The efficacy of a smoking cessation programme in patients undergoing elective surgery - a randomised clinical trial

Differences in the effectiveness of individual-level smoking cessation interventions by socioeconomic status

BACKGROUND

People from lower socioeconomic groups are more likely to smoke and less likely to succeed in achieving abstinence, making tobacco smoking a leading driver of health inequalities. Contextual factors affecting subpopulations may moderate the efficacy of individual-level smoking cessation interventions. It is not known whether any intervention performs differently across socioeconomically-diverse populations and contexts.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether the effects of individual-level smoking cessation interventions on combustible tobacco cigarette use differ by socioeconomic groups, and their potential impact on health equalities.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to 1 May 2023 for Cochrane reviews investigating individual-level smoking cessation interventions. We selected studies included in these reviews that met our criteria. We contacted study authors to identify further eligible studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel, cluster or factorial randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating any individual-level smoking cessation intervention which encouraged complete cessation of combustible tobacco cigarette use compared to no intervention, placebo, or another intervention in adults. Studies must have assessed or reported smoking quit rates, split by any measure of socioeconomic status (SES) at longest follow-up (≥ six months), and been published in 2000 or later.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We assessed the availability of smoking abstinence data by SES in lieu of selective reporting. The primary outcome was smoking cessation quit rates, split by lower and higher SES, at the longest follow-up (≥ six months). Where possible, we calculated ratios of odds ratios (ROR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each study, comparing lower to higher SES. We pooled RORs by intervention type in random-effects meta-analyses, using the generic inverse-variance method. We subgrouped by type of SES indicator and economic classification of the study country. We summarised all evidence in effect direction plots and categorised the intervention impact on health equality as: positive (evidence that the relative effect of the intervention on quit rates was greater in lower rather than higher SES groups), possibly positive, neutral, possibly neutral, possibly negative, negative, no reported statistically significant difference, or unclear. We evaluated certainty using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 77 studies (73 from high-income countries), representing 127,791 participants. We deemed 12 studies at low overall risk of bias, 13 at unclear risk, and the remaining 52 at high risk. Included studies investigated a range of pharmacological interventions, behavioural support, or combinations of these. Pharmacological interventions We found very low-certainty evidence for all the main pharmacological interventions compared to control. Evidence on cytisine (ROR 1.13, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.74; 1 study, 2472 participants) and nicotine electronic cigarettes (ROR 4.57, 95% CI 0.88 to 23.72; 1 study, 989 participants) compared to control indicated a greater relative effect of these interventions on quit rates in lower compared to higher SES groups, suggesting a possibly positive impact on health equality. CIs for both estimates included the possibility of no clinically important difference and of favouring higher SES groups. There was a lower relative effect of bupropion versus placebo on quit rates in lower compared to higher SES groups, indicating a possibly negative impact on health equality (ROR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.00; from 1 of 2 studies, 354 participants; 1 study reported no difference); however, the CI included the possibility of no clinically important difference. We could not determine the intervention impact of combination or single-form nicotine replacement therapy on relative quit rates by SES. No studies on varenicline versus control were included. Behavioural interventions We found low-certainty evidence of lower quit rates in lower compared to higher SES groups for print-based self-help (ROR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; 3 studies, 4440 participants) and text-messaging (ROR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.23; from 3 of 4 studies, 5339 participants; 1 study reported no difference) versus control, indicating a possibly negative impact on health equality. CIs for both estimates included the possibility of no clinically important difference and of favouring lower SES groups. There was very low-certainty evidence of quit rates favouring higher SES groups for financial incentives compared to balanced intervention components. However, the CI included the possibility of no clinically important difference and of favouring lower SES groups (ROR 0.91, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.85; from 5 of 6 studies, 3018 participants; 1 study reported no difference). This indicates a possibly negative impact on health equality. There was very low-certainty evidence of no difference in quit rates by SES for face-to-face counselling compared to less intensive counselling, balanced components, or usual care. However, the CI included the possibility of favouring lower and higher SES groups (ROR 1.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 8.93; from 1 of 6 studies, 294 participants; 5 studies reported no difference), indicating a possibly neutral impact. We found very low-certainty evidence of a greater relative effect of telephone counselling (ROR 4.31, 95% CI 1.28 to 14.51; from 1 of 7 studies, 903 participants; 5 studies reported no difference, 1 unclear) and internet interventions (ROR 1.49, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.25; from 1 of 5 studies, 4613 participants; 4 studies reported no difference) versus control on quit rates in lower versus higher SES groups, suggesting a possibly positive impact on health equality. The CI for the internet intervention estimate included the possibility of no difference. Although the CI for the telephone counselling estimate only favoured lower SES groups, most studies narratively reported no clear evidence of interaction effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is no clear evidence to support the use of differential individual-level smoking cessation interventions for people from lower or higher SES groups, or that any one intervention would have an effect on health inequalities. This conclusion may change as further data become available. Many studies did not report sufficient data to be included in a meta-analysis, despite having tested the association of interest. Further RCTs should collect, analyse, and report quit rates by measures of SES, to inform intervention development and ensure recommended interventions do not exacerbate but help reduce health inequalities caused by smoking.

The role of nurses in smoking cessation interventions for patients: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Smoking is a significant global public health concern, presenting substantial risks to individuals' health. Smoking cessation is essential for improving patients' well-being, and nurses play a critical role in assisting patients to quit smoking. However, there is a lack of research on nurses' specialized roles in smoking cessation interventions for patients.

OBJECTIVE

To define the specific responsibilities of nurses in facilitating smoking cessation among patients, and provide guidance for future nursing interventions in smoking cessation.

METHODS

The scoping review process was conducted for Arksey and O'Malley's framework. Based on the three-step search strategy of Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), a comprehensive search was performed across ten databases including PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, OVID, PsycINFO, CNKI, Wan Fang Data Knowledge Service Platform, and VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, covering studies from the inception of the databases to February 2024. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed using the JBI (participants, content, and context) principle. Randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies with nurse-led or involved smoking cessation interventions for patients were included. Data extraction was conducted independently by two reviewers. The findings were reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).

RESULTS

In total, 53 studies were eligible for the final charting and synthesis. The analysis identified six key roles that nurses played in smoking cessation interventions: assessors, educators, practice facilitators, coordinating collaborators, organizers, and supervisors. Among these, the roles of assessors, educators, and practice facilitators were the most commonly reported. The motivation interview and 5A method were the predominant techniques employed for smoking cessation. Nurses primarily promoted smoking cessation through the distribution of pamphlets, face-to-face education, and the provision of smoking cessation guidance. The primary participants in these studies were patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

CONCLUSIONS

Nurses play an indispensable role in smoking cessation interventions, occupying multiple critical roles. However, this review identified a gap in the pre-intervention training of nurses, indicating a need for enhanced training programs to better prepare nurses for effective smoking cessation interventions.

