Preoperative vs Postoperative Opioid Prescriptions and Prolonged Opioid Refills Among US Youths.

Importance: High-risk practices, including dispensing an opioid prescription before surgery when not recommended, remain poorly characterized among US youths and may contribute to new persistent opioid use. Objective: To characterize changes in preoperative, postoperative, and refill opioid prescriptions up to 180 days after surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was performed using national claims data to determine opioid prescribing practices among a cohort of opioid-naive youths aged 11 to 20 years undergoing 22 inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures between 2015 and 2020. Statistical analysis was performed from June 2023 to April 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the percentage of initial opioid prescriptions filled up to 14 days prior to vs 7 days after a procedure. Secondary outcomes included the likelihood of a refill up to 180 days after surgery, including refills at 91 to 180 days, as a proxy for new persistent opioid use, and the opioid quantity dispensed in the initial and refill prescriptions in morphine milligram equivalents (MME). Exposures included patient and prescriber characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between prescription timing and prolonged refills. Results: Among 100 026 opioid-naive youths (median [IQR] age, 16.0 [14.0-18.0] years) undergoing a surgical procedure, 46 951 (46.9%) filled an initial prescription, of which 7587 (16.2%) were dispensed 1 to 14 days before surgery. The mean quantity dispensed was 227 (95% CI, 225-229) MME; 6467 youths (13.8%) filled a second prescription (mean MME, 239 [95% CI, 231-246]) up to 30 days after surgery, and 1216 (3.0%) refilled a prescription 91 to 180 days after surgery. Preoperative prescriptions, increasing age, and procedures not typically associated with severe pain were most strongly associated with new persistent opioid use. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective study of youths undergoing surgical procedures, of which, many are typically not painful enough to require opioid use, opioid dispensing declined, but approximately 1 in 6 prescriptions were filled before surgery, and 1 in 33 adolescents filled prescriptions 91 to 180 days after surgery, consistent with new persistent opioid use. These findings should be addressed by policymakers and communicated by professional societies to clinicians who prescribe opioids.

My anesthesia Choice-HF: development and preliminary testing of a tool to facilitate conversations about anesthesia for hip fracture surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patients often desire involvement in anesthesia decisions, yet clinicians rarely explain anesthesia options or elicit preferences. We developed My Anesthesia Choice-Hip Fracture, a conversation aid about anesthesia options for hip fracture surgery and tested its preliminary efficacy and acceptability. METHODS: We developed a 1-page, tabular format, plain-language conversation aid with feedback from anesthesiologists, decision scientists, and community advisors. We conducted an online survey of English-speaking adults aged 50 and older. Participants imagined choosing between spinal and general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery. Before and after viewing the aid, participants answered a series of questions regarding key outcomes, including decisional conflict, knowledge about anesthesia options, and acceptability of the aid. RESULTS: Of 364/409 valid respondents, mean age was 64 (SD 8.9) and 59% were female. The proportion indicating decisional conflict decreased after reviewing the aid (63-34%, P < 0.001). Median knowledge scores increased from 50% correct to 67% correct (P < 0.001). 83% agreed that the aid would help them discuss options and preferences. 76.4% would approve of doctors using it. CONCLUSION: My Anesthesia Choice-Hip Fracture decreased decisional conflict and increased knowledge about anesthesia choices for hip fracture surgery. Respondents assessed it as acceptable for use in clinical settings. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Use of clinical decision aids may increase shared decision-making; further testing is warranted.

Long-term Outcomes with Spinal versus General Anesthesia for Hip Fracture Surgery: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The effects of spinal versus general anesthesia on long-term outcomes have not been well studied. This study tested the hypothesis that spinal anesthesia is associated with better long-term survival and functional recovery than general anesthesia. METHODS: A prespecified analysis was conducted of long-term outcomes of a completed randomized superiority trial that compared spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia for hip fracture repair. Participants included previously ambulatory patients 50 yr of age or older at 46 U.S. and Canadian hospitals. Patients were randomized 1:1 to spinal or general anesthesia, stratified by sex, fracture type, and study site. Outcome assessors and investigators involved in the data analysis were masked to the treatment arm. Outcomes included survival at up to 365 days after randomization (primary); recovery of ambulation among 365-day survivors; and composite endpoints for death or new inability to ambulate and death or new nursing home residence at 365 days. Patients were included in the analysis as randomized. RESULTS: A total of 1,600 patients were enrolled between February 12, 2016, and February 18, 2021; 795 were assigned to spinal anesthesia, and 805 were assigned to general anesthesia. Among 1,599 patients who underwent surgery, vital status information at or beyond the final study interview (conducted at approximately 365 days after randomization) was available for 1,427 (89.2%). Survival did not differ by treatment arm; at 365 days after randomization, there were 98 deaths in patients assigned to spinal anesthesia versus 92 deaths in patients assigned to general anesthesia (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.44, P = 0.59). Recovery of ambulation among patients who survived a year did not differ by type of anesthesia (adjusted odds ratio for spinal vs. general, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.14; P = 0.31). Other outcomes did not differ by treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term outcomes were similar with spinal versus general anesthesia.

