Preoperative laboratory testing: Implications of "Choosing Wisely" guidelines

The deimplementation of laboratory testing in low-risk patients as recommended by the American society of anesthesiologists: An ACS-NSQIP longitudinal analysis

BACKGROUND

In 2012, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) published guidelines recommending against routine preoperative laboratory testing for low-risk patients to reduce unnecessary medical expenditures. The aim of this study was to assess the change in routine preoperative laboratory testing in low-risk versus higher-risk patients before and after release of these guidelines.

METHODS

The ACS-NSQIP database, 2005-2018, was separated into low-risk versus higher-risk patients based upon a previously published stratification. The guideline implementation date was defined as January 2013. Changes in preoperative laboratory testing over time were compared between low- and higher-risk patients. A difference-in-differences model was applied. The primary outcome included any laboratory test obtained ≤90 days prior to surgery.

RESULTS

Of 7,507,991 patients, 972,431 (13.0%) were defined as low-risk and 6,535,560 (87.0%) higher-risk. Use of any preoperative laboratory test declined in low-risk patients from 66.5% before to 59.6% after guidelines, a 6.9 percentage point reduction, versus 93.0%-91.9% in higher-risk patients, a 1.1 percentage point reduction (p < 0.0001, comparing percentage point reductions). After risk-adjustment, the adjusted odds ratio for having any preoperative laboratory test after versus before the guidelines was 0.77 (95% CI 0.76-0.78) in low-risk versus 0.93 (0.92-0.94) in higher-risk patients. In low-risk patients, lack of any preoperative testing was not associated with worse outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

While a majority of low-risk patients continue to receive preoperative laboratory testing not recommended by the ASA, there has been a decline after implementation of guidelines. Continued effort should be directed at the deimplementation of routine preoperative laboratory testing for low-risk patients.

Development and Validation of a Risk-Prediction Nomogram for Preoperative Blood Type and Antibody Testing in Spinal Fusion Surgery

OBJECTIVE

With advancements in minimally invasive techniques, the use of spinal fusion surgery is rapidly increasing and transfusion rates are decreasing. Routine preoperative ABO/Rh blood type and antibody screening (T&S) laboratory tests may not be appropriate for all spinal fusion patients. Herein, we constructed a nomogram to assess patient transfusion risk based on various risk factors in patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery, so that preoperative T&S testing can be selectively scheduled in appropriate patients to reduce healthcare and patient costs.

METHODS

Patients who underwent spinal fusion surgery between 01/2020 and 03/2023 were retrospectively examined and classified into the training (n = 3533, 70%) and validation (n = 1515, 30%) datasets. LASSO and multivariable logistic regression were used to analyze risk factors for blood transfusion. Nomogram predictive model was built according to the independent predictors and mode predictive power was validated using consistency index (C-index), Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL) test, calibration curve analysis and area under the curve (AUC) for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Bootstrap resampling was used for internal validation. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was applied to evaluate the model's performance in the clinic.

RESULTS

Being female, age, BMI, admission route, critical patient, operative time, heart failure, end-stage renal disease or chronic kidney disease (ESRD or CKD), anemia, and coagulation defect were predictors of blood transfusion for spinal fusion. A prediction nomogram was developed according to a multivariate model with good discriminatory power (C-index = 0.887); Bootstrap resampling internal validation C-index was 0.883. Calibration curves showed strong matching between the predicted and actual probabilities of the training and validation sets. HL tests for the training and validation sets had p-values of 0.327 and 0.179, respectively, indicating good calibration. When applied to the training set, the following parameters were found: AUC: 0.895, 95% CI: 0.871-0.919, sensitivity 78.2%, specificity 86.7%, positive predictive value 29.4% and negative predictive value 98.2%. If the model were applied in the training set, 2911 T&S tests (82.4%) would be eliminated, equaling a RMB349,320 cost reduction. The AUC in the internal validation was: 0.879, 95% CI: 0.839-0.927, sensitivity 75.2%, specificity 88.8%, positive predictive value 34.3%, negative predictive value 97.9%, would eliminate 1276 T&S tests (84.2%), saving RMB 153,120. The DCA curve indicated good clinical application value.

CONCLUSION

The nomogram based on 10 independent factors can help healthcare professionals predict the risk of transfusion for patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery to target preoperative T&S testing to appropriate patients and reduce healthcare costs.

Choosing which in-hospital laboratory tests to target for intervention: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Some laboratory testing practices may be of low value, leading to wasted resources and potential patient harm. Our scoping review investigated factors and processes that developers report using to inform decisions about what tests to target for practice improvement.

