Intraoperative Ketorolac is Associated with Risk of Reoperation After Mastectomy: A Single-Center Examination.

BACKGROUND: Although ketorolac is an effective adjunct for managing pain in the perioperative period, it is associated with a risk of postoperative bleeding. This study retrospectively investigated the association between ketorolac use and both reoperation and postoperative opioid use among mastectomy patients. METHODS: The study identified all women undergoing mastectomy (unilaterally or bilaterally) at our ambulatory surgery cancer center from January 2016 to June 2019. The primary outcome was reoperation for bleeding on postoperative day 0 or 1, and the secondary outcome was postoperative opioid use. The association between ketorolac and outcomes was assessed using multivariable regression models. The covariates were age, body mass index, breast reconstruction, bilateral surgery, peripheral nerve block, and preoperative antiplatelet and/or anticoagulation medication. RESULTS: A cohort of 3469 women were identified. Ketorolac was given to 1549 (45%) of the women, with 922 women (60%) receiving 30 mg and 627 women (40%) receiving 15 mg. The overall reoperation rate for bleeding was 3.1% (1.8% without ketorolac vs 4.8% with ketorolac). In the multivariable analysis, ketorolac was associated with a higher risk of reoperation [odds ratio (OR) 2.43; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60-3.70; P < 0.0001]. Ketorolac also was associated with a lower proportion of patients receiving any postoperative narcotic within 24 h (15 mg: OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.57-0.94; P = 0.014 vs 30 mg: OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.42-0.66; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Ketorolac use decreased postoperative opioid use, but this benefit was outweighed by the increased risk of bleeding requiring reoperation. This finding led to a change in practice at the authors' center, with ketorolac no longer administered in the perioperative care of the mastectomy patient.

Enhanced Recovery Programs in an Ambulatory Surgical Oncology Center.

BACKGROUND: We describe the implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs designed to minimize postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pain and reduce opioid use in patients undergoing selected procedures at an ambulatory cancer surgery center. Key components of the ERAS included preoperative patient education regarding the postoperative course, liberal preoperative hydration, standardized PONV prophylaxis, appropriate intraoperative fluid management, and multimodal analgesia at all stages. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data on patients who underwent mastectomy with or without immediate reconstruction, minimally invasive hysterectomy, thyroidectomy, or minimally invasive prostatectomy from the opening of our institution on January 2016 to December 2018. Data collected included use of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA), rate of PONV rescue, time to first oral opioid, and total intraoperative and postoperative opioid consumption. Compliance with ERAS elements was determined for each service. Quality outcomes included time to first ambulation, postoperative length of stay (LOS), rate of reoperation, rate of transfer to acute care hospital, 30-day readmission, and urgent care visits ≤30 days. RESULTS: We analyzed 6781 ambulatory surgery cases (2965 mastectomies, 1099 hysterectomies, 680 thyroidectomies, and 1976 prostatectomies). PONV rescue decreased most appreciably for mastectomy (28% decrease; 95% confidence interval [CI], -36 to -22). TIVA use increased for both mastectomies (28%; 95% CI, 20-40) and hysterectomies (58%; 95% CI, 46-76). Total intraoperative opioid administration decreased over time across all procedures. Time to first oral opioid decreased for all surgeries; decreases ranged from 0.96 hours (95% CI, 2.1-1.4) for thyroidectomies to 3.3 hours (95% CI, 4.5 to -1.7) for hysterectomies. Total postoperative opioid consumption did not change by a clinically meaningful degree for any surgery. Compliance with ERAS measures was generally high but varied among surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: This quality improvement study demonstrates the feasibility of implementing ERAS at an ambulatory surgery center. However, the study did not include either a concurrent or preintervention control so that further studies are needed to assess whether there is an association between implementation of ERAS components and improvements in outcomes. Nevertheless, we provide benchmarking data on postoperative outcomes during the first 3 years of ERAS implementation. Our findings reflect progressive improvement achieved through continuous feedback and education of staff.

