Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36054287›Full record

Trial reportActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2022

The effects of preoperative focused cardiac ultrasound in high-risk patients: A randomised controlled trial (PREOPFOCUS).

Jan Pallesen, Rajesh Bhavsar, Jesper Fjølner, Skule Arnesen Bakke, Jan Krog, Mikkel Andreas Strømgaard Andersen, Michael Helbo Bøndergaard, Thomas Damgaard Jessing, Lone Mortensen, Michael Bugge Nielsen and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Review
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Jan PallesenDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Randers Regional Hospital, Randers, Denmark.
Rajesh BhavsarDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Hospital of Southern Jutland, Aabenraa, Denmark.
Jesper FjølnerDepartment of Surgery & Intensive Care, Regional Hospital Central Jutland, Viborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-3371-0503
Skule Arnesen BakkeDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Hospital of Southern Jutland, Aabenraa, Denmark.
Jan KrogDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Mikkel Andreas Strømgaard AndersenDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Michael Helbo BøndergaardDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Randers Regional Hospital, Randers, Denmark.
Thomas Damgaard JessingDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Randers Regional Hospital, Randers, Denmark.
Lone MortensenDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Randers Regional Hospital, Randers, Denmark.
Michael Bugge NielsenDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Hospital of Southern Jutland, Aabenraa, Denmark.
Marianne VangDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Randers Regional Hospital, Randers, Denmark.
Laima MalachauskienéDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Hospital of Southern Jutland, Aabenraa, Denmark.
Peter Juhl-OlsenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-1951-9091
Regional Hospital Randers · DKSygehus Sønderjylland · DKAarhus University · DKAarhus University Hospital · DKRegional Hospital Central Jutland · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgery is the third most common cause of mortality worldwide. Focused cardiac ultrasound (FOCUS) yields information on cardiac status and discloses the presence of unknown pathology. Preoperative FOCUS changes patient treatment, allowing for a patient-tailored anaesthesia. We hypothesised that preoperative FOCUS would reduce the proportion of patients who were either admitted to hospital for more than 10 days or who were dead within 30 days after high-risk, non-cardiac surgery.

methodsThis was a randomised, controlled, multi-center study. Patients ≥65 years of age, admitted for urgent orthopaedic- or abdominal surgery, scheduled for general- or neuraxial anaesthesia and with ASA 3/4 were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to preoperative FOCUS or no preoperative FOCUS performed in accordance with a predefined protocol. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients admitted more than 10 days or who were dead within 30 days. Secondary endpoints included major complications, days of admission and changes in anaesthesia handling.

resultsDuring the second COVID-19 wave the study monitoring committee terminated the study prematurely. We included 338 patients of which 327 were included in the final analysis. In the FOCUS group, 41/163 (25%) patients met the criteria for the primary endpoint versus 35/164 (21%) for the control group, adjusted odds ratio 1.37 (95% CI 0.86-2.30), p = .36. The proportions of patients who developed major complications did not differ significantly between groups. Length of hospital stay was 4 (3-8) days in the FOCUS group and 4 (3-7) days on the control group (adjusted p = .24).

conclusionThe routine availability of preoperative FOCUS assessment in this cohort does not appear to reduce the risk for hospitalisation exceeding 10 days or 30-day mortality, although study enrolment was prematurely terminated.

Indexed as

COVID-19HeartHospitalizationHumansLength of StayUltrasonographyanaesthesiologyechocardiographysurgery

Identifiers

PMID36054287
OpenAlexW4292283314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.