Hispanic/Latino Ethnicity and Loss of Post-Surgery Independent Living: A Retrospective Cohort Study from a Bronx Hospital Network.

BACKGROUND: Black race is associated with postoperative adverse discharge to a nursing facility, but the effects of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity are unclear. We explored the Hispanic paradox, described as improved health outcomes among Hispanic/Latino patients on postoperative adverse discharge to nursing facility. METHODS: A total of 93,356 adults who underwent surgery and were admitted from home to Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, New York, between January 2016 and June 2021 were included. The association between self-identified Hispanic/Latino ethnicity and the primary outcome, postoperative adverse discharge to a nursing home or skilled nursing facility, was investigated. Interaction analysis was used to examine the impact of socioeconomic status, determined by estimated median household income and insurance status, on the primary association. Mixed-effects models were used to evaluate the proportion of variance attributed to the patient's residential area defined by zip code and self-identified ethnicity. RESULTS: Approximately 45.9% (42,832) of patients identified as Hispanic/Latino ethnicity and 9.7% (9074) patients experienced postoperative adverse discharge. Hispanic/Latino ethnicity was associated with lower risk of adverse discharge (relative risk [RRadj] 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 00.82-0.94; P < .001), indicating a Hispanic Paradox. This effect was modified by the patient's socioeconomic status (P-for-interaction <.001). Among patients with a high socioeconomic status, the Hispanic paradox was abolished (RRadj 1.10; 95% CI, 11.00-1.20; P = .035). Furthermore, within patients of low socioeconomic status, Hispanic/Latino ethnicity was associated with a higher likelihood of postoperative discharge home with health services compared to non-Hispanic/Latino patients (RRadj 1.06; 95% CI, 11.01-1.12; P = .017). CONCLUSIONS: Hispanic/Latino ethnicity is a protective factor for postoperative adverse discharge, but this association is modified by socioeconomic status. Future studies should focus on postoperative discharge disposition and socioeconomic barriers in patients with Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.

The neutral CB1 antagonist AM6527 reduces ethanol seeking, binge-like consumption, reinforcing, and withdrawal effects in male and female mice.

RATIONALE: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a debilitating physiological and psychiatric disorder which affects individuals globally. The current pharmacological interventions to treat AUD are limited, and hence there is an urgent need for a novel pharmacological therapy which can be effective and safe across the population. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate a novel neutral cannabinoid receptor-1 (CB1R) antagonist, AM6527, in several preclinical models of ethanol consumption using male and female C57BL6/J mice. METHODS: Independent groups of male and female mice were subjected to repeated cycles of drinking in the dark (DID), or intermittent access to alcohol (IAA) procedures. Twenty minutes prior to ethanol access in each procedure, animals were treated with intraperitoneal injections of either 1, 3, and 10 mg/kg of AM6527 or its respective vehicle. Acamprosate (100, 200, 300, and 400 mg/kg) or its respective vehicle was used as a positive control. Separate groups of male mice were subjected to a chain schedule of ethanol reinforcement to gain access to ethanol wherein completion of a fixed interval (FI; 5 min) schedule (link 1: "Seeking") was reinforced with continuous access to ethanol (fixed ratio; FR1) for up to 1.8 g/kg (link 2: "consumption"). All the animals were treated with 1, 3, and 10 mg/kg of AM6527 or its respective vehicle 20 mins prior to the start of the FI chain of the procedure. Separately, AM6527 was also evaluated in male and female mice undergoing acute ethanol withdrawal following 8 weeks of intermittent or continuous access to 20% ethanol drinking. RESULTS: In both DID and IAA procedures, AM6527 reduced ethanol consumption in a dose-related manner in both male and female mice. AM6527 produced no tolerance in the DID procedure; mice treated with 3 mg/kg of AM6527 for 3 weeks continuously drank significantly smaller amounts of ethanol as compared to vehicle-treated mice over a period of three DID cycles. Moreover, in the IAA procedure, AM6527 caused an increase in water intake over the 24-h period. Acamprosate transiently reduced ethanol intake in male mice in both the DID and the IAA procedures but failed to produce any significant effect in female mice. AM6527 also produced a decrease in the FI responding ("ethanol seeking") in animals trained to self-administer ethanol. Lastly, AM6527 mitigated neurological withdrawal signs, i.e., handling induced convulsions (HIC) in mice undergoing acute ethanol withdrawal. CONCLUSIONS: Current findings support previous studies with CB1R neutral antagonist in reducing voluntary ethanol intake and seeking behavior. Based on results shown in this work, AM6527 can be developed as a first in class CB1R neutral antagonist to treat AUD in both males and females.

Development and validation of a machine learning ASA-score to identify candidates for comprehensive preoperative screening and risk stratification.

