Can we let our patients sleep in the hospital? A randomized controlled trial of a pragmatic sleep protocol in surgical oncology patients.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative inpatients experience increased stress due to pain and poor restorative sleep than non-surgical inpatients. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: A total of 101 patients, undergoing major oncologic surgery, were randomized to a postoperative sleep protocol (n = 50) or standard postoperative care (n = 51), between August 2020 and November 2021. The primary endpoint of the study was postoperative sleep time after major oncologic surgery. Sleep time and steps were measured using a Fitbit Charge 4®. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference found in postoperative sleep time between the sleep protocol and standard group (median sleep time of 427 min vs. 402 min; p = 0.852, respectively). Major complication rates were similar in both groups (7.4% vs. 8.9%). Multivariate analysis found sex and Charlson Comorbidity Index to be significant factors affecting postoperative sleep time and step count. Postoperative delirium was only observed in the standard group, although this did not reach statistical significance. There were no in hospital mortalities. CONCLUSION: The use of a sleep protocol was found to be safe in our study population. There was no statistical difference in postoperative sleep time or major complications. Institution of a more humane sleep protocol for postoperative inpatients should be considered.

Preoperative Immuno-Nutrition and Complications After Colorectal Surgery: Results of a 2-Year Prospective Study.

INTRODUCTION: Preoperative immuno-nutrition has been associated with reductions in infectious complications and length of stay, but remains unstudied in the setting of an enhanced recovery protocol. The objective was to evaluate outcomes after elective colorectal surgery with the addition of a preoperative immuno-nutrition supplement. METHODS: In October 2017, all major colorectal surgeries were given an arginine-based supplement prior to surgery. The control group consisted of cases within the same enhanced recovery protocol from three years prior. The primary outcome was a composite of overall morbidity. Secondary outcomes were infectious complications and length of stay with subgroup analysis based on degrees of malnutrition. RESULTS: Of 826 patients, 514 were given immuno-nutrition prospectively and no differences in complication rates (21.5% versus 23.9%, P = 0.416) or surgical site infections (SSIs) (6.4% versus 6.9%, P = 0.801) were observed. Hospitalization was slightly shorter in the immuno-nutrition cohort (5.0 [3.0, 7.0], versus 5.5 days [3.6, 7.9], P = 0.002). There was a clinically insignificant difference in prognostic nutrition index scores between cohorts (35.2 ± 5.6 versus 36.1 ± 5.0, P = 0.021); however, subgroup analysis (< 33, 34-38 and > 38) failed to demonstrate an association with complications (P = 0.275) or SSIs (P = 0.640) and immuno-nutrition use. CONCLUSIONS: Complication rates and SSIs were unchanged with the addition of immuno-nutrition before elective colorectal surgery. The association with length of stay is small and without clinical significance; therefore, the routine use of immuno-nutrition in this setting is of questionable benefit.

Planning for the Worst: The impact of a comprehensive, risk associated treatment protocol on unanticipated ICU admissions in patients affected by rib fractures.

BACKGROUND: There is no agreed upon triage criteria to identify traumatic rib fracture patients at the highest risk for decline. We developed a comprehensive triage tool that assigns patients to high, moderate, and low risk categories. The primary outcome of our study was to evaluate unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, retrospective review at our level 1 trauma center comparing two cohorts of patients (≥18 years of age) six months before and after implementation of our risk-associated rib fracture protocol. RESULTS: After implementation of the risk-associated rib fracture protocol, the unplanned ICU admission rate decreased from 6.60% (PRE) to 2.60% (POST) (p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of our rib fracture protocol demonstrates that a comprehensive triage tool with a cascading risk associated treatment plan reduces in-hospital clinical decline of patients with traumatic rib fractures, as measured by unplanned ICU admissions.

Predictors of hernia after loop ileostomy closure: a single-center retrospective review.

