What should we do when traditional research ... - Wiley Online Library

32 downloads 0 Views 81KB Size Report
in this issue of Anaesthesia adds to the growing ... 2017 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland. 1059 ..... British Medical Journal 2014;.
Editorial

Anaesthesia 2017, 72, 1055–1068

Editorial What should we do when traditional research fails? “. . .but I still haven’t found what I’m looking for.” —U2 Significant resource, in terms of time, effort and cost, is invested in the pursuit of improvements in patient care. A large part of this activity is the identification of interventions that are more effective than existing treatments. This, therefore, begs the question, what should we do when such research activity does not seem to provide the answers we were hoping for? One area that has attracted attention over the past 15–20 years is the use of goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) during surgery. However, definitive evidence of benefit has remained elusive, perhaps with the exception of elective high-risk surgery. The paper by Stens et al. in this issue of Anaesthesia adds to the growing number of clinical trials that seem to fail to demonstrate that GDFT has a place in clinical practice [1]. Their study investigated the added value of cardiac index and pulse pressure variation (PPV) monitoring to mean arterial pressure (MAP)-guided volume therapy in moderate-risk abdominal surgery. Although the intervention

This editorial is accompanied by an article by Stens et al., Anaesthesia 2017; 72: 1078–87.

group had a higher cardiac index and lower PPV, there was no difference between the groups with regard to postoperative complications. Why might we be unable to demonstrate that this intervention has value? At what point do we abandon an idea and turn our attention to other areas?

Maybe it just does not work The scientific process of discovery tends to start with basic science, moves through in-vitro studies, before being studied in humans and then patients. End-points, and hence our definition of ‘what works’, is dependent on the stage of research, and become more patient-focused as the research progresses. Successful outcomes for in-vitro studies of GDFT tend to investigate changes in tissue oxygenation at a micro-circulatory level [2]. However, by the authors’ own admission, a previous study of theirs failed to demonstrate any benefit on tissue perfusion at a micro-circulatory level with the addition of PPV/cardiac indexguided volume therapy to a MAPbased haemodynamic protocol. It is perhaps not that surprising that similar lack of benefit might also be seen at the patient level. An evidence base is not static. In 2011, opinion was weighted towards fluid optimisation as part

© 2017 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland

of an enhanced recovery pathway [3], yet by 2013, doubt had entered [4]. Although research into GDFT appears to have been ongoing for a considerable period without reaching a definitive conclusion, there has been greater understanding of the inherent complexity. We have seen liberal, super-optimal, targeted and neutral fluid regimes, variously supplemented by the use of inotropes and vasopressors, and extended into the postoperative period. There is increasing evidence that GDFT has no benefit in laparoscopic surgery, or lower risk patients undergoing moderately complex surgery [5]. It is only right that all possible combinations are tried before declaring the intervention a failure. Negative trials are still informative, and help guide future research by better identifying the target population most likely to benefit.

It does work but. . . we are using the wrong statistics Frequentist statistics predominate in medicine, and are characterised by the use of the p value that provides the probability of finding the observed or more extreme result, when the null hypothesis is true. This is different to asking ‘what is the probability that this treatment is effective?’ but is often interpreted as 1059

Anaesthesia 2017, 72, 1055–1068

such. This has led to a variety of articles aimed at dispelling myths around interpretation of the p value [6], including the ‘Statistically Speaking’ series in Anaesthesia [7]. Additional debate has been growing over the years as to whether frequentist statistics are always the most appropriate approach when deciding on whether a treatment should be adopted, as opposed to Bayesian statistics [8, 9]. A key difference is that frequentist statistics give no regard to prior knowledge, unlike Bayesian statistics. Protagonists of Bayesian statistics argue that this paradigm is better placed to help clinicians decide whether there is greater probability that a new treatment will produce a better outcome that the old. Of note, the Optimise trial [10] would have been considered a positive trial that supported the use of GDFT had Bayesian statistics been used [11]. Should there be a wider discussion and reconsideration as to whether we are using the correct statistical methods to determine which new interventions we should adopt? It may be challenging to implement, as it would appear that one limitation may be the relatively limited number of Bayesian statisticians [9].

