BMJ Surgery Interventions Health Technologies最新文献

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in surgery face methodological challenges, which often result in low quality or failed trials. The Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term (IDEAL) framework proposes preliminary prospective collaborative cohort studies with specific properties (IDEAL 2b studies) to increase the quality and feasibility of surgical RCTs. Little empirical evidence exists for this proposition, and specifically designed 2b studies are currently uncommon. Prospective collaborative cohort studies are, however, relatively common, and might provide similar benefits. We will, therefore, assess the association between prior 'IDEAL 2b-like' cohort studies and the quality and impact of surgical RCTs. We propose a systematic review using two parallel case-control analyses, with surgical RCTs as subjects and study quality and journal impact factor (IF) as the outcomes of interest. We will search for surgical RCTs published between 2015 and 2019 and and prior prospective collaborative cohort studies authored by any of the RCT investigators. RCTs will be categorized into cases or controls by (1) journal (IF ≥or <5) and (2) study quality (PEDro score ≥or < 7). The case/control OR of exposure to a prior '2b like' study will be calculated independently for quality and impact. Cases will be matched 1: 1 with controls by year of publication, and confounding by peer-reviewed funding, author academic affiliation and trial protocol registration will be examined using multiple logistic regression analysis. This study will examine whether preparatory IDEAL 2b-like studies are associated with higher quality and impact of subsequent RCTs.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1136/bmjsit-2021-000125.].

The combination of registry and administrative claims data have facilitated research and quality improvement efforts. Using Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) registry data and Medicare claims we have generated centre-specific survival, reintervention and surveillance reports which benchmark participating centres' performance to the VQI as a whole and to published guidelines. In 2021, we distributed these reports to 303 participating centres. These reports offer an opportunity for centres to evaluate their performance and identify focus areas for quality improvement work.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1136/bmjsit-2021-000125.].

Objectives: Objective performance criteria (OPC) may serve as a tool to expedite the approval process and continue active surveillance of class III medical devices. Thus far, published guidance on the creation of OPC has been clinical area-specific. This study aimed to capture reflections from key stakeholders on the creation of OPC that may serve as a precursor for a formalized conceptual framework within the USA.

Design: Reflections from key stakeholders and guidance from an advisory committee were captured to gain an understanding of the elements that are crucial to the generation of OPC.

Setting: A non-probability sampling method using the purposive sampling strategy was employed to identify relevant stakeholders for engagement in semi-structured, open-ended, concept elicitation discussions.

Participants: Stakeholders involved in the generation of OPC.

Main outcome measures: Elements and themes regarding the priorities of, experiences with, roles within and perceived challenges associated with OPC creation captured through a phenomenological approach.

Results: A total of 27 participants were engaged to represent the following contributors: representatives of registries, health systems, health technology assessment bodies, clinicians, device application reviewers, payers, patients, patient representatives, patient caregivers, device manufacturers, data coordinators, data analysts and data informaticians. Consensus was achieved on the five core elements: (1) identification of medical devices, (2) engagement of key stakeholders, (3) selection of data source, (4) performance of appropriate statistical analyses and (5) reporting of findings. The engagement of key stakeholders (38%) was cited most frequently as the most important core element. Access to meaningful and high-quality data sources (47%) was the most frequently mentioned challenge.

Conclusions: The reflections from the participants identified five elements to be considered when generating an OPC within class III medical devices and may provide the needed foundation for the development of official guidance on OPC generation.

Objectives: Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) evolved through competition with open aortic repair (OAR) as a safe and effective treatment option for appropriately selected patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Although endoleaks are the most common reason for post-EVAR reintervention, compliance with lifelong regular follow-up imaging remains a challenge.

Design: Retrospective data analysis.

Setting: The Japan Medical Data Center (JMDC), a claims database with anonymous data linkage across hospitals, consists of corporate employees and their families of ≤75 years of age.

Participants: The analysis included participants in the JMDC who underwent EVAR or OAR for intact (iAAA) or ruptured (rAAA) AAA. Patients with less than 6 months of records before the aortic repair were excluded.

Main outcome measures: Overall survival and reintervention rates.

Results: We identified 986 cases (837 iAAA and 149 rAAA) from JMDC with first aortic repairs between January 2015 and December 2020. The number of patients, median age (years (IQR)), follow-up (months) and post-procedure CT scan (times per year) were as follows: iAAA (OAR: n=593, 62.0 (57.0-67.0), 26.0, 1.6, EVAR: n=244, 65.0 (31.0-69.0), 17.0, 2.2), rAAA (OAR: n=110, 59.0 (53.0-59.0), 16.0, 2.1, EVAR: n=39, 62.0 (31.0-67.0), 18.0, 2.4). Reintervention rate was significantly higher among EVAR than OAR in rAAA (15.4% vs 8.2%, p=0.04). In iAAA, there were no group difference after 5 years (7.8% vs 11.0%, p=0.28), even though EVAR had initial advantage. There were no differences in mortality rate between EVAR and OAR for either rAAA or iAAA.

Conclusions: Claims-based analysis in Japan showed no statistically significant difference in 5-year survival rates of the OAR and EVAR groups. However, the reintervention rate of EVAR in rAAA was significantly higher, suggesting the need for regular post-EVAR follow-up with imaging. Therefore, international collaborations for long-term outcome studies with real-world data are warranted.

Objectives: To assess the feasibility of using electronic health record (EHR) derived clinical data within an active surveillance setting to evaluate the safety of a novel intervertebral body implant (IVBI) stabilization device.

Design: Retrospective, longitudinal observational cohort study comparing clinical outcomes for patients seen through 1 year following spinal fusion surgery.

Setting: Lahey Health network, which includes academic tertiary hospitals, outpatient clinics, and independent provider offices in the New England region of the USA.

Participants: All spine surgery patients aged 18 or older who underwent thoracic or lumbar spinal arthrodesis surgeries were included.

Main outcome measures: The clinical outcomes of patients treated with the CONCORDE Bullet (CB) interbody spine system (DePuy) between April 2015 and December 2018 were compared with those patients receiving alternative spine stabilization interbody device implants. The primary endpoint was reoperation rate at 1 year, with secondary endpoints including the requirement for blood transfusion during index hospitalization, 1 year rate of any cause hospitalization, 1 year rate of surgical site infection, and mortality at 1 year.

Results: Among the 606 patients undergoing thoracic or lumbar spinal fusion surgery during the study period, 136 received only the CB. In comparison with patients who did not receive the CB, no significant differences were found in the rate of reoperation at 1 year or the rates of secondary safety outcomes.

Conclusions: Data derived from the EHR can be successfully leveraged to assess the safety of IVBI devices, in this case demonstrating no significant differences in the rates of risk-adjusted safety endpoints between patients undergoing spinal surgery with the CB as compared with alternative spinal implants.