Quality of recovery in patients under low or standard pressure pneumoperitoneum. a randomised controlled trial

Author(s):  
Eduardo T. Moro ◽  
Persio C.C. Pinto ◽  
Antônio J.M.M. Neto ◽  
Augusto L. Hilkner ◽  
Luis F.P. Salvador ◽  
...  
Anaesthesia ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 75 (5) ◽  
pp. 599-608 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. V. Koning ◽  
R. Vlieger ◽  
A. J. W. Teunissen ◽  
M. Gan ◽  
E. J. Ruijgrok ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e049676
Author(s):  
Manouk Admiraal ◽  
Henning Hermanns ◽  
Jeroen Hermanides ◽  
Carin G.C.L. Wensing ◽  
Soe L. Meinsma ◽  
...  

IntroductionPatients with either surgery-related or patient-related risk factors are at an increased risk of acute and chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) and long-term opioid use. To improve recovery, prevent CPSP and decrease opioid use, we need to identify these patients before surgery and provide a multidisciplinary pain management strategy throughout hospital admission and follow-up in the postdischarge period. We hypothesise that a multidisciplinary transitional pain service (TPS) improves quality of recovery and reduce the incidence of CPSP and opioid consumption.Methods and analysisWe aim to investigate the effectiveness of implementation of a TPS for patients at risk of developing CPSP. The trial design is a pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial (RCT). After stratification for sex, patients are randomly assigned to the TPS or standard of care (SOC) group. Our primary outcome is the quality of recovery, measured at the morning of the third postoperative day, employing the quality of recovery (QoR)-15 questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are the incidence of CPSP, opioid consumption and patient-reported outcome measures at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. We need to enrol 176 patients to detect a minimal clinical important difference of 8 points on the QoR-15 score.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained by the accredited medical research ethics committee of the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam (2020_211) on 15 October 2020. Protocol version 3.2 was approved on 25 January 2020. The trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NL9115. The results will be disseminated by open access publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration number NL9115


BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e025692 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corita R Grudzen ◽  
Deborah J Shim ◽  
Abigail M Schmucker ◽  
Jeanne Cho ◽  
Keith S Goldfeld

IntroductionEmergency department (ED)-initiated palliative care has been shown to improve patient-centred outcomes in older adults with serious, life-limiting illnesses. However, the optimal modality for providing such interventions is unknown. This study aims to compare nurse-led telephonic case management to specialty outpatient palliative care for older adults with serious, life-limiting illness on: (1) quality of life in patients; (2) healthcare utilisation; (3) loneliness and symptom burden and (4) caregiver strain, caregiver quality of life and bereavement.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, two-arm randomised controlled trial in ED patients comparing two established models of palliative care: nurse-led telephonic case management and specialty, outpatient palliative care. We will enrol 1350 patients aged 50+ years and 675 of their caregivers across nine EDs. Eligible patients: (1) have advanced cancer (metastatic solid tumour) or end-stage organ failure (New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure, end-stage renal disease with glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/m2, or global initiative for chronic obstructive lung disease stage III, IV or oxygen-dependent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease); (2) speak English; (3) are scheduled for ED discharge or observation status; (4) reside locally; (5) have a working telephone and (6) are insured. Patients will be excluded if they: (1) have dementia; (2) have received hospice care or two or more palliative care visits in the last 6 months or (3) reside in a long-term care facility. We will use patient-level block randomisation, stratified by ED site and disease. Effectiveness will be compared by measuring the impact of each intervention on the specified outcomes. The primary outcome will measure change in patient quality of life.Ethics and disseminationInstitutional Review Board approval was obtained at all study sites. Trial results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNCT03325985; Pre-results.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document