Costs of Care for Operative and Nonoperative Management of Emergency General Surgery Conditions.

OBJECTIVE: Many emergency general surgery (EGS) conditions can be managed operatively or nonoperatively, with outcomes that vary by diagnosis. We hypothesized that operative management would lead to higher in-hospital costs but to cost savings over time. BACKGROUND: EGS conditions account for $28 billion in health care costs in the United States annually. Compared with scheduled surgery, patients who undergo emergency surgery are at increased risk of complications, readmissions, and death, with accompanying costs of care that are up to 50% higher than elective surgery. Our prior work demonstrated that operative management had variable impacts on clinical outcomes depending on the EGS condition. METHODS: This was a nationwide, retrospective study using fee-for-service Medicare claims data. We included patients 65.5 years of age or older with a principal diagnosis for an EGS condition 7/1/2015-6/30/2018. EGS conditions were categorized as: colorectal, general abdominal, hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB), intestinal obstruction, and upper gastrointestinal. We used near-far matching with a preference-based instrumental variable to adjust for confounding and selection bias. Outcomes included Medicare payments for the index hospitalization and at 30, 90, and 180 days. RESULTS: Of 507,677 patients, 30.6% received an operation. For HPB conditions, costs for operative management were initially higher but became equivalent at 90 and 180 days. For all others, operative management was associated with higher inpatient costs, which persisted, though narrowed, over time. Out-of-pocket costs were nearly equivalent for operative and nonoperative management. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with nonoperative management, costs were higher or equivalent for operative management of EGS conditions through 180 days, which could impact decision-making for clinicians, patients, and health systems in situations where clinical outcomes are similar.

Evaluation of a behavioural intervention to reduce perioperative midazolam administration to older adults.

Background: Older patients commonly receive benzodiazepines during anaesthesia despite guidelines recommending avoidance. Interventions to reduce perioperative benzodiazepine use are not well studied. We hypothesized an automated electronic medical record alert targeting anaesthesia providers would reduce administration of benzodiazepines to older adults undergoing general anaesthesia. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of adults who underwent surgery at 5 hospitals within one US academic health system. One of the hospitals received an intervention consisting of provider education and an automated electronic medical record alert discouraging benzodiazepine administration to patients aged 70 years or older. We used difference-in-differences analysis to compare patterns of midazolam use 12-months before and after intervention at the intervention hospital, using the 4 non-intervention hospitals as contemporaneous comparators. Results: The primary analysis sample included 20,347 cases among patients aged 70 and older. At the intervention hospital, midazolam was administered in 454/4,240 (10.7%) cases pre-alert versus 250/3,750 (6.7%) post-alert (p<0.001). At comparator hospitals, respective rates were 3,186/6,366 (50.0%) versus 2,935/5,991 (49.0%) (p=0.24). After adjustment, the intervention was associated with a 3.2 percentage point (p.p.) reduction in the percentage of cases with midazolam administration (95% CI: (-5.2, -1.1); p=0.002). Midazolam dose was unaffected (adjusted mean difference -0.01 mg, 95% CI: (-0.20, 0.18); p=0.90). In 76,735 cases among patients aged 18-69, the percentage of cases with midazolam administration decreased by 6.9 p. p. (95% CI: (-8.0, -5.7); p<0.001). Conclusion: Provider-facing alerts in the intraoperative electronic medical record, coupled with education, can reduce midazolam administration to older patients presenting for surgery but may affect care of younger patients.

Conditional Effects of Race on Operative and Nonoperative Outcomes of Emergency General Surgery Conditions.

