Fraud and retraction in perioperative medicine publications: what we learned and what can be implemented to prevent future recurrence

Fraud in medical publications is an increasing concern. In particular, disciplines related to perioperative medicine-including anaesthesia and critical care-currently hold the highest rankings in terms of retracted papers for research misconduct. The dominance of this dubious achievement is attributable to a limited number of researchers who have repeatedly committed scientific fraud. In the last three decades, six researchers have authored 421 of the 475 papers retracted in perioperative medicine. This narrative review reports on six cases of fabricated publication in perioperative medicine that resulted in the paper's retraction. The process that led to the unveiling of the fraud, the impact on clinical practice, and changes in regulatory mechanisms of scientific companies and governmental agencies' policies are also presented. Fraud in medical publications is a growing concern that affects perioperative medicine requiring a substantial number of papers to be retracted. The continuous control elicited by readers, by local institutional review boards, scientific journal reviewers, scientific societies and government agencies can play an important role in preserving the 'pact of trust' between authors, professionals and ultimately the relationship between doctors and patients.

Association Between β-Blockers and Outcome of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Before and After 1 Year

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the long-term outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) according to β-blocker therapy using landmark analysis. Although β-blockers have been shown to improve outcomes for ischemic heart disease, the long-term effects and optimal treatment duration of use after CABG remain unknown.

METHODS

From January 2001 to December 2014, 5382 CABG patients were stratified into 2 groups according to β-blocker therapy at discharge (β-blocker group: 3677 [68.3%], no β-blocker group: 1705 [31.7%]).

RESULTS

The primary outcome was all-cause death during 48 months of follow-up. Using propensity score-matched analysis, β-blocker therapy was associated with all-cause death during the 48-month follow-up (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.95; P = .03). The landmark analysis demonstrated that the effect of β-blockers on all-cause death was particularly significant within the first 12 months of therapy (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.80; P = .01) but not after 12 months (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.56-1.53; P = .77).

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of postdischarge β-blockers may be limited to 1 year after CABG, but further studies are required to confirm this finding.

Association between perioperative β-blocker use and clinical outcome of non-cardiac surgery in coronary revascularized patients without severe ventricular dysfunction or heart failure

Perioperative use of β-blocker has been encouraged in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery despite weak evidence, especially in patients without left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) or heart failure (HF). This study evaluated the effects of perioperative β-blocker on clinical outcomes after non-cardiac surgery among coronary revascularized patients without LVSD or HF. Among a total of 503 patients with a history of coronary revascularization (either by percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary arterial bypass grafts) undergoing non-cardiac surgery, those without severe LVSD defined by ejection fraction over 30% or HF were evaluated. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stroke during 1-year follow-up. Perioperative β-blocker was used in 271 (53.9%) patients. During 1-year follow-up, we found no significant difference in primary outcome between the two groups on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; confidence interval [CI] 95%, 0.56–1.82; P = 0.963). The same result was shown in propensity-matched population (HR, 1.25; CI 95%, 0.65–2.38; P = 0.504). In coronary revascularized patients without severe LVSD or HF, perioperative β-blocker use may not be associated with postoperative clinical outcome of non-cardiac surgery. Larger registry data is needed to support this finding.

Quantity Over Quality: How the Rise in Quality Measures is Not Producing Quality Results

Over the past decade, quality measures (QMs) have been implemented nationally in order to establish standards aimed at improving the quality of care. With the expansion of their role in the Affordable Care Act and pay-for-performance, QMs have had an increasingly significant impact on clinical practice. However, adverse patient outcomes have resulted from adherence to some previously promulgated performance measures. Several of these QMs with unintended consequences, including the initiation of perioperative beta-blockers in noncardiac surgery and intensive insulin therapy for critically ill patients, were instituted as QMs years before large randomized trials ultimately refuted their use. The future of quality care should emphasize the importance of evidence-based, peer-reviewed measures.

