W. A. van Klei

Effects of the introduction of the WHO "Surgical Safety Checklist" on in-hospital mortality: a cohort study.

Objective:To evaluate the effect of implementation of the WHOs Surgical Safety Checklist on mortality and to determine to what extent the potential effect was related to checklist compliance. Background:Marked reductions in postoperative complications after implementation of a surgical checklist have been reported. As compliance to the checklists was reported to be incomplete, it remains unclear whether the benefits obtained were through actual completion of a checklist or from an increase in overall awareness of patient safety issues. Methods:This retrospective cohort study included 25,513 adult patients undergoing non-day case surgery in a tertiary university hospital. Hospital administrative data and electronic patient records were used to obtain data. In-hospital mortality within 30 days after surgery was the main outcome and effect estimates were adjusted for patient characteristics, surgical specialty and comorbidity. Results:After checklist implementation, crude mortality decreased from 3.13% to 2.85% (P = 0.19). After adjustment for baseline differences, mortality was significantly decreased after checklist implementation (odds ratio [OR] 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73–0.98). This effect was strongly related to checklist compliance: the OR for the association between full checklist completion and outcome was 0.44 (95% CI, 0.28–0.70), compared to 1.09 (95% CI, 0.78–1.52) and 1.16 (95% CI, 0.86–1.56) for partial or noncompliance, respectively. Conclusions:Implementation of the WHO Surgical Checklist reduced in-hospital 30-day mortality. Although the impact on outcome was smaller than previously reported, the effect depended crucially upon checklist compliance.

Role of history and physical examination in preoperative evaluation.

Background and objective: Since reports have shown that outpatient preoperative evaluation increases the quality of care and cost-effectiveness, an increasing number of patients are being evaluated purely on an outpatient basis. To improve cost-effectiveness, it would be appealing if those patients who are healthy and ready for surgery without additional testing could be easily distinguished from those who require more extensive evaluation. This paper examines whether published studies provide sufficient data to determine how detailed preoperative history taking and physical examination need to be in order to assess the health of surgical patients and to meet the objective of easy and early distinction. Methods: A MEDLINE search was conducted from 1991 to 2000 with respect to preoperative patient history and physical examination. Altogether, 213 articles were found, of which 29 were selected. Additionally, 38 cross-references, 7 articles on additional testing and 4 recently published papers were used. Results: It is questionable to what extent an extensive history is relevant for anaesthesia and long-term prognosis. With respect to physical examination, it seems unreasonable to diagnose valvular heart disease based on cardiac auscultation only, and it is unclear which method should be used to predict the difficulty of endotracheal intubation. The benefits of routine testing for all surgical patients before operation are extremely limited and are not advocated. Conclusions: The amount of detail of preoperative patient history and the value of physical examination to obtain a reasonable estimate of perioperative risk remains unclear. Although not evidence based, a thorough history taking and physical examination of all patients before surgery seems important until more evidence-based guidelines become available. Diagnostic and prognostic prediction studies may provide this necessary evidence.

Implementation of outpatient preoperative evaluation clinics: facilitating and limiting factors

BACKGROUND Several studies have shown that outpatient preoperative evaluation by anaesthetists increases quality of care and is cost-effective. The aim of this study was to gain insight into the factors that positively or negatively influence the implementation of outpatient preoperative evaluation clinics (OPE clinics). METHODS After an extensive literature study and pilot interviews, we constructed written questionnaires that were sent to all Dutch hospitals. The respondents were members of the board of directors, members of the medical staff, anaesthetists, internists, and surgeons. RESULTS Cooperation of anaesthetists was most frequently mentioned as facilitating factor for implementation of an OPE clinic across all medical specialists interviewed. Lack of finance was most frequently reported as limiting factor in all categories of hospitals (with a complete, partial, or no OPE clinic), but it was significantly more often reported in hospitals without OPE clinic (P<0.01). Perceived benefits and disadvantages, financial rewarding system, and organizational structure played a clear role in the implementation of OPE clinics. CONCLUSIONS A variety of factors play a role in the implementation of an OPE clinic. Besides the more obvious ones, such as financing and cooperation of the professional groups involved, underlying factors, such as perceptions of the professionals involved, were found to be related to implementation of an OPE clinic. These underlying factors explain differences between different kinds of hospitals and between professional groups, regarding their resources and motivation to implement an OPE clinic.

