Association between smoking and duration of regional anesthesia - A propensity score matching study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown shorter duration of general anesthesia in smokers but it is unclear in regional anesthesia among smokers. We investigated the association between smoking status and the duration of regional anesthesia. METHODS: A total of 77 patients with a mean age of 47.3 years who underwent lower extremity orthopaedic surgery under regional anesthesia between January 2021 and June 2022 were enrolled. Sixteen patients were smokers and 57 patients were non-smokers. Propensity score matching was performed to balance patient characteristics. Our primary outcome was the time to onset of motor or sensory blockade and the duration required for full recovery of motor or sensory function. RESULTS: The time to sensory loss was 43.4 (SD 35.9) minutes in the smoking group and 39.6 (SD 31.7) minutes in the non-smoking group (p = 0.69), and the time to motor blockade was 37.0 (SD 28.4) minutes in the smoking group and 30.1 (SD 24.1) minutes in the non-smoking group (p = 0.35). The time for recovery of sensory function was 1146.7 (SD 197.8) minutes in the smoking group and 1024.6 (SD 177.9) minutes in the non-smoking group (p = 0.024). The time to recovery of motor function was 978.3 (SD 220.5) minutes in the smoking group and 1090.9 (SD 222.8) minutes in the non-smoking group (p = 0.08). The duration of sensory effect was significantly longer in the smoking group than in the non-smoking group. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant association in the onset of regional anesthesia, but the duration of sensory blockade was significantly longer in the smoking group than in the non-smoking group. Hence, attention should be paid to the risks of the insensate limb in smokers due to prolonged sensory blockade as compared to non-smokers, rather than be concerned about delays in the onset of anesthesia.

Cost-savings of short stay sleeve gastrectomy and walk-in hydration clinic versus conventional inpatient care.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to evaluate the cost-saving of the short stay ward (SSW) versus conventional inpatient care following sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). We also compared the readmission rates pre- and post-inception of the intravenous hydration clinic and analyzed the cost-savings. METHODS: Patients who underwent LSG between December 2021 to March 2022 with SSW care were compared with standard inpatient care. Total costs were analyzed using univariate analysis. With a separate cohort of patients, 30-day readmission rates in the 12-months preceding and following implementation of the IV hydration clinic and associated cost-savings were evaluated. RESULTS: After matching on the propensity score to within ± 0.1, 20-subjects pairs were retained. The total cost per SSW-subject was significantly lower at $13,647.81 compared to $15,565.27 for conventional inpatient care (p = 0.0302). Lower average ward charges ($667.76 vs $1371.34, p < 0.0001), lower average daily treatment fee per case ($235.68 vs $836.54, p < 0.0001), and lower average laboratory investigation fee ($612.31 vs $797.21, p < 0.0001) accounted for the difference in costs between the groups. Thirty-day readmission rate reduced from 8.9 to 1.8% after implementation of the hydration clinic (p < 0.01) with decreased 30-day readmission cost (S$96,955.57 vs. S$5910.27, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: SSW for LSG is cost-effective and should be preferred to inpatient management. Walk-in hydration clinics significantly reduced readmission rates and result in tremendous cost-savings.

Evaluation of the clinical performance of single-, dual-, and triple-target SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR methods.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic. Reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) has played a vital role in the diagnosis of COVID-19, but the rates of false negatives is not ideal in dealing with this highly infectious virus. It is thus necessary to systematically evaluate the clinical performance of the single-, dual-, triple-target detection kits to guide the clinical diagnosis of this disease. METHODS: A series of reference materials calibrated by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and 57 clinical samples were used to evaluate the clinical performance of six single-, dual-, triple-target SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection kits based on RT-qPCR. RESULTS: The dual-target kits, kit B and kit C had the highest and the lowest detection sensitivity, which was 125 copies/mL and 4000 copies/mL, respectively. Among the 57 clinical samples from patients with COVID-19, 47 were tested positive by the kit B, while 35, 29, 28, 30, and 29 were found positive by the kits A, C, D, E, and F, respectively. The number of targets in a detection kit is not a key factor affecting sensitivity, while the amount of sample loading may influence the performance of a detection kit. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a guide when choosing or developing a nucleic acid detection kit for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Also, the absolute-quantification feature and high-sensitivity performance of ddPCR, suggesting that it can be used to review clinically suspected samples.