Intensive Intervention on Smoking Cessation in Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery: The Role of Family Physicians

Background and Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the role of physicians in the intensive intervention and education regarding the smoking cessation of patients undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia. Materials and Methods: A randomised prospective study was conducted in family physicians' clinics in which smokers of both sexes, aged 21-65 years, without cognitive impairments, and who were not addicted to psychoactive substances voluntarily participated. Four weeks preoperatively, 120 smokers were randomised into two equal groups; the intervention group (IG) underwent an intervention for the purpose of smoking cessation and the control group (CG) underwent no intervention. Biochemical tests were performed in order to determine the smoking status of the participants in the phase of randomisation, one week preoperatively, as well as 40, 120, and 180 days and 12 months postoperatively. The examinees of the IG talked to the physician five times and received 140 telephone messages, leaflets, and motivational letters along with the pharmacotherapy, while the participants in the CG received little or no advice on smoking cessation. Results: The results of this study confirmed a significant influence of the intervention and education on the smoking abstinence in the IG compared to the CG (p < 0.001). The smokers in the IG had 7.31 (95% CI: 2.32-23.04) times greater odds of abstinence upon the 12-month follow-up than the smokers in the CG. The smokers in the IG who did not stop smoking had a lower degree of dependence and smoked fewer cigarettes (p < 0.0001) compared to those in the CG, as well as a multiple times higher prevalence of short- and long-term abstinence. Conclusions: It can be concluded that the intensive intervention and education can motivate patients preparing for elective surgery to stop smoking in the short- and long term.

Impact of preoperative intervention for smoking cessation on postoperative length of stay and cost for spine surgery patients: Propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Preoperative intervention for smoking cessation reduces the prevalence of postoperative complications in spine surgery. To date, however, the impact of these interventions on the length of stay (LOS) and cost for patients is unclear.

PATIENTS/METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from 317 patients who were current smokers and underwent spine surgery between January 2014 and December 2019 at a single facility in Tokyo, Japan. Most patients (262) received preoperative intervention for smoking cessation within 60 days before spine surgery; the remaining 55 patients did not receive the intervention. The postoperative LOS was compared using propensity score matching. Patients were matched for age, gender, body mass index, surgical plan (cervical surgery, anterior approach surgery, minimally invasive surgery), preoperative comorbidities (diabetes mellitus, hypertension, ischemic cardiac disease, chronic lung disease), and recent history of steroid therapy, which yielded 48 pairs of patients.

RESULTS

The length of postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the intervention group (-10.60 days, [95% CI, -15.79 to -5.42]). The cost for service was significantly lower in the intervention group (coefficient, Japanese yen [JPY] -1,515,529; [95% CI, -2,130,631 to -900,426]; 110 JPY equivalent to 1 United States dollar).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative interventions for smoking cessation may decrease postoperative hospital stay and hospitalization costs.

The effect of preoperative behaviour change interventions on pre- and post-surgery health behaviours, health outcomes, and health inequalities in adults: A systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation interventions are being delivered across surgical specialities to improve health risk behaviours leading to better surgical outcomes and potentially reduce length of hospital stay. Most previous research has focused on specific surgery specialities and has not considered the impact of interventions on health inequalities, nor whether prehabilitation improves health behaviour risk profiles beyond surgery. The aim of this review was to examine behavioural Prehabilitation interventions across surgeries to inform policy makers and commissioners of the best available evidence.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to determine the effect of behavioural prehabilitation interventions targeting at least one of: smoking behaviour, alcohol use, physical activity, dietary intake (including weight loss interventions) on pre- and post-surgery health behaviours, health outcomes, and health inequalities. The comparator was usual care or no treatment. MEDLINE, PubMed, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Clinical trials and Embase databases were searched from inception to May 2021, and the MEDLINE search was updated twice, most recently in March 2023. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Outcomes were length of stay, six-minute walk test, behaviours (smoking, diet, physical activity, weight change, and alcohol), and quality of life. Sixty-seven trials were included; 49 interventions targeted a single behaviour and 18 targeted multiple behaviours. No trials examined effects by equality measures. Length of stay in the intervention group was 1.5 days shorter than the comparator (n = 9 trials, 95% CI -2.6 to -0.4, p = 0.01, I2 83%), although in sensitivity analysis prehabilitation had the most impact in lung cancer patients (-3.5 days). Pre-surgery, there was a mean difference of 31.8 m in the six-minute walk test favouring the prehabilitation group (n = 19 trials, 95% CI 21.2 to 42.4m, I2 55%, P <0.001) and this was sustained to 4-weeks post-surgery (n = 9 trials, mean difference = 34.4m (95%CI 12.8 to 56.0, I2 72%, P = 0.002)). Smoking cessation was greater in the prehabilitation group before surgery (RR 2.9, 95% CI 1.7 to 4.8, I2 84%), and this was sustained at 12 months post-surgery (RR 1.74 (95% CI 1.20 to 2.55, I2 43%, Tau2 0.09, p = 0.004)There was no difference in pre-surgery quality of life (n = 12 trials) or BMI (n = 4 trials).

CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural prehabilitation interventions reduced length of stay by 1.5 days, although in sensitivity analysis the difference was only found for Prehabilitation interventions for lung cancer. Prehabilitation can improve functional capacity and smoking outcomes just before surgery. That improvements in smoking outcomes were sustained at 12-months post-surgery suggests that the surgical encounter holds promise as a teachable moment for longer-term behavioural change. Given the paucity of data on the effects on other behavioural risk factors, more research grounded in behavioural science and with longer-term follow-up is needed to further investigate this potential.

Implementation of a relapse prevention program among smokers undergoing arthroplasty: lessons learned

BACKGROUND

Surgery is a potent motivator to help people quit smoking to reduce the risk of complications. Many patients who smoke receive tobacco cessation counseling prior to surgery and are able to quit, but do not receive the same resources after surgery and often resume smoking.

METHODS

We present a case study describing the recruitment process, study components, and lessons learned from StayQuit, a comprehensive relapse prevention program designed to prevent relapse after arthroplasty. Lessons learned were examined post hoc to determine challenges related to program implementation, using existing study procedures and information collected.

RESULTS

While a comprehensive postoperative relapse prevention program may be beneficial to patients, implementation of StayQuit is unlikely to be feasible under current circumstances. The primary challenges to successful implementation of StayQuit focused on themes of lack of engagement in the preoperative Orthopedic Surgery Quit Smoking Program (OSQSP) and an environment unfavorable to in-person enrollment on the day of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative relapse prevention programs may be beneficial for patients who quit smoking prior to elective surgery. To help guide implementation, it is important to consider surgeon behavior, the collaboration of clinical and non-clinical teams, and best practices for study enrollment in surgical settings.