OBJECTIVE: The ASA physical status (ASA-PS) is determined by an anesthesia provider or surgeon to communicate co-morbidities relevant to perioperative risk. Assigning an ASA-PS is a clinical decision and there is substantial provider-dependent variability. We developed and externally validated a machine learning-derived algorithm to determine ASA-PS (ML-PS) based on data available in the medical record. DESIGN: Retrospective multicenter hospital registry study. SETTING: University-affiliated hospital networks. PATIENTS: Patients who received anesthesia at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (Boston, MA, training [n = 361,602] and internal validation cohorts [n = 90,400]) and Montefiore Medical Center (Bronx, NY, external validation cohort [n = 254,412]). MEASUREMENTS: The ML-PS was created using a supervised random forest model with 35 preoperatively available variables. Its predictive ability for 30-day mortality, postoperative ICU admission, and adverse discharge were determined by logistic regression. MAIN RESULTS: The anesthesiologist ASA-PS and ML-PS were in agreement in 57.2% of the cases (moderate inter-rater agreement). Compared with anesthesiologist rating, ML-PS assigned more patients into extreme ASA-PS (I and IV), (p < 0.01), and less patients in ASA II and III (p < 0.01). ML-PS and anesthesiologist ASA-PS had excellent predictive values for 30-day mortality, and good predictive values for postoperative ICU admission and adverse discharge. Among the 3594 patients who died within 30 days after surgery, net reclassification improvement analysis revealed that using the ML-PS, 1281 (35.6%) patients were reclassified into the higher clinical risk category compared with anesthesiologist rating. However, in a subgroup of multiple co-morbidity patients, anesthesiologist ASA-PS had a better predictive accuracy than ML-PS. CONCLUSIONS: We created and validated a machine learning physical status based on preoperatively available data. The ability to identify patients at high risk early in the preoperative process independent of the provider's decision is a part of the process we use to standardize the stratified preoperative evaluation of patients scheduled for ambulatory surgery.

Association of sugammadex reversal of neuromuscular block and postoperative length of stay in the ambulatory care facility: a multicentre hospital registry study.

BACKGROUND: Encapsulation of rocuronium or vecuronium with sugammadex can reverse neuromuscular block faster than neostigmine reversal. This pharmacodynamic profile might facilitate patient discharge after ambulatory surgery. METHODS: We included patients who underwent ambulatory surgery with general anaesthesia and neuromuscular block between 2016 and 2021 from hospital registries at two large academic healthcare networks in the USA. The primary outcome was postoperative length of stay in the ambulatory care facility (PLOS-ACF). We examined post hoc whether the type of reversal affects postoperative nausea and vomiting and direct hospital costs. RESULTS: Among the 29 316 patients included, 8945 (30.5%) received sugammadex and 20 371 (69.5%) received neostigmine for reversal. PLOS-ACF and costs were lower in patients who received sugammadex vs neostigmine (adjusted difference in PLOS-ACF: -9.5 min; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], -10.5 to -8.5 min; adjusted difference in direct hospital costs: -US$77; 95% CI, -$88 to -$66; respectively; P<0.001). The association was magnified in patients over age 65 yr, with ASA physical status >2 undergoing short procedures (<2 h) (adjusted difference in PLOS-ACF: -18.2 min; 95% CI, -23.8 to -12.4 min; adjusted difference in direct hospital costs: -$176; 95% CI, -$220 to -$128; P<0.001). Sugammadex use was associated with reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting (17.2% vs 19.6%, P<0.001), which mediated its effects on length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Reversal with sugammadex compared with neostigmine was associated with a small decrease in postoperative length of stay in the ambulatory care unit. The effect was magnified in older and high-risk patients, and can be explained by reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting. Sugammadex reversal in ambulatory surgery may also help reduce cost of care.

Comparison of the effects of sugammadex versus neostigmine for reversal of neuromuscular block on hospital costs of care.

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex reversal of neuromuscular block facilitates recovery of neuromuscular function after surgery, but the drug is expensive. We evaluated the effects of sugammadex on hospital costs of care. METHODS: We analysed 79 474 adult surgical patients who received neuromuscular blocking agents and reversal from two academic healthcare networks between 2016 and 2021 to calculate differences in direct costs. We matched our data with data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-National Inpatient Sample (HCUP-NIS) to calculate differences in total costs in US dollars. Perioperative risk profiles were defined based on ASA physical status and admission status (ambulatory surgery vs hospitalisation). RESULTS: Based on our registry data analysis, administration of sugammadex vs neostigmine was associated with lower direct costs (-1.3% lower costs; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.5 to -2.2%; P=0.002). In the HCUP-NIS matched cohort, sugammadex use was associated with US$232 lower total costs (95% CI, -US$376 to -US$88; P=0.002). Subgroup analysis revealed that sugammadex was associated with US$1042 lower total costs (95% CI, -US$1198 to -US$884; P<0.001) in patients with lower risk. In contrast, sugammadex was associated with US$620 higher total costs (95% CI, US$377 to US$865; P<0.001) in patients with a higher risk (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status ≥3 and preoperative hospitalisation). CONCLUSIONS: The effects of using sugammadex on costs of care depend on patient risk, defined based on comorbidities and admission status. We observed lower costs of care in patients with lower risk and higher costs of care in hospitalised surgical patients with severe comorbidities.