Timing of Intraoperative Transitions of Care Among Anesthesiologists Is Not Associated With Postoperative Adverse Outcomes: Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The majority of published research suggests that anesthesia handovers during major surgical procedures are associated with unintended harmful consequences. It is still unclear if the number or quality of the transition of care is the main driver of the adverse outcomes. There is even less data if the timing of the anesthesiologist handovers during the critical portion of the anesthetic continuum (induction or emergence versus surgical period) plays a role in patient outcomes. Therefore, we investigated if the anesthesiologist handovers during induction and emergence are associated with adverse patient outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective investigation included noncardiac surgical procedures occurring between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2019 that had exactly 1 attending anesthesiologist handover. We categorized transitions of care between attending anesthesiologists as being before incision, between incision and closing, and after closing. Our primary outcome was a composite of 6 categories of surgical complications and in-hospital mortality. We created logistic generalized estimating equation models to estimate the average relative effect odds ratio between each pair of the 3 transition timing groups across the components of the composite outcome. Inverse probability of treatment weights were used to mitigate confounding on a host of baseline variables. We used Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons between the transition groups. RESULTS: In total, we studied 36,937 procedures with exactly 1 attending anesthesiologist handover. Of these records, 4370 had the transition during induction, 24,999 between incision and closure, and 7568 during emergence. No differences were found between the transition periods and the composite outcome. The estimated average relative effect odds ratio (98.3% confidence interval [CI]) across the components of the composite outcome was as follows: (1.0002 [0.81-1.24], P = .99) between the induction and surgical period; (1.10 [0.87-1.40], P = .32) between the induction and emergence periods; and (0.91 [0.79-1.04], P = .08) between the emergence and surgical periods. CONCLUSIONS: Timing of intraoperative handover among attending anesthesiologists during noncardiac surgery is not associated with adverse patient outcomes.

Perioperative events during deep brain stimulation: the experience at cleveland clinic.

BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the basal ganglia is an evolving technique for managing intractable movement disorders such as those due to Parkinson disease. We conducted a retrospective review of the DBS procedures that have been performed at our institution to determine the frequency and types complications that occurred. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval, 258 procedures involving 250 patients were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate analysis using the chi test for the categorical variables and a t-test for the continuous variables was performed on patients with and without complications to determine potential risk factors. RESULTS: The most common anesthesia technique used for DBS procedures was monitored anesthesia care using a propofol infusion during the early part of the case. Airway, respiratory, neurologic, and psychologic/psychiatric complications occurred. Age was found to be an independent risk factor for complications during DBS. CONCLUSION: This retrospective study demonstrates that age is an independent risk factor for complications during DBS procedures. Monitored anesthesia care using propofol seems to be a safe technique for DBS procedures; however, dexmedetomidine can also be used.