Efficacy of Presurgical Interventions to Promote Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of presurgical interventions for promoting smoking cessation in terms of achieving smoking abstinence and reducing surgical complication rates. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published from March 2009 to April 2021 was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. References were found in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science (WOS), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). RCTs comparing the efficacy of a smoking cessation program directed at an intervention group (IG) versus the usual intervention or another directed at a control group (CG) were included. No language restrictions were applied in the search. All approaches to smoking cessation were admitted (face-to-face, telephone, group, individual, multicomponent, etc.), as were all methods for assessing abstinence, follow-up times, surgical specialties, definitions of smokers, and all types of surgical complications. Four hundred forty-four references were pulled out, and 79 duplicates were discarded. We excluded 346 records that were after application of the inclusion/exclusion criteria. In addition to the remaining 19 articles, 1 article obtained from citation searches was also assessed. We finally included 11 original articles in this systematic review, corresponding to 9 studies, because 2 of the RCTs had 2 different articles referring to different aspects of the same study. The results showed long-term postoperative (6 to 12 months) abstinence rates between 25.0% and 36.4% in RCTs with intensive multicomponent interventions, versus rates about 13.0% in brief interventions. Two multicomponent interventions obtained significant improvements regarding the reduction of short-term postoperative surgical complications. In conclusion, presurgical multicomponent smoking cessation interventions are more effective than brief interventions in terms of achieving abstinence and reducing surgical complications. The follow-up time and the intensity of the interventions were predictors of dropout.

A practical guide for perioperative smoking cessation

The perioperative management of patients who are smokers presents anesthesiologists with various challenges related to respiratory, circulatory, and other clinical problems. Regarding 30-day postoperative outcomes, smokers have higher risks of mortality and complications than non-smokers, including death, pneumonia, unplanned tracheal intubation, mechanical ventilation, cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Given the benefits of smoking cessation and the adverse effects of smoking on perioperative patient management, patients should quit smoking long before surgery. However, anesthesiologists cannot address these issues alone. The Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists established guidelines in 2015 (published in a medical journal in 2017) to enlighten surgical staff members and patients regarding perioperative tobacco cessation. The primary objective of perioperative smoking cessation is to reduce the risks of adverse cardiovascular and respiratory events, wound infection, and other perioperative complications. Perioperative preparations constitute a powerful teachable moment, a "golden opportunity" for smoking cessation to achieve improved primary disease outcomes and prevent the occurrence of tobacco-related conditions. This review updates the aforementioned guidelines as a practical guide to cover the nuts and bolts of perioperative smoking cessation. Its goal is to assist surgeons, anesthesiologists, and other medical professionals and to increase patients' awareness of smoking risks before elective surgery.

The European Hernia Society Prehabilitation Project: a systematic review of patient prehabilitation prior to ventral hernia surgery

BACKGROUND

Ventral hernia repair is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures worldwide. To reduce the risk of complications, patient prehabilitation has received increasing focus in recent years. To assess prehabilitation measures, this European Hernia Society endorsed project was launched. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current literature on patient prehabilitation prior to ventral hernia repair.

METHODS

The strategies examined were optimization of renal disease, obesity, nutrition, physical exercise, COPD, diabetes and smoking cessation. For each topic, a separate literature search was conducted, allowing for seven different sub-reviews.

RESULTS

A limited amount of well-conducted research studies evaluating prehabilitation prior to ventral hernia surgery was found. The primary findings showed that smoking cessation and weight loss for obese patients led to reduced risks of complications after abdominal wall reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Prehabilitation prior to ventral hernia repair may be widely used; however, the literature supporting its use is limited. Future studies evaluating the impact of prehabilitation before ventral hernia surgery are warranted.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of risk factors for Mesh infection following Abdominal Wall Hernia Repair Surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgical Mesh Infection (SMI) after Abdominal Wall Hernia Repair (AWHR) represents a catastrophic complication. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze the risk factors for SMI in the context of AWHR.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Scielo, and LILACS were searched without language or time restrictions from inception until June 2021. Articles evaluating the association between demographic, clinical, laboratory and surgical characteristics with SMI in AWHR were included.

RESULTS

23 studies were evaluated, comprising a total of 118,790 patients (98% males; mean age 56.5 years) with a mesh infection pooled prevalence of 4%. Significant risk factors for SMI were type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, smoking history, steroids use, ASA III/IV, laparotomy vs laparoscopy, emergency surgery, duration of surgery and onlay mesh position vs sublay. The quality of evidence was regarded as very low-moderate.

CONCLUSION

Several factors, highlighting sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, and the clinical scenario, may increase the risk of developing mesh infections in AWHR. The recognition and mitigation of these may significantly reduce mesh infection rates in this context.

Smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of early death. Varenicline [Champix (UK), Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Brussels, Belgium; or Chantix (USA), Pfizer Inc., Mission, KS, USA], bupropion (Zyban; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) and nicotine replacement therapy are licensed aids for quitting smoking in the UK. Although not licensed, e-cigarettes may also be used in English smoking cessation services. Concerns have been raised about the safety of these medicines and e-cigarettes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation medicines and e-cigarettes.

DESIGN

Systematic reviews, network meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness analysis informed by the network meta-analysis results.

SETTING

Primary care practices, hospitals, clinics, universities, workplaces, nursing or residential homes.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers aged ≥ 18 years of all ethnicities using UK-licensed smoking cessation therapies and/or e-cigarettes.

INTERVENTIONS

Varenicline, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy as monotherapies and in combination treatments at standard, low or high dose, combination nicotine replacement therapy and e-cigarette monotherapies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Effectiveness - continuous or sustained abstinence. Safety - serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse neuropsychiatric events.

DATA SOURCES

Ten databases, reference lists of relevant research articles and previous reviews. Searches were performed from inception until 16 March 2017 and updated on 19 February 2019.

REVIEW METHODS

Three reviewers screened the search results. Data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by one reviewer and checked by the other reviewers. Network meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and safety outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an amended version of the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model.

RESULTS

Most monotherapies and combination treatments were more effective than placebo at achieving sustained abstinence. Varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard (odds ratio 5.75, 95% credible interval 2.27 to 14.90) was ranked first for sustained abstinence, followed by e-cigarette low (odds ratio 3.22, 95% credible interval 0.97 to 12.60), although these estimates have high uncertainty. We found effect modification for counselling and dependence, with a higher proportion of smokers who received counselling achieving sustained abstinence than those who did not receive counselling, and higher odds of sustained abstinence among participants with higher average dependence scores. We found that bupropion standard increased odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo (odds ratio 1.27, 95% credible interval 1.04 to 1.58). There were no differences between interventions in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events. There was evidence of increased odds of major adverse neuropsychiatric events for smokers randomised to varenicline standard compared with those randomised to bupropion standard (odds ratio 1.43, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 2.09). There was a high level of uncertainty about the most cost-effective intervention, although all were cost-effective compared with nicotine replacement therapy low at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. E-cigarette low appeared to be most cost-effective in the base case, followed by varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When the impact of major adverse neuropsychiatric events was excluded, varenicline standard plus nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline low plus nicotine replacement therapy standard. When limited to licensed interventions in the UK, nicotine replacement therapy standard was most cost-effective, followed by varenicline standard.

