Patient-important outcomes and core outcome sets: increased attention needed!

Impact of spinal or epidural anaesthesia on perioperative outcomes in adult noncardiac surgery: a narrative review of recent evidence

Spinal and epidural anaesthesia and analgesia are important anaesthetic techniques, familiar to all anaesthetists and applied to patients undergoing a range of surgical procedures. Although the immediate effects of a well-conducted neuraxial technique on nociceptive and sympathetic pathways are readily observable in clinical practice, the impact of such techniques on patient-centred perioperative outcomes remains an area of uncertainty and active research. The aim of this review is to present a narrative synthesis of contemporary clinical science on this topic from the most recent 5-year period and summarise the foundational scholarship upon which this research was based. We searched electronic databases for primary research, secondary research, opinion pieces, and guidelines reporting the relationship between neuraxial procedures and standardised perioperative outcomes over the period 2018-2023. Returned citation lists were examined seeking additional studies to contextualise our narrative synthesis of results. Articles were retrieved encompassing the following outcome domains: patient comfort, renal, sepsis and infection, postoperative cancer, cardiovascular, and pulmonary and mortality outcomes. Convincing evidence of the beneficial effect of epidural analgesia on patient comfort after major open thoracoabdominal surgery outcomes was identified. Recent evidence of benefit in the prevention of pulmonary complications and mortality was identified. Despite mechanistic plausibility and supportive observational evidence, there is less certain experimental evidence to support a role for neuraxial techniques impacting on other outcome domains. Evidence of positive impact of neuraxial techniques is best established for the domains of patient comfort, pulmonary complications, and mortality, particularly in the setting of major open thoracoabdominal surgery. Recent evidence does not strongly support a significant impact of neuraxial techniques on cancer, renal, infection, or cardiovascular outcomes after noncardiac surgery in most patient groups.

Comparison of safety and effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy regimens among pregnant women living with HIV at preconception or during pregnancy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Mother-to-child transmission is the primary cause of HIV cases among children. Antiretroviral therapy (ART) plays a critical role in preventing mother-to-child transmission and reducing HIV progression, morbidity, and mortality among mothers. However, after more than two decades of ART during pregnancy, the comparative effectiveness and safety of ART medications during pregnancy are unclear, and existing evidence is contradictory. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of different ART regimens among pregnant women living with HIV at preconception or during pregnancy.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science. We included randomized trials that enrolled pregnant women living with HIV and randomized them to receive ART for at least four weeks. Pairs of reviewers independently completed screening for eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Our outcomes of interest included low birth weight, stillbirth, preterm birth, mother-to-child transmission of HIV, neonatal death, and congenital anomalies. Network meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects frequentist model, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We found 14 eligible randomized trials enrolling 9,561 pregnant women. The median duration of ART uptake ranged from 6.0 to 17.4 weeks. No treatment was statistically better than a placebo in reducing the rate of neonatal mortality, stillbirth, congenital defects, preterm birth, or low birth weight deliveries. Compared to placebo, zidovudine (ZDV)/lamivudine (3TC) and ZDV monotherapy likely reduce mother-to-child transmission (odds ratio (OR): 0.13; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.31, high-certainty; and OR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.74, moderate-certainty). Moderate-certainty evidence suggested that ZDV/3TC was associated with decreased odds of stillbirth (OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.09 to 2.60).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis provides high- to moderate-certainty evidence that ZDV/3TC and ZDV are more effective in reducing the odds of mother-to-child transmission, with ZDV/3TC also demonstrating decreased odds of stillbirth. Notably, our findings suggest an elevated odds of stillbirth and preterm birth associated with all other ART regimens.

The NeoPACE study: study protocol for the development of a core outcome set for neonatal palliative care

BACKGROUND

Neonatal death is the leading category of death in children under the age of 5 in the UK. Many babies die following decisions between parents and the neonatal team; when a baby is critically unwell, with the support of healthcare professionals, parents may make the decision to stop active treatment and focus on ensuring their baby has a 'good' death. There is very little evidence to support the clinical application of neonatal palliative care and/or end-of-life care, resulting in variation in clinical provision between neonatal units. Developing core outcomes for neonatal palliative care would enable the development of measures of good practice and enhance our care of families. The aim of this study is to develop a core outcome set with associated tools for measuring neonatal palliative care.

