Abstract
Background Novel applications of telemedicine can improve care quality and patient outcomes. Telemedicine for intraoperative decision support has not been rigorously studied.
Methods This single centre randomised clinical trial (RCT, clinicaltrials.gov NCT03923699) of unselected adult surgical patients was conducted between 2019-07-01 and 2023-01-31. Patients received usual-care or decision support from a telemedicine service, the Anesthesiology Control Tower (ACT). The ACT provided real-time recommendations to intraoperative anaesthesia clinicians based on case reviews and physiologic alerts. ORs were randomised 1:1. Co-primary outcomes of 30-day all-cause mortality, respiratory failure, acute kidney injury (AKI), and delirium in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) were analysed as intention-to-treat.
Results The trial completed with 71927 surgeries (35302 ACT; 36625 usual care). The ACT performed 11812 case reviews and communicated alerts regarding 2044 intervention-group patients. There was no significant effect of the ACT vs. usual care on 30-day mortality [630/35302 (1.8%) vs 649/36625 (1.8%), RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.16), p=0.98], respiratory failure [1071/33996 (3.2%) vs 1130/35236 (3.2%), RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.09), p=0.98], AKI [2316/33251 (7.0%) vs 2432/34441 (7.1%), RR 0.99 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.06), p=0.98] or delirium [1264/3873 (32.6%) vs 1298/4044 (32.1%), RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.10), p=0.98]. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes or sensitivity analyses.
Conclusions In this large RCT of intraoperative telemedicine decision support using real-time alerts and case reviews, we found no significant differences in postoperative outcomes. Large-scale intraoperative telemedicine is feasible, and we suggest avenues where it may be more impactful.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
NCT03923699
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the National Institute of Nursing Research (R01 NR017916 to Dr. Avidan) and departmental funding from Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine. The investigators were also supported by National Institutes of Health training awards TR002346 (Dr King) and T32GM108539 (Drs King and Fritz) and funding from the Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research (MRT08152020 to Dr Fritz). The funding organization(s) had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
IRB of Washington University in St Louis gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
An additional analysis of adherence to ACT recommendations was added. An error in the randomization status retrieval during part of the study was corrected. A subgroup analysis of patients with contact (per-protocol) was added and a comparison of contacted vs uncontacted rooms. We substantially updated the description of the staffing model. Added alert criteria to supplement. Moved reasons for contact from supplement to main text. Updated discussion to include the TELESCOPE trial.
Data Availability
The Washington University Human Research Protection Office did not permit sharing of patient level data due to enrolment with a waiver of consent. Summary data is available at the clinicaltrials.gov registration.