INTRODUCTION: Many emergency general surgery (EGS) conditions can be managed both operatively or nonoperatively; however, it is unknown whether the decision to operate affects Black and White patients differentially. METHODS: We identified a nationwide cohort of Black and White Medicare beneficiaries, hospitalized for common EGS conditions from July 2015 to June 2018. Using near-far matching to adjust for measurable confounding and an instrumental variable analysis to control for selection bias associated with treatment assignment, we compare outcomes of operative and nonoperative management in a stratified population of Black and White patients. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, nonroutine discharge, and 30-day readmissions. An interaction test based on a t test was used to determine the conditional effects of operative versus nonoperative management between Black and White patients. RESULTS: A total of 556,087 patients met inclusion criteria, of which 59,519 (10.7%) were Black and 496,568 (89.3%) were White. Overall, 165,932 (29.8%) patients had an operation and 390,155 (70.2%) were managed nonoperatively. Significant outcome differences were seen between operative and nonoperative management for some conditions; however, no significant differences were seen for the conditional effect of race on outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The decision to manage an EGS patient operatively versus nonoperatively has varying effects on surgical outcomes. These effects vary by EGS condition. There were no significant conditional effects of race on the outcomes of operative versus nonoperative management among universally insured older adults hospitalized with EGS conditions.

Comparative Effectiveness Research on Spinal versus General Anesthesia for Surgery in Older Adults.

Comparative effectiveness research aims to understand the benefits and harms of different treatments to assist patients and clinicians in making better decisions. Within anesthesia practice, comparing outcomes of spinal versus general anesthesia in older adults represents an important focus of comparative effectiveness research. The authors review methodologic issues involved in studying this topic and summarize available evidence from randomized studies in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery, elective knee and hip arthroplasty, and vascular surgery. Across contexts, randomized trials show that spinal and general anesthesia are likely to be equivalent in terms of safety and acceptability for most patients without contraindications. Choices between spinal and general anesthesia represent "preference-sensitive" care in which decisions should be guided by patients' preferences and values, informed by best available evidence.

The Conditional Effects of Multimorbidity on Operative Versus Nonoperative Management of Emergency General Surgery Conditions: A Retrospective Observational Study Using an Instrumental Variable Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how multimorbidity impacts operative versus nonoperative management of emergency general surgery (EGS) conditions. BACKGROUND: EGS is a heterogenous field, encompassing operative and nonoperative treatment options. Decision-making is particularly complex for older patients with multimorbidity. METHODS: Using an instrumental variable approach with near-far matching, this national, retrospective observational cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries examines the conditional effects of multimorbidity, defined using qualifying comorbidity sets, on operative versus nonoperative management of EGS conditions. RESULTS: Of 507,667 patients with EGS conditions, 155,493 (30.6%) received an operation. Overall, 278,836 (54.9%) were multimorbid. After adjustment, multimorbidity significantly increased the risk of in-hospital mortality associated with operative management for general abdominal patients (+9.8%; P = 0.002) and upper gastrointestinal patients (+19.9%, P < 0.001) and the risk of 30-day mortality (+27.7%, P < 0.001) and nonroutine discharge (+21.8%, P = 0.007) associated with operative management for upper gastrointestinal patients. Regardless of multimorbidity status, operative management was associated with a higher risk of in-hospital mortality among colorectal patients (multimorbid: + 12%, P < 0.001; nonmultimorbid: +4%, P = 0.003), higher risk of nonroutine discharge among colorectal (multimorbid: +42.3%, P < 0.001; nonmultimorbid: +55.1%, P < 0.001) and intestinal obstruction patients (multimorbid: +14.6%, P = 0.001; nonmultimorbid: +14.8%, P = 0.001), and lower risk of nonroutine discharge (multimorbid: -11.5%, P < 0.001; nonmultimorbid: -11.9%, P < 0.001) and 30-day readmissions (multimorbid: -8.2%, P = 0.002; nonmultimorbid: -9.7%, P < 0.001) among hepatobiliary patients. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of multimorbidity on operative versus nonoperative management varied by EGS condition category. Physicians and patients should have honest conversations about the expected risks and benefits of treatment options, and future investigations should aim to understand the optimal management of multimorbid EGS patients.

