Psychometric evaluation of the modified quality of recovery score for the postanaesthesia care unit (QoR-PACU2)-A prospective validation study.

BACKGROUND: To date, there is no instrument to adequately assess self-reported quality of recovery (QoR) in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). We previously developed the QoR-PACU, a 13-item questionnaire specifically applicable to the PACU. The feasibility, acceptance, and validity of the QoR-PACU were promising. However, measures of reliability were slightly lower than expected. METHODS: We modified the QoR-PACU and evaluated its psychometric properties in a cohort of adult patients scheduled for non-cardiac surgery with general anesthesia. The modified QoR-PACU (termed QoR-PACU2) was administered before surgery and postoperatively in the PACU at the time of the decision to discharge. RESULTS: A total of 307 patients were included in the final analysis. Postoperative QoR-PACU2 sum scores differed across categories of sex, perioperative and surgical risk, and modes of airway management. The duration of anesthesia and surgery, maximum pain intensity and analgesic requirement in the PACU, and length of PACU stay were all inversely correlated with QoR in the PACU. Cronbach's alpha was 0.70 (95%CI: 0.66-0.75). The intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.86 (95%CI: 0.70-0.94, p < 0.001) for intra-rater reliability (n = 24) and 0.94 (95%CI 0.90 to 0.97, p < 0.001) for inter-rater reliability (n = 31). Cohen's effect size was 0.68 and the standardized response mean was 0.57. CONCLUSION: The QoR-PACU2 assesses self-reported QoR after surgery in the PACU. Measures of feasibility, validity, and reliability were consistently high. Measures of responsiveness were moderate, which might be attributable to the heterogeneity of the study population. Future studies should include aspects of ethnicity and cross-cultural applicability.

Psychometric evaluation of a quality of recovery score for the postanesthesia care unit-A preliminary validation study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients' perception of postoperative recovery is a key aspect of perioperative care. Self-reported quality of recovery (QoR) has evolved as a relevant endpoint in perioperative research. Several psychometric instruments have been introduced to assess self-reported recovery 24 hours after surgery. However, there is no questionnaire suitable for use in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). We aimed to develop and psychometrically evaluate a QoR questionnaire for the PACU (QoR-PACU). METHODS: The QoR-PACU was developed in German language based on the 40-item QoR-40 questionnaire. Between March and November 2020, adult patients scheduled for elective urologic surgery completed the QoR-PACU preoperatively and during the PACU stay. We evaluated feasibility, validity, reliability, and responsiveness. RESULTS: We included 375 patients. After two piloting phases including 72 and 48 patients, respectively, we administered the final version of the QoR-PACU to 255 patients, with a completion rate of 96.5%. Patients completed the QoR-PACU at a median of 125.0 (83.0; 156.8) min after arrival in the PACU. Construct validity was good with postoperative QoR-PACU sum scores correlating with age (r = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.35, p < 0.001), length of PACU stay (r = -0.15, 95%CI: -0.27 to -0.03, p = 0.02), pain in the PACU (r = -0.48, 95% CI: -0.57 to -0.37, p < 0.001) and piritramide dose administered (r = -0.29, 95% CI: -0.40 to -0.17, p < 0.001). Cronbach's alpha was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.61-0.73) with moderate test-retest reliability (ICC of 0.67, 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.83). Cohen's effect size was 3.08 and the standardized response mean was 1.65 indicating adequate responsiveness. CONCLUSION: The assessment of QoR in the early postoperative period is feasible. We found high acceptability, good validity, adequate responsiveness, and moderate reliability. Future studies should evaluate the psychometric properties of the QoR-PACU in more heterogeneous patient populations including female and gender-diverse patients with varying degress of perioperative risk.