LIMITATIONS

Comparisons between active interventions were informed almost exclusively by indirect evidence. Findings were imprecise because of the small numbers of adverse events identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined therapies of medicines are among the most clinically effective, safe and cost-effective treatment options for smokers. Although the combined therapy of nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline at standard doses was the most effective treatment, this is currently unlicensed for use in the UK.

FUTURE WORK

Researchers should examine the use of these treatments alongside counselling and continue investigating the long-term effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation compared with active interventions such as nicotine replacement therapy.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041302.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Prospective Randomized Trial on Smoking Cessation in Orthopaedic Trauma Patients: Results From the Let's STOP (Smoking in Trauma Orthopaedic Patients) Now Trial

OBJECTIVES

Determine if extended inpatient counseling increases smoking cessation.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized trial.

SETTING

Level I trauma center.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

Current smokers with an operative fracture.

INTERVENTION

Randomly assigned to control (no counseling), brief counseling (inpatient counseling), or extended counseling (brief counseling plus follow-up counseling) groups in a 1:3:3 ratio.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Smoking cessation confirmed by exhaled carbon monoxide at 3 and 6 months. Secondary outcomes are proportion accepting services from a nationally based quitline.

RESULTS

Overall, 266 patients participated, with 40, 111, and 115 patients in the control and 2 treatment groups, respectively. At 3 months, 17% of control patients versus 11% in the brief counseling and 10% in the extended counseling groups quit smoking, respectively (P = 0.45, 0.37). At 6 months, 15% of control, and 10% and 5% of the respective counseling groups quit (P = 0.45, 0.10). Extended counseling patients were 3 times more likely to accept referral to a quitline [odds ratio (OR), 3.1; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.4-6.9], and brief counseling patients were more than 2 times as likely to accept referral (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.0-5.1) than the control group. Extended counseling (OR, 8.2; 95% CI, 1.0-68.5) and brief counseling (OR, 5.3; 95% CI, 0.6-44.9) patients were more likely to use quitline services than the control group.

CONCLUSION

Increasing levels of inpatient counseling can improve successful referral to a smoking quitline, but it does not seem to influence quit rates among orthopaedic trauma patients. Extended counseling does not appear to provide substantial benefit over brief counseling.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Post-Operative Complications and Readmissions Associated with Smoking Following Bariatric Surgery

BACKGROUND

The link between smoking and poor postoperative outcomes is well established. Despite this, current smokers are still offered bariatric surgery. We describe the risk of postoperative 30-day complications and readmission following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic Roux-En-Y gastric bypass in smokers.

METHODS

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried to identify patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-En-Y gastric bypass from 2012 to 2017. Patient outcomes were compared based on smoking status. Primary outcomes included 30-day readmission and death or serious morbidity. Secondary outcomes included wound and respiratory complications. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association between smoking status and measured outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 133,417 patients who underwent bariatric surgery, 12,424 (9.3%) were smokers. Smokers more frequently experienced readmission (4.9% v 4.1%, p < 0.001), death or serious morbidity (3.8% v 3.4%, p = 0.019), wound complications (2% v 1.4%, p < 0.001), and respiratory complications (0.8% v 0.5%, p < 0.001). The likelihood of death or serious morbidity (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01-1.26), readmission (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.10-1.33), wound (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.24-1.68), and respiratory complications (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.34-2.14) were greater in smokers. The adjusted ORs remained significant on subgroup analysis of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-En-Y gastric bypass patients, with the exception of death or serious morbidity in laparoscopic Roux-En-Y gastric bypass (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89-1.24).

CONCLUSIONS

Smokers undergoing bariatric surgery experience significantly worse 30-day outcomes when compared with non-smokers. There should be a continued emphasis on perioperative smoking cessation for patients being evaluated for bariatric surgery.

Risk Factors for Surgical Complications in Ventral Hernia Repair

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for an adverse event, i.e. early surgical complication, need for ICU care and readmission, following ventral hernia repair. Our hypothesis was that there is an association between an increased complication rate following ventral hernia repair and specific factors, including hernia size, BMI > 35, concomitant bowel surgery, ASA-class, age, gender and method of hernia repair.

METHODS

Data from a hernia database with prospectively entered data on 408 patients operated for ventral hernia between 2007 and 2014 at two Swedish university hospitals were analysed. A 3-month follow-up of complications, need for intensive care and readmission, was performed by reviewing the medical records.

RESULTS

Eighty-one of 408 patients (20%) had a registered complication. Fifty-eight (14%) of these were classed as Clavien I-IIIa, and in 19 cases a Clavien IIIb-IV complication was reported. Large hernia size was associated with increased risk for early complication. A Kendall Tau test analysis revealed a proportional relationship between hernia size and modified Clavien outcome class (p < 0.001). Morbid obesity, ASA-class, method, hernia recurrence, age and concomitant bowel surgery were not statistically significant predictors of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessment of hernia aperture size is of great importance in the preoperative evaluation of ventral hernia patients to consider risk for post-operative complications. These results suggest a careful attitude when applying watchful waiting concepts and when postponing hernia surgery to achieve weight loss. A delaying attitude may result in increased risk of complications caused by increasing hernia size.

A pilot study on secondhand tobacco exposure: parental knowledge about health impact and feasibility of cessation

Introduction

As the primary source of smoke exposure is in the home, the smoking behaviors of parents and other caregivers are key determinants of a child's exposure to secondhand smoke. The perioperative period offers an opportunity to discuss smoking cessation strategies.

Methods

This prospective study included 97 parents or caregivers of patients undergoing dental surgery. Caregivers were surveyed in the dental waiting room during the preoperative phase. The primary aim was to determine the feasibility of using the preoperative encounter to offer smoking cessation resources to parents of pediatric patients. The secondary aim was to compare willingness to receive smoking cessation resources according to the knowledge of the risks of secondhand smoking (ie, being aware of secondhand smoking and knowing that it posed a risk to their child).

Results

Awareness of risks due to secondhand smoking was 65% in the overall cohort and 58% among current smokers (P=0.284 vs nonsmokers). Among smokers in our study, only a small percentage (12%) were interested in smoking cessation help. Knowledge of the risks of secondhand smoke may not be sufficient for smokers to express willingness to receive help.

