Preoperative Depression Screening for Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: An Evaluation of Its Modifiability on Outcomes in Patients Who Have Depression.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated preoperative depression screenings in patients who have depression. We studied whether depression screenings before total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were associated with lower: 1) medical complications; 2) emergency department (ED) utilizations and readmissions; 3) implant complications; and 4) costs. METHODS: A nationwide sample from January 1, 2010, to April 30, 2021, was collected using an insurance database. Depression patients were 1:1 propensity-score matched based on those who had (n = 29,009) and did not have (n = 29,009) preoperative depression screenings or psychotherapy visits within 3 months of TKA. A case-matched population who did not have depression was compared (n = 144,994). A 90-day period was used to compare complications and health-care utilization and 2-year follow-up for periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) and implant survivorship. Costs were 90-day reimbursements. Logistic regression models computed odds ratios (ORs) of depression screening on dependent variables. P values less than .001 were significant. RESULTS: Patients who did not receive preoperative screening were associated with higher medical complications (18.7 versus 5.2%, OR: 4.15, P < .0001) and ED utilizations (11.5 versus 3.2%, OR: 3.93, P < .0001) than depressed patients who received screening. Patients who had screening had lower medical complications (5.2 versus 5.9%, OR: 0.88, P < .0001) and ED utilizations compared to patients who did not have depression (3.2 versus 3.8%, OR: 0.87, P = .0001). Two-year PJI incidences (3.0 versus 1.3%, OR: 2.63, P < .0001) and TKA revisions (4.3 versus 2.1%, OR: 2.46, P < .0001) were greater in depression patients who were not screened preoperatively versus screened patients. Depression patients who had screening had lower PJIs (1.3 versus 1.8%, OR: 0.74, P < .0001) compared to nondepressed patients. Reimbursements ($13,949 versus $11,982; P < .0001) were higher in depression patients who did not have screening. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative screening was associated with improved outcomes in depression patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Routine pretransfusion testing before primary total hip or knee arthroplasty are an expensive and wasteful routine. Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The excessive routine ordering of pretransfusion tests (blood typing, screening, and cross-matching) for surgical cases incurs significant unnecessary costs and places an undue burden on transfusion services. This study aims to systematically review the literature regarding the necessity of routine pretransfusion tests before total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and summarize their outcomes. STUDY METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. The study's characteristics, the prevalence of over-ordering pretransfusion tests, transfusion rates, and potential cost savings to the healthcare system were analyzed. RESULTS: The study included 17,667 patients. Pooled results revealed a 96.3% over-ordering pretransfusion test rate (95% CI: 0.92-1.00; p < 0.001) among patients undergoing primary THA or TKA. The pooled prevalence of hospital transfusion rate was 3.6%. Notably, there were statistically significant differences in preoperative hemoglobin (Hb) levels between patients not requiring transfusion (Hb = 13.9 g/dl; 95% CI 12.59-15.20; p < 0.001) and those needing transfusion (Hb = 11.9 g/dl; 95% CI 10.69-13.01; p < 0.001) (p = 0.03). The per-patient total cost savings ranged from 28.63 to 191.27 dollars. DISCUSSION: Our study suggests that routine pre-transfusion testing for all patients undergoing primary THA or TKA may be unnecessary. We propose limiting pretransfusion test orders to patients with preoperative hemoglobin levels below 12 g/dl in unilateral primary TKA or THA. This targeted approach can result in significant cost savings for healthcare systems and transfusion services by reducing the over-ordering of pretransfusion tests in these surgical procedures.

