Volatile gas scavenging in the paediatric intensive care unit: Occupational health and safety assessment.

Introduction: The use of volatile anesthetic agents in the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) is experiencing increased interest since the availability of the miniature vapourizing device. However, the effectiveness of scavenging systems in the presence of humidifiers in the ventilator circuit is unknown. Approach Methods: We performed a bench study to evaluate the effectiveness of the Deltasorb® scavenging system in the presence of isoflurane and active humidity by simulating both infant and child ventilator test settings. A total of four ventilators were set to ventilate test lungs, all with active humidity and a Deltasorb scavenging canister collecting exhaled ventilation gas. Two ventilators also had isoflurane delivered using the Anesthesia Conserving Device- small (ACD®-S) on the inspiratory limb (also called alternative ventilator configuration). We performed instantaneous measurements of isoflurane and continuous sampling with passive badges to measure average environmental exposure over a test period of 6.5 hours. Scavenging canisters were returned to the company, where desorption analysis showed the volume of water and isoflurane captured in each canister. Findings: Both instantaneous point sampling and diffusive sampling results were below the occupational exposure limit confirming safety. The canisters collected both isoflurane and a portion of the water vapour delivered; the percentage of captured water and isoflurane collected in infants was higher than the child ventilator test settings. Practice implications Conclusion: The tested scavenging configuration was effective in maintaining a safe working environment with active humidity and inspiratory limb (alternative) ventilator configuration of the the miniature vapourizing device.

Surgeon Sex and Health Care Costs for Patients Undergoing Common Surgical Procedures.

Importance: Prior research has shown differences in postoperative outcomes for patients treated by female and male surgeons. It is important to understand, from a health system and payer perspective, whether surgical health care costs differ according to the surgeon's sex. Objective: To examine the association between surgeon sex and health care costs among patients undergoing surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, retrospective cohort study included adult patients undergoing 1 of 25 common elective or emergent surgical procedures between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2019, in Ontario, Canada. Analysis was performed from October 2022 to March 2023. Exposure: Surgeon sex. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was total health care costs assessed 1 year following surgery. Secondarily, total health care costs at 30 and 90 days, as well as specific cost categories, were assessed. Generalized estimating equations were used with procedure-level clustering to compare costs between patients undergoing equivalent surgeries performed by female and male surgeons, with further adjustment for patient-, surgeon-, anesthesiologist-, hospital-, and procedure-level covariates. Results: Among 1 165 711 included patients, 151 054 were treated by a female surgeon and 1 014 657 were treated by a male surgeon. Analyzed at the procedure-specific level and accounting for patient-, surgeon-, anesthesiologist-, and hospital-level covariates, 1-year total health care costs were higher for patients treated by male surgeons ($24 882; 95% CI, $20 780-$29 794) than female surgeons ($18 517; 95% CI, $16 080-$21 324) (adjusted absolute difference, $6365; 95% CI, $3491-9238; adjusted relative risk, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.14). Similar patterns were observed at 30 days (adjusted absolute difference, $3115; 95% CI, $1682-$4548) and 90 days (adjusted absolute difference, $4228; 95% CI, $2255-$6202). Conclusions and Relevance: This analysis found lower 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year health care costs for patients treated by female surgeons compared with those treated by male surgeons. These data further underscore the importance of creating inclusive policies and environments supportive of women surgeons to improve recruitment and retention of a more diverse and representative workforce.

Association between patient-surgeon gender concordance and mortality after surgery in the United States: retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patient-surgeon gender concordance is associated with mortality of patients after surgery in the United States. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Acute care hospitals in the US. PARTICIPANTS: 100% of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65-99 years who had one of 14 major elective or non-elective (emergent or urgent) surgeries in 2016-19. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality after surgery, defined as death within 30 days of the operation. Adjustments were made for patient and surgeon characteristics and hospital fixed effects (effectively comparing patients within the same hospital). RESULTS: Among 2 902 756 patients who had surgery, 1 287 845 (44.4%) had operations done by surgeons of the same gender (1 201 712 (41.4%) male patient and male surgeon, 86 133 (3.0%) female patient and female surgeon) and 1 614 911 (55.6%) were by surgeons of different gender (52 944 (1.8%) male patient and female surgeon, 1 561 967 (53.8%) female patient and male surgeon). Adjusted 30 day mortality after surgery was 2.0% for male patient-male surgeon dyads, 1.7% for male patient-female surgeon dyads, 1.5% for female patient-male surgeon dyads, and 1.3% for female patient-female surgeon dyads. Patient-surgeon gender concordance was associated with a slightly lower mortality for female patients (adjusted risk difference -0.2 percentage point (95% confidence interval -0.3 to -0.1); P<0.001), but a higher mortality for male patients (0.3 (0.2 to 0.5); P<0.001) for elective procedures, although the difference was small and not clinically meaningful. No evidence suggests that operative mortality differed by patient-surgeon gender concordance for non-elective procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Post-operative mortality rates were similar (ie, the difference was small and not clinically meaningful) among the four types of patient-surgeon gender dyads.