Impact of intraoperative remifentanil on postoperative pain and opioid use in thyroid surgery.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Remifentanil infusion is used as an intraoperative anesthetic for thyroidectomy, but has been associated with acute opioid tolerance and hyperalgesia. A national shortage of remifentanil provided an opportunity to study postoperative pain in patients undergoing thyroidectomy. METHODS: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data from an outpatient surgery center. Primary analysis compared patients treated before and after remifentanil shortage. RESULTS: Median postoperative opioid consumption was 20 morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) among those treated in the high-dose period and 15 MMEs in the low-dose period. Remifentanil/weight received was a significant predictor of requiring a postoperative narcotic (P = .006). Total non-remifentanil narcotics administered were equivalent but patients in the low dose period received higher amounts of intraoperative long-acting narcotics. CONCLUSIONS: Remifentanil infusion for thyroid surgery is associated with higher postoperative pain and postoperative narcotics requirement. While a hyperalgesia state is possible, shifting of longer-acting narcotics from intraoperative to postoperatively is also supported.

Assessing Rapidity of Recovery After Cancer Surgeries in a Single Overnight Short-Stay Setting.

BACKGROUND: In the short-stay surgery setting, where patients remain in hospital for a single overnight at most, it is unclear as to whether postoperative length of stay is a good surrogate for assessing rapidity of recovery. We hypothesized that length of stay would be a function of time of surgery and would be a poorer marker of recovery than time of discharge. METHODS: A cohort of 891 mastectomy and 538 prostatectomy patients had a planned single overnight stay after surgery at an ambulatory surgical hospital during 2016. The relationship between surgical start time and postoperative length of stay or discharge time was assessed. RESULTS: For both mastectomy and prostatectomy patients, 75% of patients were discharged between 10 AM and 12 noon and the median postoperative length of stay was 20 hours. There was a strong association between time of surgery and calculated length of stay. For mastectomies, having a surgery which begins at 6 PM vs 8 AM results in an estimated decrease of 8.8 hours (95% CI, 8.3-9.3) in postoperative length of stay but only 1.2 hours (95% CI, 0.77-1.6) later time of discharge. For prostatectomies, the estimated difference is a decrease of 6.9 hours (95% CI, 6.4-7.4) for postoperative length of stay and 2.5 hours (95% CI, 2.0-3.0) later discharge time. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative length of stay is a poor outcome measure in a short-stay setting. When assessing rapidity of recovery for single overnight stay patients, we advocate the use of discharge time with adjustment for surgery start time. The effect of surgery start time on both postoperative length of stay and discharge time should be investigated to ascertain which is best to assess rapidity of recovery in other ambulatory care settings where recovery involves a single overnight stay.

Outcomes and Safety Among Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea Undergoing Cancer Surgery Procedures in a Freestanding Ambulatory Surgical Facility.

BACKGROUND: Patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) may be at increased risk for serious perioperative complications. The suitability of ambulatory surgery for patients with OSA remains controversial, and several national guidelines call for more evidence that assesses clinically significant outcomes. In this study, we investigate the association between OSA status (STOP-BANG risk, or previously diagnosed) and short-term outcomes and safety for patients undergoing cancer surgery at a freestanding ambulatory surgery facility. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients having surgery at the Josie Robertson Surgery Center, a freestanding ambulatory surgery facility of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Surgeries included more complex ambulatory extended recovery procedures for which patients typically stay overnight, such as mastectomy, thyroidectomy, and minimally invasive hysterectomy, prostatectomy, and nephrectomy, as well as typical outpatient surgeries. Both univariate and multivariable analyses were used to assess the association between OSA risk and transfer to the main hospital, urgent care center visit, and hospital readmission within 30 days postoperatively (primary outcomes) and length of stay and discharge time (secondary outcomes). Multivariable models were adjusted for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, robotic surgery, and type of anesthesia (general or monitored anesthesia care) and also adjusted for surgery start time for length of stay and discharge time outcomes. χ tests were used to assess the association between OSA risk and respiratory events and device use. RESULTS: Of the 5721 patients included in the analysis, 526 (9.2%) were diagnosed or at moderate or high risk for OSA. We found no evidence of a difference in length of stay when comparing high-risk or diagnosed patients with OSA to low- or moderate-risk patients whether they underwent outpatient (P = .2) or ambulatory extended recovery procedures (P = .3). Though a greater frequency of postoperative respiratory events were reported in high-risk or diagnosed patients with OSA compared to moderate risk (P = .004), the rate of hospital transfer was not significantly different between the groups (risk difference, 0.78%; 95% CI, -0.43% to 2%; P = .2). On multivariable analysis, there was no evidence of increased rate of urgent care center visits (adjusted risk difference, 1.4%; 95% CI, -0.68% to 3.4%; P = .15) or readmissions within 30 days (adjusted risk difference, 1.2%; 95% CI, -0.40% to 2.8%; P = .077) when comparing high-risk or diagnosed OSA to low- or moderate-risk patients. Based on the upper bounds of the CIs, a clinically relevant increase in transfers, readmissions, and urgent care center visits is unlikely. CONCLUSIONS: Our results contribute to the body of evidence supporting that patients with moderate-risk, high-risk, or diagnosed OSA can safely undergo outpatient and advanced ambulatory oncology surgery without increased health care burden of extended stay or hospital admission and avoiding adverse postoperative outcomes. Our results support the adoption of several national OSA guidelines focusing on preoperative identification of patients with OSA and clinical pathways for perioperative management and postoperative monitoring.

