A Perioperative Smoking Cessation Intervention With Varenicline, Counseling, and Fax Referral to a Telephone Quitline Versus a Brief Intervention: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Barriers and facilitators to perioperative smoking cessation: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Smoking cessation interventions are underutilized in the surgical setting. We aimed to systematically identify the barriers and facilitators to smoking cessation in the surgical setting.

METHODS

Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) framework for scoping reviews, we searched 5 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) for quantitative or qualitative studies published in English (since 2000) evaluating barriers and facilitators to perioperative smoking cessation interventions. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis and mapped to the theoretical domains framework (TDF).

RESULTS

From 31 studies, we identified 23 unique barriers and 13 facilitators mapped to 11 of the 14 TDF domains. The barriers were within the domains of knowledge (e.g., inadequate knowledge of smoking cessation interventions) in 23 (74.2%) studies; environmental context and resources (e.g., lack of time to deliver smoking cessation interventions) in 19 (61.3%) studies; beliefs about capabilities (e.g., belief that patients are nervous about surgery/diagnosis) in 14 (45.2%) studies; and social/professional role and identity (e.g., surgeons do not believe it is their role to provide smoking cessation interventions) in 8 (25.8%) studies. Facilitators were mainly within the domains of environmental context and resources (e.g., provision of quit smoking advice as routine surgical care) in 15 (48.4%) studies, reinforcement (e.g., surgery itself as a motivator to kickstart quit attempts) in 8 (25.8%) studies, and skills (e.g., smoking cessation training and awareness of guidelines) in 5 (16.2%) studies.

CONCLUSION

The identified barriers and facilitators are actionable targets for future studies aimed at translating evidence informed smoking cessation interventions into practice in perioperative settings. More research is needed to evaluate how targeting these barriers and facilitators will impact smoking outcomes.

Peri-operative tobacco cessation interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Tobacco smoking is associated with a substantially increased risk of postoperative complications. The peri-operative period offers a unique opportunity to support patients to stop tobacco smoking, avoid complications and improve long-term health. This systematic review provides an up-to-date summary of the evidence for tobacco cessation interventions in surgical patients. We conducted a systematic search of randomised controlled trials of tobacco cessation interventions in the peri-operative period. Quantitative synthesis of the abstinence outcomes data was by random-effects meta-analysis. The primary outcome of the meta-analysis was abstinence at the time of surgery, and the secondary outcome was abstinence at 12 months. Thirty-eight studies are included in the review (7310 randomised participants) and 26 studies are included in the meta-analysis (5969 randomised participants). Studies were pooled for subgroup analysis in two ways: by the timing of intervention delivery within the peri-operative period and by the intensity of the intervention protocol. We judged the quality of evidence as moderate, reflecting the degree of heterogeneity and the high risk of bias. Overall, peri-operative tobacco cessation interventions increased successful abstinence both at the time of surgery, risk ratio (95%CI) 1.48 (1.20-1.83), number needed to treat 7; and 12 months after surgery, risk ratio (95%CI) 1.62 (1.29-2.03), number needed to treat 9. More work is needed to inform the design and optimal delivery of interventions that are acceptable to patients and that can be incorporated into contemporary elective and urgent surgical pathways. Future trials should use standardised outcome measures.

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.

Standardizing Tobacco Cessation Counseling Using the 5 A's Intervention

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death due to cardiovascular disease.

LOCAL PROBLEM

Tobacco cessation counseling (TCC) is varied among providers, leading to suboptimal willingness to make a quit attempt.

METHODS

We used a quality improvement framework to pilot the 5 A's for TCC from April 2021 to August 2021 in our outpatient cardiology clinic.

INTERVENTIONS

Providers implemented TCC using the 5 A's intervention. Patient follow-up phone calls were conducted 30 days after receiving TCC.

RESULTS

Of 629 patient encounters, the mean TCC rate increased by 27.5%, and the mean reported cessation rates improved by 3.9%. Variation among providers decreased for TCC rates when they used the 5 A's intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The 5 A's intervention standardized TCC efforts. Using the 5 A's led to an increase in patients who reported smoking cessation 30 days after TCC was received.

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.

Varenicline and related interventions on smoking cessation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Based on randomized controlled trials, a network meta-analysis was conducted to compare treatment effects across varenicline and related smoking interventions.

