; for the Postoperative Vascular Complications in Unrecognized Obstructive Sleep Apnea (POSA) Study Investigators IMPORTANCE Unrecognized obstructive sleep apnea increases cardiovascular risks in the general population, but whether obstructive sleep apnea poses a similar risk in the perioperative period remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES To determine the association between obstructive sleep apnea and 30-day risk of cardiovascular complications after major noncardiac surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Prospective cohort study involving adult at-risk patients without prior diagnosis of sleep apnea and undergoing major noncardiac surgery from 8 hospitals in 5 countries between January 2012 and July 2017, with follow-up until August 2017. Postoperative monitoring included nocturnal pulse oximetry and measurement of cardiac troponin concentrations. EXPOSURES Obstructive sleep apnea was classified as mild (respiratory event index [REI] 5-14.9 events/h), moderate (REI 15-30), and severe (REI >30), based on preoperative portable sleep monitoring. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial injury, cardiac death, heart failure, thromboembolism, atrial fibrillation, and stroke within 30 days of surgery. Proportional-hazards analysis was used to determine the association between obstructive sleep apnea and postoperative cardiovascular complications. RESULTS Among a total of 1364 patients recruited for the study, 1218 patients (mean age, 67 [SD, 9] years; 40.2% women) were included in the analyses. At 30 days after surgery, rates of the primary outcome were 30.1% (41/136) for patients with severe OSA, 22.1% (52/235) for patients with moderate OSA, 19.0% (86/452) for patients with mild OSA, and 14.2% (56/395) for patients with no OSA. OSA was associated with higher risk for the primary outcome
BACKGROUNDVolatile (inhaled) anesthetic agents have cardioprotective effects, which might improve clinical outcomes in patients undergoing coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODSWe conducted a pragmatic, multicenter, single-blind, controlled trial at 36 centers in 13 countries. Patients scheduled to undergo elective CABG were randomly assigned to an intraoperative anesthetic regimen that included a volatile anesthetic (desflurane, isoflurane, or sevoflurane) or to total intravenous anesthesia. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 1 year. RESULTSA total of 5400 patients were randomly assigned: 2709 to the volatile anesthetics group and 2691 to the total intravenous anesthesia group. On-pump CABG was performed in 64% of patients, with a mean duration of cardiopulmonary bypass of 79 minutes. The two groups were similar with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics at baseline, the duration of cardiopulmonary bypass, and the number of grafts. At the time of the second interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board advised that the trial should be stopped for futility. No significant difference between the groups with respect to deaths from any cause was seen at 1 year (2.8% in the volatile anesthetics group and 3.0% in the total intravenous anesthesia group; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.29; P = 0.71), with data available for 5353 patients (99.1%), or at 30 days (1.4% and 1.3%, respectively; relative risk, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.76), with data available for 5398 patients (99.9%). There were no significant differences between the groups in any of the secondary outcomes or in the incidence of prespecified adverse events, including myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONSAmong patients undergoing elective CABG, anesthesia with a volatile agent did not result in significantly fewer deaths at 1 year than total intravenous anesthesia.
Background: Observational studies have suggested that accelerated surgery is associated with improved outcomes in patients with a hip fracture. The HIP ATTACK trial assessed whether accelerated surgery could reduce mortality and major complications. Methods:We randomised 2970 patients from 69 hospitals in 17 countries. Patients with a hip fracture that required surgery and were ≥45 years of age were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to accelerated surgery (goal of surgery within 6 hours of diagnosis; 1487 patients) or standard care (1483 patients). The co-primary outcomes were 1.) mortality, and 2.) a composite of major complications (i.e., mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, life-threatening bleeding, and major bleeding) at 90 days after randomisation. Outcome adjudicators were masked to treatment allocation, and patients were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02027896. Findings:The median time from hip fracture diagnosis to surgery was 6 hours (interquartile range [IQR] 4-9) in the accelerated-surgery group and 24 hours (IQR 10-42) in the standard-care group, p<0.0001. Death occurred in 140 patients (9%) assigned to accelerated surgery and 154 patients (10%) assigned to standard care; hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.72-1.14; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1%, 95% CI -1-3%; p=0.40. The primary composite outcome occurred in 321 patients (22%) randomised to accelerated surgery and 331 patients (22%) randomised to standard care; HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83-1.13; ARR 1%, 95% CI -2-3%; p=0.71.Interpretation: Among patients with a hip fracture, accelerated surgery did not significantly lower the risk of mortality or a composite of major complications compared to standard care.
BACKGROUNDConsensus recommendations regarding the threshold levels of cardiac troponin elevations for the definition of perioperative myocardial infarction and clinically important periprocedural myocardial injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery range widely (from >10 times to ≥70 times the upper reference limit for the assay). Limited evidence is available to support these recommendations. METHODS
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.