Is Preoperative Type and Screen High-value Care? A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Performing Preoperative Type and Screen Prior to Urogynecological Surgery.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Routine preoperative type and screen (T&S) is often ordered prior to urogynecological surgery but is rarely used. We aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of routine preoperative T&S and determine transfusion and transfusion reaction rates that make universal preoperative T&S cost effective. METHODS: A decision tree model from the health care sector perspective compared costs (2020 US dollars) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years, QALYs) of universal preoperative T&S (cross-matched blood) vs no T&S (O negative blood). Our primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Input parameters included transfusion rates, transfusion reaction incidence, transfusion reaction severity rates, and costs of management. The base case included a transfusion probability of 1.26%; a transfusion reaction probability of 0.0013% with or 0.4% without T&S; and with a transfusion reaction, a 50% probability of inpatient management and 0.0042 annual disutility. Costs were estimated from Medicare national reimbursement schedules. The time horizon was surgery/admission. We assumed a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The base case and one-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that routine preoperative T&S is not cost effective, with an ICER of $63,721,632/QALY. The optimal strategy did not change when base case cost, transfusion probability, or transfusion reaction disutility were varied. Threshold analysis revealed that if transfusion reaction probability without T&S is >12%, routine T&S becomes cost effective. Scenarios identified as cost effective in the threshold and sensitivity analyses fell outside reported rates for urogynecological surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Within broad ranges, preoperative T&S is not cost effective, which supports re-evaluating routine T&S prior to urogynecological surgery.

Comparative analysis of preoperative chemoradiotherapy and upfront surgery in the treatment of upper-half rectal cancer: oncological benefits, surgical outcomes, and cost implications.

The value of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is not absolutely clear for upper-half (> 7-15 cm) rectal cancer. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of radical surgery with preoperative CRT vs. upfront surgery (US) in Chinese patients with stage II and III upper-half rectal cancer. A total of 809 patients with locally advanced upper-half rectal cancer between 2017 and 2021 were enrolled retrospectively (280 treated with CRT and 529 treated with US). Through 1:1 propensity score matching, the CRT (172 patients) and US (172 patients) groups were compared for short-term postoperative results and long-term oncological and functional outcomes. In the entire cohort, patients in the CRT group had a younger age, lower distance from the anal verge (DAV), and higher rates of cT4 stage, cN2 stage, mrCRM positivity, EMVI positivity, CEA elevation, and CA-199 elevation than those in the US group. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) was lower in the CRT group than in the US group (76% vs. 84%, p = 0.022), while the 5-year overall survival (OS) was comparable between the two groups (85% and 88%, p = 0.084). The distant metastasis rate was higher in the CRT group than in the US group (12.5% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.028), though the local recurrence rate was similar between the two groups (1.1% and 1.3%, p = 1.000). After performing PSM, the 5-year OS (86% vs. 88% p = 0.312), the 5-year DFS (79% vs. 80%, p = 0.435), the local recurrence rate (1.2% vs. 1.7%, p = 1.000), and the distant metastasis rate (11.0% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.593) were comparable between the two groups. Notable pathological downstaging was observed in the CRT group, with a pathological complete response (PCR) rate of 14.5%. In addition, patients in the CRT group had a lower proportion of pT3 (61.6% vs. 77.9%, p < 0.001), pN + (pN1, 15.1% vs. 30.2%, pN2, 9.3% vs. 20.3%, p < 0.001), stage III (24.4% vs. 50.6%, p < 0.001), perineural invasion (19.8% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.014), and lymphovascular invasion (9.3% vs. 25.6%, p < 0.001) than those in the US group. Postoperative complications and long-term functional results were similar, yet there was a trend toward a higher conversion to laparotomy rate (5 (2.9%) vs. 0 (0.0%), p = 0.061) and higher rates of robotic surgery (11.6% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001), open surgery (7.0% vs. 0.6%, p < 0.001), diverting stoma (47.1% vs. 25.6%, p < 0.001), and surgery costs (1473.6 ± 106.5 vs. 1140.3 ± 54.3$, p = 0.006) in the CRT group. In addition, EMVI (OR = 2.516, p = 0.001) was the only independent risk factor associated with poor response to CRT, and in subgroup analysis of EMVI + , CRT group patients presented a lower 5-year DFS (72.9% vs. 80.5%, p = 0.025) compared to US group patients. CRT prior to surgery has no additional oncological benefits over US in the treatment of upper-half rectal cancer. In contrast, CRT is associated with increased rates of conversion to laparotomy, stoma creation and higher surgery costs. Surgeons tend to favor robotic surgery in the treatment of complex cases such as radiated upper-half rectal cancers. Notably, EMVI + patients with upper-half rectal cancer should be encouraged to undergo upfront surgery, as preoperative CRT may not provide benefits and may lead to delayed treatment effects.

[Prehabilitation prior to radical prostatectomy : A useful concept?] / Prähabilitation vor radikaler Prostatektomie : Ein sinnvolles Konzept?

