7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Association between neuraxial anaesthesia or general anaesthesia for lower limb revascularisation surgery in adults and clinical outcomes: population based comparative effectiveness study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To examine the associations between neuraxial anaesthesia or general anaesthesia and clinical outcomes, length of hospital stay, and readmission in adults undergoing lower limb revascularisation surgery.

          Design

          Comparative effectiveness study using linked, validated, population based databases.

          Setting

          Ontario, Canada, 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2015.

          Participants

          20 988 patients Ontario residents aged 18 years or older who underwent their first lower limb revascularisation surgery in hospitals performing 50 or more of these surgeries annually.

          Main outcome measures

          Primary outcome was 30 day all cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital cardiopulmonary and renal complications, length of hospital stay, and 30 day readmissions. Multivariable, mixed effects regression models, adjusting for patient, procedural, and hospital characteristics, were used to estimate associations between anaesthetic technique and outcomes. Robustness of analyses were evaluated by conducting instrumental variable, propensity score matched, and survival sensitivity analyses.

          Results

          Of 20 988 patients who underwent lower limb revascularisation surgery, 6453 (30.7%) received neuraxial anaesthesia and 14 535 (69.3%) received general anaesthesia. The percentage of neuraxial anaesthesia use ranged from 0.6% to 90.6% across included hospitals. Furthermore, use of neuraxial anaesthesia declined by 17% over the study period. Death within 30 days occurred in 204 (3.2%) patients who received neuraxial anaesthesia and 646 (4.4%) patients who received general anaesthesia. After multivariable, multilevel adjustment, use of neuraxial anaesthesia compared with use of general anaesthesia was associated with decreased 30 day mortality (absolute risk reduction 0.72%, 95% confidence interval 0.65% to 0.79%; odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.83; number needed to treat to prevent one death=139). A similar direction and magnitude of association was found in instrumental variable, propensity score matched, and survival analyses. Use of neuraxial anaesthesia compared with use of general anaesthesia was also associated with decreased in-hospital cardiopulmonary and renal complications (odds ratio 0.73, 0.63 to 0.85) and a reduced length of hospital stay (−0.5 days, −0.3 to−0.6 days).

          Conclusions

          Use of neuraxial anaesthesia compared with general anaesthesia for lower limb revascularisation surgery was associated with decreased 30 day mortality and hospital length of stay. These findings might have been related to reduced cardiopulmonary and renal complications after neuraxial anaesthesia and support the increased use of neuraxial anaesthesia in patients undergoing these surgeries until the results of a large, confirmatory randomised trial become available.

          Related collections

          Most cited references75

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Sensitivity Analysis in Observational Research: Introducing the E-Value.

            Sensitivity analysis is useful in assessing how robust an association is to potential unmeasured or uncontrolled confounding. This article introduces a new measure called the "E-value," which is related to the evidence for causality in observational studies that are potentially subject to confounding. The E-value is defined as the minimum strength of association, on the risk ratio scale, that an unmeasured confounder would need to have with both the treatment and the outcome to fully explain away a specific treatment-outcome association, conditional on the measured covariates. A large E-value implies that considerable unmeasured confounding would be needed to explain away an effect estimate. A small E-value implies little unmeasured confounding would be needed to explain away an effect estimate. The authors propose that in all observational studies intended to produce evidence for causality, the E-value be reported or some other sensitivity analysis be used. They suggest calculating the E-value for both the observed association estimate (after adjustments for measured confounders) and the limit of the confidence interval closest to the null. If this were to become standard practice, the ability of the scientific community to assess evidence from observational studies would improve considerably, and ultimately, science would be strengthened.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) Statement

              Routinely collected health data, obtained for administrative and clinical purposes without specific a priori research goals, are increasingly used for research. The rapid evolution and availability of these data have revealed issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines, such as Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) statement was created to fill these gaps. RECORD was created as an extension to the STROBE statement to address reporting items specific to observational studies using routinely collected health data. RECORD consists of a checklist of 13 items related to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of articles, and other information required for inclusion in such research reports. This document contains the checklist and explanatory and elaboration information to enhance the use of the checklist. Examples of good reporting for each RECORD checklist item are also included herein. This document, as well as the accompanying website and message board (http://www.record-statement.org), will enhance the implementation and understanding of RECORD. Through implementation of RECORD, authors, journals editors, and peer reviewers can encourage transparency of research reporting.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: vascular surgeon-scientist
                Role: vascular surgeon
                Role: vascular surgeon
                Role: vascular surgeon
                Role: intensivist-scientist
                Role: anesthesiologist-scientist
                Role: general internist-scientist
                Role: anesthesiologist
                Role: anesthesiologist-scientist, and assistant professor
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2020
                25 November 2020
                : 371
                : m4104
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ottawa and The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada
                [2 ]Department of Critical Care Medicine and O’Brien Institute for Public Health University of Calgary, Foothills Medical Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada
                [3 ]Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Ottawa and The Ottawa Hospital, 1053 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1Y 4E9
                [4 ]Department of Medicine, Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada
                [5 ]Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
                [6 ]School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: D I McIsaac DMcIsaac@ 123456toh.ca (or @mcisaac_d on Twitter)
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8543-1859
                Article
                robd056298
                10.1136/bmj.m4104
                7687020
                33239330
                61d82606-1b12-4c30-9e4b-a643500b234a
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 22 September 2020
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article