PRO: Implementation Science Has Value in Anesthesiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery.

Implementation science is a nascent field that aims to study the factors that influence the effectiveness of a given clinical intervention, such as the characteristics of the individuals involved, the internal and external settings, the process of implementation, and other factors. Overall, implementation science aims to increase the extent to which an intervention is practiced, and the quality of its delivery to a patient. Although still in its infancy, the applications of implementation science in anesthesiology and cardiothoracic surgery abound. Whether used to adopt novel innovations, avoid the use of obsolete practices, or redeploy existing interventions to improve quality, implementation science holds promise in optimizing how we bring the latest in clinical science to produce tangible benefits to patients and create sustainable change.

Penny-wise and pound-foolish: the challenges of preoperative anaemia management.

The timely correction of anaemia before major surgery is important for optimising perioperative patient outcomes. However, multiple barriers have precluded the global expansion of preoperative anaemia treatment programmes, including misconceptions about the true cost/benefit ratio for patient care and health system economics. Institutional investment and buy-in from stakeholders could lead to significant cost savings through avoided complications of anaemia and red blood cell transfusions, and through containment of direct and variable costs of blood bank laboratories. In some health systems, billing for iron infusions could generate revenue and promote growth of treatment programmes. The aim of this work is to galvanise integrated health systems worldwide to diagnose and treat anaemia before major surgery.

To Swan or Not to Swan: Indications, Alternatives, and Future Directions.

The pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) has revolutionized bedside assessment of preload, afterload, and contractility using measured pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, calculated systemic vascular resistance, and estimated cardiac output. It is placed percutaneously by a flow-directed balloon-tipped technique through the venous system and the right heart to the pulmonary artery. Interest in the hemodynamic variables obtained from PACs paved the way for the development of numerous less-invasive hemodynamic monitors over the past 3 decades. These devices estimate cardiac output using concepts such as pulse contour and pressure analysis, transpulmonary thermodilution, carbon dioxide rebreathing, impedance plethysmography, Doppler ultrasonography, and echocardiography. Herein, the authors review the conception, technologic advancements, and modern use of PACs, as well as the criticisms regarding the clinical utility, reliability, and safety of PACs. The authors comment on the current understanding of the benefits and limitations of alternative hemodynamic monitors, which is important for providers caring for critically ill patients. The authors also briefly discuss the use of hemodynamic monitoring in goal-directed fluid therapy algorithms in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programs.

Disparities in mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair are linked to insurance status.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine differences in mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair based on insurance type. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, data from all-payer patients in nonpsychiatric hospitals in New York, Maryland, Florida, Kentucky, and California from January 2007 to December 2014 (excluding California, ending December 2011) were extracted from the State Inpatient Databases, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. There were 90,102 patients ≥18 years old with available insurance data who underwent open AAA repair or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes 3844, 3925, and 3971. EVAR patients were identified using the procedure code 3971, and the remainder of cases were categorized as open. Patients were divided into cohorts by insurance type as Medicare, Medicaid, uninsured (self-pay/no charge), other, or private insurance. Patients were further stratified for subgroup analyses by procedure type. Unadjusted rates of in-hospital mortality, the primary outcome, as well as secondary outcomes, such as surgical urgency, 30-day and 90-day readmissions, length of stay, total charges, and postoperative complications, were examined by insurance type. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for in-hospital mortality were calculated using multivariate logistic regression models fitted to the data. The multivariate models included patient-, surgical-, and hospital-specific factors with bivariate baseline testing suggestive of association with insurance status in addition to variables that were selected a priori. RESULTS: Medicaid and uninsured patients had the highest rates of mortality relative to private insurance beneficiaries in all cohorts. Medicaid patients incurred a 47% increase in the odds of mortality, the highest among the insured, after all AAA repairs (OR, 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-1.76), whereas uninsured patients experienced a 102% increase in the odds of mortality (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.54-2.67). Subgroup analyses for open AAA repair and EVAR corroborated that Medicaid insurance (open repair OR, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.14-1.64]; EVAR OR, 2.06 [95% CI, 1.40-3.04]) and uninsured status (open repair OR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.35-2.54]; EVAR OR, 2.96 [95% CI, 1.82-4.81]) were associated with the highest odds of mortality after both procedures separately. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that Medicaid insurance and uninsured status are associated with higher unadjusted rates and adjusted ORs for in-hospital mortality after AAA repair relative to private insurance status. Primary payer status therefore serves as an independent predictor of the risk of death subsequent to AAA surgical interventions.

Anesthesia Information Management Systems: Evolution of the Paper Anesthetic Record to a Multisystem Electronic Medical Record Network That Streamlines Perioperative Care.

Initially devised in the 1890s, the traditional anesthetic record comprises physiological changes, crucial anesthetic or surgical events, and medications administered during the perioperative period. The timely collection of quality data facilitates situational awareness and point-of-care clinical decision making. The burgeoning volume and complexity of data in conjunction with financial incentives and the push for improved clinical documentation by regulatory bodies have prompted the transition away from paper records. Anesthesia Information Management Systems (AIMS) are specialized electronic health record networks that allow the anesthesia record to interface with hospital clinical data repositories, resulting in improvements in quality of care, patient safety, operations management, reimbursement, and translational research. Like most new technological advances, adoption was slow at first due to the challenges of integrating complex systems into daily clinical practice, questions about return on investment, and medicolegal liability. Recent technological advances, coupled with government incentives, have allowed AIMS adoption to reach an acceleration phase among US academic medical centers; widespread utilization of AIMS by 84% of US academic medical centers is expected by 2018-2020. Adoption among nonacademic US and European medical centers still remains low; information concerning Asian countries is limited to literature describing only single-hospital center experiences.