Search

Background: The development of hyponatremia after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) may lead to several adverse events and is associated with prolonged inpatient length of stay as well as increased hospital costs. The purpose of this study was to develop and internally validate machine learning algorithms for predicting hyponatremia after TJA.Methods: A consecutive cohort of 30,703 TJA patients from an institutional registry at a large, tertiary academic hospital were included. A total of 19 potential predictor variables were collected. Hyponatremia was defined as a serum sodium concentration of <135 mEq/L. Five machine learning algorithms were developed using a training set and internally validated using an independent testing set. Algorithm performance was evaluated through discrimination, calibration, decision-curve analysis, and Brier score.Results: The charts of 30,703 patients undergoing TJA were reviewed. Of those patients, 5,480 (17.8%) developed hyponatremia postoperatively. A combination of 6 variables were demonstrated to optimize algorithm prediction: preoperative serum sodium concentration, age, intraoperative blood loss, procedure time, body mass index (BMI), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score. Threshold values that were associated with greater hyponatremia risk were a preoperative serum sodium concentration of ≤138 mEq/L, an age of ≥73 years, an ASA score of >2, intraoperative blood loss of >407 mL, a BMI of ≤26 kg/m2, and a procedure time of >111 minutes. The stochastic gradient boosting (SGB) algorithm demonstrated the best performance (c-statistic: 0.75, calibration intercept: -0.02, calibration slope: 1.02, and Brier score: 0.12). This algorithm was turned into a tool that can provide real-time predictions (https://orthoapps.shinyapps.io/Hyponatremia_TJA/).Conclusions: The SGB algorithm demonstrated the best performance for predicting hyponatremia after TJA. The most important factors for predicting hyponatremia were preoperative serum sodium concentration, age, intraoperative blood loss, procedure time, BMI, and ASA score. A real-time hyponatremia risk calculator was developed, but it is imperative to perform external validation of this model prior to using this calculator in clinical practice.Level Of Evidence: Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Core outcome sets aim to select and standardize the choice of important outcomes reported in clinical trials to encourage more effective data synthesis, increase the reliability of comparing results, and minimize reporting bias. A core outcome set for elective shoulder surgery has yet to be defined, and therefore a systematic assessment of outcomes and methodology is necessary to inform the development of a core outcome set.Questions/purposes: The purpose of this study was to examine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients having elective major or minor shoulder surgery to (1) identify the outcome domains reported; (2) determine specific outcome measurement tools that were utilized; and (3) assess the work for methodological quality and risk of bias.Methods: We conducted a scoping review (a review that identifies the nature and extent of research evidence) to explore the reported outcome domains, outcome tools, and methodological quality from RCTs conducted in shoulder surgery. We considered both major shoulder surgery (defined as arthroplasty, rotator cuff repair, stabilization procedures, biceps tenodesis, or Bankart repairs) and minor shoulder surgery (simple arthroscopy, capsular plication, lateral clavicular excisions, or subacromial decompression). We queried 10 electronic databases for studies published between January 2006 and January 2015. Studies were included if they were prospective, randomized controlled, clinical trials enrolling patients who received an elective shoulder surgical intervention. We extracted data relating to trial characteristics, primary outcomes, tools used to measure these outcomes as well as methodological quality indicators. We assessed indicators of methodological quality by exploring (1) the reproducibility of power analyses; and (2) whether the primary outcomes were powered to minimum clinically important differences. Risk of bias was also assessed with the Jadad score with scores between 0 (very high risk of bias) and 5 (very low risk). Findings were qualitatively analyzed and reported according to systematic and scoping review guidelines. We included 315 studies involving 30,232 patients; 266 studies investigated anesthetic, analgesic, or surgical interventions.Results: Of the 315 studies included, the most common outcome domains evaluated were analgesic (n = 104), functional (n = 87), anesthetic (n = 56), and radiologic (n = 29) outcomes, with temporal patterns noted. Studies of major shoulder surgery most commonly reported functional primary outcome domains, whereas minor shoulder surgery studies most frequently reported analgesic primary outcome domains. There were 85 different primary outcome tools utilized, which included 20 functional, 20 anesthetic, 13 analgesic, and 12 radiologic. A methodological quality