Conclusion

The outpatient clinic may be a teaching opportunity for smoking cessation for caregivers. However, we found that only a small percentage of caregivers were interested in receiving information about smoking cessation. This was despite the fact they were aware of the potential adverse effects of secondhand smoke on their children.

The importance of smoking in orthopedic surgery

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco use is related to augmented morbidity and mortality. People who smoke heavily before orthopedic surgery may have more nonmedical complications than nonsmokers. Therefore, all orthopedic surgery patients should be screened for tobacco use.

AIM

To investigate the musculoskeletal effects of perioperative smoking.

METHODS

A narrative review of the literature on the topic was performed.

RESULTS

Orthopedic perioperative complications of smoking include impaired wound healing, augmented infection, delayed and/or impaired fracture union and arthrodesis, and worst total knee and hip arthroplasty results. Orthopedic surgeons seldom postponed surgery or utilized smoking cessation methods.

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of smoking cessation methods such as transdermal patches, chewing gum, lozenges, inhalers, sprays, bupropion, and varenicline in the perioperative period should be recommended. Perioperative smoking cessation appears to be an efficacious method to decrease postoperative complications even if it is implemented as late as 4 weeks before surgery.

The effect of smoking on 30-day outcomes in elective hernia repair

BACKGROUND

Adverse postoperative outcomes related to smoking are well established, yet current smokers continue to be offered elective surgery in the US. It is unknown whether patients undergoing low-risk, elective procedures, who actively smoke experience increased risk of complications. We sought to determine the increased burden of complications following elective hernia repair procedures in patients identified as current smokers.

METHODS

We identified patients undergoing elective incisional, inguinal, umbilical, or ventral hernia repair from 2011 to 2014 using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS NSQIP) database. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association between current smoking and 30-day postoperative outcomes, adjusting for demographics and comorbidities.

RESULTS

Of 220,629 patients who underwent elective hernia repair, 40,446 (18.3%) self-identified as current smokers within the past 12 months. Current smokers experienced an increased likelihood (Odds Ratio [95% Confidence interval]) of reoperation (OR 1.23 [95% CI 1.11-1.36]), readmission (OR 1.24 [95% CI 1.16-1.32]), and death (OR 1.53 [95% CI 1.06-2.22]). Furthermore, smokers experienced an increased risk of postoperative pulmonary, infectious, and wound complications, but there was no increased risk of requiring transfusion or of postoperative cardiac or thromboembolic events.

CONCLUSIONS

Current smokers were more likely to experience serious postoperative complications within 30 days. Given the volume of elective hernia surgery performed in the US, encouraging smoking cessation prior to offering elective repair could reduce postoperative complications, reoperation, readmission, and mortality.

Guidelines for the Treatment of Smoking in Hospitalized Patients

Between 15 and 27% of patients admitted to Spanish hospitals are smokers. Hospitalization is an ideal time for a smoker to decide to quit. We performed a MEDLINE search of controlled, randomized or observational studies associated with helping hospitalized patients quit smoking, published between January 1, 2002 and September 30, 2015. On the basis of the results of those studies, we have issued some recommendations for the treatment of smoking in hospitalized patients. The recommendations were drawn up according to the GRADE system. Offering the smoker psychological counselling and prolonging follow-up for at least 4 weeks after discharge is the most effective recommendation for helping hospitalized patients to quit.

Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Both behavioural support (including brief advice and counselling) and pharmacotherapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion) are effective in helping people to stop smoking. Combining both treatment approaches is recommended where possible, but the size of the treatment effect with different combinations and in different settings and populations is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of combining behavioural support and medication to aid smoking cessation, compared to a minimal intervention or usual care, and to identify whether there are different effects depending on characteristics of the treatment setting, intervention, population treated, or take-up of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support for smoking cessation, compared to a control receiving usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by two authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by another.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three studies with a total of more than 25,000 participants met the inclusion criteria. A large proportion of studies recruited people in healthcare settings or with specific health needs. Most studies provided NRT. Behavioural support was typically provided by specialists in cessation counselling, who offered between four and eight contact sessions. The planned maximum duration of contact was typically more than 30 minutes but less than 300 minutes. Overall, studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, and findings were not sensitive to the exclusion of any of the six studies rated at high risk of bias in one domain. One large study (the Lung Health Study) contributed heterogeneity due to a substantially larger treatment effect than seen in other studies (RR 3.88, 95% CI 3.35 to 4.50). Since this study used a particularly intensive intervention which included extended availability of nicotine gum, multiple group sessions and long term maintenance and recycling contacts, the results may not be comparable with the interventions used in other studies, and hence it was not pooled in other analyses. Based on the remaining 52 studies (19,488 participants) there was high quality evidence (using GRADE) for a benefit of combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural treatment compared to usual care, brief advice or less intensive behavioural support (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.68 to 1.98) with moderate statistical heterogeneity (I² = 36%).The pooled estimate for 43 trials that recruited participants in healthcare settings (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.18) was higher than for eight trials with community-based recruitment (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.76). Compared to the first version of the review, previous weak evidence of differences in other subgroup analyses has disappeared. We did not detect differences between subgroups defined by motivation to quit, treatment provider, number or duration of support sessions, or take-up of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care. Updating this review with an additional 12 studies (5,000 participants) did not materially change the effect estimate. Although trials differed in the details of their populations and interventions, we did not detect any factors that modified treatment effects apart from the recruitment setting. We did not find evidence from indirect comparisons that offering more intensive behavioural support was associated with larger treatment effects.

Health risk factors in the anesthesia population

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We investigated the prevalence of lifestyle risk factors in patients admitted to our preoperative assessment outpatient clinic, and compared patient self-reports and anesthetist reports of health risk factors to evaluate the patient self-image of preoperative health status.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

The study was performed in an academic teaching hospital in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, during 3 consecutive months at the preoperative screening clinic.

PATIENTS

A total of 1227 adult patients scheduled for surgery were screened, and 1111 were included (patients being excluded where data were incomplete).

INTERVENTIONS AND MEASUREMENTS

Before health risk screening by an anesthetist, patients filled out a lifestyle risk factor questionnaire including overweight, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, smoking, physical activity, and alcohol use. These were compared with risk factors stated in the preoperative assessment report of the anesthetist.

MAIN RESULTS

The study population was aged 51 ± 17 years with a body mass index of 25.6 ± 4.7 kg/m(2). The most frequent lifestyle risk factors reported by the anesthetist were overweight and obesity (47.5%), smoking (25.3%), and hypertension (23.7%). The prevalence of no, 1, or 2 lifestyle risk factors in the preoperative assessment outpatient clinic population was, respectively, 30.1%, 35.6%, and 18.5% reported by the anesthetist and 36.4%, 36.7%, and 18.6% reported by the patients. Patients with more lifestyle risk factors were older with a higher body mass index and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. Differences in reporting of lifestyle risk factors between patients and anesthetist occurred especially with overweight (26.5% vs 47.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of lifestyle risk factors in perioperative patients is high, and differences in reporting between patients and anesthetists may suggest that patients are unaware of or ignore their unhealthy state. Further studies are warranted to investigate the association between the lifestyle risk factors and outcome in the anesthesiology setting.

