A protocol implementation to determine aspiration risk in patients with multiple risk factors for gastroparesis

2021 ◽  
pp. 175045892199692
Author(s):  
Sarah Schwisow ◽  
Christian Falyar ◽  
Susan Silva ◽  
Virginia C Muckler
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Solid Food ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Aspiration Risk ◽  
Physical Status Classification ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Gastric Contents ◽  
American Society ◽  
American Society Of Anesthesiologists

Patients with risk factors for gastroparesis are at increased risk for aspiration into the tracheobronchial tree. Current American Society of Anesthesiologists fasting guidelines use subjective measures to determine aspiration risk. A gastric ultrasound protocol can identify patients with risk factors for gastroparesis and determine the need to perform a point-of-care gastric ultrasound to objectively assess gastric antral contents. This enables the anaesthesia provider to assess patients at increased risk for aspiration. Additionally, many patients who present for surgery with risk factors for gastroparesis have an empty gastric antrum. Thus, the gastric ultrasound protocol checklist saves time and manpower requirements of anaesthesia staff without impacting patient safety or perioperative efficiency. A convenience sample of 40 patients consented for surgery was assessed using a screening tool to identify those at risk for gastroparesis and possible aspiration. Patients deemed at risk received a gastric ultrasound examination to evaluate for the presence of gastric contents. Over 12% of these patients had solid food gastric contents on exam. All patients with solid food gastric contents had an American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification of 3 or higher, and two or more risk factors for gastroparesis.

scholarly journals Are Intoxicated Trauma Patients at an Increased Risk for Intraoperative Anesthetic Complications? A Retrospective Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Brian D. Wolf ◽  
Swapna Munnangi ◽  
Raymond Pesso ◽  
Charles McCahery ◽  
Madhu Oad
Keyword(s):  
Intraoperative Complications ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Urine Toxicology ◽  
Physical Status Classification ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Toxicology Screening ◽  
Anesthetic Complications ◽  
American Society ◽  
American Society Of Anesthesiologists

Background. The purpose of this study was to correlate intraoperative anesthetic complications of trauma patients with their respective urine toxicology results. Methods. This retrospective, single-center cohort study at a Level 1 trauma center included patients with the following criteria: (1) trauma admission between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2016, (2) required surgical intervention, (3) are age 18 and older, and (4) urine toxicology screening was completed. Anesthetic records were evaluated for intraoperative complications. Results. The final analysis included 847 patients. The mean anesthesia time, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification scores, change in body temperature, anesthetic complication rate, and mortality were not significantly different between urine toxicology positive and negative patients. Of note, a significantly lower proportion of the urine toxicology positive patients were extubated postoperatively in comparison to urine toxicology negative patients (57.32% vs 63.83%). Conclusions. Trauma patients who presented with a positive urine toxicology screening are not at an increased risk for intraoperative anesthetic complications compared to those with a negative urine toxicology screening. However, our results indicated that the need for postoperative mechanical ventilation increased in the acutely intoxicated trauma patients when compared to those without preinjury intoxication.

scholarly journals Analysis of urgent/emergent conversions from monitored anesthesia care to general anesthesia with airway instrumentation

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sang Kim ◽  
Brian A. Chang ◽  
Amreen Rahman ◽  
Hung-Mo Lin ◽  
Samuel DeMaria ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Mount Sinai Hospital ◽  
Anesthesia Care ◽  
Monitored Anesthesia Care ◽  
Surgical Specialty ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Physical Status Classification ◽  
American Society ◽  
American Society Of Anesthesiologists

Abstract Background Monitored Anesthesia Care (MAC) is an anesthetic service involving the titration of sedatives/analgesics to achieve varying levels of sedation while avoiding general anesthesia (GA) and airway instrumentation. The goal of our study was to determine the overall incidence of conversion from MAC to general anesthesia with airway instrumentation and elucidate reasons and risk factors for conversion. Methods In this retrospective observational study, all non-obstetric adult patients who received MAC from July 2002 to July 2015 at Mount Sinai Hospital were electronically screened for inclusion via a clinical database. Patient, procedure, anesthetic, and practitioner data were all collected and analyzed to generate descriptive analyses. Subsequent univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify specific risk factors associated with conversion to GA. Results Overall, 0.50% (1097/219,061) of MAC cases were converted to GA. Approximately half of conversions were due to the patient’s “intolerance” of MAC (with or without failed regional anesthesia), while the other half were due to physiologic derangements. Body mass index, male sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification, anesthesia team composition, and surgical specialty were all associated with risk of conversion to GA. Conclusions This is one of the first and largest retrospective studies aimed at identifying reasons and risk factors associated with the conversion of MAC to GA. These findings may be used to help better anticipate or prevent these events.

