Evidence Hub

Bleeding impacting mortality after noncardiac surgery: a protocol to establish diagnostic criteria, estimate prognostic importance, and develop and validate a prediction guide in an international prospective cohort study

Pavel S. Roshanov, J. Eikelboom, M. Crowther, V. Tandon, F. Borges, C. Kearon, A. Lamy, R. Whitlock et al.

CMAJ Open, 2017

200 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Various definitions of bleeding have been used in perioperative studies without systematic assessment of the diagnostic criteria for their independent association with outcomes important to patients. Our proposed definition of bleeding impacting mortality after noncardiac surgery (BIMS) is bleeding that is independently associated with death during or within 30 days after noncardiac surgery. We describe our analysis plan to sequentially 1) establish the diagnostic criteria for BIMS, 2) estimate the independent contribution of BIMS to 30-day mortality and 3) develop and internally validate a clinical prediction guide to estimate patient-specific risk of BIMS.

METHODS

In the Vascular Events In Noncardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation (VISION) study, we prospectively collected bleeding data for 16 079 patients aged 45 years or more who had noncardiac inpatient surgery between 2007 and 2011 at 12 centres in 8 countries across 5 continents. We will include bleeding features independently associated with 30-day mortality in the diagnostic criteria for BIMS. Candidate features will include the need for reoperation due to bleeding, the number of units of erythrocytes transfused, the lowest postoperative hemoglobin concentration, and the absolute and relative decrements in hemoglobin concentration from the preoperative value. We will then estimate the incidence of BIMS and its independent association with 30-day mortality. Last, we will construct and internally…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 200 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free