Integration of the Duke Activity Status Index into preoperative risk evaluation: a multicentre prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) questionnaire might help incorporate self-reported functional capacity into preoperative risk assessment. Nonetheless, prognostically important thresholds in DASI scores remain unclear. We conducted a nested cohort analysis of the Measurement of Exercise Tolerance before Surgery (METS) study to characterise the association of preoperative DASI scores with postoperative death or complications. METHODS: The analysis included 1546 participants (≥40 yr of age) at an elevated cardiac risk who had inpatient noncardiac surgery. The primary outcome was 30-day death or myocardial injury. The secondary outcomes were 30-day death or myocardial infarction, in-hospital moderate-to-severe complications, and 1 yr death or new disability. Multivariable logistic regression modelling was used to characterise the adjusted association of preoperative DASI scores with outcomes. RESULTS: The DASI score had non-linear associations with outcomes. Self-reported functional capacity better than a DASI score of 34 was associated with reduced odds of 30-day death or myocardial injury (odds ratio: 0.97 per 1 point increase above 34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96-0.99) and 1 yr death or new disability (odds ratio: 0.96 per 1 point increase above 34; 95% CI: 0.92-0.99). Self-reported functional capacity worse than a DASI score of 34 was associated with increased odds of 30-day death or myocardial infarction (odds ratio: 1.05 per 1 point decrease below 34; 95% CI: 1.00-1.09), and moderate-to-severe complications (odds ratio: 1.03 per 1 point decrease below 34; 95% CI: 1.01-1.05). CONCLUSIONS: A DASI score of 34 represents a threshold for identifying patients at risk for myocardial injury, myocardial infarction, moderate-to-severe complications, and new disability.

A randomised controlled trial of pharmacist medication histories and supplementary prescribing on medication errors in postoperative medications.

Errors in the management of regular medications at the time of hospital admission are common. This randomised controlled three-arm parallel-group trial examined the impact of pharmacist medication history taking and pharmacist supplementary prescribing on unintentional omissions of postoperative medications in a large perioperative service. Participants included elective surgical patients taking regular medications with a postoperative hospital stay of one night or more. Patients were randomly assigned, on admission, to usual care (n=120), a pharmacist medication history only (n=120) or pharmacist medication history and supplementary prescribing (n=120). A medication history involved the pharmacist interviewing the patient preoperatively and documenting a medication history in the medical record. In the supplementary prescribing group the patients' regular medicines were also prescribed on the inpatient medication chart by the pharmacist, so that dosing could proceed as soon as possible after surgery without the need to wait for medical review. The estimate marginal mean number of missed doses during a patients hospital stay was 1.07 in the pharmacist supplementary prescribing group, which was significantly less than both the pharmacist history group (3.30) and the control group (3.21) (P < 0.001). The number of medications charted at an incorrect dose or frequency was significantly reduced in the pharmacist history group and further reduced in the prescribing group (P < 0.001). We conclude that many patients miss doses of regular medication during their hospital stay and preoperative medication history taking and supplementary prescribing by a pharmacist can reduce this.

Perioperative mortality risk score using pre- and postoperative risk factors in older patients.

We developed a risk score for 30-day postoperative mortality: the Perioperative Mortality risk score. We used a derivation cohort from a previous study of surgical patients aged 70 years or more at three large metropolitan teaching hospitals, using the significant risk factors for 30-day mortality from multivariate analysis. We summed the risk score for each of six factors creating an overall Perioperative Mortality score. We included 1012 patients and the 30-day mortality was 6%. The three preoperative factors and risk scores were ("three A's"): 1) age, years: 70 to 79 = 1, 80 to 89 = 3, 90+ = 6; 2) ASA physical status: ASA I or II = 0, ASA III = 3, ASA IV = 6, ASA V = 15; and 3) preoperative albumin < 30 g/l = 2.5. The three postoperative factors and risk scores were ("three I's") 1) unplanned intensive care unit admission = 4.0; 2) systemic inflammation = 3; and 3) acute renal impairment = 2.5. Scores and mortality were: < 5 = 1%, 5 to 9.5 = 7% and > or = 10 = 26%. We also used a preliminary validation cohort of 256 patients from a regional hospital. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (C-statistic) for the derivation cohort was 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.86) similar to the validation C-statistic: 0.79 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.88), P = 0.88. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test (P = 0.35) indicated good calibration in the validation cohort. The Perioperative Mortality score is straightforward and may assist progressive risk assessment and management during the perioperative period. Risk associated with surgical complexity and urgency could be added to this baseline patient factor Perioperative Mortality score.