‘Bundle busters’

2019 ◽  
Vol 101-B (7_Supple_C) ◽  
pp. 64-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. J. Wodowski ◽  
C. E. Pelt ◽  
J. A. Erickson ◽  
M. B. Anderson ◽  
J. M. Gililland ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Bundled Payment ◽  
Bundled Payments ◽  
Preoperative Risk Factors ◽  
Physical Status Classification ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Comorbidity Index ◽  
American Society ◽  
Care Improvement

Aims The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative has identified pathways for improving the value of care. However, patient-specific modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors may increase costs beyond the target payment. We sought to identify risk factors for exceeding our institution’s target payment, the so-called ‘bundle busters’. Patients and Methods Using our data warehouse and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data we identified all 412 patients who underwent total joint arthroplasty and qualified for our institution’s BPCI model, between July 2015 and May 2017. Episodes where CMS payments exceeded the target payment were considered ‘busters’ (n = 123). Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using a modified Poisson regression analysis. Results An increased risk of exceeding the target payment was significantly associated with increasing age (adjusted RR 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.06) and body mass index (adjusted RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.003 to 1.06). Eight comorbid risk factors were also identified (all p < 0.05), only two of which were considered to be potentially modifiable (diabetes with complications and preoperative anaemia). An American Society of Anesthesiologist physical status classification system (ASA) score ≥ 3 (adjusted RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.18) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) ≥ 3 (adjusted RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.60) were risk factors for bundle busting. Conclusion Non-modifiable preoperative risk factors can increase costs and exceed the target payment. Future bundled payment models should incorporate the stratification of risk. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(7 Supple C):64–69

Risk Factors for Clinically Relevant Pulmonary Embolism and Deep Venous Thrombosis in Patients Undergoing Primary Hip or Knee Arthroplasty

2003 ◽  
Vol 99 (3) ◽  
pp. 552-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos B. Mantilla ◽  
Terese T. Horlocker ◽  
Darrell R. Schroeder ◽  
Daniel J. Berry ◽  
David L. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Venous Thrombosis ◽  
Deep Venous Thrombosis ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Physical Status Classification ◽  
Status Classification ◽  
American Society ◽  
American Society Of Anesthesiologists

Background Prevention of thromboembolic complications after elective lower extremity arthroplasty has increasingly relied on routine thromboprophylaxis in all patients. Not all patients are at equal risk, however, and prophylaxis is not devoid of complications. The aim of this study was to examine the risk factors for clinically relevant pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis after elective primary hip or knee arthroplasty in a large patient population. Methods During the 10-yr study period, 116 of 9,791 patients undergoing primary hip or knee arthroplasty at the authors' institution who experienced pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis within 30 days of surgery were matched at a 1:1 ratio with patients undergoing the same surgery with the same surgeon who did not experience an adverse event. Medical records were reviewed, with data abstracted using a standardized data collection form. Results Increased body mass index (P = 0.031; odds ratio = 1.5 for each 5-kg/m2 increase) and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification of 3 or greater (P = 0.005; odds ratio = 2.6) were found to independently increase the likelihood of pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis. In addition, use of antithrombotic prophylaxis was found to decrease the likelihood of these thromboembolic events (P = 0.050; odds ratio = 0.2 for aspirin or subcutaneous heparin, and odds ratio = 0.4 for warfarin or low-molecular-weight heparin). Conclusions In patients undergoing primary elective lower extremity arthroplasty, obesity, poor American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, and lack of thromboprophylaxis are independent risk factors for clinically relevant thromboembolic events.

A Comparison of Colectomy Outcomes Utilizing Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Techniques

2020 ◽  
pp. 000313482097338
Author(s):  
Elizabeth McCarthy ◽  
Benjamin L. Gough ◽  
Michael S. Johns ◽  
Alexandra Hanlon ◽  
Sachin Vaid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Recovery ◽  
Logistic Regression Models ◽  
Community Institution ◽  
Physical Status Classification ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
Comparative Review ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
American Society ◽  
The Individual ◽  
American Society Of Anesthesiologists

Introduction Robotic colectomy could reduce morbidity and postoperative recovery over laparoscopic and open procedures. This comparative review evaluates colectomy outcomes based on surgical approach at a single community institution. Methods A retrospective review of all patients who underwent colectomy by a fellowship-trained colon and rectal surgeon at a single institution from 2015 through 2019 was performed, and a cohort developed for each approach (open, laparoscopic, and robotic). 30-day outcomes were evaluated. For dichotomous outcomes, univariate logistic regression models were used to quantify the individual effect of each predictor of interest on the odds of each outcome. Continuous outcomes received a similar approach; however, linear and Poisson regression modeling were used, as appropriate. Results 115 patients were evaluated: 14% (n = 16) open, 44% (n = 51) laparoscopic, and 42% (n = 48) robotic. Among the cohorts, there was no statistically significant difference in operative time, rate of reoperation, readmission, or major complications. Robotic colectomies resulted in the shortest length of stay (LOS) (Kruskal-Wallis P < .0001) and decreased estimated blood loss (EBL) (Kruskal-Wallis P = .0012). Median age was 63 years (interquartile range [IQR] 53-72). 54% (n = 62) were female. Median American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification was 3 (IQR 2-3). Median body mass index was 28.67 (IQR 25.03-33.47). A malignant diagnosis was noted on final pathology in 44% (n = 51). Conclusion Among the 3 approaches, there was no statistically significant difference in 30-day morbidity or mortality. There was a statistically significant decreased LOS and EBL for robotic colectomies.