The Effect of beta-blockade on objectively measured physical fitness in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms--A blinded interventional study

BACKGROUND

Perioperative beta-blockade is widely used, especially before vascular surgery; however, its impact on exercise performance assessed using cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in this group is unknown. We hypothesized that beta-blocker therapy would significantly improve CPET-derived physical fitness in this group.

METHODS

We recruited patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) of <5.5 cm under surveillance. All patients underwent CPET on and off beta-blockers. Patients routinely prescribed beta-blockers underwent a first CPET on medication. Beta-blockers were stopped for one week before a second CPET. Patients not routinely taking beta-blockers underwent the first CPET off treatment, then performed a second CPET after commencement of bisoprolol for at least 48 h. Oxygen uptake (.VO2) at estimated lactate threshold and .VO2 at peak were primary outcome variables. A linear mixed-effects model was fitted to investigate any difference in adjusted CPET variables on and off beta-blockers.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients completed the study. No difference was observed in .VO2 at estimated lactate threshold and .VO2 at peak; however, a significant decrease in .VE/.VCO2 at estimated lactate threshold and peak, an increase in workload at estimated lactate threshold., O2 pulse and heart rate both at estimated lactate threshold and peak was found with beta-blockers. Patients taking beta-blockers routinely (chronic group) had worse exercise performance (lower .VO2 ).

CONCLUSIONS

Beta blockade has a significant impact on CPET-derived exercise performance, albeit without changing .VO2 at estimated lactate threshold and.VO2 at peak. This supports performance of preoperative CPET on or off beta-blockers depending on local perioperative practice.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT 02106286.

Perioperative beta-blockade: might the baby go out with the bath water?

Perioperative β-blocker therapy has been advocated to reduce cardiac mortality and morbidity in high-risk cardiac patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Core data that supported this intervention and informed international societal guidelines has recently been withdrawn. A subsequent meta-analysis of the remaining data reporting excess mortality has re-opened the debate about the utility of β-blocker therapy in the perioperative period. Criticism of remaining trial designs and new insights into the protective mechanisms of β-blocker therapy in critical illness raise important questions that should now be addressed by a further robust, high-quality randomised control trial.

Meta-analysis of secure randomised controlled trials of β-blockade to prevent perioperative death in non-cardiac surgery

Background

Current European and American guidelines recommend the perioperative initiation of a course of β-blockers in those at risk of cardiac events undergoing high- or intermediate-risk surgery or vascular surgery. The Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography (DECREASE) family of trials, the bedrock of evidence for this, are no longer secure. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of β-blockade on perioperative mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke and hypotension in non-cardiac surgery using the secure data.

Methods

The randomised controlled trials of initiation of β-blockers before non-cardiac surgery were examined. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days or at discharge. The DECREASE trials were separately analysed.

Results

Nine secure trials totalling 10 529 patients, 291 of whom died, met the criteria. Initiation of a course of β-blockers before surgery caused a 27% risk increase in 30-day all-cause mortality (p=0.04). The DECREASE family of studies substantially contradict the meta-analysis of the secure trials on the effect of mortality (p=0.05 for divergence). In the secure trials, β-blockade reduced non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.73, p=0.001) but increased stroke (RR 1.73, p=0.05) and hypotension (RR 1.51, p<0.00001). These results were dominated by one large trial.

Conclusions

Guideline bodies should retract their recommendations based on fictitious data without further delay. This should not be blocked by dispute over allocation of blame. The well-conducted trials indicate a statistically significant 27% increase in mortality from the initiation of perioperative β-blockade that guidelines currently recommend. Any remaining enthusiasts might best channel their energy into a further randomised trial which should be designed carefully and conducted honestly.

Perioperative statin therapy for improving outcomes during and after noncardiac vascular surgery

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing vascular surgery are a high-risk population with widespread atherosclerosis, an adverse cardiovascular risk profile and often multiple co-morbidities. Postoperative cardiovascular complications, including myocardial infarct (MI), are common. Statins are the medical treatment of choice to reduce high cholesterol levels. Evidence is accumulating that patients taking statins at the time of surgery are protected against a range of perioperative complications, but the specific benefits for patients undergoing noncardiac vascular surgery are not clear.