Against the background of a continuous improvement of established treatment outcomes and the compatibility of health economic considerations, pre- and perioperative processes are constantly being developed and further optimized. In recent years, the concept of prehabilitation has gained increasing importance as a proactive approach to preparing patients for mostly surgical cancer treatment and improving their physical and mental health. Prehabilitation in oncology is a systematic process aimed at improving the physical, psychosocial, and nutritional condition of patients before and during cancer treatment. The goal of prehabilitation is to enhance patients' ability to cope with the physiological stress of cancer treatment and improve their overall health and well-being. In addition, prehabilitation has the potential to reduce costs for the healthcare system.

A cost-utility analysis of 18F-fluorocholine-positron emission tomography imaging for localizing primary hyperparathyroidism in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Primary hyperparathyroidism historically necessitated bilateral neck exploration to remove abnormal parathyroid tissue. Improved localization allows for focused parathyroidectomy with lower complication risks. Recently, positron emission tomography using radiolabeled 18F-fluorocholine demonstrated high accuracy in detecting these lesions, but its cost-effectiveness has not been studied in the United States. METHODS: A decision tree modeled patients who underwent parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism using single preoperative localization modalities: (1) positron emission tomography using radiolabeled 18F-fluorocholine, (2) 4-dimensional computed tomography, (3) ultrasound, and (4) sestamibi single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). All patients underwent either focused parathyroidectomy versus bilateral neck exploration, with associated cost ($) and clinical outcomes measured in quality-adjusted life-years gained. Model parameters were informed by literature review and Medicare costs. Incremental cost-utility ratios were calculated in US dollars/quality-adjusted life-years gained, with a willingness-to-pay threshold set at $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year. One-way, 2-way, and threshold sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Positron emission tomography using radiolabeled 18F-fluorocholine gained the most quality-adjusted life-years (23.9) and was the costliest ($2,096), with a total treatment cost of $11,245 or $470/quality-adjusted life-year gained. Sestamibi single photon emission computed tomography and ultrasound were dominated strategies. Compared with 4-dimentional computed tomography, the incremental cost-utility ratio for positron emission tomography using radiolabeled 18F-fluorocholine was $91,066/quality-adjusted life-year gained in our base case analysis, which was below the willingness-to-pay threshold. In 1-way sensitivity analysis, the incremental cost-utility ratio was sensitive to test accuracy, positron emission tomography using radiolabeled 18F-fluorocholine price, postoperative complication probabilities, proportion of bilateral neck exploration patients needing overnight hospitalization, and life expectancy. CONCLUSION: Our model elucidates scenarios in which positron emission tomography using radiolabeled 18F-fluorocholine can potentially be a cost-effective imaging option for primary hyperparathyroidism in the United States. Further investigation is needed to determine the maximal cost-effectiveness for positron emission tomography using radiolabeled 18F-fluorocholine in selected populations.

Rethinking the routine: Preoperative laboratory testing among American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 and 2 patients before low-risk ambulatory surgery in the 2017 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program cohort.

BACKGROUND: Routine preoperative laboratory testing is not recommended for American Society of Anesthesiologists classification 1 or 2 patients before low-risk ambulatory surgery. METHODS: The 2017 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data set was retrospectively queried for American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 and 2 patients who underwent low-risk, elective outpatient anorectal, breast, endocrine, gynecologic, hernia, otolaryngology, oral-maxillofacial, orthopedic, plastic/reconstructive, urologic, and vascular operations. Preoperative laboratory testing was defined as any chemistry, hematology, coagulation, or liver function studies obtained ≤30 days preoperatively. Demographics, comorbidities, and outcomes were compared between those with and without testing. The numbers needed to test to prevent serious morbidity or any complication were calculated. Laboratory testing costs were estimated using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data. RESULTS: Of 111,589 patients studied, 57,590 (51.6%) received preoperative laboratory testing; 26,709 (46.4%) had at least 1 abnormal result. Factors associated with receiving preoperative laboratory testing included increasing age, female sex, non-White race/ethnicity, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 2, diabetes, dyspnea, hypertension, obesity, and steroid use. Mortality did not differ between patients with and without testing. The complication rate was 2.5% among tested patients and 1.7% among patients without tests (P < .01). The numbers needed to test was 599 for serious morbidity and 133 for any complication. An estimated $373 million annually is spent on preoperative laboratory testing in this population. CONCLUSION: Despite American Society of Anesthesiologists guidelines, a majority of American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 and 2 patients undergo preoperative laboratory testing before elective low-risk outpatient surgery. The differences in the rates of complications between patients with and without testing is low. Preoperative testing should be used more judiciously in this population, which may lead to cost savings.