Influence of the modifiable life-style factors body mass index and smoking on the outcome of hysterectomy

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to study the impact of body mass index (BMI) and smoking on the outcome of hysterectomy and whether effects of these factors vary between abdominal, laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Pre-, per- and postoperative (8 weeks) data were retrieved from the Swedish National Register for Gynecological Surgery on 28 537 hysterectomies performed because of a benign indication between 2004 and 2013. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify independent factors affecting the rate of complications, presented as adjusted odds ratios (adjOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Overweight and obesity had the strongest impact on complications in the abdominal hysterectomy group. In women with a BMI ≥ 30 an increased adjOR could be seen for bleeding >1000 mL (2.90; 95% CI 2.23-3.77), peroperative complications (1.54; 95% CI 1.26-1.88), operation time >120 min (2.67; 95% CI 2.33-3.03), postoperative complications (1.21; 95% CI 1.08-1.34) and postoperative infections (1.73; 95% CI 1.50-1.99). With vaginal hysterectomy, the effect of BMI ≥ 30 could be seen in relation to excessive bleeding >500 mL (1.63; 95% CI 1.22-2.17) and operative time >120 min (2.00; 95% CI 1.60-2.50). With laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH), a BMI ≥ 30 had a higher adjOR for prolonged surgery (1.71; 95% CI 1.30-2.26). Smokers had an increased risk of postoperative infection in the abdominal hysterectomy (1.23; 95% CI 1.07-1.40) and vaginal hysterectomy groups (1.21; 95% CI 1.02-1.43) but not in the LH group.

CONCLUSIONS

Body mass index and smoking had a negative effect with all hysterectomy approaches but to a lesser extent in vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomies. This should be taken into consideration in advance of surgery to improve outcome.

Interventions for preoperative smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Smokers have a substantially increased risk of postoperative complications. Preoperative smoking intervention may be effective in decreasing this incidence, and surgery may constitute a unique opportunity for smoking cessation interventions.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review are to assess the effect of preoperative smoking intervention on smoking cessation at the time of surgery and 12 months postoperatively, and on the incidence of postoperative complications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in January 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials that recruited people who smoked prior to surgery, offered a smoking cessation intervention, and measured preoperative and long-term abstinence from smoking or the incidence of postoperative complications or both outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors independently assessed studies to determine eligibility, and discussed the results between them.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials enrolling 2010 participants met the inclusion criteria. One trial did not report cessation as an outcome. Seven reported some measure of postoperative morbidity. Most studies were judged to be at low risk of bias but the overall quality of evidence was moderate due to the small number of studies contributing to each comparison.Ten trials evaluated the effect of behavioural support on cessation at the time of surgery; nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) was offered or recommended to some or all participants in eight of these. Two trials initiated multisession face-to-face counselling at least four weeks before surgery and were classified as intensive interventions, whilst seven used a brief intervention. One further study provided an intensive intervention to both groups, with the intervention group additionally receiving a computer-based scheduled reduced smoking intervention. One placebo-controlled trial examined the effect of varenicline administered one week preoperatively followed by 11 weeks postoperative treatment, and one placebo-controlled trial examined the effect of nicotine lozenges from the night before surgery as an adjunct to brief counselling at the preoperative evaluation. There was evidence of heterogeneity between the effects of trials using intensive and brief interventions, so we pooled these separately. An effect on cessation at the time of surgery was apparent in both subgroups, but the effect was larger for intensive intervention (pooled risk ratio (RR) 10.76; 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.55 to 25.46, two trials, 210 participants) than for brief interventions (RR 1.30; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.46, 7 trials, 1141 participants). A single trial did not show evidence of benefit of a scheduled reduced smoking intervention. Neither nicotine lozenges nor varenicline were shown to increase cessation at the time of surgery but both had wide confidence intervals (RR 1.34; 95% CI 0.86 to 2.10 (1 trial, 46 participants) and RR 1.49; 95% CI 0.98 to 2.26 (1 trial, 286 participants) respectively). Four of these trials evaluated long-term smoking cessation and only the intensive intervention retained a significant effect (RR 2.96; 95% CI 1.57 to 5.55, 2 trials, 209 participants), whilst there was no evidence of a long-term effect following a brief intervention (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.75, 2 trials, 341 participants). The trial of varenicline did show a significant effect on long-term smoking cessation (RR 1.45; 95% CI 1.01 to 2.07, 1 trial, 286 participants).Seven trials examined the effect of smoking intervention on postoperative complications. As with smoking outcomes, there was evidence of heterogeneity between intensive and brief behavioural interventions. In subgroup analyses there was a significant effect of intensive intervention on any complications (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.65, 2 trials, 210 participants) and on wound complications (RR 0.31; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.62, 2 trials, 210 participants). For brief interventions, where the impact on smoking had been smaller, there was no evidence of a reduction in complications (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.19, 4 trials, 493 participants) for any complication (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.40, 3 trials, 325 participants) for wound complications. The trial of varenicline did not detect an effect on postoperative complications (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.72, 1 trial, 286 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that preoperative smoking interventions providing behavioural support and offering NRT increase short-term smoking cessation and may reduce postoperative morbidity. One trial of varenicline begun shortly before surgery has shown a benefit on long-term cessation but did not detect an effect on early abstinence or on postoperative complications. The optimal preoperative intervention intensity remains unknown. Based on indirect comparisons and evidence from two small trials, interventions that begin four to eight weeks before surgery, include weekly counselling and use NRT are more likely to have an impact on complications and on long-term smoking cessation.

