Preoperative screening and case cancellation in cocaine-abusing veterans scheduled for elective surgery

Trends of Ophthalmic Surgery Cancellations at a County Hospital Before and During COVID-19: A 10-Year Retrospective Study

PURPOSE

Despite several publications on ophthalmic surgical cancellations discussing preventative causes in academic institutions, there remains a paucity of similar studies for safety-net hospitals. This study analyzed cancellation rates at a county hospital over a 10-year period.

METHODS

This retrospective, open cohort study investigated a total of 11,350 surgeries scheduled at a tertiary-level county hospital between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2021. Surgical cancellation reasons were collected from chart review and categorized into eight groups to allow for analyses. Cancellation rates were then calculated per year and per subspecialty. The primary statistical analyses were paired, 2-tailed t test and χ2 test.

RESULTS

The most common reason for cancellation overall was institution-related (1065 surgeries), which was also the most common reason per year from 2012 to 2019 (range: 37.4% - 60.6%). In 2020, during COVID-19 stay-at-home mandates, the most common reason became COVID-related rescheduling, and in 2021, it was patient-driven. The cancellation rate in 2020 was significantly higher than 2019 (+9.27%,95% CI:4.96%-13.6%,p = .05), and significantly lower from 2021 to 2020 (-22.8%,95% CI:-26.8%-(-)18.7%,p = .001). Pediatric surgery had the highest cancellation rate overall (36.4%), but oculoplastics had the highest cancellation rate in 2020 (48.9%).

CONCLUSION

The most common reason for cancellation over the 10-year period was institution-related, in contrast to other publications based in academic centers. The study also had a higher cancellation rate than previously reported, again suggesting the difference between county and academic centers. The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on cancellations, even after the COVID-19 stay-at-home orders were eased.

Illicit Drug Use and Endoscopy: When Do We Say No?

BACKGROUND

Illicit drug use (IDU) is often encountered in patients undergoing elective ambulatory surgical procedures such as endoscopy. Given the variety of systemic effects of these drugs, sedation and anesthetics are believed to increase the risk of cardiopulmonary complications during procedures. Procedural cancelations are common, regardless of the drug type, recency of use, and total dosage consumed. There is a lack of institutional and society recommendations regarding the optimal approach to performing outpatient endoscopy on patients with IDU.

AIM

To review the literature for current recommendations regarding the optimal management of outpatient elective endoscopic procedures in patients with IDU. Secondary aim is to provide guidance for clinicians who encounter IDU in endoscopic practice.

METHODS

Systematic review of PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Google Scholar for articles presenting data on outcomes of elective procedures in patients using illicit drugs.

RESULTS

There are no clinically relevant differences in periprocedural complications or mortality in cannabis users compared to non-users. Endoscopy in patients with remote cocaine use was also found to have similar outcomes to recent use.

CONCLUSIONS

Canceling endoscopic procedures in patients with recent IDU without consideration of the type of drug, dosage, and chronicity may lead to unnecessary delays in care and increased patient morbidity. Healthcare systems would benefit from additional guidelines for evaluating the patient with recent illicit drug use for acute intoxication and consider proceeding with procedures in the non-toxic population.

Safety of upper endoscopy in patients with active cocaine use

BACKGROUND

Cocaine is a synthetic alkaloid initially viewed as a useful local anesthetic, but which eventually fell out of favor given its high addiction potential. Its predominantly sympathetic effects raise concern for cardiovascular, respiratory, and central nervous system complications in patients undergoing procedures. Peri-procedural cocaine use, often detected via a positive urine toxicology test, has been mostly addressed in the surgical and obstetrical literature. However, there are no clear guidelines on how to effectively risk stratify patients found to be positive for cocaine in the pre-operative setting, often leading to costly procedure cancellations. Within the field of gastroenterology, there is no current data available regarding safety of performing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in patients with recent cocaine use.

AIM

To compare the prevalence of EGD related complications between active (≤ 5 d) and remote (> 5 d) users of cocaine.