A Retrospective Analysis of Patients Undergoing Telemedicine Evaluation in the PreAnesthesia Testing Clinic at H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine for preanesthesia evaluation can decrease access disparities by minimizing commuting, time off work, and lifestyle disruptions from frequent medical visits. We report our experience with the first 120 patients undergoing telemedicine preanesthesia evaluation at Moffitt Cancer Center. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of 120 patients seen via telemedicine for preanesthesia evaluation compared with an in-person cohort meeting telemedicine criteria had it been available. Telemedicine was conducted from our clinic to a patient's remote location using video conferencing. Clinic criteria were revised to create a tier of eligible patients based on published guidelines and anesthesiologist consensus. RESULTS: Day-of-surgery cancellation rate was 1.67% in the telemedicine versus 0% in the in-person cohort. The two telemedicine group cancellations were unrelated to medical workup, and cancellation rate between the groups was not statistically significant (P = .49). Median round trip distance and time saved by the telemedicine group was 80 miles [range 4; 1180] and 121 minutes [range 16; 1034]. Using the federal mileage rate, the median cost savings was $46 [range $2.30; 678.50] per patient. Patients were similar in gender and race in both groups (P = .23 and .75, respectively), but the in-person cohort was older and had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification (P = .0003). CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine preanesthesia evaluation results in time, distance, and financial savings without increased day-of-surgery cancellations. This is useful in cancer patients who travel significant distances to specialty centers and have a high frequency of health care visits. American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status classification and age differences between cohorts indicate possible patient or provider selection bias. Randomized controlled trials will aid in further exploring this technology.

Determining Variable Costs in the Acute Urolithiasis Cycle of Care Through Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize full cycle of care costs for managing an acute ureteral stone using time-driven activity-based costing. METHODS: We defined all phases of care for patients presenting with an acute ureteral stone and built an overarching process map. Maps for sub-processes were constructed through interviews with providers and direct observation of clinical spaces. This facilitated calculation of cost per minute for all aspects of care delivery, which were multiplied by associated process times. These were added to consumable costs to determine cost for each specific step and later aggregated to determine total cost for each sub-process. We compared costs of eight common clinical pathways for acute stone management, defining total cycle of care cost as the sum of all sub-processes that comprised each pathway. RESULTS: Cost per sub-process included $920 for emergency department (ED) care, $1665 for operative stent placement, $2368 for percutaneous nephrostomy tube placement, $106 for urology clinic consultation, $238 for preoperative center visit, $4057 for ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy (URS), $2923 for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, $169 for clinic stent removal, $197 for abdominal x-ray, and $166 for ultrasound. The lowest cost pathway ($1388) was for medical expulsive therapy, whereas the most expensive pathway ($8002) entailed a repeat ED visit prompting temporizing stent placement and interval URS. CONCLUSION: We found a high degree of cost variation between care pathways common to management of acute ureteral stone episodes. Reliable cost accounting data and an understanding of variability in clinical pathway costs can inform value-based care redesign as payors move away from pure fee-for-service reimbursement.