Intraoperative hypotension and delirium after on-pump cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND Delirium is a common complication after cardiac surgery and may be as a result of inadequate cerebral perfusion. We studied delirium after cardiac surgery in relation to intraoperative hypotension (IOH). METHODS This observational single-centre, cohort study was nested in a randomized trial, on a single intraoperative dose of dexamethasone vs placebo during cardiac surgery. During the first four postoperative days, patients were screened for delirium based on the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) for Intensive Care Unit on the intensive care unit, CAM on the ward, and by inspection of medical records. To combine depth and duration of IOH, we computed the area under the curve for four blood pressure thresholds. Logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate the association between IOH and the occurrence of postoperative delirium, adjusting for confounding and using a 99% confidence interval to correct for multiple testing. RESULTS Of the 734 included patients, 99 patients (13%) developed postoperative delirium. The adjusted Odds Ratio for the Mean Arterial Pressure <60 mm Hg threshold was 1.04 (99% confidence interval: 0.99-1.10) for each 1000 mm Hg(2) min(2) AUC(2) increase. IOH, as defined according to the other three definitions, was not associated with postoperative delirium either. Deep and prolonged IOH seemed to increase the risk of delirium, but this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS Independent of the applied definition, IOH was not associated with the occurrence of delirium after cardiac surgery.

Validation of non-invasive arterial pressure monitoring during carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND Patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy require strict arterial blood pressure (BP) control to maintain adequate cerebral perfusion. In this study we tested whether non-invasive beat-to-beat Nexfin finger BP (BPfin) can replace invasive beat-to-beat radial artery BP (BPrad) in this setting. METHODS In 25 consecutive patients (median age 71 yr) scheduled for carotid endarterectomy and receiving general anaesthesia, BPfin and BPrad were monitored simultaneously and ipsilaterally during the 30-min period surrounding carotid artery cross-clamping. Validation was guided by the standard set by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI), which considers a BP monitor adequate when bias (precision) is <5 (8) mm Hg, respectively. RESULTS BPfin vs BPrad bias (precision) was -3.3 (10.8), 6.1 (5.7) and 3.5 (5.2) mm Hg for systolic, diastolic, and mean BP, respectively. One subject was excluded due to a poor quality BP curve. In another subject, mean BPfin overestimated mean BPrad by 13.5 mm Hg. CONCLUSION Mean BPfin could be considered as an alternative for mean BPrad during a carotid endarterectomy, based on the AAMI criteria. In 23 of 24 patients, the use of mean BPfin would not lead to decisions to adjust mean BPrad values outside the predefined BP threshold. CLINICALTRIALSGOV NCT01451294.

Occurrence and determinants of poor response to short-term pre-operative erythropoietin treatment

This study aimed to explore the occurrence and determinants of poor response to short‐term pre‐operative erythropoietin treatment and the effect of such poor response on transfusion in total hip arthroplasty patients.

Medication discontinuity errors in the perioperative period

Background: Inappropriate withdrawal or continuation of medication in the perioperative period is associated with an increased risk for adverse events. To reduce this risk, it is important that patients take their regular medication as prescribed. We evaluated this treatment objective by studying the frequency and reasons for errors related to medication discontinuity in the perioperative period.