METHODS

In total, 48 patients who underwent an EGD at John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County from October 2016 to October 2018 were found to have a positive urine drug screen for cocaine (23 recent and 25 remote). Descriptive statistics were compiled for patient demographics. Statistical tests used to analyze patient characteristics, procedure details, and preprocedural adverse events included t-test, chi-square, Wilcoxon rank sum, and Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

Overall, 20 periprocedural events were recorded with no statistically significant difference in distribution between the two groups (12 active vs 8 remote, P = 0.09). Pre- and post-procedure hemodynamics demonstrated only a statistically, but not clinically significant drop in systolic blood pressure and increase in heart rate in the active user group, as well as drop in diastolic blood pressure and oxygen saturation in the remote group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in overall hemodynamics between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study found no significant difference in the rate of periprocedural adverse events during EGD in patients with recent vs remote use of cocaine. Interestingly, there were significantly more patients (30%) with active use of cocaine that required general anesthesia as compared to remote users (0%).

Urine drug screen positive for cocaine and amphetamine is not an adverse risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in trauma

Background

Urine drug screening (UDS) is a component of trauma workup and of perioperative risk evaluation. Illicit stimulant use has been associated with cardiovascular complications. This study investigates the impact of stimulant use and its interaction with surgery on cardiovascular complications in trauma patients.

Methods

Patients were identified from the 2017 National Trauma Data Bank. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate the effect of amphetamine and cocaine on mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. We evaluated three subsets: all screened patients, those who underwent surgery, and those whose surgery was immediate. Significance was tested with χ² test for categorical variables, Student’s t-test for continuous variables, and logistic regression for multivariate analysis.

Results

317 688 (32.1%) patients underwent UDS. Multivariate analysis showed protective association between cocaine and mortality OR 0.9 (p=0.028). Cocaine was a non-significant predictor of MI and stroke: OR 0.63 (p=0.065) and 0.91 (p=0.502), respectively. Amphetamine was a non-significant predictor of mortality, MI, and stroke: OR 0.97 (p=0.405), 0.80 (p=0.283), and 1.02 (p=0.857), respectively.

On univariate analysis, amphetamine showed a protective association with MI for all screened patients: relative risk (RR) 0.58 (p=0.005), and for surgical patients: RR 0.58 (p=0.019). Amphetamine showed a protective association with mortality for all three subsets: RR 0.83 (p<0.001), 0.78 (p<0.001), and 0.71 (p<0.001), respectively. Cocaine showed a protective association with MI for all screened patients: RR 0.45 (p=0.001), and for surgical patients: RR 0.44 (p=0.005). Cocaine showed a protective association with mortality for all three subsets: RR 0.76 (p<0.001), 0.71 (p<0.001), and 0.63 (p<0.001), respectively.

Discussion

UDS positive for cocaine or amphetamine is not an adverse risk factor in trauma, including trauma patients who underwent surgery. The apparent protective effects of illicit drugs warrant further investigation.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic/care management, level IV.

Preoperative Interventions for Alcohol and Other Recreational Substance Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Preoperative alcohol and other recreational substance use (ORSU) may catalyze perioperative complications. Accordingly, interventions aiming to reduce preoperative substance use are warranted. Methods: Studies investigating interventions to reduce alcohol and/or ORSU in elective surgery patients were identified from: Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; PSYCINFO; EMBASE; and CINAHL. In both narrative summaries of results and random effects meta-analyses, effects of interventions on perioperative alcohol/ORSU, complications, mortality and length of stay were assessed. Primary Results: Nine studies (n = 903) were included. Seven used behavioral interventions only, two provided disulfiram in addition. Pooled analyses found small effects on alcohol use (d: 0.34; 0.05-0.64), though two trials using disulfiram (0.71; 0.36-1.07) were superior to two using behavioral interventions (0.45; -0.49-1.39). No significant pooled effects were found for perioperative complications, length of hospital stay or mortality in studies solely targeting alcohol/ORSU. Too few interventions targeting ORSU (n = 1) were located to form conclusions regarding their efficacy. Studies were generally at high risk-of-bias and heterogeneous. Conclusions: Preoperative interventions were beneficial in reducing substance use in some instances, but more high-quality studies targeting alcohol/ORSU specifically are needed. The literature to date does not suggest that such interventions can reduce postoperative morbidity, length of hospital stay or mortality. Limitations in the literature are outlined and recommendations for future studies are suggested.