We observed no difference in the incidence of hypoglycaemia, nausea and vomiting, mortality or postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS:Preoperative liraglutide, compared with placebo, reduces insulin requirements while improving perioperative glycaemic control during cardiac surgery.

Project description:BackgroundCurcumin, 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.MethodsWe 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).ResultsBaseline 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).InterpretationCurcumin 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.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT01225094.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence for benefit of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) over open surgical repair for de novo infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in younger patients remains conflicting because of heterogeneous study populations and small sample sizes. The objective of this study was to compare perioperative and short-term outcomes for EVAR and open surgery in younger patients using a large national disease and procedure-specific data set. METHODS:We identified patients 65 years of age or younger undergoing first-time elective EVAR or open AAA repair from the Vascular Quality Initiative (2003-2014). We excluded patients with pararenal or thoracoabdominal aneurysms, those medically unfit for open repair, and those undergoing EVAR for isolated iliac aneurysms. Clinical and procedural characteristics were balanced using inverse propensity of treatment weighting. A supplemental analysis extended the study to those younger than 70 years. RESULTS:We identified 2641 patients, 73% (n = 1928) EVAR and 27% (n = 713) open repair. The median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 59-64 years), and 13% were female. The median follow-up time was 401 days (interquartile range, 357-459 days). Unadjusted perioperative survival was 99.6% overall (open repair, 99.1%; EVAR, 99.8%; P < .001), with 97.4% 1-year survival overall (open repair, 97.3%; EVAR, 97.4%; P = .9). Unadjusted reintervention rates were five (open repair) and seven (EVAR) reinterventions per 100 person-years (P = .8). After propensity weighting, the absolute incidence of perioperative mortality was <1% in both groups (open repair, 0.9%, EVAR, 0.2%; P < .001), and complication rates were low. Propensity-weighted survival (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.38; P = .6) and reintervention rates (open repair, 6; EVAR, 8; reinterventions per 100 person-years; P = .8) did not differ between the two interventions. The analysis of those younger than 70 years showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS:In this study of younger patients undergoing repair of infrarenal AAA, 30-day morbidity and mortality for both open surgery and EVAR are low, and the absolute mortality difference is small. The prior published perioperative mortality and 1-year survival benefit of EVAR over open AAA repair is not observed in younger patients. Further studies of long-term durability are needed to guide decision-making for open repair vs EVAR in this population.

Project description:Importance:Knowledge regarding the long-term outcomes of elective treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is increasing. However, data with greater than 10 years' follow-up remain sparse and are lacking from population-based studies. Objective:To determine the long-term outcomes of EVAR compared with open surgical repair (OSR) for elective treatment of AAA. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective, population-based cohort study used linked administrative health data from Ontario, Canada, to identify all patients 40 years and older who underwent elective EVAR or OSR for AAA repair from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2016, with follow-up terminating on March 31, 2017. A total of 17 683 patients were identified using validated procedure and billing codes and were propensity score matched. Analysis was conducted from June 26, 2018, to January 16, 2019. Exposures:Elective EVAR or OSR for AAA. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival, defined as being free of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; reintervention; and secondary rupture. Results:Among 17 683 patients who received elective AAA repairs (mean [SD] age, 72.6 [7.8] years; 14 286 [80.8%] men), 6100 (34.5%) underwent EVAR and 11 583 (65.5%) underwent OSR. From these patients, 4010 well-balanced propensity score-matched pairs of patients were defined, with a mean (SD) age of 73.0 (7.6) years and 6583 (82.1%) men. In the matched cohort, the mean (SD) follow-up was 4.4 (2.7) years, and maximum follow-up was 13.8 years. The overall median survival was 8.9 years. Compared with OSR, EVAR was associated with a higher survival rate up to 1 year after repair (91.0% [95% CI, 90.1%-91.9%] vs 94.0% [95% CI, 93.3%-94.7%]) and a higher major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival rate up to 4 years after repair (69.9% [95% CI, 68.3%-71.3%] vs 72.9% [95% CI, 71.4%-74.4%]). Cumulative incidence of reintervention was higher among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR at the 7-year follow-up (45.9% [95% CI, 44.1%-47.8%] vs 42.2% [95% CI, 40.4%-44.0%]). Survival analyses demonstrated no statistically significant differences in long-term survival, reintervention, and secondary rupture for patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR. Kaplan-Meier analysis suggested superior long-term major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR (32.6% [95% CI, 26.9%-38.4%] vs 14.1% [95% CI, 4.0%-30.4%]; stratified log-rank P < .001) during a maximum follow-up of 13.8 years. Conclusions and Relevance:Endovascular aortic repair was not associated with a difference in long-term survival during more than 13 years' maximum follow-up. The reasons for these findings will require studies to consider specific graft makes and models, adherence to instructions for use, and types and reasons for reintervention.

Dataset Information

Enhanced PeriOperative Care and Health protection programme for the prevention of surgical site infections after elective abdominal surgery (EPOCH): study protocol of a randomised controlled, multicentre, superiority trial.

Publications

Enhanced PeriOperative Care and Health protection programme for the prevention of surgical site infections after elective abdominal surgery (EPOCH): study protocol of a randomised controlled, multicentre, superiority trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure