ABSTRACT
Background and Aims: Preoperative cognitive function screening can help identify high-risk patients, but resource-intensive testing limits its widespread use. A novel self-administered tablet computer-based Processing Speed Test (PST) was used to assess cognitive "executive" function in non-cardiac surgery patients, but the relationship between preoperative test scores and postoperative outcomes is unclear. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day readmission/death. The secondary outcome was a collapsed composite of discharge to a long-term care facility/death. Exploratory outcomes were 1) time to discharge alive, 2) 1-year mortality and 3) a collapsed composite of postoperative complications. Methods: This retrospective study, after approval, was conducted in elective non-cardiac surgery patients ≥65 years old. We assessed the relationship between processing speed test scores and primary/secondary outcomes using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounding variables. Results: Overall 1568 patients completed the PST, and the mean ± standard deviation test score was 33 ± 10. The higher PST score is associated with better executive function. A 10-unit increase in the test score was associated with an estimated 19% lower 30-day readmission/death odds, with an odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.81 (0.68, 0.96) (P = 0.015). Similarly, 10-unit increase in test score was associated with an estimated 26% lower odds of long-term care need/death, with OR (95% CI) of 0.74 (0.61, 0.91) (P = 0.004). We also found statistically significant associations between the test scores and time to discharge alive and to 1-year mortality, however, not with a composite of postoperative complications. Conclusion: Elderly non-cardiac surgery patients with better PST scores were less likely to be readmitted, need long-term care after discharge or die within 30 days. Preoperative assessment of cognitive function using a simple self-administered test is feasible and may guide perioperative care.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer carries high morbidity and mortality, particularly in older patients. Transthoracic esophagectomy allows formal lymphadenectomy, but leads to greater perioperative morbidity and pain than transhiatal esophagectomy. Epidural analgesia may attenuate the stress response and be less immunosuppressive than opioids, potentially affecting long-term outcomes. These potential benefits may be more pronounced for transthoracic esophagectomy due to its greater physiologic impact. We evaluated the impact of epidural analgesia on survival and recurrence after transthoracic versus transhiatal esophagectomy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Patients aged ≥66 years with locoregional esophageal cancer diagnosed 1994-2009 who underwent esophagectomy were identified, with follow-up through December 31, 2013. Epidural receipt and surgical approach were identified from Medicare claims. Survival analyses adjusting for hospital esophagectomy volume, surgical approach, and epidural use were performed. A subgroup analysis restricted to esophageal adenocarcinoma patients was performed. RESULTS: Among 1,921 patients, 38% underwent transhiatal esophagectomy (n = 730) and 62% underwent transthoracic esophagectomy (n = 1,191). 61% (n = 1,169) received epidurals and 39% (n = 752) did not. Epidural analgesia was associated with transthoracic approach and higher volume hospitals. Patients with epidural analgesia had better 90-day survival. Five-year survival was higher with transhiatal esophagectomy (37.2%) than transthoracic esophagectomy (31.0%, p = 0.006). Among transthoracic esophagectomy patients, epidural analgesia was associated with improved 5-year survival (33.5% epidural versus 26.5% non-epidural, p = 0.012; hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval [0.70, 0.93]). Among the subgroup of esophageal adenocarcinoma patients undergoing transthoracic esophagectomy, epidural analgesia remained associated with improved 5-year survival (hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval [0.67, 0.96]); this survival benefit persisted in sensitivity analyses adjusting for propensity to receive an epidural. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing transthoracic esophagectomy, including a subgroup restricted to esophageal adenocarcinoma, epidural analgesia was associated with improved survival even after adjusting for other factors.
