Search

Providing bloodless medical care for patients who wish to avoid allogeneic transfusion can be challenging; however, previous studies have demonstrated favorable outcomes when appropriate methods are used. Here, we report one of the largest series of patients receiving bloodless care, along with the methods used to provide such care, and the resulting outcomes.In a retrospective cohort study, 1111 adult inpatients (age ≥18 years) at a single institution who declined allogeneic transfusion for religious or personal reasons between June 2012 and June 2016 were included, and the patient blood management methods are described. Patient characteristics, laboratory data, and transfusion rates, as well as clinical outcomes (morbidity, mortality, and length of stay) were compared to all other patients in the hospital who received standard care, including transfusions if needed (n = 137,009). Medical and surgical patients were analyzed as subgroups. The primary outcome was composite morbidity (any morbid event: infectious, thrombotic, ischemic, renal, or respiratory). Secondary outcomes included individual morbid events, in-hospital mortality, length of stay, total hospital charges, and costs.The bloodless cohort had more females and a lower case mix index, but more preadmission comorbidities. Mean nadir hemoglobin during hospitalization was lower in the bloodless (9.7 ± 2.6 g/dL) compared to the standard care (10.1 ± 2.4 g/dL) group (P.0001). Composite morbidity occurred in 14.4% vs 16.0% (P = .16) of the bloodless and standard care patients, respectively. Length of stay and in-hospital mortality were similar between the bloodless and standard care patients. After Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons, hospital-acquired infection occurred less frequently in the bloodless compared to the standard care cohort (4.3% vs 8.3%) (P.0001) in the medical patient subgroup, but not in the surgical subgroup. After propensity score adjustment in a multivariable model and adjustment for multiple comparisons, bloodless care was associated with less risk of hospital-acquired infection (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35-0.83; P = .0074) in the medical subgroup, but not in the surgical subgroup. Median total hospital charges (by 8.5%; P = .0017) and costs (by 8.7%; P = .0001) were lower in the bloodless compared to the standard care cohort, when all patients were included.Overall, adult patients receiving bloodless care had similar clinical outcomes compared to patients receiving standard care. Medical (but not surgical) bloodless patients may be at less risk for hospital-acquired infection compared to those receiving standard care. Bloodless care is cost-effective and should be considered as high-value practice.

The worsening opioid epidemic has led to an increased number of surgical patients with chronic preoperative opioid use. However, the impact of opioids on perioperative outcomes has yet to be fully elucidated. The purpose of this study was to assess the association between preoperative opioid dose and surgical outcomes among colectomy patients.Adult colectomy patients in the IBM MarketScan database (2010-2017) were stratified based on preoperative opioid dose, calculated as the average opioid dose in morphine milligram equivalents (MME) in the 90 days prior to surgery: 0 MME, 1 to 49 MME, and 50 or more MME. The association between preoperative opioid dose and anastomotic leak, the primary outcome of interest, as well as other postoperative complications, was assessed using multivariable regression.Among 45,515 adult colectomy patients, 71.4% did not use opioids (0 MME), 27.4% had an opioid dose between 1 and 49 MME, and 1.2% had an opioid dose at or above 50 MME. Patients with preoperative opioid use exhibited a higher incidence of anastomotic leak (0 MME: 4.8%, 1-49 MME: 5.5%, ≥50 MME: 8.3%; p trend = 0.001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated a dose-response relationship between preoperative opioids and surgical outcomes, as the odds of anastomotic leak worsened with increasing opioid dose (1-49 MME: OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08-1.31, p0.001; ≥50 MME: OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.20-2.24, p = 0.002). Similar dose-response relationships were seen after risk-adjustment for lung complications, pneumonia, delirium, and 30-day readmission (p0.05 for all).Providers should exercise caution when prescribing opioids preoperatively, as increasing doses of preoperative opioids were associated with worse surgical outcomes and higher 30-day readmission among adult colectomy patients.