Socioeconomic Status and Days Alive and Out of Hospital after Major Elective Noncardiac Surgery: A Population-based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic status is an important but understudied determinant of preoperative health status and postoperative outcomes. Previous work has focused on the impact of socioeconomic status on mortality, hospital stay, or complications. However, individuals with low socioeconomic status are also likely to have fewer supports to facilitate them remaining at home after hospital discharge. Thus, such patients may be less likely to return home over the short and intermediate term after major surgery. The newly validated outcome, days alive and out of hospital, may be highly suited to evaluating the impact of socioeconomic status on this postdischarge period. The study aimed to determine the association of socioeconomic status with short and intermediate term postoperative recovery as measured by days alive and out of hospital. METHODS: The authors evaluated data from 724,459 adult patients who had one of 13 elective major noncardiac surgical procedures between 2006 and 2017. Socioeconomic status was measured by median neighborhood household income (categorized into quintiles). Primary outcome was days alive and out of hospital at 30 days, while secondary outcomes included days alive and out of hospital at 90 and 180 days, and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Compared to the highest income quintile, individuals in the lowest quintile had higher unadjusted risks of postoperative complications (6,049 of 121,099 [5%] vs. 6,216 of 160,495 [3.9%]) and 30-day mortality (731 of 121,099 [0.6%] vs. 701 of 160,495 [0.4%]) and longer mean postoperative length of stay (4.9 vs. 4.4 days). From lowest to highest income quintile, the mean adjusted days alive and out of hospital at 30 days after surgery varied between 24.5 to 24.9 days. CONCLUSIONS: Low socioeconomic status is associated with fewer days alive and out of hospital after surgery. Further research is needed to examine the underlying mechanisms and develop posthospital interventions to improve postoperative recovery in patients with fewer socioeconomic resources.

Adjuvant Versus Salvage Radiotherapy for Patients With Adverse Pathological Findings Following Radical Prostatectomy: A Decision Analysis.

Background: Patients undergoing surgery for prostate cancer who have adverse pathological findings experience high rates of recurrence. While there are data supporting adjuvant radiotherapy compared to a wait-and-watch strategy to reduce recurrence rates, there are no randomized controlled trials comparing adjuvant radiotherapy with the other standard of care, salvage radiotherapy (radiotherapy administered at the time of recurrence). Methods: We constructed a health state transition (Markov) model employing two-dimensional Monte Carlo simulation using a lifetime horizon to compare the quality-adjusted survival associated with postoperative strategies using adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy. Prior to analysis, we calibrated and validated our model using the results of previous randomized controlled trials. We considered clinically important oncological health states from immediately postoperative to prostate cancer-specific death, commonly described complications from prostate cancer treatment, and other causes of mortality. Transition probabilities and utilities for disease states were derived from a literature search of MEDLINE and expert consensus. Results: Salvage radiotherapy was associated with an increased quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) (58.3 months) as compared with adjuvant radiotherapy (53.7 months), a difference of 4.6 months (standard deviation 8.8). Salvage radiotherapy had higher QALE in 53% of hypothetical cohorts. There was a minimal difference in overall life expectancy (-0.1 months). Examining recurrence rates, our model showed validity when compared with available randomized controlled data. Conclusions: A salvage radiotherapy strategy appears to provide improved QALE for patients with adverse pathological findings following radical prostatectomy, compared with adjuvant radiotherapy. As these findings reflect, population averages, specific patient and tumor factors, and patient preferences remain central for individualized management.