Search

Abstract Background Antiemetic and analgesic oral premedications are frequently prescribed preoperatively to enhance recovery after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. However, it is unknown whether these medications transit beyond the stomach or if they remain in the sleeve resection specimen, thereby negating their pharmacological effects. Methods A retrospective cohort study was performed on patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and receiving oral premedication (slow-release tapentadol and netupitant/palonosetron) as part of enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery program. Patients were stratified into the Transit group (premedication absent in the resection specimen) and Failure-to-Transit group (premedication present in the resection specimen). Age, sex, body mass index, and presence of diabetes were compared amongst the groups. The premedication lead time (time between premedications’ administration and gastric specimen resection), and the premedication presence or absence in the specimen was evaluated. Results One hundred consecutive patients were included in the analysis. Ninety-nine patients (99%) were morbidly obese, and 17 patients (17%) had Type 2 diabetes mellitus. One hundred patients (100%) received tapentadol and 89 patients (89%) received netupitant/palonosetron. One or more tablets were discovered in the resected specimens of 38 patients (38%). No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups regarding age, sex, diabetes, or body mass index. The median (Q1‒Q3) premedication lead time was 80 min (57.8‒140.0) in the Failure-to-Transit group and 119.5 min (85.0‒171.3) in the Transit group; P = 0.006. The lead time required to expect complete absorption in 80% of patients was 232 min (95%CI:180‒310). Conclusions Preoperative oral analgesia and antiemetics did not transit beyond the stomach in 38% of patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. When given orally in combination, tapentadol and netupitant/palonosetron should be administered at least 4 h before surgery to ensure transition beyond the stomach. Future enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery guidelines may benefit from the standardization of premedication lead times to facilitate increased absorption. Trial registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; number ACTRN12623000187640; retrospective registered on 22/02/2023.

Abstract Background Most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) never receive treatment. Medication treatment of OUD in primary care is recommended as an approach to increase access to care. The PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial tests whether implementation of a collaborative care model (Massachusetts Model) using a nurse care manager (NCM) to support medication treatment of OUD in primary care increases OUD treatment and improves outcomes. Specifically, it tests whether implementation of collaborative care, compared to usual primary care, increases the number of days of medication for OUD (implementation objective) and reduces acute health care utilization (effectiveness objective). The protocol for the PROUD trial is presented here. Methods PROUD is a hybrid type III cluster-randomized implementation trial in six health care systems. The intervention consists of three implementation strategies: salary for a full-time NCM, training and technical assistance for the NCM, and requiring that three primary care providers have DEA waivers to prescribe buprenorphine. Within each health system, two primary care clinics are randomized: one to the intervention and one to Usual Primary Care. The sample includes all patients age 16–90 who visited the randomized primary care clinics from 3 years before to 2 years after randomization (anticipated to be > 170,000). Quantitative data are derived from existing health system administrative data, electronic medical records, and/or health insurance claims (“electronic health records,” [EHRs]). Anonymous staff surveys, stakeholder debriefs, and observations from site visits, trainings and technical assistance provide qualitative data to assess barriers and facilitators to implementation. The outcome for the implementation objective (primary outcome) is a clinic-level measure of the number of patient days of medication treatment of OUD over the 2 years post-randomization. The patient-level outcome for the effectiveness objective (secondary outcome) is days of acute care utilization [e.g. urgent care, emergency department (ED) and/or hospitalizations] over 2 years post-randomization among patients with documented OUD prior to randomization. Discussion The PROUD trial provides information for clinical leaders and policy makers regarding potential benefits for patients and health systems of a collaborative care model for management of OUD in primary care, tested in real-world diverse primary care settings. Trial registration # NCT03407638 (February 28, 2018); CTN-0074 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03407638?term=CTN-0074&draw=2&rank=1

Abstract Background Textbook outcomes is a composite quality assurance tool assessing the ideal perioperative and postoperative course as a unified measure. Currently, its definition and application in the context of oesophagectomy in Australia is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the textbook outcomes after oesophagectomy in a single referral centre of Australia and investigate the association between textbook outcomes and patient, tumour, and treatment characteristics. Methods An observational study was retrospectively performed on patients undergoing open, laparoscopic, or hybrid oesophagectomy between January 2010 and December 2019 in a single cancer referral centre. A textbook outcome was defined as the fulfillment of 10 criteria: R0 resection, retrieval of at least 15 lymph nodes, no intraoperative complications, no postoperative complications greater than Clavien-Dindo grade III, no anastomotic leak, no readmission to the ICU, no hospital stay beyond 21 days, no mortality within 90 days, no readmission related to the surgical procedure within 30 days from admission and no reintervention related to the surgical procedure. The proportion of patients who met each criterion for textbook outcome was calculated and compared. Selected patient-related parameters (age, gender, BMI, ASA score, CCI score), tumour-related factors (tumour location, tumour histology, AJCC clinical T and N stage and treatment-related factor [neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgical approach]) were assessed. Disease recurrence and one year survival were also evaluated. Results 110 patients who underwent oesophagectomy were included. The overall textbook outcome rate was 24%. The difference in rates across the years was not statistically significant. The most achieved textbook outcome parameters were ‘no mortality in 90 days’ (96%) and ‘R0 resection’ (89%). The least frequently met textbook outcome parameter was ‘no severe postoperative complications’ (58%), followed by ‘no hospital stays over 21 days’ (61%). No significant association was found between patient, tumour and treatment characteristics and the rate of textbook outcome. Tumour recurrence rate and overall long term survival was similar between textbook outcome and non-textbook outcome groups. Patients with R0 resection, no intraoperative complication and a hospital stay less than 21 days had reduced mortality rates. Conclusions Textbook outcome is a clinically relevant indicator and was achieved in 24% of patients. Severe complications and a prolonged hospital stay were the key criteria that limited the achievement of a textbook outcome. These findings provide meticulous evaluation of oesophagectomy perioperative care and provide a direction for the utilisation of this concept in identifying and improving surgical and oncological care across multiple healthcare levels.

Abstract Objective Transthoracic esophagectomy is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Therefore, it is imperative to optimize perioperative management and minimize complications. In this retrospective analysis, we evaluated the association between fluid balance and esophagectomy complications at a tertiary hospital in Melbourne, Australia, with a particular focus on respiratory morbidity and anastomotic leaks. Cumulative fluid balance was calculated intraoperatively, postoperatively in recovery postoperative day (POD) 0, and on POD 1 and 2. High and low fluid balance was defined as greater than or less than the median fluid balance, respectively, and postoperative surgical complications were graded using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Results In total, 109 patients, with an average age of 64 years, were included in this study. High fluid balance on POD 0, POD1 and POD 2 was associated with a higher incidence of anastomotic leak (OR 8.59; 95%CI: 2.64-39.0). High fluid balance on POD 2 was associated with more severe complications (of any type) (OR 3.33; 95%CI: 1.4–8.26) and severe pulmonary complications (OR 3.04; 95%CI: 1.27–7.67). For every 1 L extra cumulative fluid balance in POD 1, the odds of a major complication increase by 15%, while controlling for body mass index (BMI) and American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) class. The results show that higher cumulative fluid balance is associated with worsening postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing transthoracic esophagectomy. Restricted fluid balance, especially postoperatively, may mitigate the risk of postoperative complications – however prospective trials are required to establish this definitively.