Glidescope Video Laryngoscopy in Patients with Severely Restricted Mouth Opening-A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: An inter-incisor gap <3 cm is considered critical for videolaryngoscopy. It is unknown if new generation GlideScope Spectrum™ videolaryngoscopes with low-profile hyperangulated blades might facilitate safe tracheal intubation in these patients. This prospective pilot study aims to evaluate feasibility and safety of GlideScopeTM videolaryngoscopes in severely restricted mouth opening. METHODS: Feasibility study in 30 adults with inter-incisor gaps between 1.0 and 3.0 cm scheduled for ENT or maxillofacial surgery. Individuals at risk for aspiration or rapid desaturation were excluded. RESULTS: The mean mouth opening was 2.2 ± 0.5 cm (range 1.1-3.0 cm). First attempt success rate was 90% and overall success was 100%. A glottis view grade 1 or 2a was achieved in all patients. Nasotracheal intubation was particularly difficult if Magill forceps were required (n = 4). Intubation time differed between orotracheal (n = 9; 33 (25; 39) s) and nasotracheal (n = 21; 55 (38; 94) s); p = 0.049 intubations. The airway operator's subjective ratings on visual analogue scales (0-100) revealed that tube placement was more difficult in individuals with an inter-incisor gap <2.0 cm (n = 10; 35 (29; 54)) versus ≥2.0 cm (n = 20; 20 (10; 30)), p = 0.007, while quality of glottis exposure did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: GlidescopeTM videolaryngoscopy is feasible and safe in patients with severely restricted mouth opening if given limitations are respected.

Stair-Climbing Tests or Self-Reported Functional Capacity for Preoperative Pulmonary Risk Assessment in Patients with Known or Suspected COPD-A Prospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: This prospective study aims to determine whether preoperative stair-climbing tests (SCT) predict postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) better than self-reported poor functional capacity (SRPFC) in patients with known or suspected COPD. METHODS: A total of 320 patients undergoing scheduled for major non-cardiac surgery, 240 with verified COPD and 80 with GOLD key indicators but disproved COPD, underwent preoperative SRPFC and SCT and were analyzed. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression was used for variable selection. Two multivariable regression models were fitted, the SRPFC model (baseline variables such as sociodemographic, surgical and procedural characteristics, medical preconditions, and GOLD key indicators plus SRPFC) and the SCT model (baseline variables plus SCTPFC). RESULTS: Within all stair-climbing variables, LASSO exclusively selected self-reported poor functional capacity. The cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve with bias-corrected bootstrapping 95% confidence interval (95% CI) did not differ between the SRPFC and SCT models (0.71; 0.65-0.77 for both models). SRPFC was an independent risk factor (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 5.45; 95% CI 1.04-28.60; p = 0.045 in the SRPFC model) but SCTPFC was not (adjusted OR 3.78; 95% CI 0.87-16.34; p = 0.075 in the SCT model). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that preoperative SRPFC adequately predicts PPC while additional preoperative SCTs are dispensable in patients with known or suspected COPD.