BACKGROUND Preoperative steroid use has been associated with worse surgical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine whether laparoscopic surgery reduces the risk of septic shock/sepsis among ulcerative colitis patients with preoperative chronic steroid use. METHODS Patients with ulcerative colitis undergoing a total abdominal colectomy were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database (2005-2019). Patients were stratified based on preoperative chronic steroid use and operative approach (open versus laparoscopic). The primary outcome was septic shock/sepsis. Multivariable regression models were used to assess the association between laparoscopic surgery and rates of septic shock/sepsis among steroid users and non-steroid users in both the elective and emergent settings. RESULTS Among 8,644 patients undergoing a total abdominal colectomy, 67.1% were steroid users and 32.9% were non-steroid users. Compared with an open approach, elective laparoscopic surgery was associated with lower rates of septic shock/sepsis, albeit with higher readmission rates for both steroid users (15.1% [laparoscopic] vs 12.0% [open], P = .005) and non-steroid users (12.6% [laparoscopic] vs 9.4% [open], P = .019). On adjusted analysis, ulcerative colitis patients with chronic steroid use undergoing an elective laparoscopic total abdominal colectomy demonstrated a reduced risk of septic shock/sepsis compared to open surgery (odds ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.49-0.76, P < .001). Similar findings were seen among chronic steroid users undergoing emergent laparoscopic procedures (odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.31-0.95, P = .031). CONCLUSION Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a reduced risk of septic shock/sepsis among ulcerative colitis patients with preoperative chronic steroid use, suggesting that minimally invasive surgery may be a promising option among this unique patient population.

Venous thromboembolic (VTE) events represent a major source of morbidity and mortality in spine surgery. Our goal was to assess whether a dose-response relationship exists between red blood cell (RBC) transfusion and postoperative VTE events among spine surgery patients.A total of 786 spine surgery patients at a single institution who received at least 1 RBC unit perioperatively were included (2016-2019). Patients were stratified based on RBC transfusion volume: 1-2 units (39.3%), 3-4 units (29.4%), 5-6 units (15.9%) and ≥7 units (15.4%). Subgroup analyses were performed after stratification by case mix index, a standardized surrogate for patients' disease severity and comorbidities. Multivariable regression was used to assess risk factors for the development of postoperative VTE events.The overall VTE event rate was 2.4% (n = 19). A dose-response relationship was seen between RBC transfusion volume and VTE events (1-2 units: 0.97%, 3-4 units: 1.30%, 5-6 units: 3.20%, ≥7 units: 7.44%; p 0.01). Similar dose-response relationships were seen between case mix index and VTE events (1.00-3.99: 0.52%, 4.00-6.99: 2.68%, ≥7.00: 9.00%; p 0.01). On multivariable regression, larger RBC transfusion volumes (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.18 per RBC unit, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-1.29; p 0.01) and higher case mix index scores (adjusted OR 1.39 per unit increase, 95% CI 1.14-1.69; p 0.01) were associated with an increased risk of thrombosis.Larger RBC transfusion volumes and higher case mix index scores were associated with an increased risk of VTE events. Physicians should be aware of how these dose-response relationships can influence a patient's risk of developing thrombotic complications postoperatively.

Background The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of surgical delays on short- and long-term survival among colon cancer patients. Methods Adult patients undergoing surgery for stage I, II, or III colon cancer were identified from the National Cancer Database (2010-2016). After categorization by wait times from diagnosis to surgery (12 weeks), 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and 5-year overall survival were compared between patients both overall and after stratification by pathological disease stage. Results Among 187 394 colon cancer patients, 24.2% waited 12 weeks for surgery. Patients undergoing surgery 3-6 weeks after colon cancer diagnosis exhibited the best 30-day mortality (1.3%), 90-day mortality (2.3%), and 5-year overall survival (71.8%) ( P < .001 for all). After risk-adjusting for confounders, all wait times beyond 6 weeks were associated with worse 5-year overall survival (6-9 weeks: HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.06-1.15; 9-12 weeks: HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.18-1.33; >12 weeks: HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.35-1.52; P < .001 for all). Subgroup analysis after stratification by disease stage demonstrated that patients with stage III colon cancer were able to wait up to 9 weeks before exhibiting worse 5-year overall survival, compared to 6 weeks for patients with stage I or II disease. Conclusions Colon cancer patients should undergo surgery 3-6 weeks after diagnosis, as all surgical delays beyond 6 weeks were associated with worse 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and 5-year overall survival.