Outcomes with spinal versus general anesthesia for patients with and without preoperative cognitive impairment: Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The effect of spinal versus general anesthesia on the risk of postoperative delirium or other outcomes for patients with or without cognitive impairment (including dementia) is unknown. METHODS: Post hoc secondary analysis of a multicenter pragmatic trial comparing spinal versus general anesthesia for adults aged 50 years or older undergoing hip fracture surgery. RESULTS: Among patients randomized to spinal versus general anesthesia, new or worsened delirium occurred in 100/295 (33.9%) versus 107/283 (37.8%; odds ratio [OR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60 to 1.19) among persons with cognitive impairment and 70/432 (16.2%) versus 71/445 (16.0%) among persons without cognitive impairment (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.47, p = 0.46 for interaction). Delirium severity, in-hospital complications, and 60-day functional recovery did not differ by anesthesia type in patients with or without cognitive impairment. DISCUSSION: Anesthesia type is not associated with differences in delirium and functional outcomes among persons with or without cognitive impairment.

Feasibility pilot trial for the Trajectories of Recovery after Intravenous propofol versus inhaled VolatilE anesthesia (THRIVE) pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Millions of patients receive general anaesthesia for surgery annually. Crucial gaps in evidence exist regarding which technique, propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) or inhaled volatile anaesthesia (INVA), yields superior patient experience, safety and outcomes. The aim of this pilot study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a large comparative effectiveness trial assessing patient experiences and outcomes after receiving propofol TIVA or INVA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol was cocreated by a diverse team, including patient partners with personal experience of TIVA or INVA. The design is a 300-patient, two-centre, randomised, feasibility pilot trial. Patients 18 years of age or older, undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery requiring general anaesthesia with a tracheal tube or laryngeal mask airway will be eligible. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to propofol TIVA or INVA, stratified by centre and procedural complexity. The feasibility endpoints include: (1) proportion of patients approached who agree to participate; (2) proportion of patients who receive their assigned randomised treatment; (3) completeness of outcomes data collection and (4) feasibility of data management procedures. Proportions and 95% CIs will be calculated to assess whether prespecified thresholds are met for the feasibility parameters. If the lower bounds of the 95% CI are above the thresholds of 10% for the proportion of patients agreeing to participate among those approached and 80% for compliance with treatment allocation for each randomised treatment group, this will suggest that our planned pragmatic 12 500-patient comparative effectiveness trial can likely be conducted successfully. Other feasibility outcomes and adverse events will be described. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by the ethics board at Washington University (IRB# 202205053), serving as the single Institutional Review Board for both participating sites. Recruitment began in September 2022. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications, internet-based educational materials and mass media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05346588.

Motor Vehicle Crash Risk among Adults Undergoing General Surgery: A Retrospective Case-crossover Study.

BACKGROUND: Surgery causes transient impairment in cognition and function, which may impact driving safety. The authors hypothesized that the risk of a motor vehicle crash would increase after compared to before surgery. METHODS: The authors performed a nested case-crossover study within population-based observational data from the New Jersey Safety Health Outcomes Data Warehouse. The study included adults 18 yr or older with a valid driver's license who underwent general surgery in an acute care hospital in New Jersey between January 1, 2016, and November 30, 2017, and were discharged home. Individuals served as their own controls within a presurgery interval (56 days to 28 days before surgery) and postsurgery interval (discharge through 28 days after surgery). General surgery was defined by Common Procedural Terminology Codes. The primary outcome was a police-reported motor vehicle crash. RESULTS: In a cohort of 70,722 drivers, the number of crashes after surgery was 263 (0.37%) compared to 279 (0.39%) before surgery. Surgery was not associated with a change in crash incidence greater than 28 days using a case-crossover design (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.09; P = 0.340). Statistical interaction was present for sex and hospital length of stay. Younger versus older adults (adjusted risk ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.10 to 3.18; P = 0.021) and non-Hispanic Black individuals (adjusted risk ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.33 to 2.88; P = 0.001) and Hispanic individuals (adjusted risk ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.91; P = 0.047) versus non-Hispanic White individuals had a greater risk of a crash after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Using population-based crash and hospital discharge data, the incidence of motor vehicle crashes over a 28-day period did not change on average before compared to after surgery. The authors provide data on crash risk after surgery and highlight specific populations at risk.