Preoperative Spirometry in Patients With Known or Suspected Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Undergoing Major Surgery: The Prospective Observational PREDICT Study.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) such as spirometry and blood gas analysis have been claimed to improve preoperative pulmonary risk assessment, but the scientific literature is conflicting. The Preoperative Diagnostic Tests for Pulmonary Risk Assessment in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (PREDICT) study aimed to determine whether preoperative PFTs improve the prediction of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in patients with known or suspected chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) undergoing major surgery. A secondary aim was to determine whether the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Diseases (GOLD) classification of airflow limitation severity (grades I-IV) is associated with PPC. METHODS: In this prospective, single-center study, patients with GOLD key indicators for COPD scheduled for major surgery received PFTs. Patients with confirmed COPD (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1]/forced vital capacity [FVC] ≤0.7) were included in the COPD cohort and compared with a reference cohort without COPD. We developed 3 multivariable risk prediction models and compared their ability to predict PPC: the "standard model" (medical preconditions, and sociodemographic and surgical data), the "COPD assessment model" (additional GOLD key indicators, pack-years, and poor exercise capacity), and the "PFT model" (additional PFT parameters selected by adaptive least absolute shrinkage and selection operator [LASSO] regression). Multiple LASSO regressions were used for cross-validation. RESULTS: A total of 31,714 patients were assessed for eligibility; 1271 individuals received PFTs. Three hundred twenty patients (240 with confirmed COPD: 78 GOLD I, 125 GOLD II, 28 GOLD III, 9 GOLD IV, and 80 without COPD) completed follow-up. The diagnostic performance was similar among the standard model (cross-validated area under the curve [cvAUC], 0.723; bias-corrected bootstrapped [bc-b] 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.663-0.775), COPD assessment model (cvAUC, 0.724; bc-b 95% CI, 0.662-0.777), and PFT model (cvAUC, 0.729; bc-b 95% CI, 0.668-0.782). Previously known COPD was an independent predictor in the standard and COPD assessment model. %FEV1 PRED was the only PFT parameter selected by LASSO regression and was an independent predictor in the PFT model (adjusted odds ratios [OR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.967-.0.998; P = .030). The risk for PPC significantly increased with GOLD grades ( P < .001). COPD was newly diagnosed in 53.8% of the patients with confirmed COPD; however, these individuals were not at increased risk for PPC ( P = .338). CONCLUSIONS: COPD is underdiagnosed in surgical patients. Patients with newly diagnosed COPD commonly presented with low GOLD severity grades and were not at higher risk for PPC. Neither a structured COPD-specific assessment nor preoperative PFTs added incremental diagnostic value to the standard clinical preassessment in patients with known or suspected COPD. Unnecessary postponement of surgery and undue health care costs can be avoided.

Improvement of perioperative care of the elderly patient (PeriAge): protocol of a controlled interventional feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric patients have a pronounced risk to suffer from postoperative complications. While effective risk-specific perioperative measures have been studied in controlled experimental settings, they are rarely found in routine healthcare. This study aims (1) to implement a multicomponent preoperative and intraoperative intervention, and investigate its feasibility, and (2) exploratorily assess the effectiveness of the intervention in routine healthcare. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Feasibility and exploratory effectiveness of the intervention will be investigated in a monocentric, prospective, non-randomised, controlled trial. The intervention includes systematic information for patients and family about measures to prevent postoperative complications; preoperative screening for frailty, malnutrition, strength and mobility with nutrient supplementation and physical exercise (prehabilitation) as needed. Further components focus on potentially inadequate medication, patient blood-management and carbohydrate loading prior to surgery, retainment of orientation aids in the operating room and a geriatric anaesthesia concept. Data will successively be collected from control, implementation and intervention groups. Patients aged 65+ with impending surgery will be included. A sample size of 240, n=80 per group, is planned. Assessments will take place at inclusion and 2, 30 and 180 days after surgery. Mixed-methods analyses will be performed. Exploratory effectiveness will be assessed using mixed segmented regressions. The primary endpoint is functional status. Secondary endpoints include cognitive performance, health-related quality of life, length of inpatient stay and occurrence of postoperative complications. Feasibility will be assessed through semi-structured interviews with staff and patients and quantitative analyses of the data quality, focussing on practicability, acceptance, adoption and fidelity to protocol. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will be carried out in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and to principles of good scientific practice. The Ethics Committee of the Medical Association Hamburg, Germany, approved the protocol (study ID: PV5596). Results will be disseminated in scientific journals and healthcare conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03325413.

Determinants of Perioperative Outcome in Frail Older Patients.

