Dataset Information

Abnormal preoperative cognitive screening in aged surgical patients: a retrospective cohort analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Preoperative cognitive dysfunction has been associated with adverse postoperative outcomes. There are limited data characterising the epidemiology of preoperative cognitive dysfunction in older surgical patients.

Methods

This retrospective cohort included all patients ≥65 yr old seen at the Washington University preoperative clinic between January 2013 and June 2018. Cognitive screening was performed using the Short-Blessed Test (SBT) and Eight-Item Interview to Differentiate Aging and Dementia (AD8) screen. The primary outcome of abnormal cognitive screening was defined as SBT score ≥5 or AD8 score ≥2. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify associated factors.

Results

Overall, 21 666 patients ≥65 yr old completed screening during the study period; 23.5% (n=5099) of cognitive screens were abnormal. Abnormal cognitive screening was associated with increasing age, decreasing BMI, male sex, non-Caucasian race, decreased functional independence, and decreased metabolic functional capacity. Patients with a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, hepatic cirrhosis, and heavy alcohol use were also more likely to have an abnormal cognitive screen. Predictive modelling showed no combination of patient factors was able to reliably identify patients who had a <10% probability of abnormal cognitive screening.

Conclusions

Routine preoperative cognitive screening of unselected aged surgical patients often revealed deficits consistent with cognitive impairment or dementia. Such deficits were associated with increased age, decreased function, decreased BMI, and several common medical comorbidities. Further research is necessary to characterise the clinical implications of preoperative cognitive dysfunction and identify interventions that may reduce related postoperative complications.

SUBMITTER: Gregory SH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8014938 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPerioperative haemorrhage negatively affects patient outcomes and results in substantial consumption of health-care resources. Plasma transfusions are often administered to address abnormal preoperative coagulation tests, with the hope to mitigate bleeding complications. We aimed to assess the associations between preoperative plasma transfusion and bleeding complications in patients with elevated international normalised ratio (INR) undergoing non-cardiac surgery.MethodsWe did an observational study in a consecutive sample of adult patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery with preoperative INR greater than or equal to 1·5. The exposure of interest was transfusion of preoperative plasma for elevated INR. The primary outcome was WHO grade 3 bleeding in the early perioperative period (from entry into the operating room until 24 h following exit from operating room). Hypotheses were tested with univariate and propensity-matched analyses. We did multiple sensitivity analyses to further evaluate the robustness of study findings.FindingsBetween Jan 1, 2008, and Dec 31, 2011, we identified 1234 (8·4%) of 14 743 patients who had an INR of 1·5 or above and were included in this investigation. Of 1234 study participants, 139 (11%) received a preoperative plasma transfusion. WHO grade 3 bleeding occurred in 73 (53%) of 139 patients who received preoperative plasma compared with 350 (32%) of 1095 patients who did not (odds ratio [OR] 2·35, 95% CI 1·65-3·36; p<0·0001). Among the propensity-matched cohort, 65 (52%) of 125 plasma recipients had WHO grade 3 bleeding compared with 97 (40%) of 242 of those who did not receive preoperative plasma (OR 1·75, 95% CI 1·09-2·81; p=0·021). Results from multiple sensitivity analyses were qualitatively similar.InterpretationPreoperative plasma transfusion for elevated international normalised ratios was associated with an increased frequency of perioperative bleeding complications. Findings were robust in the sensitivity analyses, suggestive that more conservative management of abnormal preoperative international normalised ratios is warranted.FundingMayo Clinic, National Institutes of Health.

Project description:BackgroundAirway management for nonelective surgical procedures in the setting of trauma, pain, and opioid use can be complicated by the potential for aspiration due to delayed gastric emptying. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) remains a useful tool for evaluating gastric content and volume in various clinical settings. The authors evaluated gastric volume and content in children scheduled for urgent and semi-urgent procedures to assess their aspiration risk.MethodsAfter obtaining consent, gastric POCUS was performed in the preoperative holding area for pediatric patients scheduled for both elective and nonelective surgery. Qualitative and quantitative measurements of the gastric antrum were taken, and the risk of gastric aspiration was calculated. Additional data collected included patient demographics, the type of surgery, nil per os (NPO) status at the time of surgery, NPO status at the time of injury, and administration of opioids.ResultsThe study cohort included 100 patients ranging in age from 3 to 17 years old (mean age 9.2 years). Out of these 100 patients, gastric scanning was successfully conducted in 98 patients. Sixteen of fifty-nine nonelective patients (27%) had received opioids for pain control prior to surgery. