Differences in Outcomes After Anesthesia-Related Adverse Events in Older and Younger Patients.

Because more older adults undergo surgical procedures, it is incumbent on us to learn how to provide them with the safest possible perioperative care. We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a large tertiary care center to determine whether outcomes after anesthesia-related adverse events differed between patients aged 65 years and older versus patients under age 65. One thousand four hundred twenty-four cases were referred to the Performance Improvement committee of the Department of Anesthesiology from the years 2007-2015. After exclusions of cases that were not anesthesia-related, could not be identified, or were duplicates, 747 cases with anesthesia-related adverse events were included in the study. Two hundred eighty-six were aged 65 years and older and 461 were under age 65. Anesthesia-related adverse events occurred more commonly in the postoperative period in older patients relative to younger patients (37.7% vs. 21.9%, p = .001), and older patients had a greater incidence of mortality compared with a propensity-matched group of younger patients (adjusted odds ratio 1.87 [1.14-3.12], p < .05). We concluded that older patients have a greater likelihood of mortality as a result of suffering an anesthesia-related adverse event and may benefit from increased vigilance in the postoperative period.

Preventable Anesthesia-Related Adverse Events at a Large Tertiary Care Center: A Nine-Year Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesiologists have studied adverse events during anesthesia dating back to the original critical incident studies of the 1970s. Despite improvements, adverse events continue to occur. The purpose of this study was to characterize anesthesia-related adverse events within a single large tertiary care institution and to distinguish preventable adverse events from those that are not preventable. METHODS: A retrospective review of all cases referred to the Performance Improvement (PI) Committee at a large academic medical center from 2007 to 2015 was performed. The primary adverse event and underlying cause of the event were determined using a two-reviewer system for each case. Univariate analysis was performed to determine overall characteristics of cases, the underlying causes of adverse events, and whether the event was preventable; p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 1,424 records were referred to the PI Committee during the study period. After exclusions, 747 cases were included in the final analysis. Respiratory complications (n = 245) were the most frequently reported adverse event type. The most common respiratory events included unplanned reintubations, aspirations, and respiratory arrests. A large proportion of the adverse events (42.8%) may have been preventable. In particular, respiratory, trauma, and medication adverse events were often preventable. CONCLUSION: Anesthesia-related adverse events continue to occur even though the field is considered at the forefront of patient safety. Respiratory, trauma, and medication events were often preventable, and these represent areas to allocate resources to improve patient safety and perioperative outcomes.

Anesthetic considerations for a novel anterior surgical approach to pediatric scoliosis correction.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic scoliosis is a condition that may require surgical correction. Limitations of previous surgical modalities, however, created the need for novel methods of repair. One such technique, a newer form of anterolateral scoliosis correction, has shown considerable promise, which our center has had substantial experience performing. AIM: In this article, we present the case details of our first 105 patients for the purposes of describing the evolution and details of the anesthetic management and considerations for this procedure. METHODS: A retrospective review of medical records for 105 patients undergoing anterolateral instrumentation procedure for idiopathic scoliosis correction done at a single institution from May 2014 to June 2016 was performed. The details of perioperative management as well as surgical technique were reported for all patients. RESULTS: The mean age for patients was 14.8 years (range 10-18); the mean weight was 49.9 kg (range 25-82). Unilateral procedures were performed on 46.7%, with bilateral and hybrid procedures performed on 50.5% and 4.7%, respectively. The median number of levels corrected was 8 (interquartile range [IQR] 7-9) for unilateral, right 7 (IQR 6-7) and left 5 (IQR 4-5) for bilateral, and 4 (IQR 4-4.5) for hybrids. The average estimated blood loss (EBL) was 310 mL±138, with cell salvaged blood transfused in 61% of patients, and allogenic blood transfusion required in only two patients. CONCLUSIONS: The described anesthetic and analgesic management provides a framework for delivering perioperative care for this challenging procedure, which is gaining popularity as a modality for scoliosis correction.

ASA physical status assignment by non-anesthesia providers: Do surgeons consistently downgrade the ASA score preoperatively?

OBJECTIVE: The American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in the perioperative period. When surgeries are scheduled by surgeons and their staff at our large institution a presumed ASA-PS is chosen. This is because our institution (and, anecdotally, others in our hospital system and elsewhere), recognizing the relationship between higher ASA-PS and poorer postoperative outcomes, requires all patients with higher ASA-PS levels (≥3) to undergo enhanced preoperative workup. The patients may not, however, necessarily be seen in the anesthesia clinic prior to surgery. As a result, patients are assigned a presumed ASA-PS by a non-anesthesia provider (e.g., surgeons and physician extenders) that may not reflect the ASA-PS chosen by the anesthesiologist on the day of surgery. Errors in the accuracy of the ASA-PS prior to surgery lead to unnecessary and costly preoperative testing, delays in operative procedures, and potential case cancellations. Our study aimed to determine whether there are significant differences in the assignment of ASA-PS by non-anesthesia providers when compared to anesthesia providers. DESIGN: We administered an IRB-approved survey asking the ASA-PS of 20 hypothetical case vignettes to 229 clinicians in various departments. Responses by non-anesthesia providers were compared to the consensus of the department of anesthesiology. SETTING: Faculty office spaces and conferences. PATIENTS: No patients, physicians only. INTERVENTIONS: Survey administration. MEASUREMENTS: ASA-PS scores acquired from surveys. MAIN RESULTS: Residents and faculty in the department of anesthesiology demonstrated no statistical difference in the median ASA score in 19/20 case scenarios. All other departments were statistically different when compared to the department of anesthesiology (p<0.05). The probability of a department either over- or under-rating the ASA-PS was calculated, and is summarized in Fig. 3. All departments, except anesthesiology, had a 30-40% chance of under-rating the ASA-PS of the patients in the clinical vignettes. CONCLUSIONS: Non-anesthesia providers assign ASA-PS with significantly less accuracy than do anesthesia providers, even when adjusted for multiple comparisons. Surgical and procedural departments were found to consistently under-rate the ASA-PS of patients in our clinical vignettes.

Challenges in the perioperative management of the patient receiving extended-release naltrexone.

Patients receiving extended-release (XR) naltrexone who are having surgery present unique challenges to anesthesia providers, the most obvious of which is an altered response to the effects of opioid agonists. Based on the timing of the last XR naltrexone dose, patients may be refractory to the effects of opioid agonists or potentially more sensitive to dangerous side effects due to receptor upregulation and hypersensitivity. Complicating matters, redosing XR naltrexone soon after opioid use may precipitate opioid withdrawal. We present a case of a 22-year-old woman receiving XR naltrexone for a history of heroin abuse undergoing a thyroidectomy and neck dissection. We discuss the intraoperative and postoperative anesthetic and analgesic planning, as well as solutions to some of the challenges these patients pose.