Brown, Michael J.

BACKGROUND: Patients with existing coronary artery stents are at an increased risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) when undergoing noncardiac surgery (NCS). Although the use of antifibrinolytic (AF) therapy in NCS has significantly increased in the past decade, the relationship between perioperative AF use and its association with MACEs among patients with existing coronary artery stents has yet to be assessed. In this study, we aim to evaluate the association of MACEs in patients with existing coronary artery stents who receive perioperative AF therapy during orthopedic surgery. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted in adult patients with existing coronary artery stents who underwent orthopedic surgery from 2008 to 2018. Two cohorts were established: patients with existing coronary artery stents who did not receive perioperative AF and patients with coronary artery stents who received perioperative AF. Associations between AF use and the primary outcome of MACEs within 30 days postoperatively and the secondary outcomes of thrombotic complications, excessive surgical bleeding, and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions were analyzed using logistic regression models. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to control for confounding. Secondary analyses examining the association between coronary stent type/timing and the outcomes of interest were performed using unadjusted logistic regression models. RESULTS: A total of 473 patients met study criteria, including 294 who did not receive AF and 179 patients who received AF. MACEs occurred in 15 (5.1%) patients who did not receive AF and 1 (0.6%) who received AF ( P = .007). In weighted analyses, no significant difference was found in patients who received AF with regard to MACEs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-1.74, P = .12), thrombotic complications (OR = 1.19, 95% CI, 0.53-2.68, P = .68), or excessive surgical bleeding (OR = 0.13, 95% CI, 0.01-2.23, P = .16) compared to patients who did not receive AF. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study are inconclusive whether an association exists between perioperative AF use in patients with coronary artery stents and the outcome of MACEs compared to patients who did not receive perioperative AF therapy. The authors acknowledge that the imprecise CI hinders the ability to definitively determine whether an association exists in the study population. Further large prospective studies, powered to detect differences in MACEs, are needed to assess the safety of perioperative AF in patients with existing coronary artery stents and to clarify the mechanism of perioperative MACEs in this high-risk population.

Importance: Media reports have questioned the safety of overlapping surgical procedures, and national scrutiny has underscored the necessity of single-center evaluations of its safety; however, sample sizes are likely small. We compared the safety profiles of overlapping and nonoverlapping pediatric procedures at a single children's hospital and discussed methodological considerations of the evaluation. Data and Design: Retrospective analysis of inpatient pediatric surgical procedures (January 2013 to September 2015) at a single pediatric referral center. Overlapping and nonoverlapping procedures were matched in an unbalanced manner (m:n) by procedure. Mixed models adjusting for Vizient-predicted risk, case-mix, and surgeon compared inpatient mortality and length of stay (LOS). Results: Among 315 overlapping procedures, 256 (81.3%) were matched to 645 nonoverlapping procedures. There were 6 deaths in all. The adjusted odds ratio for mortality did not differ significantly between nonoverlapping and overlapping procedures (adjusted odds ratio = 0.94 vs overlapping; 95% CI, 0.02–48.5; P = 0.98). Wide confidence intervals were minimally improved with Bayesian methods (95% CI, 0.07–12.5). Adjusted LOS estimates were not clinically different by overlapping status (0.6% longer for nonoverlapping; 95% CI, 9.7% shorter to 12.2% longer; P = 0.91). Among the 87 overlapping procedures with the greatest overlap (≥60 min or ≥50% of operative duration), there were no deaths. Conclusions: The safety of overlapping and nonoverlapping surgical procedures did not differ at this children's center. These findings may not extrapolate to other centers. LOS or intraoperative measures may be more appropriate than mortality for safety evaluations due to low event rates for mortality.

Abstract Background: Surgical site infections (SSI) contribute to surgical patients' morbidity and costs. Operating room traffic may be a modifiable risk factor for SSI. We investigated the impact of additional operating room personnel on the risk of superficial SSI (sSSI). Patients and Methods: In this matched case-control study, cases included patients in whom sSSI developed in clean surgical incisions after elective, daytime operations. Control subjects were matched by age, gender, and procedure. Operating room personnel were classified as (1) surgical scrubbed, (2) surgical non-scrubbed, or (3) anesthesia. We used conditional logistic regression to test the extent to which additional personnel overall and from each work group were associated with infection. Results: In total, 474 patients and 803 control subjects were identified. Each additional person among total personnel and personnel from each work group was significantly associated with greater odds of infection (all personnel, odds ratio [OR] = 1.082, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.031–1.134, p = 0.0013; surgical scrubbed OR = 1.132, 95% CI 1.029–1.245, p = 0.0105; surgical non-scrubbed OR = 1.123, 95% CI 1.008–1.251, p = 0.0357; anesthesia OR = 1.153, 95% CI 1.031–1.290, p = 0.0127). After adjusting for operative duration, body mass index, diabetes mellitus, and vascular disease, additional personnel and sSSI were no longer associated overall or for any work groups (total personnel OR = 1.033, 95% CI 0.974–1.095, p = 0.2746; surgical scrubbed OR = 1.060, 95% CI 0.952-1.179, p = 0.2893; surgical non-scrubbed OR = 1.023 95% CI 0.907–1.154, p = 0.7129; anesthesia OR = 1.051, 95% CI 0.926–1.193, p = 0.4442). Conclusion: The presence of additional operating room personnel was not independently associated with increased odds of sSSI. Efforts dedicated to sSSI reduction should focus on other modifiable risk factors.