Evaluating Patient-Centered Outcomes in Clinical Trials of Procedural Sedation, Part 2 Safety: Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research Recommendations.

The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research, established by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks, a public-private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration, convened a second meeting of sedation experts from a variety of clinical specialties and research backgrounds to develop recommendations for procedural sedation research. The previous meeting addressed efficacy and patient- and/or family-centered outcomes. This meeting addressed issues of safety, which was defined as "the avoidance of physical or psychological harm." A literature review identified 133 articles addressing safety measures in procedural sedation clinical trials. After basic reporting of vital signs, the most commonly measured safety parameter was oxygen saturation. Adverse events were inconsistently defined throughout the studies. Only 6 of the 133 studies used a previously validated measure of safety. The meeting identified methodological problems associated with measuring infrequent adverse events. With a consensus discussion, a set of core and supplemental measures were recommended to code for safety in future procedural clinical trials. When adopted, these measures should improve the integration of safety data across studies and facilitate comparisons in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Evaluating Patient-Centered Outcomes in Clinical Trials of Procedural Sedation, Part 1 Efficacy: Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research Recommendations.

The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research, established by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks public-private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration, convened a meeting of sedation experts from a variety of clinical specialties and research backgrounds with the objective of developing recommendations for procedural sedation research. Four core outcome domains were recommended for consideration in sedation clinical trials: (1) safety, (2) efficacy, (3) patient-centered and/or family-centered outcomes, and (4) efficiency. This meeting identified core outcome measures within the efficacy and patient-centered and/or family-centered domains. Safety will be addressed in a subsequent meeting, and efficiency will not be addressed at this time. These measures encompass depth and levels of sedation, proceduralist and patient satisfaction, patient recall, and degree of pain experienced. Consistent use of the recommended outcome measures will facilitate the comprehensive reporting across sedation trials, along with meaningful comparisons among studies and interventions in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The risk of hypertension after preoperative discontinuation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor antagonists in ambulatory and same-day admission patients.

BACKGROUND: The continued use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II subtype I receptor antagonists (ARBs) medications in the preoperative period has been reported to be associated with intraoperative hypotension that can be unresponsive to pressor drugs. As a result, several investigators suggested discontinuation of these medications before scheduled surgery but did not report on unintended consequences that might result from discontinuation. We conducted a prospective, single-blind, randomized trial to observe the effect of the medications on preoperative arterial blood pressure recordings in patients presenting for ambulatory and same-day surgery. METHODS: Six hundred forty-four patients presenting for ambulatory and same-day surgery were enrolled prospectively between 2006 and 2011 and randomly assigned to 2 groups based on continuation or discontinuation of ACEIs and ARBs. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed. The primary outcome was presence of hypertension (HTN) immediately before surgery. Secondary outcomes included surgical cancellations due to HTN, prolongation of hospitalization, adverse clinical events, and HTN in the postoperative period. RESULTS: Data for 526 patients were analyzed. There were 262 patients in the discontinuation group and 264 patients in the continuation group. Discontinuation of ACEIs and ARBs on the day of surgery was not associated with increased prevalence of preoperative HTN (P = 0.775). The upper bound of a 95% confidence interval for the difference in prevalence of Stage 1 and 2 HTN between study arms indicates that discontinuation of study medication is unlikely to be associated with an increase in Stage 1 HTN of >4.8 percentage points and in Stage 2 HTN of no >5.8 percentage points. Discontinuation was not associated with an increase in postoperative HTN, with prolongation of hospitalization or with adverse clinical events. CONCLUSIONS: Discontinuing ACEIs and ARBs in patients on the day of surgery did not result in a substantively increased incidence of pre- or postoperative HTN compared with patients who continued these medications on the day of surgery. The results provide an evidentiary basis for the safety of discontinuing ACEIs and ARBs on the day of surgery without increasing adverse hemodynamic outcomes.

