Dataset Information

Association between neuraxial anaesthesia or general anaesthesia for lower limb revascularisation surgery in adults and clinical outcomes: population based comparative effectiveness study.

ABSTRACT: Objective:To examine the associations between neuraxial anaesthesia or general anaesthesia and clinical outcomes, length of hospital stay, and readmission in adults undergoing lower limb revascularisation surgery.

Design:Comparative effectiveness study using linked, validated, population based databases.

Setting:Ontario, Canada, 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2015.

Participants:20?988 patients Ontario residents aged 18 years or older who underwent their first lower limb revascularisation surgery in hospitals performing 50 or more of these surgeries annually.

Main outcome measures:Primary outcome was 30 day all cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital cardiopulmonary and renal complications, length of hospital stay, and 30 day readmissions. Multivariable, mixed effects regression models, adjusting for patient, procedural, and hospital characteristics, were used to estimate associations between anaesthetic technique and outcomes. Robustness of analyses were evaluated by conducting instrumental variable, propensity score matched, and survival sensitivity analyses.

Results:Of 20?988 patients who underwent lower limb revascularisation surgery, 6453 (30.7%) received neuraxial anaesthesia and 14?535 (69.3%) received general anaesthesia. The percentage of neuraxial anaesthesia use ranged from 0.6% to 90.6% across included hospitals. Furthermore, use of neuraxial anaesthesia declined by 17% over the study period. Death within 30 days occurred in 204 (3.2%) patients who received neuraxial anaesthesia and 646 (4.4%) patients who received general anaesthesia. After multivariable, multilevel adjustment, use of neuraxial anaesthesia compared with use of general anaesthesia was associated with decreased 30 day mortality (absolute risk reduction 0.72%, 95% confidence interval 0.65% to 0.79%; odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.83; number needed to treat to prevent one death=139). A similar direction and magnitude of association was found in instrumental variable, propensity score matched, and survival analyses. Use of neuraxial anaesthesia compared with use of general anaesthesia was also associated with decreased in-hospital cardiopulmonary and renal complications (odds ratio 0.73, 0.63 to 0.85) and a reduced length of hospital stay (-0.5 days, -0.3 to-0.6 days).

Conclusions:Use of neuraxial anaesthesia compared with general anaesthesia for lower limb revascularisation surgery was associated with decreased 30 day mortality and hospital length of stay. These findings might have been related to reduced cardiopulmonary and renal complications after neuraxial anaesthesia and support the increased use of neuraxial anaesthesia in patients undergoing these surgeries until the results of a large, confirmatory randomised trial become available.

SUBMITTER: Roberts DJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7687020 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association between neuraxial anaesthesia or general anaesthesia for lower limb revascularisation surgery in adults and clinical outcomes: population based comparative effectiveness study.

Roberts Derek J DJ Nagpal Sudhir K SK Kubelik Dalibor D Brandys Timothy T Stelfox Henry T HT Lalu Manoj M MM Forster Alan J AJ McCartney Colin Jl CJ McIsaac Daniel I DI

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20201125

<h4>Objective</h4>To examine the associations between neuraxial anaesthesia or general anaesthesia and clinical outcomes, length of hospital stay, and readmission in adults undergoing lower limb revascularisation surgery.<h4>Design</h4>Comparative effectiveness study using linked, validated, population based databases.<h4>Setting</h4>Ontario, Canada, 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2015.<h4>Participants</h4>20 988 patients Ontario residents aged 18 years or older who underwent their first lower limb re ...[more]

PMID: 33239330

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery for peripheral artery disease (PAD) have a high risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality and often have long hospital stays. Use of neuraxial or regional anesthesia instead of general anesthesia may represent one approach to improving outcomes and reducing resource use among these patients.ObjectiveThe aim is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether receipt of neuraxial or regional anesthesia instead of general anesthesia in adults undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery for PAD results in improved health outcomes and costs and a shorter length of hospitalization.MethodsWe will search electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the seven databases in Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and Google Scholar), review papers identified during the search, and included article bibliographies. We will include randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing the use of neuraxial or regional anesthesia instead of general anesthesia in adults undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery for PAD. Two investigators will independently evaluate the risk of bias. The primary outcome will be short-term (in-hospital or 30-day) mortality. Secondary outcomes will include longer-term mortality; major adverse cardiovascular, pulmonary, renal, and limb events; delirium; deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism; neuraxial or regional anesthesia-related complications; graft-related outcomes; length of operation and hospital stay; costs; and patient-reported or functional outcomes. We will calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. Heterogeneity will be explored using stratified meta-analyses and meta-regression. We will assess for publication bias using the Begg and Egger tests and use the trim-and-fill method to estimate the potential influence of this bias on summary estimates. Finally, we will use Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to make an overall rating of the quality of evidence in our effect estimates.ResultsThe protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). We executed the peer-reviewed search strategy on March 2, 2021. We completed the review of titles and abstracts on July 30, 2021, and plan to complete the review of full-text papers by September 30, 2021. We will complete full-text study data extraction and the risk-of-bias assessment by November 15, 2021, and conduct qualitative and then quantitative data synthesis and GRADE assessment of results by January 1, 2022, before drafting the manuscript. We anticipate that we will be able to submit the manuscript for peer review by the end of February 2022.ConclusionsThis study will synthesize existing evidence regarding whether receipt of neuraxial or regional anesthesia instead of general anesthesia in adults undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery for PAD results in improved health outcomes, graft patency, and costs and a shorter length of hospital stay. Study results will be used to inform practice and future research, including creation of a pilot and then multicenter randomized controlled trial.Trial registrationProspero CRD42021237060; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=237060.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/32170.

