Background
Mortality remains substantial among high-risk patients (ASA physical status 3-5)[
1]. In some populations, it is estimated to be as high as 5-14% during the first postoperative year[
2‐
4]. Efforts to identify interventions that decrease perioperative morbidity and mortality are thus warranted. The perioperative period is characterized by an intense inflammatory response marked by elevated concentrations of inflammatory markers like C-Reactive Protein (CRP). Inflammation is the body's response to tissue injury[
5] and results in production of inflammatory mediators[
6], which are associated with considerable postoperative morbidity. For example, cardiovascular mortality is responsible for 17% of post-operative deaths[
3]. Inflammation has been an important mediator in the pathophysiology of myocardial infarction, at all stages in the development of vulnerable plaque, from initial lipid deposition to plaque rupture. Thus, markers of systemic inflammation such as CRP may better predict perioperative cardiac morbidity and mortality than currently utilized strategies[
7]. Furthermore, there is an important link between inflammation and poor perioperative outcomes[
7,
8]. Thus interventions that moderate the inflammatory response may prove to reduce adverse outcomes[
9].
Many anti-inflammatory therapies have been tested in the perioperative period. The anti-inflammatory effects of corticosteroid are well established[
10]. High doses of methylprednisolone or dexamethasone are important biologic modifiers of perioperative inflammatory responses in cardiac surgical patients, and reduce perioperative organ dysfunction[
11]. Similarly, in non-cardiac surgery, high-dose steroids reduce the inflammatory response and improve outcomes[
12,
13]. Enthusiasm for use of corticosteroids in cardiac surgery has been dampened by concerns over the potential risks of such large doses. However, two major reviews concluded that a single large dose of corticosteroids appears to be harmless in the absence of specific contraindications[
11,
14]. Moreover, Kilger et al. observed a significant reduction in circulating inflammatory marker concentrations, along with improved outcomes after a small dose of hydrocortisone[
15]. And finally, in a randomized trial of patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 8 mg of dexamethasone resulted in significantly lower CRP levels, significantly reduced postoperative fatigue and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and a faster return to recreational activities[
16].
Another factor influencing the surgical stress response and inflammation, and thus postoperative outcomes, is anesthetic management[
17]. For example, deep anesthesia may be associated with adverse outcomes including mortality. Lennmarken et al. showed that duration at deep anesthetic levels (BIS < 45) was significantly related to 1-year mortality, increasing it by 20% per hour,[
2] and that non-survivors spent more time at deep BIS levels than the survivors[
18]. In a cohort of adults having non-cardiac surgery under general anesthesia, lower BIS levels were independently associated with higher mortality[
3]. In this study, most deaths were attributed to either cancer or cardiovascular etiologies, the pathogenesis of which has been well linked to inflammation[
19‐
21]. The authors postulated that prolonged deep anesthesia increases mortality by aggravating the inflammatory response to surgery[
3]. In support of that theory, a pilot study in orthopedic joint replacement patients demonstrated that patients who received BIS-guided anesthesia (target 45-60) showed a reduced post-operative inflammatory CRP response compared to deeper standard clinical practice[
22].
Hyperglycemia is a physiologic response to surgical stress and is associated with adverse outcomes[
23] such as impaired wound healing and increased infection risk. Surgical patients and those suffering acute illnesses often develop hyperglycemia, even in the absence of a preexisting diabetes[
24]. Hyperglycemia is pro-inflammatory and provokes release of inflammatory cytokines. Fasting blood glucose concentration is independently related to CRP levels[
25]. On the other hand, insulin
per se is anti-inflammatory and might thus prove beneficial[
26,
27]. Van den Berghe et al. showed in a prospective randomized trial that intensive insulin therapy to maintain blood glucose at or below 110 mg/dL decreased inflammatory markers, and significantly reduced overall hospital mortality, blood stream infections, and acute renal failure among patients in the surgical intensive care unit (ICU)[
28]. Normoglycemia also significantly reduced the use of catecholamines, and improved long-term rehabilitation[
29].