METHODS

We searched Medline on May 30th, 2019 and June 28th, 2021 and included guidelines, recommendation statements, or empirical studies related to test ordering practices. Studies were included if they were conducted in a tertiary care setting, reported making a choice about a specific test requiring intervention, and reported at least one factor informing that choice. We extracted descriptive details, tests chosen, processes used to make the choice, and factors guiding test choice.

RESULTS

From 114 eligible studies, we identified 30 factors related to test choice including clinical value, cost, prevalence of test, quality of test, and actionability of test results. We identified nine different processes used to inform decisions regarding where to spend intervention resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Intervention developers face difficult choices when deciding where to put scarce resources intended to improve test utilization. Factors and processes identified here can be used to inform a framework to help intervention developers make choices relevant to improving testing practices.

Definition of low-value care in a low-risk preoperative population: A scoping review

RATIONALE

Preoperative care is one of the main areas in which to address low-value care. A detailed definition of what low-value care is in this period of the surgical care journey paves the way for new scientific research, clinical improvements, and reduction of unnecessary costs in this field.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE

To identify how low-value care in low-risk preoperative population has been defined in the scientific literature and propose a low-value care framework with potential consequences in this setting.

METHODS

Scoping review of theoretical studies and peer-reviewed papers, including reviews, commentaries, or expert opinions, were considered eligible for inclusion. The following databases were consulted: MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and SCOPUS (from inception to July 24, 2021), using a structured search with the keywords "low value care", "clinical waste", "preoperative", and "elective procedures." Two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction. The definition of low-value care in the preoperative period and their consequences were described after extracting previous low-value care concepts and summarising the contents. Also, a visual framework was built with this information.

RESULTS

From 1519 publications identified in the initial searches, 22 underwent full-text assessment, and 11 conceptual studies were included in the review. A total of four studies (36%) presented a general low-value care definition, and all studies report some situations considered low-value care in the preoperative field of low-risk surgeries. The most common example of preoperative low-value care, listed in nine studies (81%), was having asymptomatic patients undergo screening tests before surgery. The main clinical and nonclinical consequences of low-value care in the preoperative phase included false-positive results from exams as well as psychological distress, increased costs, and delay in surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisiting and integrating previous definitions of low-value care in low-risk surgery into a scoping review is a starting point for de-implementing unnecessary care and promoting improvements in surgical pathways.

An Economic Evaluation of the Preoperative Investigations for Elective Surgical Patients at a Caribbean Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital

Introduction Preoperative assessment using widespread laboratory investigations and ancillary tests as preoperative screening may be unnecessary and lead to an economic burden. This study aimed to determine the routine preoperative investigations performed in a tertiary care teaching hospital in the Caribbean that could be categorized as unnecessary and the costs incurred for these tests. Methods Patient and surgery-specific data were collected prospectively from adult elective surgery patients over a three-month period. Surgical intensity, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (UK, 2016) Clinical Guideline for Preoperative Investigations were used to determine which tests to deem unnecessary. The overall economic burden of unnecessary testing was assessed. Results Data were prospectively collected from 636 patients during the study period. Sixty-four percent of the preoperative investigations performed were deemed unnecessary. The money spent on these unnecessary investigations amounted to $44,622. When extrapolated, this can amount to approximately $178,488 per annum. This represented 59% of the total money spent on the overall preoperative investigations performed. Relatively healthier patients (ASA I and II) had a significantly higher number of unnecessary investigations performed. Conclusion This study found that the majority of preoperative investigations performed routinely may be deemed unnecessary. This results in a huge economic burden on the healthcare system. There is a need to update and strictly implement clinical guidelines for preoperative investigations.

The Value of Routine Tests before Pediatric Eye Surgery: A 10-Year Experience at a Tertiary Care Hospital

Background

Routine tests before ophthalmologic surgery in adult patients are no longer recommended. However, there are limited data on the utility of routine preoperative tests for children.

Aims

We aimed to describe the effect of routine preoperative tests on systemic perioperative complications by hospital discharge or by day 30 following eye surgery.

Settings and Design

This was a single-center, observational, and descriptive study.

Subjects and Methods

We examined all patients ≤ 17 years old for whom ophthalmologists consulted with anesthesiologists before eye surgery under general anesthesia in an academic teaching tertiary care hospital from January 2010 to December 2019.

