Prognostic Markers of Outcome in Patients Undergoing Infra-inguinal Revascularisation: A Prospective Observational Pilot Study

Ventilatory efficiency as a prognostic factor for postoperative complications in patients undergoing elective major surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Major surgery is associated with high complication rates. Several risk scores exist to assess individual patient risk before surgery but have limited precision. Novel prognostic factors can be included as additional building blocks in existing prediction models. A candidate prognostic factor, measured by cardiopulmonary exercise testing, is ventilatory efficiency (VE/VCO2). The aim of this systematic review was to summarise evidence regarding VE/VCO2 as a prognostic factor for postoperative complications in patients undergoing major surgery.

METHODS

A medical library specialist developed the search strategy. No database-provided limits, considering study types, languages, publication years, or any other formal criteria were applied to any of the sources. Two reviewers assessed eligibility of each record and rated risk of bias in included studies.

RESULTS

From 10,082 screened records, 65 studies were identified as eligible. We extracted adjusted associations from 32 studies and unadjusted from 33 studies. Risk of bias was a concern in the domains 'study confounding' and 'statistical analysis'. VE/VCO2 was reported as a prognostic factor for short-term complications after thoracic and abdominal surgery. VE/VCO2 was also reported as a prognostic factor for mid- to long-term mortality. Data-driven covariable selection was applied in 31 studies. Eighteen studies excluded VE/VCO2 from the final multivariable regression owing to data-driven model-building approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review identifies VE/VCO2 as a predictor for short-term complications after thoracic and abdominal surgery. However, the available data do not allow conclusions about clinical decision-making. Future studies should select covariables for adjustment a priori based on external knowledge.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL

PROSPERO (CRD42022369944).

Preoperative exercise training for adults undergoing elective major vascular surgery: A systematic review

Patients undergoing major vascular surgery may have an increased risk of postoperative complications due to poor 'fitness for surgery'. Prehabilitation aims to optimise physical fitness and risk factors before surgery to improve outcomes. The role of exercise-based prehabilitation in vascular surgery is currently unclear. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to assess the benefits and harms of preoperative exercise training in adults undergoing elective vascular surgery. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases, trial registries, and forward and backward citations for studies published between January 2008 and April 2021. We included randomised trials that compared patients receiving exercise training with those receiving usual care or no training before vascular surgery. Outcomes included mortality, complications, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Three trials with 197 participants were included. All studies involved people undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Low-certainty evidence could not differentiate between rates of all-cause mortality. Moderate-certainty evidence indicated that postoperative cardiac and renal complications were less likely to occur in people who participated in preoperative exercise training compared with those who did not. Low-certainty evidence also indicated better postoperative HRQOL outcomes in people who undertook prehabilitation. There were no serious exercise-related adverse events. The evidence on preoperative exercise training for AAA patients is promising, but currently insufficiently robust for this intervention to be recommended in clinical guidelines. High-quality trials are needed to establish its clinical and cost-effectiveness. Research is also needed to determine the feasibility and effects of prehabilitation before lower-limb revascularisation. Trial registration: PROSPERO ID: CRD42021245933.

The comparative and added prognostic value of biomarkers to the Revised Cardiac Risk Index for preoperative prediction of major adverse cardiac events and all-cause mortality in patients who undergo noncardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

The Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) is a widely acknowledged prognostic model to estimate preoperatively the probability of developing in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. However, the RCRI does not always make accurate predictions, so various studies have investigated whether biomarkers added to or compared with the RCRI could improve this.

OBJECTIVES

Primary: To investigate the added predictive value of biomarkers to the RCRI to preoperatively predict in-hospital MACE and other adverse outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Secondary: To investigate the prognostic value of biomarkers compared to the RCRI to preoperatively predict in-hospital MACE and other adverse outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Tertiary: To investigate the prognostic value of other prediction models compared to the RCRI to preoperatively predict in-hospital MACE and other adverse outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and Embase from 1 January 1999 (the year that the RCRI was published) until 25 June 2020. We also searched ISI Web of Science and SCOPUS for articles referring to the original RCRI development study in that period.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies among adults who underwent noncardiac surgery, reporting on (external) validation of the RCRI and: - the addition of biomarker(s) to the RCRI; or - the comparison of the predictive accuracy of biomarker(s) to the RCRI; or - the comparison of the predictive accuracy of the RCRI to other models. Besides MACE, all other adverse outcomes were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We developed a data extraction form based on the CHARMS checklist. Independent pairs of authors screened references, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability according to PROBAST. For biomarkers and prediction models that were added or compared to the RCRI in ≥ 3 different articles, we described study characteristics and findings in further detail. We did not apply GRADE as no guidance is available for prognostic model reviews.