Interventions for preoperative smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Smokers have a substantially increased risk of postoperative complications. Preoperative smoking intervention may be effective in decreasing this incidence, and surgery may constitute a unique opportunity for smoking cessation interventions.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review are to assess the effect of preoperative smoking intervention on smoking cessation at the time of surgery and 12 months postoperatively, and on the incidence of postoperative complications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in January 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials that recruited people who smoked prior to surgery, offered a smoking cessation intervention, and measured preoperative and long-term abstinence from smoking or the incidence of postoperative complications or both outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors independently assessed studies to determine eligibility, and discussed the results between them.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials enrolling 2010 participants met the inclusion criteria. One trial did not report cessation as an outcome. Seven reported some measure of postoperative morbidity. Most studies were judged to be at low risk of bias but the overall quality of evidence was moderate due to the small number of studies contributing to each comparison.Ten trials evaluated the effect of behavioural support on cessation at the time of surgery; nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) was offered or recommended to some or all participants in eight of these. Two trials initiated multisession face-to-face counselling at least four weeks before surgery and were classified as intensive interventions, whilst seven used a brief intervention. One further study provided an intensive intervention to both groups, with the intervention group additionally receiving a computer-based scheduled reduced smoking intervention. One placebo-controlled trial examined the effect of varenicline administered one week preoperatively followed by 11 weeks postoperative treatment, and one placebo-controlled trial examined the effect of nicotine lozenges from the night before surgery as an adjunct to brief counselling at the preoperative evaluation. There was evidence of heterogeneity between the effects of trials using intensive and brief interventions, so we pooled these separately. An effect on cessation at the time of surgery was apparent in both subgroups, but the effect was larger for intensive intervention (pooled risk ratio (RR) 10.76; 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.55 to 25.46, two trials, 210 participants) than for brief interventions (RR 1.30; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.46, 7 trials, 1141 participants). A single trial did not show evidence of benefit of a scheduled reduced smoking intervention. Neither nicotine lozenges nor varenicline were shown to increase cessation at the time of surgery but both had wide confidence intervals (RR 1.34; 95% CI 0.86 to 2.10 (1 trial, 46 participants) and RR 1.49; 95% CI 0.98 to 2.26 (1 trial, 286 participants) respectively). Four of these trials evaluated long-term smoking cessation and only the intensive intervention retained a significant effect (RR 2.96; 95% CI 1.57 to 5.55, 2 trials, 209 participants), whilst there was no evidence of a long-term effect following a brief intervention (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.75, 2 trials, 341 participants). The trial of varenicline did show a significant effect on long-term smoking cessation (RR 1.45; 95% CI 1.01 to 2.07, 1 trial, 286 participants).Seven trials examined the effect of smoking intervention on postoperative complications. As with smoking outcomes, there was evidence of heterogeneity between intensive and brief behavioural interventions. In subgroup analyses there was a significant effect of intensive intervention on any complications (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.65, 2 trials, 210 participants) and on wound complications (RR 0.31; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.62, 2 trials, 210 participants). For brief interventions, where the impact on smoking had been smaller, there was no evidence of a reduction in complications (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.19, 4 trials, 493 participants) for any complication (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.40, 3 trials, 325 participants) for wound complications. The trial of varenicline did not detect an effect on postoperative complications (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.72, 1 trial, 286 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that preoperative smoking interventions providing behavioural support and offering NRT increase short-term smoking cessation and may reduce postoperative morbidity. One trial of varenicline begun shortly before surgery has shown a benefit on long-term cessation but did not detect an effect on early abstinence or on postoperative complications. The optimal preoperative intervention intensity remains unknown. Based on indirect comparisons and evidence from two small trials, interventions that begin four to eight weeks before surgery, include weekly counselling and use NRT are more likely to have an impact on complications and on long-term smoking cessation.

Translating preoperative smoking cessation interventions into routine clinical care of veterans: provider beliefs

Smoking among veterans undergoing surgery is estimated to be 36%. Smoking has been linked to postoperative surgical complications including ischemia and cardiac arrhythmias, pneumonia, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and surgical site infection. Preoperative smoking cessation interventions, in which smokers quit at least 6 weeks prior to surgery, have been shown to be effective both in smoking cessation and reduction of postoperative complications; however, little is known about physician beliefs regarding the optimal location and the responsible provider for intervention, or whether surgery should be postponed or delayed based on smoking status. Within the routine coordination from medical to surgical care, how should cessation interventions best be implemented? To better inform the translation of preoperative best practices for smoking cessation into clinical care in VA, a survey regarding preoperative smoking cessation beliefs and practices was administered to primary care physicians, surgeons, and anesthesia providers. Chi-square tests were used to examine differences in proportions by provider type. Most providers agreed that the primary care clinic is the best location for intervention, with preoperative and surgical clinics ranked by few as the optimal location (13% and 11%, respectively); most respondents (82%) reported that they would refuse or delay surgery in some cases based on smoking status. There were no differences in either beliefs on location or delay based on provider type. Primary care providers were most likely to advise (86.7%) and assess (80.0%) while anesthesia providers were least likely (59.1% and 22.7%, respectively). Taking time to counsel and the belief that dedicated resources would improve quit rates were associated with advising patients to quit smoking, while being uncomfortable with counseling, the belief that acute health takes precedence and the belief that there is not always time to counsel were identified as barriers to assessing patients for smoking cessation intervention. Primary care providers were more optimistic (100%) that patients would quit if counseled, more often (73.3%) reported having time to counsel, and were less likely to report that acute health takes precedence. Most providers believe that smoking cessation would reduce postoperative complications, with the ideal location for the intervention being the primary care clinic, and that some surgical cases should be delayed for this intervention.

Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Both behavioural support (including brief advice and counselling) and pharmacotherapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion) are effective in helping people to stop smoking. Combining both treatment approaches is recommended where possible, but the size of the treatment effect with different combinations and in different settings and populations is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of combining behavioural support and medication to aid smoking cessation, compared to a minimal intervention or usual care, and to identify whether there are different effects depending on characteristics of the treatment setting, intervention, population treated, or take-up of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2012 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support for smoking cessation, compared to a control receiving usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by both authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by the other.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-one studies with a total of more than 20,000 participants met the inclusion criteria. A large proportion of studies recruited people in healthcare settings or with specific health needs. Most studies provided NRT. Behavioural support was typically provided by specialists in cessation counselling, who offered between four and eight contact sessions. The planned maximum duration of contact was typically more than 30 minutes but less than 300 minutes. Overall, studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, and findings were not sensitive to the exclusion of any of the three studies rated at high risk of bias in one domain. One large study (the Lung Health Study) contributed heterogeneity due to a substantially larger treatment effect than seen in other studies (RR 3.88, 95% CI 3.35 to 4.50). Since this study used a particularly intensive intervention which included extended availability of nicotine gum, multiple group sessions and long term maintenance and recycling contacts, the results may not be comparable with the interventions used in other studies, and hence it was not pooled in other analyses. Based on the remaining 40 studies (15,021 participants) there was good evidence for a benefit of combination pharmacotherapy and behavioural treatment compared to usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.00) with moderate statistical heterogeneity (I² = 40%). The pooled estimate for 31 trials that recruited participants in healthcare settings (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.81 to 2.34) was higher than for eight trials with community-based recruitment (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.76). Pooled estimates were lower in a subgroup of trials where the behavioural intervention was provided by specialist counsellors versus trials where counselling was linked to usual care (specialist: RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.55 to 1.93, 28 trials; usual provider: RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.91 to 3.02, 8 trials) but this was largely attributable to the small effect size in two trials using specialist counsellors where the take-up of the planned intervention was low, and one usual provider trial with alarge effect. There was little indirect evidence that the relative effect of an intervention differed according to whether participants in a trial were required to be motivated to make a quit attempt or not. There was only weak evidence that studies offering more sessions had larger effects and there was not clear evidence that increasing the duration of contact increased the effect, but there was more evidence of a dose-response relationship when analyses were limited to trials where the take-up of treatment was high.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care. Further trials would be unlikely to change this conclusion. We did not find strong evidence from indirect comparisons that offering more intensive behavioural support was associated with larger treatment effects but this could be because intensive interventions are less likely to be delivered in full.