Surgeon Postoperative Opioid Prescribing Intensity and Risk of Persistent Opioid Use Among Opioid-naive Adult Patients: A Population-based Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between surgeon opioid prescribing intensity and subsequent persistent opioid use among patients undergoing surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The extent to which different postoperative prescribing practices lead to persistent opioid use among surgical patients is poorly understood. METHODS: Retrospective population-based cohort study assessing opioid-naive adults who underwent 1 of 4 common surgeries. For each surgical procedure, the surgeons' opioid prescribing intensity was categorized into quartiles based on the median daily dose of morphine equivalents of opioids dispensed within 7 days of the surgical visit for all the surgeons' patients. The primary outcome was persistent opioid use in the year after surgery, defined as 180 days or more of opioids supplied within the year after the index date excluding prescriptions filled within 30 days of the index date. Secondary outcomes included a refill for an opioid within 30 days and emergency department visits and hospitalizations within 1 year. RESULTS: Among 112,744 surgical patients, patients with surgeons in the highest intensity quartile (Q4) were more likely to fill an opioid prescription within 7 days after surgery compared with those in the lowest quartile (Q1) (83.3% Q4 vs 65.4% Q1). In the primary analysis, the incidence of persistent opioid use in the year after surgery was rare in both highest and lowest quartiles (0.3% Q4 vs 0.3% Q1), adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 1.18, 95% CI 0.83-1.66). However, multiple analyses using stricter definitions of persistent use that included the requirement of a prescription filled within 7 days of discharge after surgery showed a significant association with surgeon quartile (up to an AOR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25, 1.47). Patients in Q4 were more likely to refill a prescription within 30 days (4.8% Q4 vs 4.0% Q1, AOR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04-1.24). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons' overall prescribing practices may contribute to persistent opioid use and represent a target for quality improvement. However, the association was highly sensitive to the definition of persistent use used.

Association between anaesthesia type and arteriovenous fistula maturation.

Background: Whereas general anaesthesia is commonly used for haemodialysis fistula creation, regional or local anaesthesia has been posited to lead to better fistula maturation outcomes. We sought to measure the association between anaesthesia type and arteriovenous fistula maturation. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of data from the Hemodialysis Fistula Maturation study, a multicentre prospective cohort study of advanced chronic kidney disease patients who underwent single-stage upper extremity fistula creation between 2010 and 2013. We evaluated the relationship between anaesthesia type and unassisted (without maturation-facilitating interventions) or overall (unassisted or assisted) fistula maturation using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Among 602 participants, 336 (55.8%) received regional/local anaesthesia and 266 (44.2%) received general anaesthesia. Unassisted maturation occurred in 164/309 patients (53.1%) after regional/local vs 91/226 patients (40.3%) after general anaesthesia (P=0.003). After adjustment for patient factors and fistula type, regional/local anaesthesia was associated with greater odds of unassisted maturation than general anaesthesia (odds ratio 1.72, 95% confidence interval 1.24-2.39; P=0.001). However, after further adjustment for clinical centre fixed effects, odds of unassisted maturation did not differ by anaesthesia type (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.78-1.36; P=0.830). Similar findings were observed for overall maturation and composite endpoints accounting for potential survivorship bias. Conclusions: Regional/local anaesthesia was associated with increased odds of fistula maturation when adjusting for patient factors and fistula type. However, this association did not persist after adjusting for centre fixed effects. Future research is needed to better understand the relationship between anaesthesia type and centre factors to optimise outcomes after fistula surgery.

Rates of Surgical Consultations After Emergency Department Admission in Black and White Medicare Patients.

Importance: A surgical consultation is a critical first step in the care of patients with emergency general surgery conditions. It is unknown if Black Medicare patients and White Medicare patients receive surgical consultations at similar rates when they are admitted from the emergency department. Objective: To determine whether Black Medicare patients have similar rates of surgical consultations when compared with White Medicare patients after being admitted from the emergency department with an emergency general surgery condition. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective cohort study that took place at US hospitals with an emergency department and used a computational generalization of inverse propensity score weight to create patient populations with similar covariate distributions. Participants were Medicare patients age 65.5 years or older admitted from the emergency department for an emergency general surgery condition between July 1, 2015, and June 30, 2018. The analysis was performed during February 2022. Patients were classified into 1 of 5 emergency general surgery condition categories based on principal diagnosis codes: colorectal, general abdominal, hepatopancreatobiliary, intestinal obstruction, and upper gastrointestinal. Exposures: Black vs White race. Main Outcomes and Measures: Receipt of a surgical consultation after admission from the emergency department with an emergency general surgery condition. Results: A total of 1 686 940 patients were included in the study. Of those included, 214 788 patients were Black (12.7%) and 1 472 152 patients were White (87.3%). After standardizing for medical and diagnostic imaging covariates, Black patients had 14% lower odds of receiving a surgical consultation (odds ratio [OR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.85-0.87) with a risk difference of -3.17 (95% CI, -3.41 to -2.92). After standardizing for socioeconomic covariates, Black patients remained at an 11% lower odds of receiving a surgical consultation compared with similar White patients (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.88-0.90) with a risk difference of -2.49 (95% CI, -2.75 to -2.23). Additionally, when restricting the analysis to Black patients and White patients who were treated in the same hospitals, Black patients had 8% lower odds of receiving a surgical consultation when compared with White patients (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.90-0.93) with a risk difference of -1.82 (95% CI, -2.18 to -1.46). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, Black Medicare patients had lower odds of receiving a surgical consultation after being admitted from the emergency department with an emergency general surgery condition when compared with similar White Medicare patients. These disparities in consultation rates cannot be fully attributed to medical comorbidities, insurance status, socioeconomic factors, or individual hospital-level effects.