Background The national waste rate for hospital‐issued blood products ranges from 0% to 6%, with operating room–responsible waste representing up to 70% of total hospital waste. A common reason for blood product waste is inadequate intraoperative storage. Study Design and Methods Our transfusion service database was used to quantify and categorize red blood cell ( RBC ) and fresh‐frozen plasma ( FFP ) units issued for intraoperative transfusion that were wasted over a 27‐month period. Two cohorts were created: 1) before implementation of a blood transport and storage initiative ( BTSI )— RBC and plasma waste J anuary 1, 2011‐ M ay 31, 2012; 2) after implementation of BTSI — RBC and plasma waste J une 1, 2012, to M arch 31, 2013. The BTSI replaced existing storage coolers (8‐hr coolant life span with temperature range of 1‐10°C) with a cooler that had a coolant life span of 18 hours and a temperature range of 1 to 6°C and included an improved educational cooler placard and an alert mechanism in the electronic health record. Monthly median RBC and plasma waste and its associated cost were the primary outcomes. Results An intraoperative BTSI significantly reduced median monthly RBC (1.3% vs. 0.07%) and FFP (0.4% vs. 0%) waste and its associated institutional cost. The majority of blood product waste was due to an unacceptable temperature of unused returned blood products. Conclusion An intraoperative BTSI significantly reduced median monthly RBC and FFP waste. The cost to implement this initiative was small, resulting in a significant estimated return on investment that may be reproducible in institutions other than ours.

Background The American College of Cardiology released a scientific advisory that included a recommendation to delay elective of noncardiac surgery (NCS) for 1 yr after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a drug-eluting stent (DES). Methods This single-center, retrospective study examined the risk for complications of NCS performed within 2 yr after DES placement and examined whether this risk changed based on the time between procedures. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) during the hospitalization for NCS. Bleeding events were analyzed as a secondary endpoint. Results From April 22, 2003, to December 31, 2006, a total of 520 patients underwent NCS within 2 yr after PCI with a DES at Mayo Clinic. The majority, 84%, of the DES placed were Cypher stents. The frequency of MACE was not found to be significantly associated with the time between PCI and NCS (rate of MACEs 6.4, 5.7, 5.9, and 3.3% at 0-90, 91-180, 181-365, and 366-730 days after PCI with DES, respectively; P = 0.727 for comparison across groups). Characteristics found to be associated with MACEs in univariate analysis were advanced age (P = 0.031), emergent NCS (P = 0.006), shock at time of PCI (P = 0.035), previous history of myocardial infarction (P = 0.046), and continuation of a thienopyridine (ticlopidine or clopidogrel) into the preoperative period (P = 0.040). The rate of transfusion did not seem to be associated with antiplatelet therapy use. Conclusions The risk of MACEs with NCS after DES placement was not significantly associated with time from stenting to surgery, but observed rates of MACEs were lowest after 1 yr.

Background The duration of time that elective noncardiac surgery (NCS) should be delayed after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare metal stents (BMSs) is unknown. Methods This large, single-center, retrospective study examined the relation between complication rate in patients with BMSs undergoing NCS and the duration of time between PCI and NCS. Primary endpoints included in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or repeat revascularization with either coronary artery bypass grafting or PCI of the target vessel) and bleeding events. The relation between the events and the timing of noncardiac surgery after PCI with BMS was assessed using univariate analysis and multiple logistic regression. Results From January 1, 1990, to January 1, 2005, a total of 899 patients were identified. The frequency of major adverse cardiac events was 10.5% when NCS was performed less than 30 days after PCI with BMS, 3.8% when NCS was performed between 31 and 90 days after PCI with BMS, and 2.8% when NCS was performed more than 90 days after PCI with BMS. In univariate and multivariate analyses, a shorter time interval between PCI with BMS and noncardiac surgery was significantly associated with increased incidence of major adverse cardiac events (univariate: P < 0.001; odds ratio = 4.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-8.3; multivariate: P = 0.006; odds ratio = 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-6.9). Bleeding events were not associated with time between PCI with BMS and NCS or with the use of antiplatelet therapy in the week before NCS. Conclusions The incidence of major adverse cardiac events is lowest when NCS is performed at least 90 days after PCI with BMS.