assessment revealed that 24% of studies had reproducible power analyses, 13% were powered to minimum clinically important differences, and risk of bias assessment demonstrated a median (interquartile range [range]) Jadad score of 4 (3-5 [1-5]).Conclusions: A wide range of outcome domains and outcome assessment tools are in common use in contemporary trials of patients undergoing elective surgery. Although some diversity is important to allow the assessment of patient populations that may have different goals, the large number of tools in common use may impair the ability of future meta-analyses to pool results effectively or even for systematic reviews to synthesize what is known. The limitations of methodological quality in RCTs may be improved by researchers following standard guidelines and considering the minimum clinically important differences in their trials to be of greater use to clinicians and their patients.Level Of Evidence: Level I, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hospital-related factors associated with mortality and morbidity after hip fracture surgery are not completely understood. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the largest single-payer, networked healthcare system in the country serving a relatively homogenous patient population with facilities that vary in size and resource availability. These characteristics provide some degree of financial and patient-level controls to explore the association, if any, between surgical volume and facility resource availability and hospital performance regarding postoperative complications after hip fracture surgery.Questions/purposes: (1) Do VHA facilities with the highest complexity level designation (Level 1a) have a disproportionate number of better-than-expected performance outliers for major postoperative complications compared with lower-complexity level facilities? (2) Do VHA facilities with higher hip fracture surgical volume have a disproportionate number of better-than-expected performance outliers for major postoperative complications compared with lower-volume facilities?Methods: We explored the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Project (VASQIP) database from October 2001 to September 2012 for records of hip fracture surgery performed. Data reliability of the VASQIP database has been previously validated. We excluded nine of the 98 VHA facilities for contributing fewer than 30 records. The remaining 89 VHA facilities provided 23,029 records. The VHA designates a complexity level to each facility based on multiple criteria. We labeled facilities with a complexity Level 1a (38 facilities)-the highest achievable VHA designated complexity level-as high complexity; we labeled all other complexity level designations as low complexity (51 facilities). Facility volume was divided into tertiles: high (> 277 hip fracture procedures during the sampling frame), medium (204 to 277 procedures), and low (< 204 procedures). The patient population treated by low-complexity facilities was older, had a higher prevalence of severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (26% versus 22%, p < 0.001), and had a higher percentage of patients having surgery within 2 days of hospital admission (83% versus 76%, p < 0.001). High-complexity facilities treated more patients with recent congestive heart failure exacerbation (4% versus 3%, p < 0.001). We defined major postoperative complications as having at least one of the following: death within 30 days of surgery, cardiac arrest requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation, new q-wave myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism, ventilator dependence for at least 48 hours after surgery, reintubation for respiratory or cardiac failure, acute renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy, progressive renal insufficiency with a rise in serum creatinine of at least 2 mg/dL from preoperative value, pneumonia, or surgical site infection. We used the observed-to-expected ratio (O/E ratio)-a risk-adjusted metric to classify facility performance-for major postoperative complications to assess the performance of VHA facilities. Outlier facilities with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for O/E ratio completely less than 1.0 were labeled "exceed expectation;" those that were completely greater than 1.0 were labeled "below expectation." We compared differences in the distribution of outlier facilities between high and low-complexity facilities, and between high-, medium-, and low-volume facilities using Fisher's exact test.Results: We observed no association between facility complexity level and the distribution of outlier facilities (high-complexity: 5% exceeded expectation, 5% below expectation; low-complexity: 8% exceeded expectation, 2% below expectation; p = 0.742). Compared with high-complexity facilities, the adjusted odds ratio for major postoperative complications for low-complexity facilities was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.67-1.09; p = 0.108).We observed no association between facility volume and the distribution of outlier facilities: 3% exceeded expectation and 