BACKGROUND: Older patients are undergoing surgery in increasing numbers. Frailty is a key risk factor associated with higher rates of complications and mortality, longer hospital stays, and functional impairment. METHODS: This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective search in PubMed, including guidelines from Germany and abroad. RESULTS: Many studies have been published on the assessment of frailty and its consequences, but the scientific investigation of this topic and the clinical utility of the findings are made more difficult by the lack of a uniform definition and of uniform instruments for assessment. Some definitions of frailty include only physical aspects, while others encompass cognitive, emotional, and social factors as well. Despite this variability, the assessment of frailty enables better estimation of the perioperative risk so that the patient can be optimally prepared for the operation. Especially for frail elderly patients, an interdisciplinary approach is called for over the entire perioperative treatment period. CONCLUSION: In the future, the definition of frailty will need to be standardized so that this parameter can be properly assessed and investigated in comparative studies.

Aspirin Before Elective Surgery-Stop or Continue?

BACKGROUND: Cessation of long-term aspirin treatment before noncardiac surgery can cause adverse cardiac events in patients at risk, particularly in those with previous percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with stent implantation. The factors influencing the clinical decision to stop aspirin treatment are currently unknown. METHODS: In a single-center, cross-sectional study (retrospective registration: NCT03049566) carried out from February to December 2014, we took a survey among patients scheduled for noncardiac surgery who were under long-term aspirin treatment, and among their treating anesthesiologists using standardized questionnaires on preoperative aspirin use, comorbidities, and risk-benefit assessments. The main objective was to identify factors associated with the decision to stop aspirin treatment. The results of multivariable logistic regressions and intraclass correlations are presented. RESULTS: 805 patients were included in the study, and 636 questionnaires were returned (203 of which concerned patients with coronary stents). 46.8% of the patients stopped their long-term aspirin treatment before surgery; 38.7% of these patients stopped it too early (>10 days before surgery) or too late (≤ 3 days before surgery). A prior PCI with stent implantation lowered the probability of aspirin cessation (odds ratio [OR] = 0.47 [0.31; 0.72]; p <0.001). On the other hand, patients were more likely to stop their long-term aspirin treatment if it had already been discontinued once before (OR = 4.58 [3.06; 6.84]; p <0.001), if there was a risk of bleeding into a closed space (OR = 4.54 [2.02; 10.22]; p <0.001), if they did not know why they were supposed to take aspirin (OR = 2.12 [1.05; 4.28]; p = 0.036), or if the preoperative consultation with the anesthesiologist occurred <2 days before surgery (OR = 1.60 [1.08; 2.37]; p = 0.018). Patients often assessed the risks related to aspirin cessation lower than their physicians did. CONCLUSION: This study reveals discordance between guideline recommendations and everyday clinical practice in patients with coronary stents. The early integration of cardiologists and anesthesiologists and a more widespread use of stent implant cards could promote adherence to the guidelines.

Nasal position of nasotracheal tubes: a retrospective analysis of intraoperatively generated three-dimensional X-rays during maxillofacial surgery.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this retrospective investigation was to evaluate the position of the nasotracheal tube in the nose and to show its anatomical relationship with the maxillary sinus ostium. METHODS: Fifty data sets from patients who had undergone endonasal intubation were analyzed for tube positioning. There was a drop-out of eight data sets due to missing information concerning tube size and mode. Tube positioning was determined at the maxillary sinus ostium in the intraoperatively generated three-dimensional X-ray data sets. The type of tube, the tube size, and the presence of maxillary sinusitis were analyzed 30 minutes after intubation. RESULTS: The tube was positioned in the middle nasal meatus in 35 (83.3%) patients and not in the middle nasal meatus in 7 (16.7%) patients. The difference in comparison with equal distribution was significant (P <0.001). The test value was 83.3; the 95% confidence interval of the test value was 68.6 to 93.0%. Maxillary sinusitis was diagnosed as a chance finding in 17% of patients (n =7). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of nasal tubes are positioned in the middle nasal meatus. This result can be part of the answer to the question of the causal relationship between position of the breathing tube and the onset of maxillary sinusitis. The indications for prolonged nasotracheal intubation instead of orotracheal intubation or early tracheostomy should be considered carefully.