Results

A total of 708 pediatric patients were analyzed. The mean patient age was 8.5 ± 4.6 years. The most frequently performed procedure was strabismus surgery in 433 patients (61.2%). Following anesthetic consultations, 15 patients (2.1%) underwent surgery postponed due to abnormalities at the physical examination. Routine tests identified that the two patients (0.3%) required additional evaluations due to elevated serum creatine kinase and electrocardiographic abnormalities. However, further examinations found that these abnormalities were unremarkable. The remaining 691 patients (97.6%) underwent surgery as scheduled. Substantial intraoperative blood loss was observed only in three patients with malignant tumors or trauma. The incidence of systemic complications was 0 (0%; 95% confidence interval, 0%-0.05%).

Conclusions

These data indicated that the development of systemic perioperative complications following pediatric ophthalmic surgery is rare. Preoperative tests should be requested only if they are clinically indicated or before potentially bleeding procedures, such as malignancy or trauma surgery.

Utility of preoperative laboratory testing in ASA 1 & ASA 2 patients undergoing outpatient surgery in the United States

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess the utility of preoperative testing in ASA physical status 1 and 2 patients undergoing outpatient surgery across several surgical specialties.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PATIENTS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2017 to 2018 was queried to extract patients defined as ASA 1 and 2 who underwent outpatient surgeries. A total of 352,775 adult patients underwent outpatient surgery with 186,954 patients had at least one lab drawn within 30 days prior to the surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

ASA physical status 1 and 2 patients who underwent outpatient surgeries.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary independent variable was the utilization of preoperative laboratory testing. The primary outcomes were the occurrence of any medical or surgical complication adverse events within 30 days of discharge. In addition, we also examined hospital readmissions. A P value of 0.025 was used to avoid type I error for each primary outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

In the overall cohort, 186,954 out of 352,775 (53%) of patients had at least one lab test. Hematology was the most common lab test ordered, 172,903 out of 352,755 patients (49%), followed by chemistry (43%), liver function (23%), and coagulation tests (11%). After adjusting for confounding factors, the use preoperative testing was not associated with overall medical complications, OR (95%CI) of 1.09 (1.00 to 1.18), P = 0.05 and overall surgical complications, 1.00 (0.92 to 1.08), P = 0.96 [Bonferroni corrected: medical complications OR (97.5% CI) of 1.09 (0.989 to 1.202), P = 0.0950 and overall surgical complications, 1.00 (0.918 to 1.093), P = 1.00.

CONCLUSION

We detected a low utility of preoperative tests for ASA 1 and 2 patients undergoing a large variety of outpatient procedures. Our results support the elimination of preoperative laboratory test for ASA 1 and 2 undergoing ambulatory surgery.

Limited Utility of Routine Tests Prior to Ophthalmologic Surgery: An Observational Study in a Japanese Hospital

Introduction:

Routine preoperative testing for low-risk surgeries without a clinical indication should be avoided; however, such tests are still frequently performed in Japan. This study was performed to assess the impact of routine preoperative tests in low-risk surgery in a Japanese medical setting.

Methods:

We performed a retrospective chart review to examine the utility of routine tests with respect to anesthetic management and postoperative complications in all patients aged ≥ 18 years whom ophthalmologists consulted with anesthesiologists before ophthalmologic surgery under general anesthesia.

Results:

During the 10-year study period, 1,234 anesthetic consultations and 1,211 routine preoperative tests (laboratory tests, chest X-rays, and electrocardiograms) were performed in Toyama University Hospital. In total, 59 patients (4.8% of the study population) canceled surgery after a battery of preoperative evaluation. Among them, 10 patients had incidental abnormalities that necessitated additional tests, and only three patients (0.2%) canceled surgery. In-hospital postoperative complications developed in nine patients (0.7%) whose routine test results made it difficult to predict development of these adverse events. No severe life-threatening events were noted in this survey.

Conclusions:

Routine tests prior to eye surgery for adults were of low value for perioperative management and prediction of development of in-hospital complications in this Japanese medical setting. Anesthesiologists and ophthalmologists should selectively order preoperative tests based on the medical interview and physical examination.

Is great information good enough? Evidence from physicians as patients

We place an upper bound on the degree to which policies aimed at improving the information deficiencies of patients may lead to greater adherence to clinical guidelines and recommended practices. To do so, we compare the degree of adherence attained by a group of patients that should have the best possible information on health care practices-i.e., physicians as patients-with that attained by a comparable group of non-physician patients, taking various steps to account for unobservable differences between the two groups. Our results suggest that physicians, at best, do only slightly better in adhering to both low- and high-value care guidelines than non-physicians.