METHOD

This study has four phases: (1) identification of potential outcomes through systematic review and qualitative interviews with key stakeholders, including parents and healthcare professionals (2) an online Delphi process with key stakeholders to determine core outcomes (3) identification of outcome measures to support clinical application of outcome use (4) dissemination of the core outcome set for use across neonatal units in the UK. Key stakeholders include parents, healthcare professionals, and researchers with a background in neonatal palliative care.

DISCUSSION

Developing a core outcome set will standardise minimum reported outcomes for future research and quality improvement projects designed to determine the effectiveness of interventions and clinical care during neonatal palliative and/or end-of-life care. The core outcome set will provide healthcare professionals working in neonatal palliative and/or end-of-life support with an increased and consistent evidence base to enhance practice in this area.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study has been registered with the COMET initiative ( https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1470 ) and the systematic review is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023451068).

How to Conduct a Randomized Controlled Trial

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered to produce the highest level of evidence in the original studies that informs the practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM). By manipulating an independent variable to study its impact on the outcome, RCTs establish causal relationships and provide valuable insights into clinical treatment. To improve patient outcomes and optimize the use of clinical resources, the practice of EBM plays a crucial role in designing and conducting RCTs to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical interventions. This review aims to explore the essential steps involved in conducting a rigorous and reliable RCT, ensuring the generation of high-quality evidence.

Value-based Care and Quality Improvement in Perioperative Neuroscience

Value-based care and quality improvement are related concepts used to measure and improve clinical care. Value-based care represents the relationship between the incremental gain in outcome for patients and cost efficiency. It is achieved by identifying outcomes that are important to patients, codesigning solutions using multidisciplinary teams, measuring both outcomes and costs to drive further improvements, and developing partnerships across the health system. Quality improvement is focused on process improvement and compliance with best practice, and often uses "Plan-Do-Study-Act" cycles to identify, test, and implement change. Validated, standardized core outcome sets for perioperative neuroscience are currently lacking, but neuroanesthesiologists can consider using traditional clinical indicators, patient-reported outcomes measures, and perioperative core outcome measures. Several examples of bundled care solutions have been successfully implemented in perioperative neuroscience to increase value; for example, enhanced recovery for spine surgery, delirium reduction pathways, and same-day discharge craniotomy. This review proposes potential individual- and system-based solutions to address barriers to value-based care and quality improvement in perioperative neuroscience.

Preferences Regarding Self-Management Intervention Outcomes of Dutch Chronically Ill Patients With Limited Health Literacy

Background:

For many chronically ill patients self-management of their disease is difficult. This may be especially true for people with limited health literacy as they are faced with additional challenges in the day-to-day management of their disease. Research has shown that self-management support is most effective when tailored to the needs and preferences of patients. Therefore, this study explores the preferences regarding self-management outcomes of chronically ill patients with limited health literacy.

Methods

A total of 35 patients with limited health literacy were invited to a concept-mapping procedure consisting of two card sorting tasks. Patients ranked 60 outcomes, which are often found in literature in relation to self-management, to the level that was important for themselves. Means were calculated for each outcome and domain, and differences within the group were analyzed.

Results

For patients with limited health literacy, satisfaction with care is the most important outcome domain. This domain includes overall satisfaction, the communication with health care providers, the provision of information and trust. At an outcome level, outcomes related to symptom management and improving competences to self-management scored very high. No differences between patient groups for age and sex were found.

Conclusion

Chronically ill patients with limited health literacy prefer a wide variety of outcomes for their self-management. Next to health related outcomes, patients mostly prefer to work on their competences for self-management. For health care professionals, acting on these patient preferences and building a solid relationship will enhance successful self-management.

Quality of patient-reported outcome reporting in trials of diabetes in pregnancy: A systematic review

AIMS

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are reports of the patient's health status that come directly from the patient without interpretation by the clinician or anyone else. They are increasingly used in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In this systematic review we identified RCTs conducted in women with diabetes in pregnancy which included PROs in their primary or secondary outcomes. We then evaluated the quality of PRO reporting against an internationally accepted reporting framework (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT-PRO) guidelines).