On All Accounts: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Limited Preoperative Optimization Efforts Before Colon Cancer Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Reports suggest that preoperative optimization of a patient's serious comorbidities is associated with a reduction in postoperative complications. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the cost and benefits of preoperative optimization, accounting for total costs associated with postoperative morbidity. DESIGN: This study is a decision tree cost-effectiveness analysis with probabilistic sensitivity analysis (10,000 iterations). SETTING: This is a hypothetical scenario of stage II colon cancer surgery. PATIENT: The simulated 65-year-old patient has left-sided, stage II colon cancer. INTERVENTION: Focused preoperative optimization targets high-risk comorbidities. OUTCOMES: Total discounted (3%) economic costs (US $2018), effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, cost/quality-adjusted life-years gained), and net monetary benefit. RESULTS: We calculated the per individual expected health care sector total cost of preoperative optimization and sequelae to be $12,395 versus $15,638 in those not optimized (net monetary benefit: $1.04 million versus $1.05 million). A nonoptimized patient attained an average 0.02 quality-adjusted life-years less than one optimized. Thus, preoperative optimization was the dominant strategy (lower total costs; higher quality-adjusted life-years). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated 100% of simulations favoring preoperative optimization. The breakeven cost of optimization to remain cost-effective was $6421 per patient. LIMITATIONS: Generalizability must account for the lack of standardization among existing preoperative optimization efforts, and decision analysis methodology provides guidance for the average patient or general population, and is not patient-specific. CONCLUSIONS: Although currently not comprehensively reimbursed, focused preoperative optimization may reduce total costs of care while also reducing complications from colon cancer surgery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B494. EN TODO CASO ANLISIS DE RENTABILIDAD DE LOS ESFUERZOS LIMITADOS DE OPTIMIZACIN PREOPERATORIA ANTES DE LA CIRUGA DE CNCER DE COLON: ANTECEDENTES:Los informes sugieren que la optimización preoperatoria de las comorbilidades graves de un paciente se asocia con una reducción de las complicaciones postoperatorias.OBJETIVO:El propósito de este estudio fue evaluar el costo y los beneficios de la optimización preoperatoria, teniendo en cuenta los costos totales asociados con la morbilidad postoperatoria.DISEÑO:Análisis de costo-efectividad de árbol de decisión con análisis de sensibilidad probabilístico (10,000 iteraciones).AJUSTE ENTORNO CLINICO:Escenario hipotético Cirugía de cáncer de colon en estadio II.PACIENTE:Paciente simulado de 65 años con cáncer de colon en estadio II del lado izquierdo.INTERVENCIÓN:Optimización preoperatoria enfocada dirigida a comorbilidades de alto riesgo.RESULTADOS:Costos económicos totales descontados (3%) (US $ 2018), efectividad (años de vida ajustados por calidad [AVAC]), relación costo-efectividad incremental (ICER, costo / AVAC ganado) y beneficio monetario neto (NMB).RESULTADOS:Calculamos que el costo total esperado por sector de atención médica individual de la optimización preoperatoria y las secuelas es de $ 12,395 versus $ 15,638 en aquellos no optimizados (NMB: $ 1.04 millones versus $ 1.05 millones, respectivamente). Un paciente no optimizado alcanzó un promedio de 0.02 AVAC menos que uno optimizado. Por lo tanto, la optimización preoperatoria fue la estrategia dominante (menores costos totales; mayores AVAC). El análisis de sensibilidad probabilístico demostró que el 100% de las simulaciones favorecían la optimización preoperatoria. El costo de equilibrio de la optimización para seguir siendo rentable fue de $ 6,421 por paciente.LIMITACIONES:La generalización debe tener en cuenta la falta de estandarización entre los esfuerzos de optimización preoperatorios existentes y esa metodología de análisis de decisiones proporciona una guía para el paciente promedio o la población general, no específica del paciente.CONCLUSIONES:Si bien actualmente no se reembolsa de manera integral, la optimización preoperatoria enfocada puede reducir los costos totales de la atención y al mismo tiempo reducir las complicaciones de la cirugía de cáncer de colon. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B494.

Associations between preoperative anaemia and hospital costs following major abdominal surgery: cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Determining the cost-effectiveness and sustainability of patient blood management programmes relies on quantifying the economic burden of preoperative anaemia. This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the hospital costs attributable to preoperative anaemia in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent major abdominal surgery between 2010 and 2018 were included. The association between preoperative patient haemoglobin (Hb) concentration and hospital costs was evaluated by curve estimation based on the least-square method. The in-hospital cost of index admission was calculated using an activity-based costing methodology. Multivariable regression analysis and propensity score matching were used to estimate the effects of Hb concentration on variables related directly to hospital costs. RESULTS: A total of 1286 patients were included. The median overall cost was US $18 476 (i.q.r.13 784-27 880), and 568 patients (44.2 per cent) had a Hb level below 13.0 g/dl. Patients with a preoperative Hb level below 9.0 g/dl had total hospital costs that were 50.6 (95 per cent c.i. 14.1 to 98.9) per cent higher than those for patients with a preoperative Hb level of 9.0-13.0 g/dl (P < 0.001), 72.5 (30.6 to 128.0) per cent higher than costs for patients with a Hb concentration of 13.1-15.0 g/dl (P < 0.001), and 62.4 (21.8 to 116.7) per cent higher than those for patients with a Hb level greater than 15.0 g/dl (P < 0.001). Multivariable general linear modelling showed that packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusions were a principal cost driver in patients with a Hb concentration below 9.0 g/dl. CONCLUSION: Patients with the lowest Hb concentration incurred the highest hospital costs, which were strongly associated with increased PRBC transfusions. Costs and possible complications may be decreased by treating preoperative anaemia, particularly more severe anaemia.

