Advances in preoperative risk assessment and management

Altemeier's procedure for complete rectal prolapse; outcome and function in 43 consecutive female patients

Background

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate morbidity, mortality, postoperative function and recurrences in patients treated by Altemeier’s rectosigmoidectomy for complete rectal prolapse in a referral center for pelvic floor functional disorders.

Methods

Peri-operative data on 43 consecutive female patients were reviewed. At follow-up any change in pelvic floor function and recurrences were determined. Thirty four patients were assessed at a median interval of 49 (2–135) months, six being deceased for reason not related to the prolapse and three lost to follow-up.

Results

Post-operative complications at 30 days occurred in 18 patients (38%). Major complication occurred in only one patient that was pneumonia with lung failure. Major complications were not related to the ASA score, BMI or age [average age 76.4]. There was no post-operative mortality at 30 days.

At long-term follow-up functional results demonstrate a statistically significant decrease in the Obstructive Defecation Syndrome (ODS) score, but no statistically significant changes in the Vaizey score, the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form (ICIQ-SF) score and the urinary retention score. ODS score decreased with respect to levatorplasty and the change was statistically significant instead of Vaizey score in which were not.

At the same follow-up there were 12 (35%) cases of recurrence with an estimated risk at 48 months of 40%. There were no statistically significant differences between patients with and without recurrence regarding age (p = 0.188), BMI (p = 0.864), ASA score (p = 0.433), previously repaired prolapse (p = 0.398), previous hysterectomy (p = 0.705), length of resected bowel (p = 0.126), and levatorplasty (p = 0.304). Patient satisfaction showed a mean of 8.8 and 6.4 respectively in patients without and with recurrences (p = 0.012).

Conclusions

Altemeier’s procedure had in our series low complications rate and no mortality. It offered improved evacuation in constipated patients while didn’t improve fecal and urinary continence. Recurrence of prolapse was 40% at four years.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12893-018-0463-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clinical agreement in the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification

Background

The American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) classification is not intended to predict risk, but increasing ASA-PS class has been associated with increased perioperative mortality. The ASA-PS class is being used by many institutions to identify patients that may require further workup or exams preoperatively. Studies regarding the ASA-PS classification system show significant variability in class assignment by anesthesiologists as well as providers of different specialties when provided with short clinical scenarios. Discrepancies in the ASA-PS accuracy have the potential to lead to unnecessary testing and cancelation of surgical procedures. Our study aimed to determine whether these differences in ASA-PS classification were present when actual patients were evaluated rather than previously published scenario-based studies.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was completed for patients >/= 65 years of age undergoing elective total hip or total knee replacements. One hundred seventy-seven records were reviewed of which 101 records had the necessary data. The outcome measures noted were the ASA-PS classification assigned by the internal medicine clinic provider, the ASA-PS classification assigned by the Pre-Anesthesia Unit (PAU) clinic provider, and the ASA-PS classification assigned on the day of surgery (DOS) by the anesthesia provider conducting the anesthetic care.

Results

A statistically significant difference was shown between the internal medicine and the PAU preoperative ASA-PS designation as well as between the internal medicine and DOS designation (McNemar p = 0.034 and p = 0.025). Low kappa values were obtained confirming the inter-observer variation in the application of the ASA-PS classification of patients by providers of different specialties [Kappa of 0.170 (− 0.001, 0.340) and 0.156 (− 0.015, 0.327)].

Conclusions

There was disagreement in the ASA-PS class designation between two providers of different specialties when evaluating the same patients with access to full medical records. When the anesthesia-run PAU and the anesthesia assigned DOS ASA-PS class designations were evaluated, there was agreement. This agreement was seen between anesthesia providers regardless of education or training level. The difference in the application of the ASA-PS classification in our study appeared to be reflective of department membership and not reflective of the individual provider’s level of training.

Perioperative angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers for preventing mortality and morbidity in adults

BACKGROUND

Perioperative hypertension requires careful management. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs) have shown efficacy in treating hypertension associated with surgery. However, there is lack of consensus about whether they can prevent mortality and morbidity.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically assess the benefits and harms of administration of ACEIs or ARBs perioperatively for the prevention of mortality and morbidity in adults (aged 18 years and above) undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the current issue of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to 8 December 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 8 December 2014), and references of the retrieved randomized trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing perioperative administration of ACEIs or ARBs with placebo in adults (aged 18 years and above) undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. We excluded studies in which participants underwent procedures that required local anaesthesia only, or participants who had already been on ACEIs or ARBs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven RCTs with a total of 571 participants in the review. Two of the seven trials involved 36 participants undergoing non-cardiac vascular surgery (infrarenal aortic surgery), and five involved 535 participants undergoing cardiac surgery, including valvular surgery, coronary artery bypass surgery, and cardiopulmonary bypass surgery. The intervention was started from 11 days to 25 minutes before surgery in six trials and during surgery in one trial. We considered all seven RCTs to carry a high risk of bias. The effects of ACEIs or ARBs on perioperative mortality and acute myocardial infarction were uncertain because the quality of the evidence was very low. The risk of death was 2.7% in the ACEIs or ARBs group and 1.6% in the placebo group (risk ratio (RR) 1.61; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 5.85). The risk of acute myocardial infarction was 1.7% in the ACEIs or ARBs group and 3.0% in the placebo group (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.14 to 2.26). ACEIs or ARBs may improve congestive heart failure (cardiac index) perioperatively (mean difference (MD) -0.60; 95% CI -0.70 to -0.50, very low-quality evidence). In terms of rate of complications, there was no difference in perioperative cerebrovascular complications (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.18 to 1.28, very low-quality evidence) and hypotension (RR 1.95; 95% CI 0.86 to 4.41, very low-quality evidence). Cardiac surgery-related renal failure was not reported. ACEIs or ARBs were associated with shortened length of hospital stay (MD -0.54; 95% CI -0.93 to -0.16, P value = 0.005, very low-quality evidence). These findings should be interpreted cautiously due to likely confounding by the clinical backgrounds of the participants. ACEIs or ARBs may shorten the length of hospital stay, (MD -0.54; 95% CI -0.93 to -0.16, very low-quality evidence) Two studies reported adverse events, and there was no evidence of a difference between the ACEIs or ARBs and control groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this review did not find evidence to support that perioperative ACEIs or ARBs can prevent mortality, morbidity, and complications (hypotension, perioperative cerebrovascular complications, and cardiac surgery-related renal failure). We found no evidence showing that the use of these drugs may reduce the rate of acute myocardial infarction. However, ACEIs or ARBs may increase cardiac output perioperatively. Due to the low and very low methodology quality, high risk of bias, and lack of power of the included studies, the true effect may be substantially different from the observed estimates. Perioperative (mainly elective cardiac surgery, according to included studies) initiation of ACEIs or ARBs therapy should be individualized.

Conversations about treatment preferences before high-risk surgery: a pilot study in the preoperative testing center

BACKGROUND

It is important to engage patients and surrogates in conversations about goals and preferences for medical treatment before high-risk surgery. However, few interventions have been tested to facilitate these discussions.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the acceptability and feasibility of a facilitated, structured conversation with patients and surrogates about patient goals and preferences for medical treatment during their visit to a preoperative testing center before high-risk surgery.

DESIGN

A randomized controlled pilot study in the preoperative testing center at a tertiary academic hospital over a 4-month period.

MEASUREMENTS

We used baseline and preoperative surveys to assess feasibility, and to compare differences in worry, surrogate burden, and patient-surrogate concordance about treatment preferences in conversation and control groups. We assessed acceptability of the conversation qualitatively and through surveys.

RESULTS

Of 146 eligible patients, 79 were approached, and 65 declined to participate. Thirteen completed the study and 8 were randomized to the structured conversation. Major recruitment barriers included lack of time, or surrogate unavailability. Most postconversation patients were less worried, and more hopeful for a good recovery before surgery; 7 of 8 would recommend the conversation. Six of 8 surrogates reported postoperatively that the conversation helped prepare them to be a surrogate. Concordance improved in the intervention group only.

CONCLUSIONS

Current processes of care present major barriers to conducting facilitated conversations in the preoperative testing center. Among a small group of patients and surrogates, most found a structured conversation about the patient's goals and preferences for medical treatment helpful before high-risk surgery.