Buckner-Petty, Skye

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex, aprepitant, and fosaprepitant are increasingly used perioperatively. These medications may interfere with the effectiveness of hormonal contraception. This study assessed anesthesia providers’ use of sugammadex and aprepitant, their knowledge of interactions with hormonal birth control, and patient counseling practices to identify possible knowledge gaps or opportunities for practice improvement. METHODS: In January 2023, an electronic survey was distributed to all anesthesia providers at Mayo Clinic sites (Mayo Clinic Rochester, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Mayo Clinic Florida, and Mayo Clinic Health System hospitals). The survey included 32 questions assessing providers’ use of sugammadex and aprepitant, their knowledge of the medications’ interactions with hormonal contraceptives (HC), their perceptions regarding education of these interactions during training, and their perioperative patient counseling practices. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 337 of 1092 (31%) providers completed the survey. While almost all respondents (324; 96%) knew that sugammadex may interfere with oral contraceptive effectiveness, only 158 (47%) knew about aprepitant’s potential contraceptive interference. Only 176 providers (52%) knew the recommended duration for alternative contraceptive methods after use after sugammadex, and 119 providers (35%) knew the recommended duration after aprepitant exposure. Most respondents considered the interference of these perioperative drugs with HCs to be clinically relevant (sugammadex, 217, 64%; aprepitant, 191, 58%). Despite the common belief that the decision between these medications and alternatives should be shared between provider and patient, most providers reported rarely engaging in such shared decision-making (SDM) in practice. Most providers recognized the need for preoperative discussions on sugammadex (280, 83%) and aprepitant (257, 76%), yet 184 providers (73%) never or rarely discussed contraception use before surgery for aprepitant, and 135 (36%) never or rarely did so for sugammadex. Lastly, many providers believed that the interference between sugammadex, aprepitant, and HC was poorly taught during training. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study highlight the need for increased education and awareness among anesthesia providers regarding drug interactions with HCs during the perioperative period. To facilitate SDM, it is imperative that providers discuss alternative medications and the potential need for additional contraception methods after drug administration and communicate the risks with patients preoperatively to enable informed and SDM. The patient’s preferences should be accounted for, especially if they are unwilling or unable to use an alternative contraceptive for 7 to 30 days, thereby avoiding the complexities and burdens of altering birth control methods.

ImportanceThe fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is widely used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but evidence of its effectiveness is limited.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether FIT screening is associated with a lower risk of dying from CRC overall, according to cancer location, and within demographic groups.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis nested case-control study in a cohort of screening-eligible people was conducted in 2 large, integrated health systems of racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse members with long-term programs of mailed FIT screening outreach. Eligible participants included people aged 52 to 85 years who died from colorectal adenocarcinoma between 2011 and 2017 (cases); cases were matched in a 1:8 ratio based on age, sex, health-plan membership duration, and geographic area to randomly selected persons who were alive and CRC-free on case’s diagnosis date (controls). Data analysis was conducted from January 2002 to December 2017.ExposuresCompleting 1 or more FIT screenings in the 5-year period prior to the CRC diagnosis date among cases or the corresponding date among controls; in secondary analyses, 2- to 10-year intervals were evaluated.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary study outcome was CRC death overall and by tumor location. Secondary analyses were performed to assess CRC death by race and ethnicity.ResultsFrom a cohort of 2 127 128 people, a total of 10 711 participants (3529 aged 60-69 years [32.9%]; 5587 male [52.1%] and 5124 female [47.8%]; 1254 non-Hispanic Asian [11.7%]; 973 non-Hispanic Black [9.1%]; 1929 Hispanic or Latino [18.0%]; 6345 non-Hispanic White [59.2%]) was identified, including 1103 cases and 9608 controls. Among controls during the 10-year period prior to the reference date, 6101 (63.5%) completed 1 or more FITs with a cumulative 12.6% positivity rate (768 controls), of whom 610 (79.4%) had a colonoscopy within 1 year. During the 5-year period, 494 cases (44.8%) and 5345 controls (55.6%) completed 1 or more FITs. In regression analysis, completing 1 or more FIT screening was associated with a 33% lower risk of death from CRC (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.59-0.76) and 42% lower risk in the left colon and rectum (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.71). There was no association with right colon cancers (aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.01) but the difference in the estimates between the right colon and left colon or rectum was statistically significant (P = .01). FIT screening was associated with lower CRC mortality risk among non-Hispanic Asian (aOR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.23-0.59), non-Hispanic Black (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.85) and non-Hispanic White individuals (aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.86) (P for homogeneity = .04 for homogeneity).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this nested case-control study, completing FIT was associated with a lower risk of overall death from CRC, particularly in the left colon, and the associations were observed across racial and ethnic groups. These findings support the use of FIT in population-based screening strategies.