The use of normoglycemia or tight glucose control is not well established in the perioperative period. In a study in cardiac surgical patients, continuous intravenous insulin infusion reduced the incidence of deep sternal wound infection and reduced mortality in diabetic patients[
30,
31]. But in another single-center randomized trial in a similar patient population, tight glycemic control intraoperatively did not improve outcomes,[
32] although there was a relatively small difference in blood glucose concentrations in the two groups. Furthermore all patients received intensive glucose control in the ICU following their surgery, which may have lessened the effects of intraoperative glucose control[
33].
The effects of intraoperative intensive vs conventional glucose control on perioperative outcomes in major non-cardiac surgery remain unknown. Normoglycemia might decrease postoperative complications such as respiratory, cardiovascular, renal and neurologic events. One outcome which has not been studied in the context of tight glucose control is postoperative delirium. Postoperative delirium is common after certain surgical procedures with a reported incidence as high as 20-60%[
34]. Delirium is an important complication as it significantly impacts postoperative recovery[
35]. The pathogenesis of delirium remains poorly understood, but there are reasons to believe that inflammation contributes. In vascular surgery patients, higher preoperative CRP concentrations augment the probability of postoperative delirium[
35]. In hip fracture surgery, CRP concentrations were significantly greater in delirious vs. nondelirious patients [
36]. And finally, intraoperative glucose concentrations were significantly greater in cardiac surgical patients experiencing a primary composite outcome that included delirium[
23].
Available evidence suggests that blunting the inflammatory response to surgical trauma might improve perioperative outcomes. The putative benefits from blunting the surgical stress response are likely to be greatest in high-risk patients such as those having major non-cardiac surgery. We are thus studying three interventions potentially modulating perioperative inflammation, corticosteroids, tight glucose control and light anesthesia and their effects on major morbidity and mortality resulting from major non-cardiac surgery.
Primary hypotheses
major perioperative morbidity in patients having major non-cardiac surgery is reduced by: 1) low-dose dexamethasone; 2) intensive intra-operative glucose control; and 3) lighter anesthesia.
Secondary hypotheses
each intervention reduces circulating concentrations of the inflammatory marker CRP; CRP concentration correlates with post-operative complications; anesthetic sensitivity predicts major and minor complications, including delirium. Other secondary hypotheses are that each intervention reduces minor surgical complications, reduces PONV, reduces postoperative delirium, speeds hospital discharge, improves quality of life (SF-12v2 Health Survey, Christensen's VAS fatigue score), and reduces all-cause one-year mortality.
Discussion
A factorial design will enable us to simultaneously study the effects of the three interventions; dexamethasone vs placebo, intraoperative tight vs. conventional glucose control, and light vs deep anesthesia, in the same population, both individually and in different combinations. Such a design is an economically efficient way to study the three interventions in one clinical trial vs three, especially if there is no statistical interaction between the treatments[
48].
In fact, we do not expect an interaction between the three interventions; that is, the effect of one intervention should not depend on the presence or absence of the other. But in the event that the efficacy of one intervention does depend on another (e.g., steroids improve outcomes only if glucose is controlled), a factorial design will enable us to quantify the magnitude of the interaction. In contrast, this sort of interaction would be impossible to observe with three separate univariate trials. Factorial design is thus not only more efficient, but often superior to conventional trials that evaluate only a single intervention.
In our case, all three interventions are presumed to exert their protective effects through the same mechanism -- modulation of the peri-operative inflammatory response -- albeit possibly via different pathways. However, the putative effects of each are limited by a ceiling effect. Thus, a strength of the proposed factorial design is that we will be able to evaluate the presumed additive benefits of each intervention.
An added strength to our trial is that we will evaluate "hard" outcomes (major complications and mortality) rather than intermediate or indicator outcomes. Furthermore, the interventions we will test are fairly easy to use, inexpensive, and low-risk.
