RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggested that surgeon sex is associated with differential patient outcomes. Whether this also applies to anaesthesia providers is unclear. We hypothesised that female sex of the primary anaesthesia provider is associated with lower risk of perioperative complications. METHODS: The first case for all adult patients undergoing anaesthesia care between 2008 and 2022 at two academic healthcare networks in the USA was included in this retrospective cohort study. The primary exposure was the sex of the anaesthesia provider who spent the most time in the operating theatre during the case. The primary outcome was intraoperative complications, defined as hypotension (mean arterial blood pressure <55 mm Hg for ≥5 cumulative minutes) or hypoxaemia (oxygen saturation <90% for >2 consecutive minutes). The co-primary outcome was 30-day adverse postoperative events (including complications, readmission, and mortality). Analyses were adjusted for a priori defined confounders. RESULTS: Among 364,429 included patients, 57,550 (15.8%) experienced intraoperative complications and 55,168 (15.1%) experienced adverse postoperative events. Care by female compared with male anaesthesia providers was associated with lower risk of intraoperative complications (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-0.97, P<0.001), which was magnified among non-trainees (aOR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82-0.87, P-for-interaction <0.001). Anaesthesia provider sex was not associated with the composite of adverse postoperative events (aOR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98-1.02, P=0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Care by a female anaesthesia provider was associated with a lower risk of intraoperative complications, which was magnified among non-trainees. Future studies should investigate underlying mechanisms.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Acetaminophen and 5-hydroxytryptamine-type-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists are administered as standard prophylaxes for postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting. Preclinical studies however suggest that 5-HT3 antagonists may compromise acetaminophen's analgesic effect. This hospital registry study investigates whether 5-HT3 antagonists mitigate the analgesic effect of prophylactic acetaminophen in a perioperative setting. METHODS: This study included 55,016 adult patients undergoing general anesthesia for ambulatory procedures at a tertiary healthcare center in Massachusetts, United States of America, from 2015 to 2022. Using binary exposure variables and a comprehensive selection of pre-planned patient- and procedure-related covariates for confounder control, we investigated whether intraoperative 5-HT3 antagonists affected the association between pre- or intraoperative acetaminophen and postoperative opioid consumption, gauged by opioid dose in mg oral morphine equivalents (OME) administered in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). A multivariable, zero-inflated negative binomial regression model was applied. RESULTS: 3,166 (5.8%) patients received only acetaminophen, 15,438 (28.1%) only 5-HT3 antagonists, 31,850 (57.9%) both drugs, and 4,562 (8.3%) neither drug. The median PACU opioid dose was 7.5 mg OME (interquartile range 7.5 to 14.3 mg OME) among 16,640/55,016 (30.3%) patients who received opioids and the average opioid dose was 3.2 mg OME across all patients (maximum cumulative dose: 20.4 mg OME). Acetaminophen administration was associated with a 5.5% (95%CI -9.6% to -1.4%;p=0.009; adjusted absolute difference -0.19 mg OME;95%CI -0.33 to -0.05;p=0.009) reduction in opioid consumption among patients who did not receive a 5-HT3 antagonist, while there was no effect in patients who received a 5-HT3 antagonist (adjusted absolute difference 0.00 mg OME; 95%CI -0.06 to 0.05;p=0.93,p-for-interaction=0.012). CONCLUSION: A dose-dependent association of pre- or intraoperative acetaminophen with decreased postoperative opioid consumption was not observed when 5-HT3 antagonists were co-administered, suggesting that physicians might consider reserving 5-HT3 antagonists as rescue medication for postoperative nausea or vomiting when acetaminophen is administered for pain prophylaxis.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Perioperative opioid use has been associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Additionally, opioid disposal carries significant costs, due to the waste of pharmaceutical products and the time needed by skilled labor to report the waste. In this study, we aimed to estimate costs and predict factors of opioid-associated intraoperative product waste, as well as to evaluate whether higher intraoperative opioid doses are associated with increased risk of adverse postoperative outcomes. METHODS: We included 170,607 patients undergoing general anesthesia and receiving intraoperative fentanyl, hydromorphone, or morphine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA, between January 2010 and June 2020. We estimated product waste-associated costs based on various opioid syringe sizes and determined predictors of opioid waste. Further, we evaluated whether higher opioid doses were associated with postoperative adverse events according to the severity-indexed, incident report-based medication error-reporting program classification. The primary outcome included post-extubation desaturation, postoperative nausea or vomiting, or postoperative somnolence or sedation. RESULTS: The use of the smallest syringe sizes (50 mcg for fentanyl, 0.2 mg for hydromorphone, and 2 mg for morphine) resulted in the lowest product waste-associated costs. The main predictor of opioid waste was the administration of more than one intraoperative opioid (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 7.64, 95% CI 7.40-7.89, P < 0.001). Intraoperative doses of fentanyl > 50-100 mcg (aOR = 1.17 [1.10-1.25], P < 0.001, adjusted risk difference [ARD] 2%) and > 100 mcg (aOR = 1.24 [1.16-1.33], P < 0.001, ARD 3%), hydromorphone > 1 mg (aOR = 1.13 [1.06-1.20], P < 0.001, ARD 2%), and morphine > 2-4 mg (aOR = 1.26 [1.02-1.56], P = 0.04, ARD 3%) and > 4 mg (aOR = 1.45 [1.18-1.77], P < 0.001, ARD 5%) were associated with higher risk of the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: Smaller syringe sizes of intraoperative opioids may help to reduce product waste and associated costs, as well postoperative adverse events through utilization of lower intraoperative opioid doses.
RESUMO
Background: There is paucity of data regarding prevalence and key harms of non-medical cannabis use in surgical patients. We investigated whether cannabis use in patients undergoing surgery or interventional procedures patients was associated with a higher degree of post-procedural healthcare utilisation. Methods: 210,639 adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery between January 2008 and June 2020 at an academic healthcare network in Massachusetts, USA, were included. The primary exposure was use of cannabis, differentiated by reported ongoing non-medical use, self-identified during structured, preoperative nursing/physician interviews, or diagnosis of cannabis use disorder based on International Classification of Diseases, 9th/10th Revision, diagnostic codes. The main outcome measure was the requirement of advanced post-procedural healthcare utilisation (unplanned intensive care unit admission, hospital re-admission or non-home discharge). Findings: 16,211 patients (7.7%) were identified as cannabis users. The prevalence of cannabis use increased from 4.9% in 2008 to 14.3% by 2020 (p < 0.001). Patients who consumed cannabis had higher rates of psychiatric comorbidities (25.3 versus 16.8%; p < 0.001) and concomitant non-tobacco substance abuse (30.2 versus 7.0%; p < 0.001). Compared to non-users, patients with a diagnosis of cannabis use disorder had higher odds of requiring advanced post-procedural healthcare utilisation after adjusting for patient characteristics, concomitant substance use and socioeconomic factors (aOR [adjusted odds ratio] 1.16; 95% CI 1.02-1.32). By contrast, patients with ongoing non-medical cannabis use had lower odds of advanced post-procedural healthcare utilisation (aOR 0.87; 95% CI 0.81-0.92, compared to non-users). Interpretation: One in seven patients undergoing surgery or interventional procedures in 2020 reported cannabis consumption. Differential effects on post-procedural healthcare utilisation were observed between patients with non-medical cannabis use and cannabis use disorder. Funding: This work was supported by an unrestricted philantropic grant from Jeff and Judy Buzen to Maximilian S. Schaefer.