Review of procedures for investigation of anaesthesia-associated anaphylaxis in Newcastle, Australia.

The procedures, results and outcomes of investigation of 50 patients with clinical episodes of anaesthesia-associated anaphylaxis were retrospectively reviewed. Assessment was performed by measurement of serum tryptase and specific IgE and a combination of skin prick and intradermal skin testing. Testing was performed both for agents received during the anaesthetic and for agents the patient may encounter in future procedures. Twenty of 50 patients underwent a subsequent procedure after assessment. Sensitisation to neuromuscular blocking agents was identified in 18 patients (36%). Sensitisation to propofol (14 patients; 28%) and latex (four patients; 8%) was also frequently identified. No precise cause was identified in 11 cases (22%). Reactivity to more than one agent was identified in 14 patients (28%). Serum tryptase was measured within six hours of the episode in only 28 of the 50 cases. All the patients with elevated serum tryptase had clinically severe reactions. One patient initially found to be sensitised to propofol had another reaction during a second procedure, prompting further assessment where chlorhexidine reactivity was identified. Subsequent surgery in that patient and in 19 other patients where agents implicated in the testing were avoided, proceeded without incident. The results reaffirm that neuromuscular blocking agents are the most common cause of anaphylaxis during anaesthesia. The importance of serum tryptase measurement at the time of the acute episode needs to be emphasised. Investigation should include screening for chlorhexidine and latex in all patients, as exposure to both these agents is common and may be overlooked.

Crisis management during anaesthesia: anaphylaxis and allergy.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylactic and anaphylactoid reactions during anaesthesia are a major cause for concern for anaesthetists. However, as individual practitioners encounter such events so rarely, the rapidity with which the diagnosis is made and appropriate management instituted varies considerably. OBJECTIVES: To examine the role of a previously described core algorithm "COVER ABCD-A SWIFT CHECK", supplemented by a specific sub-algorithm for anaphylaxis, in the management of severe allergic reactions occurring in association with anaesthesia. METHODS: The potential performance of this structured approach for each of the relevant incidents among the first 4000 reported to the Australian Incident Monitoring Study (AIMS) was compared with the actual performance as reported by the anaesthetists involved. RESULTS: There were 148 allergic reactions among the first 4000 incidents reported to AIMS. It was considered that, properly applied, the structured approach would have led to a quicker and/or better resolution of the problem in 30% of cases, and would not have caused harm had it been applied in all of them. CONCLUSION: An increased awareness of the diverse clinical manifestations of allergy seen in anaesthetic practice, together with the adoption of a structured approach to management should improve and standardise the treatment and improve follow up of patients suspected of having suffered a significant allergic reaction under anaesthesia.

A multiple-hospital anaesthetic problem register: establishment of a regionally organized system for facilitated reporting of potentially recurring anaesthetic-related problems.

A regionally organized system aiming to facilitate reporting and retrieval of information about potentially recurring anaesthetic-related problems has been established, covering 20 separate hospitals. Components of the system include a reporting package to facilitate use by anaesthetists in busy clinical practice; centralized clerical support; supervision by anaesthetists; reports and laminated cards supplied to the patient; and a permanently accessible database. A new classification system for difficulties in airway management has been developed as part of the system. After initial establishment, the system has been utilized by a broad cross-section of anaesthetists in the region. The first 350 reports are described. The reporting rate is approximately 0.3% of all anaesthetics given in the region. We believe the success of this system has been primarily due to features aiming to facilitate reporting, "local" ownership and supervision by clinical anaesthetists.

The use of "quality-adjusted life years" (QALYs) to evaluate treatment in intensive care.

This study examines the feasibility of using Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) to assess patient outcome and the economic justification of treatment in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). 248 patients were followed for three years after admission. Survival and quality of life for each patient was evaluated. Outcome for each patient was quantified in discounted Quality-Adjusted Life Years (dQALYs). The economic justification of treatment was evaluated by comparing the total and marginal cost per dQALY for this patient group with the published cost per QALY for other medical interventions. 150 patients were alive after three years. Quality of life for most longterm survivors was good. Patient outcome (QALYs) was greatest for asthma and trauma patients, and least for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. The tentative estimated cost-effectiveness of treatment varied from AUD $297 per QALY for asthma to AUD $2323 per QALY for patients with pulmonary oedema. This compares favourably with many preventative and non-acute medical treatments. Although the methodology is developmental, the measurement of patient outcome using QALYs appears to be feasible in a general hospital ICU.