28 research outputs found
National priorities for perioperative research in South Africa
Background. Perioperative research is currently unco-ordinated in South Africa (SA), with no clear research agenda.Objective. To determine the top ten national research priorities for perioperative research in SA.Methods. A Delphi technique was used to establish consensus on the top ten research priorities.Results. The top ten research priorities were as follows: (i) establishment of a national database of (a) critical care outcomes, and (b) critical care resources; (ii) a randomised controlled trial of preoperative B-type natriuretic peptide-guided medical therapy to decrease major adverse cardiac events following non-cardiac surgery; (iii) a national prospective observational study of the outcomes associated with paediatric surgical cases; (iv) a national observational study of maternal and fetal outcomes following operative delivery in SA; (v) a steppedwedge trial of an enhanced recovery after surgery programme for (a) surgery, (b) obstetrics, (c) emergency surgery, and (d) trauma surgery; (vi) a stepped-wedge trial of a surgical safety checklist on patient outcomes in SA; (vii) a prospective observational study of perioperative outcomes after surgery in district general hospitals in SA; (viii) short-course interventions to improve anaesthetic skills in rural doctors; (ix) studies of the efficacy of simulation training to improve (a) patient outcomes, (b) team dynamics, and (c) leadership; and (x) development and validation of a risk stratification tool for SA surgery based on the South African Surgical Outcomes Study (SASOS) data.Conclusions. These research priorities provide the structure for an intermediate term research agenda
Restrictive versus liberal transfusion in patients with diabetes undergoing cardiac surgery: An open-label, randomized, blinded outcome evaluation trial
AIM: To characterize the association between diabetes and transfusion and clinical outcomes in cardiac surgery, and to evaluate whether restrictive transfusion thresholds are harmful in these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The multinational, open-label, randomized controlled TRICS-III trial assessed a restrictive transfusion strategy (haemoglobin [Hb] transfusion threshold <75 g/L) compared with a liberal strategy (Hb <95 g/L for operating room or intensive care unit; or <85 g/L for ward) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass with a moderate-to-high risk of death (EuroSCORE ≥6). Diabetes status was collected preoperatively. The primary composite outcome was all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and new-onset renal failure requiring dialysis at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included components of the composite outcome at 6 months, and transfusion and clinical outcomes at 28 days. RESULTS: Of the 5092 patients analysed, 1396 (27.4%) had diabetes (restrictive, n = 679; liberal, n = 717). Patients with diabetes had more cardiovascular disease than patients without diabetes. Neither the presence of diabetes (OR [95% CI] 1.10 [0.93-1.31]) nor the restrictive strategy increased the risk for the primary composite outcome (diabetes OR [95% CI] 1.04 [0.68-1.59] vs. no diabetes OR 1.02 [0.85-1.22]; Pinteraction = .92). In patients with versus without diabetes, a restrictive transfusion strategy was more effective at reducing red blood cell transfusion (diabetes OR [95% CI] 0.28 [0.21-0.36]; no diabetes OR [95% CI] 0.40 [0.35-0.47]; Pinteraction = .04). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of diabetes did not modify the effect of a restrictive transfusion strategy on the primary composite outcome, but improved its efficacy on red cell transfusion. Restrictive transfusion triggers are safe and effective in patients with diabetes undergoing cardiac surgery