Limitations
The dose of steroids we have chosen may prove sub-optimal. Large-dose steroids have been shown to improve perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac or colorectal surgery[
11,
14]. However, concerns were raised about the possibility of theoretical side effects of such a large dose. Subsequent work by Kilger and associates suggests that much smaller doses are also effective,[
15] and are -- presumably -- considerably safer. The anti-inflammatory potency of the dose we have chosen is comparable to that used by Kilger, although, we used dexamethasone rather than hydrocortisone[
49]. It is also in line with the study by Bisgaard et al. that resulted in significantly lower CRP levels and improved recovery parameters. There was no increase in wound infection or other adverse outcomes[
16]. Steroid administration will start 1-2 hours before surgery because the effects of steroids are believed to be mediated by protein synthesis which usually takes an hour or two[
50].
Patients will be randomized to either a tight glucose control group with a goal of 80-110 mg·dl
-1 or to a conventional care group with a goal of 180-200 mg·dl
-1. The lower range is that used by Van den Berghe et al, [
28] and was shown to be beneficial in critical care patients. There were few complications associated with tight control in such a low range. The higher range essentially corresponds to current routine clinical practice. For example, a recent retrospective study showed that the rates of insulin treatment among academic anesthesiologists for glucose values < 140 mg·dl
-1, 140-200 mg·dl
-1, or > 200 mg·dl
-1 were 0.1%, 1.4%, and 11.9%, confirming that many anesthesiologists do not treat intraoperative glucose values less than 200 mg·dl
-1[
51].
Clinicians and study coordinators will be blinded to dexamethasone treatment. But due to the nature of the interventions, clinicians will not be blinded to the randomization regarding level of glucose control and depth of anesthesia in any given patient. The data collectors for postoperative events will be blinded to all three interventions.
Conclusion
The DeLiT Trial is a multi-factorial randomized single-center trial of dexamethasone vs placebo, intraoperative tight vs. conventional glucose control, and light vs deep anesthesia in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery. The primary outcome is a composite of major post-operative morbidity including myocardial infarction, stroke, sepsis, and 30-day mortality. C-Reactive protein, a measure of the inflammatory response, will be evaluated as a secondary outcome. One-year all-cause mortality as well as post-operative delirium will be additional secondary outcomes. We will enroll up to 970 patients which will provide 90% power to detect a 40% reduction for the primary outcome, including three equally spaced interim analyses for efficacy and futility.
Acknowledgements
The authors greatly appreciate the contributions of the Cleveland Clinic PACE clinic where patients were informed about the study and recruited for enrollment. And Mrs.Tanya Smith, who participated in manuscript editing and submission.
Financial Support: The DeLiT trial is partially supported by Aspect Medical (Newton, MA) and the Cleveland Clinic Research Project Committee. Registered under ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT00433251.
This is an investigator initiated trial
Aspect Medical provided financial support as well as equipment (BIS monitors)
Cleveland Clinic Research Project Committee provided financial support
Competing interests
Financial disclosure:
BA: Received research funding from Aspect Medical (currently Covedien), and Hutchinson Inc. AM: EM, AK TM, SS, DS: 'These author declare that they have no competing interests' WT: Abbott Laboratories Research Funding. TS: 'This contributor declares that she has no competing interests'.
Authors' contributions
BA: PI participated in study concept and design, study conduct, data analysis, manuscript writing. AM: study coordinator, participated in study conduct, patients' consenting, recruiting. EM: Senior Study Biostatistician, participated in study design, statistical analysis plan, sample size calculations and manuscript writing. SS: participated in the study design and conduct/recruiting and manuscript review. TM: participated in study conduct, manuscript review. WT: Co-investigator, participated in the biomarkers testing and analysis and manuscript review. AK: participated in study design, manuscript review and editing. DS: Senior investigator; participated in study concept and design, data analysis manuscript writing, corresponding author.
All authors read and approved the final manuscript