Perioperative Resumption of Direct Oral Anticoagulants: Review of the Mayo Clinic Experience.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to review recommendations for the postoperative resumption of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and report complications 30 days postoperatively. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients receiving DOAC therapy who underwent preoperative evaluations from January 1, 2015 through May 30, 2018. We noted days that DOAC therapy was withheld, postoperative time until resumption of the DOAC, and complications within 30 postoperative days. RESULTS: A total of 317 patients were included. Ten had complications. Complication rates among patients stratified by time to resumption were not significantly different, except for the deep vein thrombosis rate when DOACs were resumed after 72 hours (n = 2 [4.17%]; P = 0.02). The total time without DOACs did not affect the complication rates. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest withholding DOACs for 48 to 72 hours before surgery and resuming them 48 to 72 hours after surgery, if safe. The interruption of therapy was not associated with an increase in thrombotic events for patients who resumed DOACs within 72 hours postoperatively. Patients who resumed DOACs after 72 hours postoperatively had a low rate of thrombotic complications.

A comparison of perioperative outcomes between extraperitoneal robotic single-port and multiport radical prostatectomy with the da Vinci Si Surgical System.

To evaluate outcomes between extraperitoneal robotic single-port radical prostatectomy (epR-spRP) and extraperitoneal robotic multiport radical prostatectomy (epR-mpRP) performed with the da Vinci Si Surgical System, comparison was performed between 30 single-port (SP group) and 26 multiport (MP group) cases. Comparisons included operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), hospital stay, peritoneal violation, pain scores, scar satisfaction, continence, and erectile function. The median operation time and EBL were not different between the two groups. In the SP group, the median operation time of the first 10 patients was obviously longer than that of the latter 20 patients (P < 0.001). The median postoperative hospital stay in the SP group was shorter than that in the MP group (P < 0.001). The rate of peritoneal damage in the SP group was less than that in the MP group (P = 0.017). The pain score and overall need for pain medications in the SP group were lower than those in the MP group (P < 0.001 and P = 0.015, respectively). Patients in the SP group were more satisfied with their scars than those in the MP group 3 months postoperatively (P = 0.007). At 3 months, the cancer control, recovery of erectile function, and urinary continence rates were similar between the two groups. It is safe and feasible to perform epR-spRP using the da Vinci Si surgical system. Therefore, epR-spRP can be a treatment option for localized prostate cancer. Although epR-spRP still has a learning curve, it has advantages for postoperative pain and self-assessed cosmesis. In the absence of the single-port robotic surgery platform, we can still provide minimally invasive surgery for patients.

Evaluation of Biomarkers in Critical Care and Perioperative Medicine: A Clinician's Overview of Traditional Statistical Methods and Machine Learning Algorithms

Interest in developing and using novel biomarkers in critical care and perioperative medicine is increasing. Biomarkers studies are often presented with flaws in the statistical analysis that preclude them from providing a scientifically valid and clinically relevant message for clinicians. To improve scientific rigor, the proper application and reporting of traditional and emerging statistical methods (e.g., machine learning) of biomarker studies is required. This Readers' Toolbox article aims to be a starting point to nonexpert readers and investigators to understand traditional and emerging research methods to assess biomarkers in critical care and perioperative medicine.

A comparison of perioperative outcomes between extraperitoneal robotic single-port and multiport radical prostatectomy with the da Vinci Si Surgical System / 亚洲男科学杂志(英文版)

To evaluate outcomes between extraperitoneal robotic single-port radical prostatectomy (epR-spRP) and extraperitoneal robotic multiport radical prostatectomy (epR-mpRP) performed with the da Vinci Si Surgical System, comparison was performed between 30 single-port (SP group) and 26 multiport (MP group) cases. Comparisons included operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), hospital stay, peritoneal violation, pain scores, scar satisfaction, continence, and erectile function. The median operation time and EBL were not different between the two groups. In the SP group, the median operation time of the first 10 patients was obviously longer than that of the latter 20 patients (P < 0.001). The median postoperative hospital stay in the SP group was shorter than that in the MP group (P < 0.001). The rate of peritoneal damage in the SP group was less than that in the MP group (P = 0.017). The pain score and overall need for pain medications in the SP group were lower than those in the MP group (P < 0.001 and P = 0.015, respectively). Patients in the SP group were more satisfied with their scars than those in the MP group 3 months postoperatively (P = 0.007). At 3 months, the cancer control, recovery of erectile function, and urinary continence rates were similar between the two groups. It is safe and feasible to perform epR-spRP using the da Vinci Si surgical system. Therefore, epR-spRP can be a treatment option for localized prostate cancer. Although epR-spRP still has a learning curve, it has advantages for postoperative pain and self-assessed cosmesis. In the absence of the single-port robotic surgery platform, we can still provide minimally invasive surgery for patients.

Causal inference in perioperative medicine observational research: part 1, a graphical introduction.

Graphical models have emerged as a tool to map out the interplay between multiple measured and unmeasured variables, and can help strengthen the case for a causal association between exposures and outcomes in observational studies. In Part 1 of this methods series, we will introduce the reader to graphical models for causal inference in perioperative medicine, and set the framework for Part 2 of the series involving advanced methods for causal inference.