It does work but. . . we are unable to prove it The end-points of a clinical trial have an impact on the likelihood that we will find the outcome we desire. Ideally, we need end-points that are deemed important to patients, such as mortality. However, there are diminishing returns from clinical research. Progress 1060

Editorial

within medicine has been such that we have perhaps now reached the limit of what can be achieved by traditional research. The low rate of adverse outcomes within the control arm of a clinical trial means that ever larger trials are required to demonstrate benefit [12]. This is certainly true for relatively uncommon end-points such as mortality, particularly following lower risk surgery. The concept of ‘evidencebased medicine’ has been acknowledged as reaching a crisis point. It is increasingly becoming a science of marginal gains which become ever harder to identify. For many conditions, the low hanging fruit of interventions that deliver big improvements have been plucked long ago [13]. This leads to the use of surrogate end-points such as a reduction in postoperative complications. However, definitions of complications can vary, which may have contributed to Stens et al.’s results. For some of their recorded ‘soft’ complications, such as hypoor hypervolaemia, there were no clear definitions or diagnostic tools available, which limited the objectivity of this assessment. Initiatives such establishing core outcome measures in peri-operative and anaesthetic care (COMPAC) will help with standardising end-points of clinical trials that will benefit not only individual trials but also make subsequent meta-analyses more robust [14]. The conduct of such trials in specific high-risk groups with a high control arm event rate, or looking for specific end-points, may be better able to answer questions about the role of GDFT. Optimise-2

is currently underway, with the intention of recruiting 2500 patients to specifically look at postoperative infections as an end-point [15]. It is evident from the first two years of National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) data that there is equipoise over the use of GDFT in emergency laparotomy, with its use remaining unchanged in around 54% of patients [16]. The forthcoming multi-centre FLOELA trial [17], aiming to recruit 7500 patients to investigate GDFT in emergency laparotomy, should therefore help add to this evidence base.

It does work but. . . only as part of a bundle of care If we cannot detect benefit in isolated use, what about use within care bundles that have become more prevalent? Our ability to show that care bundles improve patient outcomes arises in part from the aggregation of marginal gains seen in individual interventions that are singly difficult to prove effective. One of the characteristics of effective care bundles is that they collate together a seemingly disparate group of interventions. Although Stens et al.’s study ‘bundled’ different things together, they were perhaps too similar to benefit from this aggregation of marginal gains. Pulse pressure variation, cardiac index and MAP-based cardiac output monitoring are all essentially targeting the same area. Contrast this with elements used in bundles for ventilator-acquired pneumonia [18], enhanced recovery programmes [19] or emergency laparotomy care [20]. However, there

© 2017 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland

Editorial

remains the issue of teasing out the effective versus the ineffective element of the bundle. The favourable effects of goal-directed therapy on outcome only appear to be present in settings where patients were not managed on an elective enhanced recovery pathway [21], most likely because the patient is fluid replete at the start of anaesthesia [22]. This creates an interesting quandary: GDFT does not work within ERPs, yet GDFT is included in many such bundles.

It does work but. . . it is not deliverable It may be that the science behind GDFT is sound, but the ability to deliver this in a reliable fashion in a clinical environment is the weak link. This is the key difference between the effectiveness of an intervention, as opposed to its efficacy. Following a power calculation, Stens et al. successfully recruited 244 patients, but only 175 were eligible for analysis. This may have meant that the study was underpowered, but there is an additional implication of this failure rate. The ~30% drop-out rate (6% due to technical issues with the monitor) is considerable, but is even more striking when one considers that adherence to protocols around delivery of care is usually more reliable in the context of a clinical trial, compared with the relatively uncontrolled clinical environment. The efficacy of an intervention is irrelevant if it is not possible to deliver it in a reliable fashion (effectiveness). This is not necessarily a call for more studies of effectiveness as opposed to efficacy, as Stens et al.’s

Anaesthesia 2017, 72, 1055–1068

intention to treat analysis essentially produces an effectiveness study. Rather, we need more studies that tell us how to better implement interventions.

