Preoperative optimization: Physical and cognitive pre-habilitation and management of chronic medication.

Surgery is a significant stressor for older patient. Most are at higher risk of complications due to frailty and comorbidities. This article will review the impact of surgery on the older patient, perioperative risk assessment and stratification, prehabilitation, and specific screenings and interventions. Electronic searches of PubMed were conducted to identify relevant literature using the following search terms: prehabilitation, sarcopenia, osteosarcopenia, frailty, perioperative evaluation, and polypharmacy. Using the frailty phenotype allows for the early identification of geriatric syndromes and potential targets for interventions. However, it does not inform on potential cognitive impairment, which must be assessed separately. Prehabilitation, especially using multimodal interventions, aims to increase functional capacity during the preoperative period in anticipation of the upcoming stress of surgery and the metabolic cost of recovery. It comprises aerobic and resistance training, dietary interventions, psychological interventions, and cessation of adverse health behaviors. Addressing polypharmacy is also important during the perioperative period. Several frailty assessment tools exist, and special tests only take minutes to perform such as the gait speed and chair stand test. Early identification by surgeons leads to early referral to prehabilitation, which needs about four to six weeks to improve function. The decision to enroll patients in a prehabilitation program is based on the understanding of the needs to maintain a structured and personalized intervention taking into consideration the patient's health status, the type of surgery, and the state of the disease. Perioperative evaluation and prehabilitation for older adults are evolving fields, which are generating clinical and scientific interest. This article will review relevant topics to help clinicians adapt usual perioperative care to older patients' particular needs.

Automated Oxygen Titration During CPAP and Noninvasive Ventilation in Healthy Subjects With Induced Hypoxemia.

BACKGROUND: Automated oxygen titration to maintain a stable SpO2 has been developed for spontaneously breathing patients but has not been evaluated during CPAP and noninvasive ventilation (NIV). METHODS: We performed a randomized controlled crossover, double-blind study on 10 healthy subjects with induced hypoxemia during 3 situations: spontaneous breathing with oxygen support, CPAP (5 cm H2O), and NIV (7/3 cm H2O). We conducted in random order 3 dynamic hypoxic challenges of 5 min (FIO2 0.08 ± 0.02, 0.11± 0.02, and 0.14 ± 0.02). For each condition, we compared automated oxygen titration and manual oxygen titration by experienced respiratory therapists (RTs), with the aim to maintain the SpO2 at 94 ± 2%. In addition, we included 2 subjects hospitalized for exacerbation of COPD under NIV and a subject managed after bariatric surgery with CPAP and automated oxygen titration. RESULTS: The percentage of time in the SpO2 target was higher with automated compared with manual oxygen titration for all conditions, on average 59.6 ± 22.8% compared to 44.3 ± 23.9% (P = .004). Hyperoxemia (SpO2 > 96%) was less frequent with automated titration for each mode of oxygen administration (24.0 ± 24.4% vs 39.1 ± 25.3%, P < .001). During the manual titration periods, the RT made several changes to oxygen flow (5.1 ± 3.3 interventions that lasted 122 ± 70 s/period) compared to none during the automated titration to maintain oxygenation in the targeted SpO2 . Time in the SpO2 target was higher with stable hospitalized subjects in comparison with healthy subjects under dynamic-induced hypoxemia. CONCLUSIONS: In this proof-of-concept study, automated oxygen titration was used during CPAP and NIV. The performances to maintain the SpO2 target were significantly better compared to manual oxygen titration in the setting of this study protocol. This technology may allow decreasing the number of manual interventions for oxygen titration during CPAP and NIV.

Impact of health service interventions on acute hospital use in community-dwelling persons with dementia: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Persons with dementia have twice the acute hospital use as older persons without dementia. In addition to straining overburdened healthcare systems, acute hospital use impacts patient and caregiver quality of life and is associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes including death. Reducing avoidable acute hospital use in persons with dementia is thus a global healthcare priority. However, evidence regarding the impact of health service interventions as defined by the Effective Practice and Organization of Care Cochrane Group on acute hospital use is scant and inconclusive. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to synthesize available evidence on the impact of health service interventions on acute hospital use in community-dwelling persons with dementia compared to usual care. METHODS: Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane CENTRAL (from 01/1995 to 08/2017). Study eligibility criteria: Randomised controlled trials measuring the impact of health service interventions on acute hospital use (proportion and mean number of emergency department visits and hospitalisations, mean number of hospital days, measured at 12 months, and at longest follow-up) in community-dwelling persons with dementia, compared to usual care. Study selection, appraisal and synthesis methods: Reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias, with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Authors of relevant trials were queried about unpublished data. Random effects model was used for meta-analyses. Effect heterogeneity was assessed through prediction intervals, and explored using sub-group analyses. FINDINGS: Seventeen trials provided data on 4,549 persons. Unpublished data were obtained for 13 trials, representing 65% of synthesized data. Most interventions included a case management or a self-management component. None of the outcome comparisons provided conclusive evidence supporting the hypothesis that these interventions would lead to a decrease in acute hospital use. Furthermore, prediction intervals indicated possible and important increased service use associated with these interventions, such as emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and hospital days. Subgroup analyses did not favour any type of intervention. A limitation of this study is the inclusion of any type of health service intervention, which may have increased the observed heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Despite a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis, including predominantly unpublished data, no health service intervention beyond usual care was found to reduce acute hospital use in community-dwelling persons with dementia. An important increase in service use may be associated with these interventions. Further research is urgently needed to identify effective interventions for this vulnerable population to limit rising acute hospital use, associated costs and adverse outcomes. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42016046444.