MAIN RESULTS

We screened 3960 records and included 107 articles.   Over all objectives we rated risk of bias as high in ≥ 1 domain in 90% of included studies, particularly in the analysis domain. Statistical pooling or meta-analysis of reported results was impossible due to heterogeneity in various aspects: outcomes used, scale by which the biomarker was added/compared to the RCRI, prediction horizons and studied populations.  Added predictive value of biomarkers to the RCRI Fifty-one studies reported on the added value of biomarkers to the RCRI. Sixty-nine different predictors were identified derived from blood (29%), imaging (33%) or other sources (38%). Addition of NT-proBNP, troponin or their combination improved the RCRI for predicting MACE (median delta c-statistics: 0.08, 0.14 and 0.12 for NT-proBNP, troponin and their combination, respectively). The median total net reclassification index (NRI) was 0.16 and 0.74 after addition of troponin and NT-proBNP to the RCRI, respectively. Calibration was not reported. To predict myocardial infarction, the median delta c-statistic when NT-proBNP was added to the RCRI was 0.09, and 0.06 for prediction of all-cause mortality and MACE combined. For BNP and copeptin, data were not sufficient to provide results on their added predictive performance, for any of the outcomes. Comparison of the predictive value of biomarkers to the RCRI  Fifty-one studies assessed the predictive performance of biomarkers alone compared to the RCRI. We identified 60 unique predictors derived from blood (38%), imaging (30%) or other sources, such as the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification (32%). Predictions were similar between the ASA classification and the RCRI for all studied outcomes. In studies different from those identified in objective 1, the median delta c-statistic was 0.15 and 0.12 in favour of  BNP and NT-proBNP alone, respectively, when compared to the RCRI, for the prediction of MACE. For C-reactive protein, the predictive performance was similar to the RCRI. For other biomarkers and outcomes, data were insufficient to provide summary results. One study reported on calibration and none on reclassification. Comparison of the predictive value of other prognostic models to the RCRI   Fifty-two articles compared the predictive ability of the RCRI to other prognostic models. Of these, 42% developed a new prediction model, 22% updated the RCRI, or another prediction model, and 37% validated an existing prediction model. None of the other prediction models showed better performance in predicting MACE than the RCRI. To predict myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest, ACS-NSQIP-MICA had a higher median delta c-statistic of 0.11 compared to the RCRI. To predict all-cause mortality, the median delta c-statistic was 0.15 higher in favour of ACS-NSQIP-SRS compared to the RCRI. Predictive performance was not better for CHADS₂, CHA₂DS₂-VASc, R₂CHADS₂, Goldman index, Detsky index or VSG-CRI compared to the RCRI for any of the outcomes. Calibration and reclassification were reported in only one and three studies, respectively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Studies included in this review suggest that the predictive performance of the RCRI in predicting MACE is improved when NT-proBNP, troponin or their combination are added. Other studies indicate that BNP and NT-proBNP, when used in isolation, may even have a higher discriminative performance than the RCRI. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between the predictive accuracy of the RCRI and other prediction models in predicting MACE. However, ACS-NSQIP-MICA and ACS-NSQIP-SRS outperformed the RCRI in predicting myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest combined, and all-cause mortality, respectively. Nevertheless, the results cannot be interpreted as conclusive due to high risks of bias in a majority of papers, and pooling was impossible due to heterogeneity in outcomes, prediction horizons, biomarkers and studied populations. Future research on the added prognostic value of biomarkers to existing prediction models should focus on biomarkers with good predictive accuracy in other settings (e.g. diagnosis of myocardial infarction) and identification of biomarkers from omics data. They should be compared to novel biomarkers with so far insufficient evidence compared to established ones, including NT-proBNP or troponins. Adherence to recent guidance for prediction model studies (e.g. TRIPOD; PROBAST) and use of standardised outcome definitions in primary studies is highly recommended to facilitate systematic review and meta-analyses in the future.

Performance of cardiopulmonary exercise testing for the prediction of post-operative complications in non cardiopulmonary surgery: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is widely used within the United Kingdom for preoperative risk stratification. Despite this, CPET's performance in predicting adverse events has not been systematically evaluated within the framework of classifier performance.

METHODS

After prospective registration on PROSPERO (CRD42018095508) we systematically identified studies where CPET was used to aid in the prognostication of mortality, cardiorespiratory complications, and unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admission in individuals undergoing non-cardiopulmonary surgery. For all included studies we extracted or calculated measures of predictive performance whilst identifying and critiquing predictive models encompassing CPET derived variables.

RESULTS

We identified 36 studies for qualitative review, from 27 of which measures of classifier performance could be calculated. We found studies to be highly heterogeneous in methodology and quality with high potential for bias and confounding. We found seven studies that presented risk prediction models for outcomes of interest. Of these, only four studies outlined a clear process of model development; assessment of discrimination and calibration were performed in only two and only one study undertook internal validation. No scores were externally validated. Systematically identified and calculated measures of test performance for CPET demonstrated mixed performance. Data was most complete for anaerobic threshold (AT) based predictions: calculated sensitivities ranged from 20-100% when used for predicting risk of mortality with high negative predictive values (96-100%). In contrast, positive predictive value (PPV) was poor (2.9-42.1%). PPV appeared to be generally higher for cardiorespiratory complications, with similar sensitivities. Similar patterns were seen for the association of Peak VO2 (sensitivity 85.7-100%, PPV 2.7-5.9%) and VE/VCO2 (Sensitivity 27.8%-100%, PPV 3.4-7.1%) with mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In general CPET's 'rule-out' capability appears better than its ability to 'rule-in' complications. Poor PPV may reflect the frequency of complications in studied populations. Our calculated estimates of classifier performance suggest the need for a balanced interpretation of the pros and cons of CPET guided pre-operative risk stratification.