Evaluating the optimal timing of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND Surgical site infections are the most common hospital-acquired infections among surgical patients. The administration of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis reduces the risk of surgical site infections . The optimal timing of this procedure is still a matter of debate. While most studies suggest that it should be given as close to the incision time as possible, others conclude that this may be too late for optimal prevention of surgical site infections. A large observational study suggests that surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis should be administered 74 to 30 minutes before surgery. The aim of this article is to report the design and protocol of a randomized controlled trial investigating the optimal timing of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis.Methods/design: In this bi-center randomized controlled trial conducted at two tertiary referral centers in Switzerland, we plan to include 5,000 patients undergoing general, oncologic, vascular and orthopedic trauma procedures. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio into two groups: one receiving surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in the anesthesia room (75 to 30 minutes before incision) and the other receiving surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in the operating room (less than 30 minutes before incision). We expect a significantly lower rate of surgical site infections with surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis administered more than 30 minutes before the scheduled incision. The primary outcome is the occurrence of surgical site infections during a 30-day follow-up period (one year with an implant in place). When assuming a 5 surgical site infection risk with administration of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in the operating room, the planned sample size has an 80% power to detect a relative risk reduction for surgical site infections of 33% when administering surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in the anesthesia room (with a two-sided type I error of 5%). We expect the study to be completed within three years. DISCUSSION The results of this randomized controlled trial will have an important impact on current international guidelines for infection control strategies in the hospital. Moreover, the results of this randomized controlled trial are of significant interest for patient safety and healthcare economics.Trial registration: This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT01790529.

Randomized comparison of biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary revascularization: Rationale and design of the BIOSCIENCE trial

Background Biodegradable polymers for release of antiproliferative drugs from metallic drug-eluting stents (DES) aim to improve long-term vascular healing and efficacy. We designed a large scale clinical trial to compare a novel thin strut, cobalt chromium DES with silicon carbide coating releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer (Orsiro, O-SES) with the durable polymer-based Xience Prime everolimus-eluting stent (X-EES) in an all-comers patient population. Design The multicenter BIOSCIENCE trial (NCT01443104) randomly assigned 2,119 patients to treatment with biodegradable polymer SES or durable polymer EES at 9 sites in Switzerland. Patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, including non-ST-elevation and ST-elevation myocardial infarction, were eligible for the trial if they had at least one lesion with a diameter stenosis >50% appropriate for coronary stent implantation. The primary endpoint target lesion failure (TLF) is a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically-driven target lesion revascularization within 12 months. Assuming a TLF rate of 8% at 12 months in both treatment arms and accepting 3.5% as a margin for non-inferiority, inclusion of 2,060 patients would provide 80% power to detect non-inferiority of the biodegradable polymer SES compared with the durable polymer EES at a one-sided type I error of 0.05. Clinical follow-up will be continued through five years. Conclusion The BIOSCIENCE trial will determine whether the biodegradable polymer SES is non-inferior to the durable polymer EES with respect to TLF.

Total surgical aortic arch replacement as a safe strategy to treat complex multisegmental proximal thoracic aortic pathology.

OBJECTIVE To analyse the results after elective open total aortic arch replacement. METHODS We analysed 39 patients (median age 63 years, median logistic EuroSCORE 18.4) who underwent elective open total arch replacement between 2005 and 2012. RESULTS In-hospital mortality was 5.1% (n = 2) and perioperative neurological injury was 12.8% (n = 5). The indication for surgery was degenerative aneurysmal disease in 59% (n = 23) and late aneurysmal formation following previous surgery of type A aortic dissection in 35.9% (n = 14); 5.1% (n = 2) were due to anastomotical aneurysms after prior ascending repair. Fifty-nine percent (n = 23) of the patients had already undergone previous proximal thoracic aortic surgery. In 30.8% (n = 12) of them, a conventional elephant trunk was added to total arch replacement, in 28.2% (n = 11), root replacement was additionally performed. Median hypothermic circulatory arrest time was 42 min (21-54 min). Selective antegrade cerebral perfusion was used in 95% (n = 37) of patients. Median follow-up was 11 months [interquartile range (IQR) 1-20 months]. There was no late death and no need for reoperation during this period. CONCLUSIONS Open total aortic arch replacement shows very satisfying results. The number of patients undergoing total arch replacement as a redo procedure and as a part of a complex multisegmental aortic pathology is high. Future strategies will have to emphasize neurological protection in extensive simultaneous replacement of the aortic arch and adjacent segments.

Optimal Workflow and Process-Based Performance Measures for Endovascular Therapy in Acute Ischemic Stroke: Analysis of the Solitaire FR Thrombectomy for Acute Revascularization Study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE We report on workflow and process-based performance measures and their effect on clinical outcome in Solitaire FR Thrombectomy for Acute Revascularization (STAR), a multicenter, prospective, single-arm study of Solitaire FR thrombectomy in large vessel anterior circulation stroke patients. METHODS Two hundred two patients were enrolled across 14 centers in Europe, Canada, and Australia. The following time intervals were measured: stroke onset to hospital arrival, hospital arrival to baseline imaging, baseline imaging to groin puncture, groin puncture to first stent deployment, and first stent deployment to reperfusion. Effects of time of day, general anesthesia use, and multimodal imaging on workflow were evaluated. Patient characteristics and workflow processes associated with prolonged interval times and good clinical outcome (90-day modified Rankin score, 0-2) were analyzed. RESULTS Median times were onset of stroke to hospital arrival, 123 minutes (interquartile range, 163 minutes); hospital arrival to thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) 2b/3 or final digital subtraction angiography, 133 minutes (interquartile range, 99 minutes); and baseline imaging to groin puncture, 86 minutes (interquartile range, 24 minutes). Time from baseline imaging to puncture was prolonged in patients receiving intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator (32-minute mean delay) and when magnetic resonance-based imaging at baseline was used (18-minute mean delay). Extracranial carotid disease delayed puncture to first stent deployment time on average by 25 minutes. For each 1-hour increase in stroke onset to final digital subtraction angiography (or TICI 2b/3) time, odds of good clinical outcome decreased by 38%. CONCLUSIONS Interval times in the STAR study reflect current intra-arterial therapy for patients with acute ischemic stroke. Improving workflow metrics can further improve clinical outcome. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01327989.