The Content of Pre-habilitative Interventions for Patients Undergoing Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms and Their Effect on Post-Operative Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Patients requiring abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair are at risk of post-operative complications due to poor pre-operative state. Pre-habilitation describes the enhancement of functional capacity and tolerance to an upcoming physiological stressor, intended to reduce those complications. The ability to provide such an intervention (physical, pharmacological, nutritional, or psychosocial) between diagnosis and surgery is a growing interest, but its role in AAA repair is unclear. This paper aimed to systematically review existing literature to better describe the effect of pre-habilitative interventions on post-operative outcomes of patients undergoing AAA repair. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE and Medline were searched from inception to October 2020. Retrieved papers, systematic reviews, and trial registries were citation tracked. REVIEW METHODS: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing post-operative outcomes for adult patients undergoing a period of pre-habilitation prior to AAA repair (open or endovascular) were eligible for inclusion. Two authors screened titles for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Primary outcomes were post-operative 30 day mortality, composite endpoint of 30 day post-operative complications, hospital length of stay (LOS), and health related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes. The content of interventions was extracted and a narrative analysis of results undertaken. RESULTS: Seven RCTs with 901 patients were included (three exercise based, two pharmacological based, and two nutritional based). Risk of bias was mostly unclear or high and the clinical heterogeneity between the trials precluded data pooling for meta-analyses. The quality of intervention descriptions was highly variable. One exercise based RCT reported significantly reduced hospital LOS and another improved HRQL outcomes. Neither pharmacological nor nutritional based RCTs reported significant differences in primary outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence to draw clinically robust conclusions about the effect of pre-habilitation on post-operative outcomes following AAA repair. Well designed RCTs, adhering to reporting standards for intervention content and trial methods, are urgently needed to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of pre-habilitation interventions.

Impact of preoperative echocardiography on surgical delays and outcomes among adults with hip fracture.

AIMS: Echocardiography is commonly used in hip fracture patients to evaluate perioperative cardiac risk. However, echocardiography that delays surgical repair may be harmful. The objective of this study was to compare surgical wait times, mortality, length of stay (LOS), and healthcare costs for similar hip fracture patients evaluated with and without preoperative echocardiograms. METHODS: A population-based, matched cohort study of all hip fracture patients (aged over 45 years) in Ontario, Canada between 2009 and 2014 was conducted. The primary exposure was preoperative echocardiography (occurring between hospital admission and surgery). Mortality rates, surgical wait times, postoperative LOS, and medical costs (expressed as 2013$ CAN) up to one year postoperatively were assessed after propensity-score matching. RESULTS: A total of 2,354 of 42,230 (5.6%) eligible hip fracture patients received a preoperative echocardiogram during the study period. Echocardiography ordering practices varied among hospitals, ranging from 0% to 23.0% of hip fracture patients at different hospital sites. After successfully matching 2,298 (97.6%) patients, echocardiography was associated with significantly increased risks of mortality at 90 days (20.1% vs 16.8%; p = 0.004) and one year (32.9% vs 27.8%; p < 0.001), but not at 30 days (11.4% vs 9.8%; p = 0.084). Patients with echocardiography also had a mean increased delay from presentation to surgery (68.80 hours (SD 44.23) vs 39.69 hours (SD 27.09); p < 0.001), total LOS (19.49 days (SD 25.39) vs 15.94 days (SD 22.48); p < 0.001), and total healthcare costs at one year ($51,714.69 (SD 54,675.28) vs $41,861.47 (SD 50,854.12); p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Preoperative echocardiography for hip fracture patients is associated with increased postoperative mortality at 90 days and one year but not at 30 days. Preoperative echocardiography is also associated with increased surgical delay, postoperative LOS, and total healthcare costs at one year. Echocardiography should be considered an urgent test when ordered to prevent additional surgical delay. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):271-278.