METHODS

English databases were screened for randomized controlled trials reporting the effect of varenicline as treatment for smoking. The risk of bias in included trials was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook tool. Stata 15.1 software was used to perform network meta-analysis, and the GRADE approach was used to assess the evidence credibility on the tobacco treatment effects of different interventions.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies involving 26,130 smokers were included in the network meta-analysis. Varenicline and 11 other interventions were reported, yielding 66 pairs of comparisons. Network meta-analysis showed that varenicline monotherapy or its combination with other interventions were superior in achieving smoking cessation compared to bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy, counselling, and placebo. Furthermore, compared to the varenicline, evident abstinence superiority was found in varenicline + bupropion (odds ratio = 1.49, 95% confidence interval [1.02, 2.18]). Finally, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value indicated that varenicline + bupropion has the highest probability to become the best intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Varenicline monotherapy increased the odds of smoking cessation further than bupropion monotherapy, nicotine replacement therapy, counselling, and placebo, while varenicline combined with other interventions may even achieve a better abstinence effect. More credible evidence has been reported indicating that the combination of varenicline and bupropion is a superior treatment for smoking.

Anesthesiologists and the Other Pandemic: Tobacco Use

Tobacco use will kill a projected 1 billion people in the 21st century in one of the deadliest pandemics in history. Tobacco use disorder is a disease with a natural history, pathophysiology, and effective treatment options. Anesthesiologists can play a unique role in fighting this pandemic, providing both immediate (reduction in perioperative risk) and long-term (reduction in tobacco-related diseases) benefits to their patients who are its victims. Receiving surgery is one of the most powerful stimuli to quit tobacco. Tobacco treatments that combine counseling and pharmacotherapy (e.g., nicotine replacement therapy) can further increase quit rates and reduce risk of morbidity such as pulmonary and wound-related complications. The perioperative setting provides a great opportunity to implement multimodal perianesthesia tobacco treatment, which combines multiple evidence-based tactics to implement the four core components of consistent ascertainment and documentation of tobacco use, advice to quit, access to pharmacotherapy, and referral to counseling resources.

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.

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.

Improving prediction to prevent perioperative morbidity

In this editorial, we examine how the STRoke After Surgery (STRAS) screening tool and similar risk scoring systems can be used to identify high-risk patients for postoperative stroke. Specific challenges to develop and implement preventative measures aimed at improving postoperative outcomes are discussed. Finally, we suggest potential future areas of research in this field.

Engagement and Effectiveness of a Smoking Cessation Quitline Intervention in a Thoracic Surgery Clinic

Importance

Smoking quitline programs effectively promote smoking cessation in outpatient primary care settings.

Objective

To examine the factors associated with smoking quitline engagement and smoking cessation among patients undergoing thoracic surgery who consented to a quitline electronic referral.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective cohort study was conducted from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018, among 111 active smoking patients referred to the quitline from a thoracic surgery outpatient clinic visit. Patients were divided into operative and nonoperative cohorts.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes were engagement rates in the quitline program and successful smoking cessation. Secondary outcomes were self-reported point prevalence abstinence at 1 month and 6 months after the smoking quit date.

Results

Of 111 patients (62 men; mean [SD] age, 61.8 [11.2] years) who had a quitline referral, 58 (52%) underwent surgery, and 32 of these 58 patients (55%) participated in the program. Of the 53 nonoperative patients (48%), 24 (45%) participated in the program. In the operative cohort, there was no difference in the smoking cessation rate between quitline participants and nonparticipants (21 of 32 [66%] vs 16 of 6 [62%]; P = .79) or in point prevalence abstinence at 1 month (23 of 32 [72%] vs 14 of 25 [56%]; P = .27) or 6 months (14 of 28 [50%] vs 6 of 18 [33%]; P = .36). Similarly, in the nonoperative cohort, there was no difference in the smoking cessation rate between quitline participants and nonparticipants (8 of 24 [33%] vs 11 of 29 [38%]; P = .78) or in point prevalence abstinence at 1 month (7 of 24 [29%] vs 8 of 27 [30%]; P = .99) or 6 months (6 of 23 [26%] vs 6 of 25 [24%]; P = .99). Regardless of quitline participation, operative patients had a 1.8-fold higher proportion of successful smoking cessation compared with nonoperative patients (37 of 58 [64%] vs 19 of 53 [36%]; P = .004) as well as a 2.2-fold higher proportion of 1-month point prevalence abstinence (37 of 57 [65%] vs 15 of 51 [29%]; P < .001) and a 1.8-fold higher proportion of 6-month point prevalence abstinence (20 of 45 [44%] vs 12 of 48 [25%]; P = .05). Having surgery doubled the odds of smoking cessation (odds ratio, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.06-5.64; P = .04) and quitline engagement tripled the odds of remaining smoke free at 6 months (odds ratio, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.03-12.38; P = .04).