METHODS

We searched online databases for studies published 2013-2021 using a combination of keywords. Two authors reviewed all abstracts independently. Data on study characteristics and the quality of PRO reporting were extracted from relevant studies. We conducted a multiple regression analysis to identify factors associated with high quality reporting.

RESULTS

We identified 7122 citations. Thirty-five articles were included for review. Only 17% of RCTs included a PRO as a primary or secondary outcome. Out of a maximum score of 100 the median score was 46, indicating sub-optimal reporting. A multiple regression analysis did not reveal any factors associated with high quality reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers should be mindful of the importance of PRO inclusion and reporting and include reliable PROs in trials.

Patient-centred outcomes are under-reported in the critical care burns literature: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Developments in the care of critically ill patients with severe burns have led to improved hospital survival, but long-term recovery may be impaired. The extent to which patient-centred outcomes are assessed and reported in studies in this population is unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to assess the outcomes reported in studies involving critically ill burns patients. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies on the topics of fluid resuscitation, analgesia, haemodynamic monitoring, ventilation strategies, transfusion targets, enteral nutrition and timing of surgery were included. We assessed the outcomes reported and then classified these according to two suggested core outcome sets.

RESULTS

A comprehensive search returned 6154 studies; 98 papers met inclusion criteria. There were 66 RCTs, 19 clinical studies with concurrent controls and 13 interventional studies without concurrent controls. Outcome reporting was inconsistent across studies. Pain, reported using the visual analogue scale, fluid volume administered and mortality were the only outcomes measured in more than three studies. Sixty-six studies (67%) had surrogate primary outcomes. Follow-up was poor, with median longest follow-up across all studies 5 days (IQR 3-28). When compared to the suggested OMERACT core outcome set, 53% of papers reported on mortality, 28% reported on life impact, 30% reported resource/economic outcomes and 95% reported on pathophysiological manifestations. Burns-specific Falder outcome reporting was globally poor, with only 4.3% of outcomes being reported across the 98 papers.

CONCLUSION

There are deficiencies in the reporting of outcomes in the literature pertaining to the intensive care management of patients with severe burns, both with regard to the consistency of outcomes as well as a lack of focus on patient-centred outcomes. Long-term outcomes are infrequently reported. The development and validation of a core outcome dataset for severe burns would improve the quality of reporting.

Putting patients first: ambulatory surgery facilitates patient-centered care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Ambulatory surgery is associated with improved patient experience while reducing overall costs without compromising patient safety. Patient-centered care is crucial for further expansion and success of ambulatory surgery because it is associated with superior patient experience and improved patient satisfaction. This article discusses the approach to improving patient-centered care and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

RECENT FINDINGS

It is necessary to recognize that each patient is different and may have different needs and preferences. Patient education and shared decision-making are critical components of patient-centered care. Shared decision-making emphasizes patient engagement in an effort to improve PROs. Implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery principles in ambulatory surgery is necessary to improve PROs.

SUMMARY

Delivery of patient-centered care will require modification of the current approach to perioperative care. It is imperative to measure PROs by implementing a comprehensive continuous quality improvement program.

Methodologies for systematic reviews with meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials in pain, anaesthesia, and perioperative medicine

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) are increasing in popularity, but should they be used to inform clinical decision-making in anaesthesia? We present evidence that the certainty of evidence from SRMAs in anaesthesia (and in general) may be unacceptably low because of risks of bias exaggerating treatment effects, unexplained heterogeneity reducing certainty in estimates, random errors, and widespread prevalence of publication bias. We also present the latest methodological advances to help improve the certainty of evidence from SRMAs. The target audience includes both review authors and practising clinicians to help with SRMA appraisal. Issues discussed include minimising risks of bias from included trials, trial sequential analysis to reduce random error, updated methods for presenting effect estimates, and novel publication bias tests for commonly used outcome measures. These methods can help to reduce spurious conclusions on clinical significance, explain statistical heterogeneity, and reduce false positives when evaluating small-study effects. By reducing concerns in these domains of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation, it should help improve the certainty of evidence from SRMAs used for decision-making in anaesthesia, pain, and perioperative medicine.