It does work but. . . we need to work out how to deliver it Given the above issues, we have perhaps reached the limit of improving patient care by investigating what we should do, and now need to turn our attention to how we should do things. Regardless of the advance in medical science that is better able to define potential improvement, the reality is that we still struggle to reliably deliver healthcare for ‘big’ interventions. For instance, the NELA data shows that around 15% of patients with a septic indication for surgery only received their first dose of antibiotics in the operating theatre, although presumably this would have been evident at least at the time of decision making (data to be published in the third NELA report). Addressing these failures requires greater understanding of both the ‘workspace’, and implementation science. Healthcare is delivered in a complex environment. An area that is currently under-explored in healthcare is the application of human factors and ergonomics to improve the design of the system such that human performance is optimised [23–25]. It is important to appreciate that human factors are not just about crew resource management and non-technical skills training, as is so often implied by various training courses. Human

© 2017 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland

factors and ergonomics describe the interactions between all aspects of the wider workspace: people; the physical environment; tools and technology; and the processes of care that we engage with in the delivery of healthcare [26]. Application of human factors and ergonomics allows not only better understanding of error prone activity, such ‘wrong blood in tube’ incidents [27] but can also be used to improve the design of processes and the workspace in which they function. For instance, human factors and ergonomics methods have been used to better understand the workload within anaesthetic rooms [28, 29] and other areas [30], and provide design recommendations to make tasks easier. There are a variety of studies that have successfully used either quality improvement methodology, or implementation science such as normalisation process theory to embed interventions into clinical practice [31–33]. Both methodologies share similarities with human factors and ergonomics [34]. Tengberget al. demonstrated a reduction in 30-day mortality from 21.8% to 15.5% using a care bundle, which included GDFT and a standardised anaesthetic protocol, in 600 patients undergoing emergency laparotomy [35]. Cannesson et al. found a reduction in length of stay and complications for patients undergoing high-risk abdominal and pelvic surgery following the successful implementation of a care bundle that included a standardised goaldirected fluid protocol [36]. Moore also used a similar approach to embed a care bundle into an 1061

Anaesthesia 2017, 72, 1055–1068

existing enhanced recovery pathway that was successful in reducing postoperative pulmonary complications from 19.3% to 10.5%, which was sustained at one year [37]. These types of study are characterised not so much by the intervention and comparison with historical controls, but the accompanying effort to embed the interventions into clinical practice through the use of teamdirected training, measurement of adherence to protocols and feedback to staff, as well as patient-mediated interventions. The EPOCH study is due to report soon, and should aid our understanding of quality improvement methodology in promoting the implementation of a peri-operative care pathway for patients undergoing emergency laparotomy [38]. Another characteristic of such implementation studies is that they aim to standardise delivery of care, often through the use of protocols. In the absence of evidence as to what constitutes a ‘better anaesthetic’, there may well be improvements brought about by ensuring that we do something, but we do it well. The recent focus on standardisation of anaesthesia for hip fracture has been controversial, due to the perceived threat to professional autonomy [39]. Yet this autonomy is maintained by using our expertise to decide when a patient does not warrant standardised care. In the meantime, the remainder of patients benefit from reliably receiving all other elements of care. If we do standardise care, and this produces better outcomes than non-standardised care, then surely we have achieved something 1062

Editorial

that has so far eluded us by attempting to define the marginal gains of whether technique A is better than technique B? The additional benefit is that standardisation of care also provides a more stable baseline from which to measure additional change using implementation studies.