Association Between Electronic Patient Symptom Reporting With Alerts and Potentially Avoidable Urgent Care Visits After Ambulatory Cancer Surgery.

Importance: Increasingly complex surgical procedures are being performed in the outpatient setting, increasing the burden on patients and caregivers to manage their postoperative symptoms. Electronic patient-reported symptom tracking may reduce this burden and help patients distinguish between expected symptoms and those requiring intervention. Objective: To determine whether electronic symptom reporting with clinical alerts for 10 days after ambulatory cancer surgery is associated with a reduction in potentially avoidable urgent care visits, defined as a visit not leading to admission. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Josie Robertson Surgery Center (JRSC), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's ambulatory surgery center with overnight stay capacity from September 20, 2016, to December 31, 2018. Patients undergoing prostatectomy, nephrectomy, mastectomy with or without immediate reconstruction, hysterectomy, or thyroidectomy at the surgery center before (n = 4195) and after (n = 2970) implementation of the Recovery Tracker (RT) electronic postoperative symptom survey were included. Data analyses were conducted from February 1 to November 24, 2020. Exposures: A short electronic survey assessing symptoms daily for 10 days after surgery, administered via the patient portal, with alerts to the clinical team and follow-up for concerning responses. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was Memorial Sloan Kettering urgent care center visits with and without readmission and any readmission within 30 days after surgery. Nursing workload was measured by patient phone calls, emails, and secure messages as documented in the electronic medical record. Results: A total of 7165 patients were analyzed, including 4195 (median age, 53 [interquartile range (IQR), 44-63] years; 3490 women [83%]) from the pre-RT implementation period and 2970 (median age, 56 [IQR, 46-65] years; 2221 women [75%]) from after full implementation. On multivariable, intent-to-treat analysis by study period, having surgery in the post-RT period was associated with a 22% decrease in the odds of an urgent care center visit without readmission (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60-1.00; P = .047). Having responded to at least 1 survey was associated with a 42% reduction in the odds of an urgent care center visit without readmission (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.87; P = .007). There was no change in the risk of admission. Nursing calls increased by a mean of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.75-0.98) calls per patient after RT implementation (P < .001), a 34% increase. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, electronic symptom reporting with nursing follow-up for clinical alerts was associated with a reduction in potentially avoidable urgent care visits. The low risk and high benefit of this intervention suggest that these systems should be more broadly implemented.

Office-based anesthesia.

PURPOSE: Ambulatory office-based anesthesia (OBA) is a relatively new but rapidly growing field. OBA requires a different approach than that used in the hospital, because there are unique considerations that must be recognized when administering anesthesia in a free-standing office facility. This review provides a summary of the important issues and aspects of safe patient care. METHODS: The Medline, Embase, Biological Abstract, Science Citation Index, and Healthstar databases were searched under the key words "office-based anesthesia" for relevant English language articles from 1966 to December 2008. Relevant publications were queried from governing institutions, such as the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), as well as from colleges in various provinces across Canada. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Office-based anesthesia remains poorly regulated in many parts of Canada (and the US). Despite continuing concerns regarding patient safety, the rates of death and reported major complications for OBA appear to be very low, especially in accredited facilities. Multiple considerations for facility design, administration, and patient care need to be taken into account. CONCLUSION: Appropriately so, an increasing number of provinces (Canada) and states (US) are beginning to regulate office-based facilities and require accreditation.

Enhanced Recovery Programs in Outpatient Surgery.

