Trial reportThe British journal of surgery2025
Routine anaesthesia ward-based patient visits in surgery: 1-year outcomes of the TRACE randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in The British journal of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prehabilitation: A Catalyst for Transforming Toward Value-Based, Personalized Perioperative Health and Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe TRACE (Routine posTsuRgical Anaesthesia visit to improve patient outComE) RCT did not show any perioperative benefit from ward-based visits by anaesthetists after surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of this intervention on longer-term outcomes.
methodsPatients were followed up in the TRACE RCT to 1 year in nine hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery, and at risk for adverse postoperative outcome, were included. Patients in the intervention group additionally received routine anaesthesia visits on postoperative days 1 and 3. Clinical outcome measures included 1-year mortality, hospital readmission, and reoperation. Functional recovery (FR) was measured using the patient-reported global surgical recovery (GSR) index, ability to perform activities of daily living (ADL), and functional recovery index (FRI). Quality of life (QoL) was measured using EQ-5D-5L.
resultsSome 5473 adult patients were followed up. No differences were found between the control and intervention groups for clinical, FR, and QoL outcome measures. One-year mortality was 5.4% in the control group and 5.8% in the intervention group, readmission was 27% and 26% respectively, and reoperation was 20% and 18% respectively. At 1 year, FR and QoL had recovered to preoperative levels. However, 30% of patients were not able to fully perform ADL and 40%-51% of patients still reported a problem in the EQ-5D-5L dimensions mobility, usual activities, and pain/discomfort.
conclusionRoutine postoperative anaesthesia ward visits of patients did not improve clinical, functional, and QoL outcomes. A substantial proportion of patients still experienced health-related limitations in daily life 1 year after surgery. In conclusion, an early postoperative intervention with postoperative anaesthesia visits in the ward after non-cardiac surgery had no effect on 30-day or 1-year clinical outcome. Remarkably, TRACE shows that compared with data sampled 10 years ago, 1-year mortality has not improved in the Netherlands. At 1 year, functional recovery or QoL showed little improvement compared with baseline. Importantly, a substantial number of patients still reported incomplete recovery and problems that limit QoL, which indicate that there is still room for improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.