PURPOSE: Our aims were to determine the rate of incisional hernia after closure of a loop ileostomy (LI) and to identify any perioperative risk factors that may be associated with hernia development. METHODS: We performed an IRB-approved retrospective review that included consecutive patients who underwent LI closure from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014. The primary outcome was identification of hernia on physical exam or by abdominal imaging. A stepwise logistic regression analysis was used to determine predictors of ileostomy site hernia. RESULTS: A total of 243 consecutive patients had LI closure during the study timeframe. The overall rate of hernia formation was 11.9% (29/243). The median time to discovery of the hernia was 16.4 (range, 2.2-55.9) months with a median follow-up time of 49 months. Although LI performed in conjunction with sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis consisted of only 19% of ileostomy cases, 62% of hernias were (18/29) identified in this cohort. Rates of hernia formation increased with respect to body mass index (underweight 0%; normal 4.6%; overweight 13.8%; obese 21%). The multivariable model identified increased BMI (underweight/normal weight versus overweight: OR 4.13, 95% CI 1.06-16.04; underweight/normal weight versus obese: OR 8.74, 95% CI 2.17-35.23) and surgical indication (reference variable: diverticulitis; rectal cancer: OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06-0.76; Crohn's/ulcerative colitis: OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01-0.53; other: OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04-0.64) as significant predictors of ileostomy site hernia. CONCLUSION: The development of a hernia at the site of LI closure was influenced mostly by BMI, surgical indication, and operative time.

What predicts successful nonoperative management with botulinum toxin for anal fissure?

BACKGROUND: Botulinum toxin has been established as a non-surgical alternative for chronic anal fissures. There is a paucity of data regarding which patients benefit most from this intervention. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data from all cases of chronic anal fissures treated with botulinum toxin over seven years to identify predictors of success. Non-responders were defined as any subsequent surgery or reporting satisfaction as poor or fair. RESULTS: Of 91 patients, 60% (n = 55) were responders and 26% (n = 25) underwent subsequent surgery. There were significantly more females among responders (78% vs. 55%, p = 0.02). A higher body mass index tended towards significance among non-responders (30 ± 7 vs. 27 ± 6, p = 0.08). High satisfaction at the first visit was associated with no subsequent surgery (18% vs. 45%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Botulinum toxin can be successfully used to treat anal fissures in a majority of patients. Primary predictors of success were female sex, satisfaction at the first post-procedure visit and there was a tendency towards a lower body mass index.

Safety of Oral Dofetilide Reloading for Treatment of Atrial Arrhythmias.

BACKGROUND: Although dofetilide labeling states that the drug must be initiated or reinitiated with continuous electrocardiographic monitoring and in the presence of trained personnel, the risks of dofetilide reloading justifying repeat hospitalization have not been investigated. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients admitted for dofetilide reloading for atrial arrhythmias were retrospectively reviewed. The need for dose adjustment and the incidence of torsades de pointes (TdP) were identified. The incidence of TdP in dofetilide reloading was compared with patients admitted for dofetilide initial loading. Of 138 patients admitted for dofetilide reloading for atrial arrhythmias, 102 were reloaded at a previously tolerated dose, 30 with a higher dose from a previously tolerated dose and 2 at a lower dose; prior dosage was unknown in 4 patients. Dose adjustment or discontinuation was required in 44 patients (31.9%). No TdP occurred in the same dose reloading group, but TdP occurred in 2 patients admitted to increase dofetilide dosage (0% versus 6.7%; P=0.050). Dofetilide dose adjustment or discontinuation was required in 30 of 102 patients (29.4%) reloaded at a previously tolerated dose and in 11 of 30 patients (36.7%) admitted for an increase in dose. CONCLUSIONS: Although no TdP occurred in patients admitted to reload dofetilide at the same dose as previously tolerated, dosage adjustments or discontinuation was frequent and support the need for hospitalization for dofetilide reloading. Patients admitted for reloading with a higher dose tended to be at higher risk for TdP than patients reloaded at a prior tolerated dose.