3% below expectation for high-volume; 10% exceeded expectation and 3% below expectation for medium-volume; and 7% exceeded expectation and 3% below expectation for low-volume; p = 0.890). The adjusted odds ratios for major postoperative complications were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.73-1.05) for low- versus high-volume facilities and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79-1.02] for medium- versus high-volume facilities (p = 0.155).Conclusions: These results do not support restricting facilities from treating hip fracture patients based on historical surgical volume or facility resource availability. Identification of consistent performance outliers may help health care organizations with multiple facilities determine allocation of services and identify characteristics and processes that determine outlier status in the interest of continued quality improvement.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Neuraxial anesthesia is increasingly recommended for hip/knee replacements as some studies show improved outcomes on the individual level. With hospital-level studies lacking, we assessed the relationship between hospital-level neuraxial anesthesia utilization and outcomes.Methods: National data on 808,237 total knee and 371,607 hip replacements were included (Premier Healthcare 2006 to 2014; 550 hospitals). Multivariable associations were measured between hospital-level neuraxial anesthesia volume (subgrouped into quartiles) and outcomes (respiratory/cardiac complications, blood transfusion/intensive care unit need, opioid utilization, and length/cost of hospitalization). Odds ratios (or percent change) and 95% CI are reported. Volume-outcome relationships were additionally assessed by plotting hospital-level neuraxial anesthesia volume against predicted hospital-specific outcomes; trend tests were applied with trendlines' R statistics reported.Results: Annual hospital-specific neuraxial anesthesia volume varied greatly: interquartile range, 3 to 78 for hips and 6 to 163 for knees. Increasing frequency of neuraxial anesthesia was not associated with reliable improvements in any of the study's clinical outcomes. However, significant reductions of up to -14.1% (95% CI, -20.9% to -6.6%) and -15.6% (95% CI, -22.8% to -7.7%) were seen for hospitalization cost in knee and hip replacements, respectively, both in the third quartile of neuraxial volume. This coincided with significant volume effects for hospitalization cost; test for trend P < 0.001 for both procedures, R 0.13 and 0.41 for hip and knee replacements, respectively.Conclusions: Increased hospital-level use of neuraxial anesthesia is associated with lower hospitalization cost for lower joint replacements. However, additional studies are needed to elucidate all drivers of differences found before considering hospital-level neuraxial anesthesia use as a potential marker of quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Multimodal analgesia is increasingly considered routine practice in joint arthroplasties, but supportive large-scale data are scarce. The authors aimed to determine how the number and type of analgesic modes is associated with reduced opioid prescription, complications, and resource utilization.Methods: Total hip/knee arthroplasties (N = 512,393 and N = 1,028,069, respectively) from the Premier Perspective database (2006 to 2016) were included. Analgesic modes considered were opioids, peripheral nerve blocks, acetaminophen, steroids, gabapentin/pregabalin, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, or ketamine. Groups were categorized into "opioids only" and 1, 2, or more than 2 additional modes. Multilevel models measured associations between multimodal analgesia and opioid prescription, cost/length of hospitalization, and opioid-related adverse effects. Odds ratios or percent change and 95% CIs are reported.Results: Overall, 85.6% (N = 1,318,165) of patients received multimodal analgesia. In multivariable models, additions of analgesic modes were associated with stepwise positive effects: total hip arthroplasty patients receiving more than 2 modes (compared to "opioids only") experienced 19% fewer respiratory (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.94; unadjusted 1.0% [N = 1,513] vs. 2.0% [N = 1,546]), 26% fewer gastrointestinal (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.84; unadjusted 1.5% [N = 2,234] vs. 2.5% [N = 1,984]) complications, up to a -18.5% decrease in opioid prescription (95% CI, -19.7% to -17.2%; 205 vs. 300 overall median oral morphine equivalents), and a -12.1% decrease (95% CI, -12.8% to -11.5%; 2 vs. 3 median days) in length of stay (all P < 0.05). Total knee arthroplasty analyses showed similar patterns. Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors seemed to be the most effective modalities used.Conclusions: While the optimal multimodal regimen is still not known, the authors' findings encourage the combined use of multiple modalities in perioperative analgesic protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of anesthesia techniques on perioperative outcomes on a population level has recently gained widespread interest. Although mainly neuraxial vs general anesthesia has been addressed, population-level data on the impact of peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) are still lacking. Therefore, we investigated the association between PNB use and outcomes using retrospective data on 1,062,152 recipients of hip and knee arthroplasties (total hip arthroplasty [THA]/total knee arthroplasty [TKA]) from the national Premier Perspective database (2006-2013). Multilevel multivariable logistic regression models measured associations between PNB use and outcomes. Complications included cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal and renal complications, cerebrovascular events, infections, wound complications, thromboembolic complications, inpatient falls, and mortality. Resource utilization variables included blood transfusions, intensive care unit admissions, opioid consumption, cost, and length of stay. Overall, 12.5% of patients received a PNB, with an increase over time particularly among TKAs. Peripheral nerve block use was associated with lower odds for most adverse outcomes mainly among patients with THA. Notable beneficial effects were seen for wound complications (odds ratio 0.60 [95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.74]) among THA recipients and pulmonary complications (odds ratio 0.83 [95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.94]) in patients with TKA. Peripheral nerve block use was significantly (P < 0.0001) associated with a -16.2% and -12.7% reduction in opioid consumption for patients with THA and TKA, respectively. In conclusion, our results indicate that PNBs might be associated with superior perioperative population-level outcomes. In light of the inability to establish a causal relationship and the presence of residual confounding, we strongly advocate for further prospective investigation, ideally in multicenter, randomized trials, to establish the potential impact of PNBs on outcomes on a population level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Differences in health care represent a major health policy issue. Despite increasing evidence on the mediating role of anesthesia type used for surgery on perioperative outcome, there is a lack of data on potential care differences in this field. The authors aimed to determine whether anesthesia practice (use of neuraxial anesthesia [NA] or peripheral nerve block [PNB]) differs by patient and hospital factors.Methods: The authors extracted data on n = 1,062,152 hip and knee arthroplasty procedures from the Premier Perspective database (2006 to 2013). Multilevel multivariable logistic regression models measured associations (odds ratios [ORs] and 95% CIs) between patient/hospital factors and NA or PNB use.Results: Of all patients, 22.2% (n = 236,083) received NA and 17.9% (n = 189,732) received PNB. Lower adjusted odds for receiving NA were seen for black patients (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.91) and those on Medicaid (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.82) or without insurance (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.98). Furthermore, teaching hospitals (compared with nonteaching hospitals) had lower adjusted odds for NA utilization (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.89). Although generally similar patterns were seen for PNB utilization, the main difference was that particularly Hispanic patients were less likely to receive PNB compared with white patients (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.65). Sensitivity analyses generally validated our results.Conclusions: Significant differences exist in the provision of regional anesthetic care with factors such as race and insurance type being important determinants of anesthetic practice. Further and in-depth research is needed to fully assess the background of these differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anesthetic practice utilization and related characteristics of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) are understudied. The research team sought to characterize anesthesia practice patterns by utilizing National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry data of the Anesthesia Quality Institute. The proportions of primary TKAs performed between January 2010 and June 2013 using general anesthesia (GA), neuraxial anesthesia (NA), and regional anesthesia (RA) were determined. Utilization of anesthesia types was analyzed using anesthesiologist and patient characteristics and facility type. In all, 108 625 eligible TKAs were identified; 10.9%, 31.3%, and 57.9% were performed under RA, NA, and GA, respectively. Patients receiving RA had higher median age and higher frequency of American Society of Anesthesiology score ≥3 compared with those receiving other anesthesia types under study. Relative to GA (45.0%), when NA or RA were used, the anesthesiologist was more frequently board certified (75.5% and 62.1%, respectively; P < .0001). Anesthetic technique differences for TKAs exist, with variability associated with patient and provider characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]