Conclusion Approaches such as these should help reduce the estimated 17-year time lag in translational research [40] by addressing this second translational gap that covers the delivery of healthcare to patients [41]. Huge advances in care have been realised by the development of clinical research. However, as modern medicine becomes ever more successful in improving patient outcomes, this ‘traditional’ approach to research appears to be less able to offer the advances we desire. There is arguably far more to be gained by establishing how to reliably deliver existing care than there is chasing ever decreasing marginal gains. This will require a change in mindset as we embrace different research paradigms, but the potential improvements for patients are still there to be realised.

Acknowledgements DM is the national clinical lead for the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit. No competing interests declared. D. Murray Consultant Anaesthetist James Cook University Hospital Middlesbrough, UK Email: [email protected]

Keywords: goal-directed fluid therapy; implementation science; quality improvement

References 1. Stens J, Hering J-P, van der Hoeven CPW, et al. The added value of cardiac index and pulse pressure variation monitoring to mean arterial pressureguided volume therapy in moderaterisk abdominal surgery (COGUIDE): a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial. Anaesthesia 2017; 72: 1078–87. 2. Kimberger O, Arnberger M, Brandt S, et al. Goal-directed colloid administration improves the microcirculation of healthy and perianastomotic colon. Anesthesiology 2009; 110: 496–504. 3. Morris C, Gold S. Enhanced recovery programmes; coming to a hospital near you!. Anaesthesia 2011; 66: 864–8. 4. Morris C. Oesophageal Doppler monitoring, doubt and equipoise: evidence based medicine means change. Anaesthesia 2013; 68: 684–8. 5. Cecconi M, Corredor C, Arulkumaran N, et al. Clinical review: goal-directed therapy-what is the evidence in surgical patients? The effect on different risk groups. Critical Care 2013; 17: 209. 6. Greenland S, Senn SJ, Rothman KJ, et al. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. European Journal of Epidemiology 2016; 31: 337–50. 7. Gibbison B. Fifty percent of anaesthetists are worse than average at understanding statistics and risk. Anaesthesia 2017; 72: 118–21. 8. Greenland S, Poole C. Living with p values: resurrecting a Bayesian perspective on frequentist statistics. Epidemiology 2013; 24: 62–8. 9. Bland JM, Altman DG. Bayesians and frequentists. British Medical Journal 1998; 317: 1151–60. 10. Pearse RM, Harrison DA, MacDonald N, et al. Effect of a perioperative, cardiac output-guided hemodynamic therapy algorithm on outcomes following major gastrointestinal surgery: a randomized clinical trial and systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association 2014; 311: 2181–90. 11. Harrison E. Bayesian statistics and clinical trial conclusions: Why the OPTIMSE study should be considered positive. February 2015. https://www.r-bloggers.com/bayesian-statistics-and-clinicaltrial-conclusions-why-the-optimse-study-

© 2017 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland

Editorial

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

should-be-considered-positive/ (accessed 22/04/2017). Kent DM, Trikalinos TA. Therapeutic innovations, diminishing returns, and control rate preservation. Journal of the American Medical Association 2009; 302: 2254–6. Greenhalgh T, Howick J, Maskrey N. Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? British Medical Journal 2014; 348: 3725. Myles PS, Grocott MPW, Boney O, et al. Standardizing end points in perioperative trials: towards a core and extended outcome set. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2016; 116: 586–9. OPtimisation of Peri-operaTive Cardiovascular Management to Improve Surgical outcomE II. http://optimiseii.org/ (accessed 22/04/2017). NELA Project Team. Second patient report of the national emergency laparotomy audit. 2016. http:// www.nela.org.uk/reports#pt (accessed 20/04/2017). FLuid Optimisation in Emergency LAparotomy Trial. http://floela.org/ (accessed 20/04/2017). Hellyer TP, Ewan V, Wilson P, Simpson AJ. The Intensive Care Society recommended bundle of interventions for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Journal of the Intensive Care Society 2016; 17: 238–43. Simpson JC, Moonesinghe SR, Grocott MP, et al. Enhanced recovery from surgery in the UK: an audit of the enhanced recovery partnership programme 2009–2012. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2015; 115: 560–8. Huddart S, Peden CJ, Swart M, et al. Use of a pathway quality improvement care bundle to reduce mortality after emergency laparotomy. British Journal of Surgery 2015; 102: 57–66. Rollins KE, Lobo DN. Intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy in elective major abdominal surgery: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Annals of Surgery 2016; 263: 465–76.