Cost-effectiveness of intensive smoking cessation therapy among patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysms

INTRODUCTION

Smoking cessation is one of the few available strategies to decrease the risk for expansion and rupture of small abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). The cost-effectiveness of an intensive smoking cessation therapy in patients with small AAAs identified at screening was evaluated.

METHODS

A Markov cohort simulation model was used to compare an 8-week smoking cessation intervention with adjuvant pharmacotherapy and annual revisits vs nonintervention among 65-year-old male smokers with a small AAA identified at screening. The smoking cessation rate was tested in one-way sensitivity analyses in the intervention group (range, 22%-57%) and in the nonintervention group (range, 3%-30%). Literature data on the effect of smoking on AAA expansion and rupture was factored into the model.

RESULTS

The intervention was cost-effective in all tested scenarios and sensitivity analyses. The smoking cessation intervention was cost-effective due to a decreased need for AAA repair and decreased rupture rate even when disregarding the positive effects of smoking cessation on long-term survival. The incremental cost/effectiveness ratio reached the willingness-to-pay threshold value of €25,000 per life-year gained when assuming an intervention cost of > €3250 or an effect of ≤ 1% difference in long-term smoking cessation between the intervention and nonintervention groups. Smoking cessation resulted in a relative risk reduction for elective AAA repair by 9% and for rupture by 38% over 10 years of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

An adequate smoking cessation intervention in patients with small AAAs identified at screening can cost-effectively increase long-term survival and decrease the need for AAA repair.

Interventions for preoperative smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Smokers have a substantially increased risk of postoperative complications. Preoperative smoking intervention may be effective in decreasing this incidence, and surgery may constitute a unique opportunity for smoking cessation interventions.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effect of preoperative smoking intervention on smoking cessation at the time of surgery and 12 months postoperatively and on the incidence of postoperative complications.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The specialized register of the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group was searched using the free text and keywords (surgery) or (operation) or (anaesthesia) or (anesthesia). MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were also searched, combining tobacco- and surgery-related terms. Most recent search April 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials that recruited people who smoked prior to surgery, offered a smoking cessation intervention, and measured preoperative and long-term abstinence from smoking and/or the incidence of postoperative complications.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The authors independently assessed studies to determine eligibility. Results were discussed between the authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials enrolling a total of 1156 people met the inclusion criteria. One of these did not report cessation as an outcome. Two trials initiated multisession face to face counselling at least 6 weeks before surgery whilst six used a brief intervention. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) was offered or recommended to some or all participants in seven trials. Six trials detected significantly increased smoking cessation at the time of surgery, and one approached significance. Subgroup analyses showed that both intensive and brief intervention significantly increased smoking cessation at the time of surgery; pooled RR 10.76 (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.55 to 25.46, two trials) and RR 1.41 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.63, five trials) respectively. Four trials evaluating the effect on long-term smoking cessation found a significant effect; pooled RR 1.61 (95% CI 1.12 to 2.33). However, when pooling intensive and brief interventions separately, only intensive intervention retained a significant effect on long-term smoking cessation; RR 2.96 (95% CI 1.57 to 5.55, two trials).Five trials examined the effect of smoking intervention on postoperative complications. Pooled risk ratios were 0.70 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.88) for developing any complication; and 0.70 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.95) for wound complications. Exploratory subgroup analyses showed a significant effect of intensive intervention on any complications; RR 0.42 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.65) and on wound complications RR 0.31 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.62). For brief interventions the effect was not statistically significant but CIs do not rule out a clinically significant effect (RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.25) for any complication, RR 0.99 (95%CI 0.70 to 1.40) for wound complications).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that preoperative smoking interventions including NRT increase short-term smoking cessation and may reduce postoperative morbidity. The optimal preoperative intervention intensity remains unknown. Based on indirect comparisons and evidence from two small trials, interventions that begin four to eight weeks before surgery, include weekly counselling, and use NRT are more likely to have an impact on complications and on long-term smoking cessation.

[Risks related to tobacco use in general and intestinal surgery]

Peri-operative smoking history is an important risk factor, which is often under-appreciated by surgeons. In the first place, tobacco use predisposes patients to specific pathologies, which may require surgical intervention. Secondarily, smoking has been shown to increase surgical risks of mortality, morbidity and length of hospital stay. Of particular importance in general surgery is the increased risk of anastomotic leak with fistula formation, of deep infections, and of abdominal wall complications (infection and ventral hernia). If the patient can stop smoking prior to surgery, there is a concomitant decrease in post-operative complications. Surgeons should be familiar with the pharmacologic and behavioral interventions, which may help the patient with smoking cessation and should not hesitate to defer elective surgery for four to eight weeks so that the patient may have the full benefit of smoking cessation.

Brief preoperative smoking cessation counselling in relation to breast cancer surgery: a qualitative study

AIM

To describe how women smokers with newly diagnosed breast cancer experienced brief preoperative smoking cessation intervention in relation to breast cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND

Preoperative smoking cessation intervention is relevant for short- and long-term risk reduction in newly diagnosed cancer patients. Our knowledge of how patients with malignant diagnoses experience preoperative smoking intervention is however scarce.

METHODS

A qualitative descriptive study that collected data through one-time individual, semi-structured interviews with 11 Danish women. Ricoeur's theory of interpretation was used for the analysis.

RESULTS

The women experienced that brief preoperative smoking intervention triggered reflection upon smoking and health. They furthermore experienced the smoking intervention as an opportune aid to escaping the social stigma of being a smoker. Quitting in the context of cancer diagnosis was difficult for some women. They relapsed to smoking as an ingrown response to emotional distress. The smoking intervention heightened the women's awareness of their addiction to smoking; however, they expressed a need for prolonged smoking cessation support. For others, the smoking intervention was supportive of cessation, and these women experienced smoking cessation as an enactment of a duty of responsibility to themselves and those nearest to them. They furthermore experienced a sense of personal achievement, improved well-being and endorsement from family and friends.

CONCLUSION

In newly diagnosed breast cancer patients, brief preoperative smoking intervention motivated smoking cessation. However, prolonged intervention, pre- and postoperatively, may more effectively support cessation in breast cancer patients and should therefore be evaluated in this patient population.