A systematic review and consensus definitions for standardised end-points in perioperative medicine: pulmonary complications

Background: There is a need for robust, clearly defined, patient‐relevant outcome measures for use in randomised trials in perioperative medicine. Our objective was to establish standard outcome measures for postoperative pulmonary complications research. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Web of Science, SciELO, and the Korean Journal Database. Definitions were extracted from included manuscripts. We then conducted a three‐stage Delphi consensus process to select the optimal outcome measures in terms of methodological quality and overall suitability for perioperative trials. Results: From 2358 records, the full texts of 81 manuscripts were retrieved, of which 45 met the inclusion criteria. We identified three main categories of outcome measure specific to perioperative pulmonary outcomes: (i) composite outcome measures of multiple pulmonary outcomes (27 definitions); (ii) pneumonia (12 definitions); and (iii) respiratory failure (six definitions). These were rated by the group according to suitability for routine use. The majority of definitions were given a low score, and many were imprecise, difficult to apply consistently, or both, in large patient populations. A small number of highly rated definitions were identified as appropriate for widespread use. The group then recommended four outcome measures for future use, including one new definition. Conclusions: A large number of postoperative pulmonary outcome measures have been used, but most are poorly defined. Our four recommended outcome measures include a new definition of postoperative pulmonary complications, incorporating an assessment of severity. These definitions will meet the needs of most clinical effectiveness trials of treatments to improve postoperative pulmonary outcomes.

Intraoperative hypotension and the risk of postoperative adverse outcomes: a systematic review

Background: Intraoperative hypotension is a common side effect of general anaesthesia and might lead to inadequate organ perfusion. It is unclear to what extent hypotension during noncardiac surgery is associated with unfavourable outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL, and classified the quality of retrieved articles according to predefined adapted STROBE and CONSORT criteria. Reported strengths of associations from high‐quality studies were classified into end‐organ specific injury risks, such as acute kidney injury, myocardial injury, and stroke, and overall organ injury risks for various arterial blood pressure thresholds. Results: We present an overview of 42 articles on reported associations between various absolute and relative intraoperative hypotension definitions and their associations with postoperative adverse outcomes after noncardiac surgery. Elevated risks of end‐organ injury were reported for prolonged exposure (≥10 min) to mean arterial pressures <80 mm Hg and for shorter durations <70 mm Hg. Reported risks increase with increased durations for mean arterial pressures <65–60 mm Hg or for any exposure <55–50 mm Hg. Conclusions: The reported associations suggest that organ injury might occur when mean arterial pressure decreases <80 mm Hg for ≥10 min, and that this risk increases with blood pressures becoming progressively lower. Given the retrospective observational design of the studies reviewed, reflected by large variability in patient characteristics, hypotension definitions and outcomes, solid conclusions on which blood pressures under which circumstances are truly too low cannot be drawn. We provide recommendations for the design of future studies. Clinical registration number: (PROSPERO ID). CRD42013005171.

Different methods of modelling intraoperative hypotension and their association with postoperative complications in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery

Background: Associations between intraoperative hypotension (IOH) and postoperative complications have been reported. We examined whether using different methods to model IOH affected the association with postoperative myocardial injury (POMI) and acute kidney injury (AKI). Methods: This two‐centre cohort study included 10 432 patients aged ≥50 yr undergoing non‐cardiac surgery. Twelve different methods to statistically model IOH [representing presence, depth, duration, and area under the threshold (AUT)] were applied to examine the association with POMI and AKI using logistic regression analysis. To define IOH, eight predefined thresholds were chosen. Results: The incidences of POMI and AKI were 14.9% and 14.8%, respectively. Different methods to model IOH yielded effect estimates differing in size and statistical significance. Methods with the highest odds were absolute maximum decrease in blood pressure (BP) and mean episode AUT, odds ratio (OR) 1.43 [99% confidence interval (CI): 1.15–1.77] and OR 1.69 (99% CI: 0.99–2.88), respectively, for the absolute mean arterial pressure 50 mm Hg threshold. After standardisation, the highest standardised ORs were obtained for depth‐related methods, OR 1.12 (99% CI: 1.05–1.20) for absolute and relative maximum decrease in BP. No single method always yielded the highest effect estimate in every setting. However, methods with the highest effect estimates remained consistent across different BP types, thresholds, outcomes, and centres. Conclusions: In studies on IOH, both the threshold to define hypotension and the method chosen to model IOH affects the association of IOH with outcome. This makes different studies on IOH less comparable and hampers clinical application of reported results.