Are intraoperative anesthesia handovers associated with harm? Getting to the heart of the matter in cardiac surgery: the search for the hat-trick of quality, safety, and continuous improvement

Association Between Handover of Anesthesiology Care and 1-Year Mortality Among Adults Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

Importance

Handovers of anesthesia care from one anesthesiologist to another is an important intraoperative event. Despite its association with adverse events after noncardiac surgery, its impact in the context of cardiac surgery remains unclear.

Objective

To compare the outcomes of patients who were exposed to anesthesia handover vs those who were unexposed to anesthesia handover during cardiac surgery.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada, included Ontario residents who were 18 years or older and had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting or aortic, mitral, tricuspid valve, or thoracic aorta surgical procedures between 2008 and 2019. Exclusion criteria were non-Ontario residency status and other concomitant procedures. Statistical analysis was conducted from April 2021 to June 2021, and data collection occurred between November 2020 to January 2021.

Exposures

Complete handover of anesthesia care, where the case is completed by the replacement anesthesiologist.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The coprimary outcomes were mortality within 30 days and 1 year after surgery. Secondary outcomes were patient-defined adverse cardiac and noncardiac events (PACE), intensive care unit (ICU), and hospital lengths of stay (LOS). Inverse probability of treatment weighting based on the propensity score was used to estimate adjusted effect measures. Mortality was assessed using a Cox proportional hazard model, PACE using a cause-specific hazard model with death as a competing risk, and LOS using Poisson regression.

Results

Of the 102 156 patients in the cohort, 25 207 (24.7%) were women; the mean (SD) age was 66.4 (10.8) years; and 72 843 of surgical procedures (71.3%) were performed in teaching hospitals. Handover occurred in 1926 patients (1.9%) and was associated with higher risks of 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.89; 95% CI, 1.41-2.54) and 1-year mortality (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.31-2.12), as well as longer ICU (risk ratio [RR], 1.43; 95% CI, 1.22-1.68) and hospital (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.06-1.28) LOS. There was no statistically significant association between handover and PACE (30 days: HR 1.09; 95% CI, 0.79-1.49; 1 year: HR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.70-1.13).

Conclusions and Relevance

Handover of anesthesia care during cardiac surgical procedures was associated with higher 30-day and 1-year mortality rates and increased health care resource use. Further research is needed to evaluate and systematically improve the handover process qualitatively.

Transparency, Public Reporting and a Culture of Change to Quality and Safety in Cardiac Surgery

Academic medical centers have a duty to serve as hospitals of last resort for advanced cardiac surgical care and therefore manage patients at elevated risk of post-operative morbidity and mortality. They must also meet state and professional quality targets devised to protect the public. The tension between these imperatives can be managed by a multi-dimensional quality improvement program which aims to manage risk, optimize outcomes and exclude futile operations. We here share our approach to this process, its impact on our institution and discuss pertinent issues relevant to institutions in a similar situation.

Association of intraoperative anaesthesia handovers with patient morbidity and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Handover of anaesthesia patient care during surgery is common; however, its association with patient outcome is unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess the impact of anaesthesia handover during surgery on patient outcome.

METHODS

All prospective and retrospective clinical studies specifically investigating the association of intraoperative transfer of anaesthesia care between anaesthesia providers in the operating room with patient morbidity and mortality were included. Searches were conducted from inception to April 24, 2019 in Medline, Medline in Process, CINAHL, and Embase. Reference lists of included studies were searched. Studies were assessed for eligibility and data were extracted by independent reviewers in duplicate with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. Risk of bias was assessed in duplicate using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Data were summarised narratively given substantial heterogeneity. An exploratory meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model for a subset of comparable studies.

RESULTS

Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Six studies focused on patients as the unit of analysis (n_patients=605 678) and two focused on anaesthesia providers as the unit of analysis (n_providers=307). Seven studies identified a relationship between anaesthesia handovers and adverse patient outcomes, whereas one suggested that handover may be beneficial to error detection or rectification. Included studies were of fair or good quality. Meta-analysis of four studies found a 40% increased risk of patients experiencing an adverse event when an anaesthesia handover occurs during the procedure (pooled risk ratio=1.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.19 to 1.65; P<0.001; I²=98%).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative anaesthesia handovers generally increase morbidity and mortality for surgical patients but could have the potential to improve safety in certain contexts. Future research should determine the specific handover characteristics that impact safety.