Project description:BackgroundPatients who have severe narrowing at or near the origin of the internal carotid artery as a result of atherosclerosis have a high risk of ischaemic stroke ipsilateral to the arterial lesion. Previous trials have shown that carotid endarterectomy improves long-term outcomes, particularly when performed soon after a prior transient ischaemic attack or mild ischaemic stroke. However, complications may occur during or soon after surgery, the most serious of which is stroke, which can be fatal. It has been suggested that performing the operation under local anaesthesia, rather than general anaesthesia, may be safer. Therefore, a prospective, randomised trial of local versus general anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy was proposed to determine whether type of anaesthesia influences peri-operative morbidity and mortality, quality of life and longer term outcome in terms of stroke-free survival.Methods/designA two-arm, parallel group, multicentre randomised controlled trial with a recruitment target of 5000 patients. For entry into the study, in the opinion of the responsible clinician, the patient requiring an endarterectomy must be suitable for either local or general anaesthesia, and have no clear indication for either type. All patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic internal carotid stenosis for whom open surgery is advised are eligible. There is no upper age limit. Exclusion criteria are: no informed consent; definite preference for local or general anaesthetic by the clinician or patient; patient unlikely to be able to co-operate with awake testing during local anaesthesia; patient requiring simultaneous bilateral carotid endarterectomy; carotid endarterectomy combined with another operation such as coronary bypass surgery; and, the patient has been randomised into the trial previously. Patients are randomised to local or general anaesthesia by the central trial office. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients alive, stroke free (including retinal infarction) and without myocardial infarction 30 days post-surgery. Secondary outcomes include the proportion of patients alive and stroke free at one year; health related quality of life at 30 days; surgical adverse events, re-operation and re-admission rates; the relative cost of the two methods of anaesthesia; length of stay and intensive and high dependency bed occupancy.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN00525237.

Project description:BackgroundAn increasing number of patients are surviving sarcoma after lower limb-salvage surgery (LSS) and are left with functional limitations. This systematic review aimed to determine the therapeutic validity and effectiveness of exercise interventions after lower limb-salvage surgery (LSS) for sarcoma.MethodsA systematic review was conducted using formal narrative synthesis of intervention studies (with and without control group) identified through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PEDro databases. Studies were included if participants were treated with LSS for unilateral lower limb sarcoma and followed an exercise intervention using active exercise, physical training, or rehabilitation before and/or after surgery. This review's outcome measures were interventions' therapeutic validity, assessed using the CONTENT scale (0 to 9); methodological quality, identified using the Downs & Black checklist (0 to 28); interventions' effectiveness, assessed based on differences in outcome measures between intervention and control groups; and certainty of evidence, classified according to the GRADE approach.ResultsSeven studies involving 214 participants were included. None of the included interventions were therapeutically valid (median 5, range 1-5). All but one study were of at least fair methodological quality (median 18, range 14-21). There was very low-quality evidence that exercise interventions resulted in increased knee range of motion (MD 10-15°) or compliance (MD 30%), and reduced functionality scores (MD -5%) compared to usual care.ConclusionsWe found overall low therapeutic validity of interventions, performed in overall low-quality studies. Combined with the very low certainty of evidence, the results prevent drawing valid conclusions on the interventions' effectiveness. Future studies should aim for uniformity among their methodological approaches and outcome measures, using the CONTENT scale as a template to avert insufficient reporting.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021244635.

Project description:IntroductionDexmedetomidine is a promising pharmaceutical strategy to minimise opioid use during surgery. Despite its growing use, it is uncertain whether dexmedetomidine can improve patient-centred outcomes such as quality of recovery and pain.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis following the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science and CINAHL approximately in October 2023. We will include randomised controlled trials evaluating the impact of systemic intraoperative dexmedetomidine on patient-centred outcomes. Patient-centred outcome definition will be based on the consensus definition established by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative (StEP-COMPAC). Our primary outcome will be the quality of recovery after surgery. Our secondary outcomes will be patient well-being, function, health-related quality of life, life impact, multidimensional assessment of postoperative acute pain, chronic pain, persistent postoperative opioid use, opioid-related adverse events, hospital length of stay and adverse events. Two reviewers will independently screen and identify trials and extract data. We will evaluate the risk of bias of trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 2.0). We will synthesise data using a random effects Bayesian model framework, estimating the probability of achieving a benefit and its clinical significance. We will assess statistical heterogeneity with the tau-squared and explore sources of heterogeneity with meta-regression. We have involved patient partners, clinicians, methodologists, and key partner organisations in the development of this protocol, and we plan to continue this collaboration throughout all phases of this systematic review.Ethics and disseminationOur systematic review does not require research ethics approval. It will help inform current clinical practice guidelines and guide development of future randomised controlled trials. The results will be disseminated in open-access peer-reviewed journals, presented at conferences and shared among collaborators and networks.Prospero registration numberCRD42023439896.

Dataset Information

Association between neuraxial anaesthesia or general anaesthesia for lower limb revascularisation surgery in adults and clinical outcomes: population based comparative effectiveness study.

Publications

Association between neuraxial anaesthesia or general anaesthesia for lower limb revascularisation surgery in adults and clinical outcomes: population based comparative effectiveness study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets