Hypoalbuminemia as a Predictor of Mortality, Disability, and Readmission in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis

Perioperative Nutritional, Functional, and Bone Health Optimization in Spine Surgery: A National Investigation of Spine Surgeons' Perceptions and Practices

INTRODUCTION

While perioperative nutritional, functional, and bone health status optimization in spine surgery is supported with ample evidence, the implementation and surgeon perception regarding such efforts in clinical practice remain largely unexplored. This study sought to assess the current perception of spine surgeons and implementation regarding the nutritional, functional status, and bone health perioperative optimization.

METHODS

An anonymous 30-question survey was distributed to orthopaedic spine fellowship and neurosurgery program directors identified through the North American Spine Society and American Association of Neurological Surgeons contact databases.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed by 51 surgeon survey respondents. Among those, 62% reported no current formal nutritional optimization protocols with 14% not recommending an optimization plan, despite only 10% doubting benefits of nutritional optimization. While 5% of respondents perceived functional status optimization as nonbeneficial, 68% of respondents reported no protocol in place and 46% noted a functional status assessment relying on patient dependency. Among the respondents, 85% routinely ordered DEXA scan if there was suspicion of osteoporosis and 85% usually rescheduled surgery if bone health optimization goals were not achieved while 6% reported being suspicious of benefit from such interventions.

CONCLUSION

While most responding spine surgeons believe in the benefit of perioperative nutritional and functional optimization, logistical and patient compliance challenges were noted as critical barriers toward optimization. Understanding surgeon perception and current practices may guide future efforts toward advancement of optimization protocols.

Urea nitrogen-to-albumin ratio predicts ventricular aneurysm formation in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

AIMS

Left ventricular aneurysm (LVA) is an important complication of acute myocardial infarction. The aim of this study was to investigate the possible predictive value of blood urea nitrogen-to-albumin ratio (BAR) for the LVA formation in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 1123 consecutive patients with STEMI were prospectively enrolled. The clinical and laboratory data were compared between LVA group and non-LVA group. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the independent risk factors of LVA formation. Predictive power of BAR and composite variable for LVA formation were assessed using receiver operating characteristic curve. LVA was detected in 162 patients (14.4%). The BAR was significantly higher in patients with LVA [0.16 (0.13-0.19) vs. 0.13 (0.10-0.17), P < 0.001]. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) [odds ratio (OR) = 0.865, P < 0.001], culprit vessel-left anterior descending artery (LAD) (OR = 4.705, P < 0.001), and BAR (OR = 2.208, P = 0.018) were all independent predictors for LVA formation. The predictive value of BAR remained significant even after cross-validation by splitting population into training set (OR = 1.957, P = 0.034) and validation set (OR = 1.982, P = 0.039). The maximal length and width of LVA were significantly increased in patients with BAR ≥ 0.15 when compared with BAR < 0.15 (3.37 ± 1.09 vs. 2.92 ± 0.93, P = 0.01, for maximal length, and 2.20 ± 0.55 vs. 1.85 ± 0.63, P = 0.001, for maximal width). The discriminant power of BAR for LVA is 0.723, which is superior to both blood urea nitrogen (C statistic = 0.586, P < 0.001) and albumin (C statistic = 0.64, P < 0.001). The combination of BAR, LVEF, and culprit vessel-LAD could significantly increase the predictive ability (C statistic = 0.874, P < 0.001, for vs. BAR). Subgroup analysis of age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, LVEF, serum albumin, multiple-vessel disease, and Gensini score had no effect on the association between BAR and risk of LVA formation (P < 0.05 for all subgroups).

CONCLUSIONS

A higher BAR was an independent predictor for LVA formation in STEMI patients with primary PCI.