BACKGROUND: A racial compensation disparity among physicians across numerous specialties is well documented and persists after adjustment for age, sex, experience, work hours, productivity, academic rank, and practice structure. This study examined national survey data to determine whether there are racial differences in compensation among anesthesiologists in the United States. METHODS: In 2018, 28,812 active members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists were surveyed to examine compensation among members. Compensation was defined as the amount reported as direct compensation on a W-2, 1099, or K-1, plus all voluntary salary reductions (eg, 401[k], health insurance). Covariates potentially associated with compensation were identified (eg, sex and academic rank) and included in regression models. Racial differences in outcome and model variables were assessed via Wilcoxon rank sum tests and Pearson’s χ 2 tests. Covariate adjusted ordinal logistic regression estimated an odds ratio (OR) for the relationship between race and ethnicity and compensation while adjusting for provider and practice characteristics. RESULTS: The final analytical sample consisted of 1952 anesthesiologists (78% non-Hispanic White). The analytic sample represented a higher percentage of White, female, and younger physicians compared to the demographic makeup of anesthesiologists in the United States. When comparing non-Hispanic White anesthesiologists with anesthesiologists from other racial and ethnic minority groups, (ie, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander), the dependent variable (compensation range) and 6 of the covariates (sex, age, spousal work status, region, practice type, and completed fellowship) had significant differences. In the adjusted model, anesthesiologists from racial and ethnic minority populations had 26% lower odds of being in a higher compensation range compared to White anesthesiologists (OR, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61–0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Compensation for anesthesiologists showed a significant pay disparity associated with race and ethnicity even after adjusting for provider and practice characteristics. Our study raises concerns that processes, policies, or biases (either implicit or explicit) persist and may impact compensation for anesthesiologists from racial and ethnic minority populations. This disparity in compensation requires actionable solutions and calls for future studies that investigate contributing factors and to validate our findings given the low response rate.

Background: Prior studies have reported conflicting results of persistent iatrogenic atrial septal defect (iASD) and its impact following a transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) procedure. This study aims to evaluate the incidence of iASD and its clinical and hemodynamic impact after a TEER. Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent a TEER procedure from June 2014 to September 2020 at the Mayo Clinic were identified. The presence of iASD was retrospectively identified on post-procedure transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) to group patients into an iASD+ group and an iASD− group for comparison of prognosis and cardiac function. Results: A total of 316 patients were included; the mean age was 79.1 ± 9.1 years, and 67.7% were male. Persistent iASD was diagnosed in 108 (34.2%) patients. There was no difference concerning all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and stroke/TIA between groups at follow-up (median follow-up of 9 months). Post-procedure TTE demonstrated no differences regarding right ventricle (RV) and left ventricle (LV) dimensions and function, including TAPSE (15.2 ± 4.6 vs. 15.4 ± 5.5 mm, p = 0.875), and LV ejection fraction (51.1 ± 14.0% vs. 51.3 ± 13.9%, p = 0.933). However, patients with iASD had higher RV systolic pressure (48.7 ± 14.4 vs. 45.5 ± 14.5 mmHg, p = 0.042) compared with patients without iASD. Conclusion: Notwithstanding higher RV pressures, patients with persistent iASD had no hemodynamic compromise and an equal prognosis compared with those without a residual atrial defect after a TEER procedure. These findings support the mid-term safety of procedures in which an interatrial defect needs to be created and would argue against the need for interventional closure.