Conclusions and Relevance

Patients undergoing thoracic surgery were nearly twice as likely to quit smoking as those who did not have an operation, and smoking quitline participation further augmented point prevalence abstinence. Improved smoking cessation rates, even among nonoperative patients, were associated with appropriate outpatient counseling and intervention.

Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation in healthy adults: A network meta-analysis

Smoking is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in different non-communicable diseases, and cessation leads to immense health benefits. The present network meta-analysis has been conducted to evaluate and compare the effects of available pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation in adults. A standard meta-analysis protocol was developed and after performing a comprehensive literature search on MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane databases, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, reviewers extracted data from 97 randomized controlled trials. PRISMA guidelines were followed in data extraction, analysis and reporting of findings. Random effects Bayesian network meta-analysis was done to pool the effects across the interventions. Network graph was built, and for closed triangles in the network graph, node splitting analysis was performed. The primary outcome measure was self-reported biochemically verified smoking abstinence at six months. The number of participants achieving continuous abstinence was reported. Data for the number of participants reporting at least one adverse event was also extracted, if available. Combination of nicotine receptor agonist and nicotine replacement therapy had a significant odd of 4.4 (95%CrI:2.2-8.7), bupropion and nicotine receptor agonist 4.0 (95%CrI:2.1-7.7), bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy 3.8 (95%CrI:2.3-6.2), combination nicotine replacement therapy has an odd of 2.6 (95%CrI:1.8-3.8), and nicotine receptor agonist had a significant odd of 2.7 (95%CrI:2.3-3.2) when compared to placebo (moderate quality of evidence) for continuous abstinence at 6 months. When compared with behavioural therapy, the odds ratio of interventions was not statistically significant. Combination of nicotine receptor agonist and nicotine replacement therapy has the highest probability of being the best treatment for abstinence from smoking.

The Impact on Mortality and Societal Costs From Smoking Cessation in Aesthetic Plastic Surgery in the United States

BACKGROUND

It is common practice to require patients to stop smoking prior to elective plastic surgery procedures. Scarce research exists describing the impact on mortality and associated societal cost savings with regard to smoking cessation in aesthetic surgery.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective is to demonstrate that smoking cessation in anticipation for aesthetic surgery significantly reduces mortality and increases societal cost savings.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review of 5 common aesthetic procedures (reduction mammaplasty, breast augmentation, facelift, rhinoplasty, and abdominoplasty) to determine patient smoking rates and subsequent recidivism. Sensitivity analyses estimated life years saved using ranges of recidivism from our literature review and assessed total lifetime savings, including direct and productivity costs, while adjusting for inflation (3%) and interest (5%). One life saved was equated to 45 life years saved.

RESULTS

Between May 2008 and May 2013, 7867 patients stopped smoking prior to undergoing aesthetic plastic surgery procedures. Assuming a reported recidivism rate of 68%, smoking cessation prior to aesthetic plastic surgery is associated with 429 lives saved and a total lifetime savings of $524.4 million over the five-year period. Total lives saved ranged from 214 (84% recidivism) to 885 (34% recidivism), and total lifetime cost savings ranged from $262.2 million (84% recidivism) to $1.08 billion (34% recidivism).

CONCLUSIONS

Presently, smoking cessation before aesthetic surgery significantly saves patient lives with yearly $104.9 million of societal cost savings in the United States. Future reductions in the presently high recidivism rate would lead to additional lives saved and reduced societal costs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Designing and Running a Preoperative Clinic

Value in health care has been described as quality divided by cost, where quality is the sum of patient outcomes and experience. A well-run preoperative evaluation clinic (PEC) offers many opportunities to improve the value of the care delivered to patients by reducing the associated costs and improving the quality of care. Certain patient education and medical optimization strategies initiated in the PEC clinic are linked to an improvement in patients' long-term health outcomes. When designing a PEC, it is important to address the PEC's mission and scope with all stakeholders early in the process.