Preoperative laboratory testing among low-risk patients prior to elective ambulatory endocrine surgeries: A review of the 2015-2018 NSQIP cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative laboratory tests (PLTs) are not associated with complications among healthy patients in various ambulatory procedures. This association has not been studied in ambulatory endocrine surgery. METHODS: The 2015-2018 NSQIP datasets were queried for elective outpatient thyroid and parathyroid procedures in ASA class 1 and 2 patients. Outcomes were compared between those with and without PLTs. Multivariate regression examined factors predictive of receiving PLTs. Testing costs were calculated. RESULTS: 58.7% of the cohort received PLTs. There were no differences in outcomes between those who were and those who were not tested. Non-white ethnicity, dyspnea, and non-general anesthesia were strongly predictive of receiving PLTs. Over $2.6 million is spent annually on PLTs in this population. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of healthy patients undergoing elective thyroid and parathyroid surgery receive PLTs. Complication rates did not differ between those with and without PLTs. Preoperative testing should be used more judiciously in these patients, which may lead to cost savings.

Preoperative nutrition-enhanced recovery after surgery protocol for thoracic neoplasms.

OBJECTIVES: Because patients' preoperative nutritional status influences the outcomes, we have used a preoperative nutrition program for surgical patients for a 2-year period and compared the results with those from a cohort treated in the previous 2 years. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed curative thoracic neoplasm resections from July 15, 2016, to July 15, 2018, in patients who had received a preoperative nutritional-enhanced recovery after surgery (N-ERAS) protocol. The protocol consisted of 5 days of an oral immunonutrition drink 3 times daily, daily receipt of probiotics, and a carbohydrate-loading drink the night before surgery. The historical control cohort (standard group) included those patients who had undergone surgery by the same surgeon during the previous 24 months. We excluded patients who had undergone esophageal, diagnostic, benign, emergency, or palliative procedures. Nonparametric and parametric statistical tests were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The data from 462 patients were analyzed: 229 N-ERAS patients and 233 standard patients. No significant demographic or caseload differences were found between the 2 groups. The major significant outcome differences included fewer postoperative complications (30 [13.1%] in the N-ERAS group vs 60 [25.8%] in the standard group; P < .001) and shorter hospital stays (3.8 ± 1.9 days for the N-ERAS group vs 4.4 ± 2.6 days for the standard group; P = .001). Use of the N-ERAS protocol resulted in a 16% reduction ($2198; P < .001) in the mean direct hospital costs/patient. Consequently, for the N-ERAS cohort, the hospital was likely saved $503,342 during the 2-year period for the 229 patients just by using the N-ERAS protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Thoracic surgeons should consider using the nontoxic, patient-compliant N-ERAS protocol for their patients, with an expectation of improved clinical results at lower hospital costs-an important consideration when exploring methods to decrease costs because hospitals are increasingly being paid by a negotiated prospective bundled payment reimbursement model.

Screening and treating pre-operative anaemia and suboptimal iron stores in elective colorectal surgery: a cost effectiveness analysis.

Our study investigated whether pre-operative screening and treatment for anaemia and suboptimal iron stores in a patient blood management clinic is cost effective. We used outcome data from a retrospective cohort study comparing colorectal surgery patients admitted pre- and post-implementation of a pre-operative screening programme. We applied propensity score weighting techniques with multivariable regression models to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between groups. Episode-level hospitalisation costs were sourced from the health service clinical costing data system; the economic evaluation was conducted from a Western Australia Health System perspective. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost per unit of red cell transfusion avoided. We compared 441 patients screened in the pre-operative anaemia programme with 239 patients not screened; of the patients screened, 180 (40.8%) received intravenous iron for anaemia and suboptimal iron stores. The estimated mean cost of screening and treating pre-operative anaemia was AU$332 (£183; US$231; €204) per screened patient. In the propensity score weighted analysis, screened patients were transfused 52% less red cell units when compared with those not screened (rate ratio = 0.48, 95%CI 0.36-0.63, p < 0.001). The mean difference in total screening, treatment and hospitalisation cost between groups was AU$3776 lower in the group screened (£2080; US$2629; €2325) (95%CI AU$1604-5947, p < 0.001). Screening elective patients pre-operatively for anaemia and suboptimal iron stores reduced the number of red cell units transfused. It also resulted in lower total costs than not screening patients, thus demonstrating cost effectiveness.

