Intraoperative Prophylaxis with Palonosetron for Postoperative Nausea and/or Vomiting in Adults Undergoing Cardiothoracic Surgery Under General Anesthesia: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the efficacy of palonosetron, alone or with dexamethasone, in reducing postoperative nausea and/or vomiting (PONV) and its impact on hospitalization duration in patients who undergo adult cardiothoracic surgery (CTS) under general anesthesia. DESIGN: This retrospective analysis involved 540 adult patients who underwent CTS from a single-center cohort, spanning surgeries between September 2021 and March 2023. Sensitivity, logistic, and Cox regression analyses evaluated antiemetic effects, PONV risk factors, and outcomes. SETTING: At the Virginia Mason Medical Center (VMMC), Seattle, WA. PARTICIPANTS: Adults undergoing cardiothoracic surgery at VMMC during the specified period. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were categorized into the following 4 groups based on antiemetic treatment: dexamethasone, palonosetron, dexamethasone with palonosetron, and no antiemetic. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcomes encompassed PONV incidence within 96 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit stay duration and postoperative opioid use. Palonosetron recipients showed a significantly lower PONV rate of 42% (v controls at 63%). The dexamethasone and palonosetron combined group also demonstrated a lower rate of 40%. Sensitivity analysis revealed a notably lower 0- to 12-hour PONV rate for palonosetron recipients (9% v control at 28%). Logistic regression found decreased PONV risk (palonosetron odds ratio [OR]: 0.24; dexamethasone and palonosetron OR: 0.26). Cox regression identified varying PONV hazard ratios related to female sex, PONV history, and lower body mass index. CONCLUSIONS: This single-center retrospective study underscored palonosetron's efficacy, alone or combined with dexamethasone, in managing PONV among adult patients who undergo CTS. These findings contribute to evolving antiemetic strategies in cardiothoracic surgery, potentially impacting patient outcomes and satisfaction positively.

Evaluation of machine learning models as decision aids for anesthesiologists.

Machine Learning (ML) models have been developed to predict perioperative clinical parameters. The objective of this study was to determine if ML models can serve as decision aids to improve anesthesiologists' prediction of peak intraoperative glucose values and postoperative opioid requirements. A web-based tool was used to present actual surgical case and patient information to 10 practicing anesthesiologists. They were asked to predict peak glucose levels and post-operative opioid requirements for 100 surgical patients with and without presenting ML model estimations of peak glucose and opioid requirements. The accuracies of the anesthesiologists' estimates with and without ML estimates as reference were compared. A questionnaire was also sent to the participating anesthesiologists to obtain their feedback on ML decision support. The accuracy of peak glucose level estimates by the anesthesiologists increased from 79.0 ± 13.7% without ML assistance to 84.7 ± 11.5% (< 0.001) when ML estimates were provided as reference. The accuracy of opioid requirement estimates increased from 18% without ML assistance to 42% (p < 0.001) when ML estimates were provided as reference. When ML estimates were provided, predictions of peak glucose improved for 8 out of the 10 anesthesiologists, while predictions of opioid requirements improved for 7 of the 10 anesthesiologists. Feedback questionnaire responses revealed that the anesthesiologist primarily used the ML estimates as reference to modify their clinical judgement. ML models can improve anesthesiologists' estimation of clinical parameters. ML predictions primarily served as reference information that modified an anesthesiologist's clinical estimate.