scholarly journals Comparison of Train of Four Measurements with Kinemyography NMT DATEX and Accelerography TOFscan

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 21
Author(s):  
Cyrus Motamed ◽  
Migena Demiri ◽  
Nora Colegrave
Keyword(s):  
Neuromuscular Blockade ◽  
Lower Limit ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Orotracheal Intubation ◽  
Neuromuscular Blocking ◽  
Physical Status Classification ◽  
Train Of Four ◽  
Surgery First ◽  
American Society ◽  
American Society Of Anesthesiologists

Introduction: This study was designed to compare the Datex neuromuscular transmission (NMT) kinemyography (NMTK) device with the TOFscan (TS) accelerometer during the onset and recovery of neuromuscular blockade. Patients and methods: This prospective study included adult patients who were scheduled to undergo elective surgery with general anesthesia and orotracheal intubation. The TS accelerometer was randomly placed at the adductor pollicis on one hand, and the NMTK was placed on the opposite arm. Anesthesia was initiated with remifentanil target-controlled infusion (TCI) and 2.0–3.0 mg/kg of propofol. Thereafter, 0.5 mg/kg of atracurium or 0.6 mg/kg of rocuronium was injected. If needed, additional neuromuscular blocking agents were administered to facilitate surgery. First, we recorded the train of four (TOF) response at the onset of neuromuscular blockade to reach a TOF count of 0. Second, we recorded the TOF response at the recovery of neuromuscular blockade to obtain a T4/T1 90% by both TS and NMTK. Results: There were 32 patients, aged 38–83 years, with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status Classification I–III included and analyzed. Surgery was abdominal, gynecologic, or head and neck. The Bland and Altman analysis for obtaining zero responses during the onset showed a bias (mean) of 2.7 s (delay) of TS in comparison to NMTK, with an upper/lower limit of agreement of [104; −109 s] and a bias of 36 s of TS in comparison to NMTK, with an upper/lower limit of agreement of [−21.8, −23.1 min] during recovery (T4/T1 > 90%). Conclusions: Under the conditions of the present study, the two devices are not interchangeable. Clinical decisions for deep neuromuscular blockade should be made cautiously, as both devices appear less accurate with significant variability.

scholarly journals Prevention of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: current approaches and opportunities for improvement

2011 ◽  
pp. 191-204
Author(s):  
Alpesh N. Amin ◽  
Steven B. Deitelzweig
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Major Surgery ◽  
Medical Illness ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
National Quality ◽  
American Society

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), a common complication in patients with cancer, is associated with increased risk of morbidity, mortality, and recurrent VTE. Risk factors for VTE in cancer patients include the type and stage of cancer, comorbidities, age, major surgery, and active chemotherapy. Evidence-based guidelines for thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients have been published: the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Society for Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for hospitalized cancer patients, while the American College of Chest Physician guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for surgical patients with cancer and bedridden cancer patients with an acute medical illness. Guidelines do not generally recommend routine thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients during chemotherapy, but there is evidence that some of these patients are at risk of VTE; some may be at higher risk while on active chemotherapy. Approaches are needed to identify those patients most likely to benefit from thromboprophylaxis, and, to this end, a risk assessment model has been developed and validated. Despite the benefits, many at-risk patients do not receive any thromboprophylaxis, or receive prophylaxis that is not compliant with guideline recommendations. Quality improvement initiatives have been developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Quality Forum, and Joint Commission to encourage closure of the gap between guideline recommendations and clinical practice for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE in hospitalized patients. Health-care institutions and providers need to take seriously the burden of VTE, improve prophylaxis rates in patients with cancer, and address the need for prophylaxis across the patient continuum.

scholarly journals Prevention of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: current approaches and opportunities for improvement

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 191
Author(s):  
Alpesh N. Amin ◽  
Steven B. Deitelzweig
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Major Surgery ◽  
Medical Illness ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
National Quality ◽  
American Society

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), a common complication in patients with cancer, is associated with increased risk of morbidity, mortality, and recurrent VTE. Risk factors for VTE in cancer patients include the type and stage of cancer, comorbidities, age, major surgery, and active chemotherapy. Evidence-based guidelines for thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients have been published: the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Society for Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for hospitalized cancer patients, while the American College of Chest Physician guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for surgical patients with cancer and bedridden cancer patients with an acute medical illness. Guidelines do not generally recommend routine thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients during chemotherapy, but there is evidence that some of these patients are at risk of VTE; some may be at higher risk while on active chemotherapy. Approaches are needed to identify those patients most likely to benefit from thromboprophylaxis, and, to this end, a risk assessment model has been developed and validated. Despite the benefits, many at-risk patients do not receive any thromboprophylaxis, or receive prophylaxis that is not compliant with guideline recommendations. Quality improvement initiatives have been developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Quality Forum, and Joint Commission to encourage closure of the gap between guideline recommendations and clinical practice for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE in hospitalized patients. Health-care institutions and providers need to take seriously the burden of VTE, improve prophylaxis rates in patients with cancer, and address the need for prophylaxis across the patient continuum.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document