Impact of a standardized referral to a community pharmacist-led smoking cessation program before elective joint replacement surgery

INTRODUCTION

Smokers undergoing total joint replacement (TJR) are more likely to develop infections and be re-admitted than non-smokers. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of standardized preoperative referral to a community-based pharmacist-led smoking cessation program compared to usual care for patients undergoing TJR. Secondarily, we evaluated the use of the smoking cessation program.

METHODS

A pre-post quasi-experimental study was conducted at a central intake clinic that prepares approximately 3000 TJR patients annually. Participants were recruited at a mean of 13±11.1 weeks preoperatively and provided informed consent. Participants in the ‘pre’ observational phase (OP) received usual care for smoking cessation. For ‘post’ intervention phase (IP) participants, a referral was sent to a community-based pharmacist-led smoking cessation program. Smoking status was validated on study entry using exhaled carbon monoxide. Participants’ smoking status was re-assessed using self-reported point prevalence abstinence at 6 months post-recruitment.

RESULTS

We enrolled 120/150 (80%) potential OP candidates and 104/286 (36%) potential IP candidates. The groups were similar on study entry; overall, the mean age of participants was 58.7±9.1 years and 103 (47%) were male. They reported medium nicotine dependence with 37±11.6 mean years smoked. At 6 months post-recruitment, 8 (7%) OP participants self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence compared to 21 (20%) IP participants (p=0.003). Only 58 (56%) IP participants complied with the pharmacist referral, with 19 (33%) of those seeing the pharmacist reporting point prevalence abstinence at 6 months compared to only 2 (4%) of the 45 participants who did not see the pharmacist (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Referral to a community smoking cessation program as preoperative standard of care is feasible and can enhance long-term quit rates, but voluntary participation led to low recruitment to the program.

E-cigarettes versus nicotine patches for perioperative smoking cessation: a pilot randomized trial

Introduction

Cigarette smoking by surgical patients is associated with increased complications. E-cigarettes have emerged as a potential smoking cessation tool. We sought to determine the feasibility and acceptability of e-cigarettes, compared to nicotine patch, for perioperative smoking cessation in veterans.

Methods

Preoperative patients were randomized to either the nicotine patch group (n = 10) or the e-cigarette group (n = 20). Both groups were given a free 6-week supply in a tapering dose. All patients received brief counseling, a brochure on perioperative smoking cessation, and referral to the California Smokers’ Helpline. The primary outcome was rate of smoking cessation on day of surgery confirmed by exhaled carbon monoxide. Secondary outcomes included smoking habits, pulmonary function, adverse events, and satisfaction with the products on day of surgery and at 8-weeks follow-up.

Results

Biochemically verified smoking cessation on day of surgery was similar in both groups. Change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was 592 ml greater in the e-cigarette group (95% CI [153–1,031] ml, p = 0.01) and change in forced expiratory volume in one second to forced vital capacity ratio (FEV1/FVC ratio) was 40.1% greater in the e-cigarette group (95% CI [18.2%–78.4%], p = 0.04). Satisfaction with the product was similar in both groups.

Discussion

E-cigarettes are a feasible tool for perioperative smoking cessation in veterans with quit rates comparable to nicotine replacement patch. Spirometry appears to be improved 8-weeks after initiating e-cigarettes compared to nicotine patch, possibly due to worse baseline spirometry and more smoking reduction in the e-cigarette group. An adequately powered study is recommended to determine if these results can be duplicated.

[Peri-operative management of smoking]

Smoking is a public health issue, especially during the perioperative period. Tobacco increases the risk of hospital mortality by 20% and major postoperative complications by 40%. Active smoking is associated with respiratory complications particularly bronchospasm and pneumonia, but also all surgical complications as scar infections, local thrombosis, suture release and delayed bone healing. The perioperative period is an opportunity to stop smoking. Smoking cessation should always be recommended, regardless of the surgery and the date of intervention. All health professionals, doctors, surgeons, anesthetists, but also nurses and physiotherapists, must inform smokers of the benefits of stopping smoking, offer them a dedicated support and a personalized follow-up. Tobacco consultation and the prescription of nicotine replacement increase the rate of smoking cessation. Stopping smoking reduces perioperative complications and is associated with health benefits that increase with time.