Triaging advanced GI endoscopy procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic: consensus recommendations using the Delphi method

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is a lack of consensus on which GI endoscopic procedures should be performed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and which procedures could be safely deferred without having a significant impact on outcomes.

METHODS

We selected a panel of 14 expert endoscopists. We identified 41 common indications for advanced endoscopic procedures from the ASGE Appropriate Use of GI Endoscopy guidelines. Using a modified Delphi method, we first achieved consensus on the patient-important outcome for each procedural indication. Panelists prioritized consensus patient-important outcome when categorizing each indication into one of the following 3 procedural time periods: (1) time-sensitive emergent (schedule within 1 week), (2) time-sensitive urgent (schedule within 1 to 8 weeks), and (3) non-time sensitive (defer for >8 weeks and then reassess the timing). Three anonymous rounds of voting were allowed before attempts at consensus were abandoned.

RESULTS

All 14 invited experts agreed to participate in the study. The prespecified consensus threshold of 51% was achieved for assigning patient-important outcome(s) to each advanced endoscopy indication. The prespecified consensus threshold of 66.7% was achieved for 40 of 41 advanced endoscopy indications in stratifying them into 1 of 3 procedural time periods. For 12 of 41 indications, 100% consensus was achieved; for 20 of 41 indications, 75% to 99% consensus was achieved.

CONCLUSIONS

By using a Modified Delphi method that prioritized patient-important outcomes, we developed consensus recommendations on procedural timing for common indications for advanced endoscopy. These recommendations and the structured decision framework provided by our study can inform decision making as endoscopy services are reopened.

Role of patient-centred outcomes after hospital discharge: a state-of-the-art review

The traditional approach for measuring outcomes after surgery involves ascertaining whether a patient survived surgery while avoiding major complications. This approach does not capture the full spectrum of events that are meaningful to patients, especially because mortality risks after elective surgery are relatively low, and different complication types vary considerably with respect to their impact on postoperative recovery. This review discusses the application, advantages, disadvantages and select examples of patient-centred outcomes in peri-operative medicine. When applied appropriately, these outcomes complement traditional clinical outcomes, identify important changes in postoperative function that impact patients without discernible complications and ensure that the definition of success after surgery is more meaningful to all relevant stakeholders.

How Often Are Patient-Important Outcomes Represented in Neonatal Randomized Controlled Trials? An Analysis of Cochrane Neonatal Reviews

BACKGROUND

Research findings based on patient-important outcomes (PIOs) provide more useful conclusions than those that are based on surrogate outcomes. It is unclear to what extent PIOs are represented in neonatal randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVES

We determined the proportion of PIOs in neonatal RCTs included in Cochrane Neonatal reviews.

METHODS

We extracted up to 5 outcomes from each RCT included in Cochrane Neonatal reviews published until January 2018, with independent determination of PIOs among authors followed by a discussion leading to a consensus. We defined PIOs as outcomes that matter to patient care, such as clinical events or physiological or laboratory parameters that are widely used to guide management.

RESULTS

Among 6,832 outcomes extracted from 1,874 RCTs included in 276 reviews, 5,349 (78.3%) were considered PIOs; 461 studies (24.5%) included 5 or more PIOs, 1,278 (68.2%) included 1-4 PIOs, while 135 (7.2%) had no PIO included. PIOs were observed more often among dichotomous than among continuous outcomes (94.9 vs. 61.5%; RR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.50-1.58), and more among subjective than among objective outcomes (95.9 vs. 76.8%; RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.22-1.28). Newer studies were more likely to have a greater number of PIOs (adjusted OR: 1.033 [95% CI: 1.025-1.041] with each publication year).

CONCLUSIONS

The large and increasing representation of PIOs over the years suggests an improving awareness by neonatal trialists of the need to incorporate important outcomes in order to justify the utilization of resources. Further research should explore the reasons for non-inclusion or non-reporting of PIOs in a small proportion of RCTs.