Impact of Hospital Practice and Staffing Differences on Transesophageal Echocardiography Use in Cardiac Valve or Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and quantify the predictors of intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) use among the patients undergoing cardiac valve or isolated coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. DESIGN: An observational cohort study. SETTING: This study used the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrative claims dataset of the beneficiaries undergoing valve or isolated CABG surgery between 2013 to 2015. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥65 years of age undergoing cardiac valve or isolated CABG surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Generalized linear mixed-model (GLMM) analyses were used to examine the relationship between the TEE and patient characteristics, hospital factors, and staffing differences, while accounting for clustering within hospitals. The proportion of variation in TEE use attributable to patient-level characteristics was quantified using odds ratios. Hospital-level factors and staffing differences were quantified using the median odds ratios (MOR) and interval odds ratios (IOR). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 261,860 patients (123,702 valve procedures and 138,158 isolated CABG), the GLMM analysis demonstrated that the strongest predictor for intraoperative TEE use was the hospital where the surgery occurred (MOR for TEE of 2.57 in valve and 4.16 in isolated CABG). The TEE staffing variable reduced the previously unexplained across-hospital variability by 9% in valve and 21% in isolated CABG, and hospitals with anesthesiologist TEE staffing (versus mixed) were more likely to use TEE in both valve and CABG (MOR for TEE of 1.21 in valve and 1.84 in isolated CABG). CONCLUSION: Hospital practice was the strongest predictor for TEE use overall. In isolated CABG surgery, hospitals with anesthesiologist TEE staffing were a primary predictor for TEE use.

Pain, Analgesic Use, and Patient Satisfaction With Spinal Versus General Anesthesia for Hip Fracture Surgery : A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The REGAIN (Regional versus General Anesthesia for Promoting Independence after Hip Fracture) trial found similar ambulation and survival at 60 days with spinal versus general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery. Trial outcomes evaluating pain, prescription analgesic use, and patient satisfaction have not yet been reported. OBJECTIVE: To compare pain, analgesic use, and satisfaction after hip fracture surgery with spinal versus general anesthesia. DESIGN: Preplanned secondary analysis of a pragmatic randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02507505). SETTING: 46 U.S. and Canadian hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 50 years or older undergoing hip fracture surgery. INTERVENTION: Spinal or general anesthesia. MEASUREMENTS: Pain on postoperative days 1 through 3; 60-, 180-, and 365-day pain and prescription analgesic use; and satisfaction with care. RESULTS: A total of 1600 patients were enrolled. The average age was 78 years, and 77% were women. A total of 73.5% (1050 of 1428) of patients reported severe pain during the first 24 hours after surgery. Worst pain over the first 24 hours after surgery was greater with spinal anesthesia (rated from 0 [no pain] to 10 [worst pain imaginable]; mean difference, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.12 to 0.68]). Pain did not differ across groups at other time points. Prescription analgesic use at 60 days occurred in 25% (141 of 563) and 18.8% (108 of 574) of patients assigned to spinal and general anesthesia, respectively (relative risk, 1.33 [CI, 1.06 to 1.65]). Satisfaction was similar across groups. LIMITATION: Missing outcome data and multiple outcomes assessed. CONCLUSION: Severe pain is common after hip fracture. Spinal anesthesia was associated with more pain in the first 24 hours after surgery and more prescription analgesic use at 60 days compared with general anesthesia. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Trends in Routine Opioid Dispensing After Common Pediatric Surgeries in the United States: 2014-2019.

Using Joinpoint regression, our study revealed substantial decreases in postoperative opioid dispensing after outpatient pediatric surgeries beginning in 2017.