Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine.
Background
The Clavien–Dindo classification is perhaps the most widely used approach for reporting postoperative complications in clinical trials. This system classifies complication severity by the treatment provided. However, it is unclear whether the Clavien–Dindo system can be used internationally in studies across differing healthcare systems in high‐ (HICs) and low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs).
Methods
This was a secondary analysis of the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), a prospective observational cohort study of elective surgery in adults. Data collection occurred over a 7‐day period. Severity of complications was graded using Clavien–Dindo and the simpler ISOS grading (mild, moderate or severe, based on guided investigator judgement). Severity grading was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data are presented as frequencies and ICC values (with 95 per cent c.i.). The analysis was stratified by income status of the country, comparing HICs with LMICs.
Results
A total of 44 814 patients were recruited from 474 hospitals in 27 countries (19 HICs and 8 LMICs). Some 7508 patients (16·8 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication, equivalent to 11 664 complications in total. Using the ISOS classification, 5504 of 11 664 complications (47·2 per cent) were graded as mild, 4244 (36·4 per cent) as moderate and 1916 (16·4 per cent) as severe. Using Clavien–Dindo, 6781 of 11 664 complications (58·1 per cent) were graded as I or II, 1740 (14·9 per cent) as III, 2408 (20·6 per cent) as IV and 735 (6·3 per cent) as V. Agreement between classification systems was poor overall (ICC 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·20 to 0·55), and in LMICs (ICC 0·23, 0·05 to 0·38) and HICs (ICC 0·46, 0·25 to 0·59).
Conclusion
Caution is recommended when using a treatment approach to grade complications in global surgery studies, as this may introduce bias unintentionally.
Aims and objectives
To determine the clinical effectiveness and safety of the Orve + wrap® thermal blanket.
Background
Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia is a common problem in postanaesthetic care units and can have significant effects on patients’ postoperative morbidity. Despite its commercial availability, there is no clinical evidence on the effectiveness of Orve + wrap®.
Design
A single centre prospective, open‐label, noninferiority randomised controlled trial.
Methods
Postoperative hypothermic (35.0–35.9°C) patients who had undergone elective surgery were randomised to receive either Orve + wrap® or Forced Air Warming during their PACU stay. Patient temperatures were recorded every 10 min using zero‐heat‐flux thermometry. This study is reported using CONSORT Extension checklist for noninferiority and equivalence trials.
Results
Between December 2016–October 2018, 129 patients were randomised to receive either Orve + wrap® blanket (n = 65, 50.3%) or Forced Air Warming (n = 64, 49.7%). The mean 60‐min postoperative temperature of patients receiving Orve + wrap® blanket was 36.2 and 36.3°C for the patients receiving Forced Air Warming. The predefined noninferiority margin of a mean difference in temperature of 0.3°C was not reached between the groups at 60 min. Additionally, there were no statistical differences between adverse event rates across these groups.
Conclusions
In the context of this study, warming patients with the Orve + wrap® was noninferior to Forced Air Warming. There were comparable rates of associated postoperative consequences of warming (shivering, hypotension, arrhythmias or surgical site infections), between the groups.
Relevance to clinical practice
The Orve + wrap® potentially provides an alternative warming method to Forced Air Warming for patients requiring short‐term postoperative warming. However, there are still a number of unknowns regarding the Orve + wrap® performance and further exploration is required.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.