Anaesthesia 2017, 72, 1055–1068 22. Gupta R, Gan TJ. Peri-operative fluid management to enhance recovery. Anaesthesia 2016; 71(Suppl. 1): 40– 5. 23. Hignett S, Carayon P, Buckle P, Catchpole K. State of science: human factors and ergonomics in healthcare. Ergonomics 2013; 56: 1491–503. 24. Pickup L, Lang A, Atkinson S, Sharples S. The dichotomy of the application of a systems approach in UK healthcare the challenges and priorities for implementation. Ergonomics 2017; 1–11. 25. Xie A, Carayon P. A systematic review of human factors and ergonomics (HFE)-based healthcare system redesign for quality of care and patient safety. Ergonomics 2015; 58: 33–49. 26. Carayon P, Schoofs Hundt A, Karsh B-T, et al. Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model. Quality and Safety in Health Care 2006; 15 (Suppl. 1): i50–8. 27. Pickup L, Atkinson S, Hollnagel E, et al. Blood sampling–two sides to the story. Applied Ergonomics 2017; 59: 234–42. 28. Phipps D, Meakin GH, Beatty PC, Nsoedo C, Parker D. Human factors in anaesthetic practice: insights from a task analysis. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2008; 100: 333–43. 29. Davis M, Hignett S, Hillier S, Hames N, Hodder S. Safer anaesthetic rooms: human factors/ergonomics analysis of work practices. Journal of Perioperative Practice 2016; 26: 7. 30. Lu J, Hignett S. Using task analysis in healthcare design to improve clinical efficiency. Health Environments Research and Design 2009; 2: 60–9. 31. Murray E, Treweek S, Pope C, et al. Normalisation process theory: a framework for developing, evaluating and implementing complex interventions. British Medical Journal Medicine 2010; 8: 63. 32. Gotlib Conn L, McKenzie M, Pearsall EA, McLeod RS. Successful implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery programme for elective

© 2017 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

colorectal surgery: a process evaluation of champions’ experiences. Implementation Science 2015; 10: 99. Emond YE, Calsbeek H, Teerenstra S, et al. Improving the implementation of perioperative safety guidelines using a multifaceted intervention approach: protocol of the IMPROVE study, a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial. Implementation Science 2015; 10: 3. Hignett S, Jones EL, Miller D, et al. Human factors and ergonomics and quality improvement science: integrating approaches for safety in healthcare. British Medical Journal Quality and Safety 2015; 24: 250–4. Tengberg LT, Bay-Nielsen M, Bisgaard T, et al. Multidisciplinary perioperative protocol in patients undergoing acute high-risk abdominal surgery. British Journal of Surgery 2017; 104: 463–71. Cannesson M, Ramsingh D, Rinehart J, et al. Perioperative goal-directed therapy and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing high-risk abdominal surgery: a historical-prospective, comparative effectiveness study. Critical Care 2015; 19: 261. Moore JA, Conway DH, Thomas N, Cummings D, Atkinson D. Impact of a peri-operative quality improvement programme on postoperative pulmonary complications. Anaesthesia 2017; 72: 317–27. Enhanced Peri-Operative Care for High-risk patients (EPOCH). http://www.epochtrial. org (accessed 20/04/2017). White SM, Griffiths R, Moppett IK. Standardising anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery. Anaesthesia 2016; 71: 1391–5. Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2011; 104: 510–20. Grocott MP, Galsworthy MJ, Moonesinghe SR. Health services research and anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 2013; 68: 121–35. doi:10.1111/anae.13935

1063