Comparison between sedation room and operating room in central venous catheter positioning in children.

BACKGROUND: Placement of central venous access devices is a clinical procedure associated with some risk of adverse events and with a relevant cost. Careful choice of the device, appropriate insertion technique, and proper management of the device are well-known strategies commonly adopted to achieve an optimal clinical result. However, the environment where the procedure takes place may have an impact on the overall outcome in terms of safety and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective analysis on pediatric patients scheduled for a major neurosurgical operation, who required a central venous access device in the perioperative period. We divided the patients in two groups: in group A the central venous access device was inserted in the operating room, while in group B the central venous access device was inserted in the sedation room of our Pediatric Intensive Care Unit. We compared the two groups in terms of safety and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: We analyzed 47 central venous access devices in 42 children. There were no insertion-related complications. Only one catheter-related bloodstream infection was recorded, in group A. However, the costs related to central venous access device insertion were quite different: €330-€540 in group A versus €105-€135 in group B. CONCLUSION: In the pediatric patient candidate to a major neurosurgical operation, preoperative insertion of the central venous access device in the sedation room rather than in the operating room is less expensive and equally safe.

Association Between Preoperative Benzodiazepine Use and Postoperative Opioid Use and Health Care Costs.

Importance: The association between preoperative benzodiazepine use and long-term postoperative outcomes is not well understood. Objective: To characterize the association between preoperative benzodiazepine use and postoperative opioid use and health care costs. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, retrospective analysis of private health insurance claims data on 946 561 opioid-naive patients (no opioid prescriptions filled in the year before surgery) throughout the US was conducted. Patients underwent 1 of 11 common surgical procedures between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2016; data analysis was performed January 9, 2020. Exposures: Benzodiazepine use, defined as long term (≥10 prescriptions filled or ≥120 days supplied in the year before surgery) or intermittent (any use not meeting the criteria for long term). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was opioid use 91 to 365 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included opioid use 0 to 90 days after surgery and health care costs 0 to 30 days after surgery. Results: In this sample of 946 561 patients, the mean age was 59.8 years (range, 18-89 years); 615 065 were women (65.0%). Of these, 23 484 patients (2.5%) met the criteria for long-term preoperative benzodiazepine use and 47 669 patients (5.0%) met the criteria for intermittent use. After adjusting for confounders, long-term (odds ratio [OR], 1.59; 95% CI, 1.54-1.65; P < .001) and intermittent (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.44-1.51; P < .001) benzodiazepine use were associated with an increased probability of any opioid use during postoperative days 91 to 365. For patients who used opioids in postoperative days 91 to 365, long-term benzodiazepine use was associated with a 44% increase in opioid dose (additional 0.6 mean daily morphine milligram equivalents [MMEs]; 95% CI, 0.3-0.8 MMEs; P < .001), although intermittent benzodiazepine use was not significantly different (0.0 average daily MMEs; 95% CI, -0.2 to 0.2 MMEs; P = .65). Preoperative benzodiazepine use was also associated with increased opioid use in postoperative days 0 to 90 for both long-term (32% increase, additional 1.9 average daily MMEs; 95% CI, 1.6-2.1 MMEs; P < .001) and intermittent (9% increase, additional 0.5 average daily MMEs; 95% CI, 0.4-0.6 MMEs; P < .001) users. Intermittent benzodiazepine use was associated with an increase in 30-day health care costs ($1155; 95% CI, $938-$1372; P < .001), while no significant difference was observed for long-term benzodiazepine use. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that, among opioid-naive patients, preoperative benzodiazepine use may be associated with an increased risk of developing long-term opioid use and increased opioid dosages postoperatively, and also may be associated with increased health care costs.