Although enhanced recovery pathways were initially implemented in inpatients, their principles are relevant in the ambulatory setting. Opioid minimization and addressing pain and nausea through multimodal analgesia, regional anesthesia, and robust preoperative education programs are integral to the success of ambulatory enhanced recovery programs. Rather than measurements of length of stay as in traditional inpatient programs, the focus of enhanced recovery programs in ambulatory surgery should be on improved quality of recovery, pain management, and early ambulation.

Risk factors associated with fast-track ineligibility after monitored anesthesia care in ambulatory surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: Fast-tracking after ambulatory anesthesia has been advocated as a pathway to improve efficiency and maximize resources without compromising patient safety and satisfaction. Studies reporting successful fast-tracking focus primarily on anesthesia techniques and not on specific patient factors, surgical procedure, or process variables associated with unsuccessful fast-tracking. We performed this retrospective study to implement a process for improving fast-tracking, measure change over time, and identify variables associated with patients unable to fast-track successfully after monitored anesthesia care. METHODS: A fast-track protocol for all patients receiving monitored anesthesia care based on the Modified Aldrete Score was instituted. It consisted of written policy changes and weekly review at physician and nursing department meetings for the first month, followed by monthly feedback during a 6-mo intervention period. Data collected for a 3-mo baseline and the consecutive 6-mo intervention period included fast-track status, surgical service and procedure, surgeon and anesthesiology provider, age, gender, ASA status, total time in operating room, and total postoperative time (end of surgery to actual discharge). RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty-two cases were completed during the 3-mo baseline period, and 641 cases were completed during the 6-mo intervention period. Fast-track success rate improved from 23% to 56%, P < 0.001. Independent risk factors for fast-track ineligibility identified by multivariate regression analysis were significant for patients <60 yr-old, ASA III versus I, general surgery versus orthopedics and ophthalmology, month after implementation, and total postoperative time. Total postoperative time was significantly shorter by 64 min in the fast-track group, P < 0.001. CONCLUSION: Fast-track success rate can be improved and sustained over time by education and personnel feedback. We identified risk factors that were significantly associated with fast-track ineligibility. If those factors are found to be associated with fast-track ineligibility in a prospective investigation, they should enable development of multidisciplinary patient and procedure-specific guidelines for fast-tracking.

A comparison of the remifentanil and fentanyl adverse effect profile in a multicenter phase IV study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the frequency of adverse effects of remifentanil and fentanyl in a large and diverse patient population. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, open-label study. SETTING: Multicenter study including academic and community hospitals. PATIENTS: 2,438 adult patients (1,496 outpatients and 942 inpatients) scheduled for elective surgical procedures under general endotracheal anesthesia of at least 30-minute duration. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous (IV) remifentanil (n = 1,229) 0.5 microg/kg/min for induction and tracheal intubation followed by an infusion rate of 0.25 microg/kg/min or fentanyl (n = 1,209) administered according to the anesthesiologist's usual practice. Anesthesia was maintained with propofol and/or isoflurane (with or without nitrous oxide) titrated according to protocol. Transition analgesia with either morphine or fentanyl was administered in the remifentanil and, at the anesthesiologist's discretion, in the fentanyl group. MEASUREMENTS: The overall nonspecific and specific (i.e., opioid-related) adverse effects were recorded. MAIN RESULTS: Remifentanil was associated with more intraoperative hypotension than fentanyl (p < 0.05). All four cases (0.3%) of muscle rigidity occurred in the remifentanil-treated outpatients. There were no significant differences between the two drugs with respect to other adverse events (i.e., episodes of hypertension, bradycardia, respiratory depression, and apnea). CONCLUSIONS: In the doses used, both remifentanil and fentanyl have a similar frequency of adverse effects except for the higher frequency of hypotension associated with the use of remifentanil.

Office-based anesthesia: how to start an office-based practice.

Ambulatory, office-based anesthesia (OBA) has experienced an exponential growth in the last decade, and is popular among patients and health care providers alike. About 17% to 24% of all elective ambulatory procedures in the United States are currently being performed in an office-based setting. Special considerations must be made when comparing OBA to a hospital setting, particularly with respect to facility and environment, administration, and accreditation. Increasing regulation will ensure that patient safety remains the primary focus. In the meantime, the anesthesia provider must take adequate steps to ensure that the quality of care in OBA is comparable to that in a hospital.