OBJECTIVES

We examined whether short-term statin therapy, commenced before or on the day of noncardiac vascular surgery and continuing for at least 48 hours afterwards, improves patient outcomes including the risk of complications, pain, quality of life and length of hospital stay. We also examined whether the effect of statin therapy on these outcomes changes depending on the dose of statin received.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), MEDLINE via Ovid SP (1966 to August 2012), EMBASE via Ovid SP (1966 to August 2012), CINAHL via EBSCO host (1966 to August 2012) and ISI Web of Science (1946 to July 2012) without any language restriction. We used a combination of free text search and controlled vocabulary search. The results were limited to randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). We conducted forwards and backwards citation of key articles and searched two clinical trial Websites for ongoing trials (www.clinicaltrials.gov and http://www.controlled-trials.com).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that had compared short-term statin therapy, either commenced de novo or with existing users randomly assigned to different dosages, in adult participants undergoing elective and emergency noncardiac arterial surgery, including both open and endovascular procedures. We defined short-term as commencing before or on the day of surgery and continuing for at least 48 hours afterwards.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, including information on adverse events. We contacted study authors for additional information. We performed separate analyses for the comparisons of statin with placebo/no treatment and between different doses of statin. We presented results as pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) based on random-effects models (inverse variance method). We employed the Chi(2) test and calculated the I(2) statistic to investigate study heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six eligible studies in total. The six Included studies were generally of high quality, but the largest eligible study was excluded because of concerns about its validity. Study populations were statin naive, which led to a considerable loss of eligible participants.Five RCTs compared statin use with placebo or standard care. We pooled results from three studies, with a total of 178 participants, for mortality and non-fatal event outcomes. In the statin group, 7/105 (6.7%) participants died within 30 days of surgery, as did 10/73 (13.7%) participants in the control group. Only one death in each group was from cardiovascular causes, with an incidence of 0.95% in statin participants and 1.4% in control participants, respectively. All deaths occurred in a single study population, and so effect estimates were derived from one study only. The risk ratio (RR) of all-cause mortality in statin users showed a non-significant decrease in risk (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.75). For cardiovascular death, the risk ratio was 1.05 (95% CI 0.07 to 16.20). Non-fatal MI within 30 days of surgery was reported in three studies and occurred in 4/105 (3.8%) participants in the statin group and 8/73 (11.0%) participants receiving placebo, for a non-significant decrease in risk (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.52). Several studies reported muscle enzyme levels as safety measures, but only three (with a total of 188 participants) reported explicitly on clinical muscle syndromes, with seven events reported and no significant difference found between statin users and controls (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.24 to 3.63). The only participant-reported outcome was nausea in one small study,with no significant difference in risk between groups.Two studies compared different doses of atorvastatin, with a total of 145 participants, but reported data were not sufficient to allow us to determine the effect of higher doses on any outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence was insufficient to allow review authors to conclude that statin use resulted in either a reduction or an increase in any of the outcomes examined. The existing body of evidence leaves questions about the benefits of perioperative use of statins for vascular surgery unanswered. Widespread use of statins in the target population means that it may now be difficult for researchers to undertake the large RCTs needed to demonstrate any effect on the incidence of postoperative cardiovascular events. However, participant-reported outcomes have been neglected and warrant further study.

Statins for all: the new premed?

The use of statins is widespread and many patients presenting for surgery are regularly taking them. There is evidence that statins have beneficial effects beyond those of lipid lowering, including reducing the perioperative risk of cardiac complications and sepsis. This review addresses the cellular mechanisms by which statins may produce these effects. Statins appear to have actions on vascular nitric oxide through the balance of inducible and endothelial nitric oxide synthase. The clinical evidence for these benefits is also briefly reviewed with the objective of clarifying the current status of statin use in the perioperative period. There is reasonably strong evidence that patients already taking statins should continue on them perioperatively. However, the evidence for the prophylactic use of statins perioperatively is weak and lacks prospective controlled studies.