METHODS: Prospective cohort study of Spanish patients nested in the HIP ATTACK-1 trial. The HIP ATTACK-1 was an international, randomized, controlled trial (17 countries, 69 hospitals, 7 in Spain, highest recruiting country). Patients were randomized to either accelerated surgery (goal of surgery within 6 h of diagnosis) or standard care. Participants were ≥45 years of age who presented with a low-energy hip fracture requiring surgery.
RESULTS: Among 534 patients in the Spanish cohort, 69 (12.9 %) patients died at 90 days follow-up, compared to 225 (9.2 %) in the non-Spanish cohort (p = 0.009), mostly due to higher nonvascular related mortality. A composite of major postoperative complication occurred in 126 patients (23.6 %). The most common perioperative complications were myocardial injury (189 patients, 35.4 %), infection with no sepsis (86 patients, 16.1 %) and perioperative delirium (84 patients, 15.7 %); all these complication rates in Spain were significantly higher than the non-Spanish patients (29.2 % p = 0.005; 11.9 % p = 0.008 and 9.2 % p < 0.0001, respectively). Spanish cohort patients were older and had more comorbidities than the non-Spanish cohort, evidencing their greater frailty at baseline. Among Spanish patients, the median time from hip fracture diagnosis to surgery was 30.0 h (IQR 21.1-53.9) in the standard-care group, with 68.8 % of patients receiving surgery within 48 h of diagnosis. This median time was lower in the non-Spanish cohort (22.8 h, IQR 9.5-37.0), where 82.1 % of patients were operated within 48 h.
CONCLUSIONS: In the HIP ATTACK-1 trial, 1 in 8 patients died 90 days after a hip fracture in Spain. The most common complication after a hip fracture was myocardial injury, followed by infection and delirium. Spanish patients had worse outcomes than non-Spanish patients. Research needs to focus on new interventions such as accelerated surgery and perioperative troponin measurement with the appropriate investment of resources, to prevent and identify early these complications with a goal of improving mortality for this high-risk population.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
METHODS: The PeriOperative Ischemic Evaluation (POISE)-3 Trial is a large international randomized controlled trial designed to determine if TXA is superior to placebo for the composite outcome of life-threatening, major, and critical organ bleeding, and non-inferior to placebo for the occurrence of major arterial and venous thrombotic events, at 30 days after randomization. Using a partial factorial design, POISE-3 will additionally determine the effect of a hypotension-avoidance strategy versus a hypertension-avoidance strategy on the risk of major cardiovascular events, at 30 days after randomization. The target sample size is 10,000 participants. Patients ≥45 years of age undergoing noncardiac surgery, with or at risk of cardiovascular and bleeding complications, are randomized to receive a TXA 1 g intravenous bolus or matching placebo at the start and at the end of surgery. Patients, health care providers, data collectors, outcome adjudicators, and investigators are blinded to the treatment allocation. Patients on ≥ 1 chronic antihypertensive medication are also randomized to either of the two blood pressure management strategies, which differ in the management of patient antihypertensive medications on the morning of surgery and on the first 2 days after surgery, and in the target mean arterial pressure during surgery. Outcome adjudicators are blinded to the blood pressure treatment allocation. Patients are followed up at 30 days and 1 year after randomization.
DISCUSSION: Bleeding and hypotension in noncardiac surgery are common and have a substantial impact on patient prognosis. The POISE-3 trial will evaluate two interventions to determine their impact on bleeding, cardiovascular complications, and mortality.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03505723. Registered on 23 April 2018.
METHODS: We conducted a trial involving patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive tranexamic acid (1-g intravenous bolus) or placebo at the start and end of surgery (reported here) and, with the use of a partial factorial design, a hypotension-avoidance or hypertension-avoidance strategy (not reported here). The primary efficacy outcome was life-threatening bleeding, major bleeding, or bleeding into a critical organ (composite bleeding outcome) at 30 days. The primary safety outcome was myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, or symptomatic proximal venous thromboembolism (composite cardiovascular outcome) at 30 days. To establish the noninferiority of tranexamic acid to placebo for the composite cardiovascular outcome, the upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the hazard ratio had to be below 1.125, and the one-sided P value had to be less than 0.025.
RESULTS: A total of 9535 patients underwent randomization. A composite bleeding outcome event occurred in 433 of 4757 patients (9.1%) in the tranexamic acid group and in 561 of 4778 patients (11.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67 to 0.87; absolute difference, -2.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.8 to -1.4; two-sided P<0.001 for superiority). A composite cardiovascular outcome event occurred in 649 of 4581 patients (14.2%) in the tranexamic acid group and in 639 of 4601 patients (13.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.14; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% CI, 1.14; absolute difference, 0.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.1 to 1.7; one-sided P = 0.04 for noninferiority).
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, the incidence of the composite bleeding outcome was significantly lower with tranexamic acid than with placebo. Although the between-group difference in the composite cardiovascular outcome was small, the noninferiority of tranexamic acid was not established. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; POISE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03505723.).
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of a hypotension-avoidance and a hypertension-avoidance strategy on major vascular complications after noncardiac surgery.
DESIGN: Partial factorial randomized trial of 2 perioperative blood pressure management strategies (reported here) and tranexamic acid versus placebo. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03505723).
SETTING: 110 hospitals in 22 countries.
PATIENTS: 7490 patients having noncardiac surgery who were at risk for vascular complications and were receiving 1 or more long-term antihypertensive medications.
INTERVENTION: In the hypotension-avoidance strategy group, the intraoperative mean arterial pressure target was 80 mm Hg or greater; before and for 2 days after surgery, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors were withheld and the other long-term antihypertensive medications were administered only for systolic blood pressures 130 mm Hg or greater, following an algorithm. In the hypertension-avoidance strategy group, the intraoperative mean arterial pressure target was 60 mm Hg or greater; all antihypertensive medications were continued before and after surgery.
MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was a composite of vascular death and nonfatal myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, stroke, and cardiac arrest at 30 days. Outcome adjudicators were masked to treatment assignment.
RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in 520 of 3742 patients (13.9%) in the hypotension-avoidance group and in 524 of 3748 patients (14.0%) in the hypertension-avoidance group (hazard ratio, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.12]; P = 0.92). Results were consistent for patients who used 1 or more than 1 antihypertensive medication in the long term.
LIMITATION: Adherence to the assigned strategies was suboptimal; however, results were consistent across different adherence levels.
CONCLUSION: In patients having noncardiac surgery, our hypotension-avoidance and hypertension-avoidance strategies resulted in a similar incidence of major vascular complications.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and Research Grant Council of Hong Kong.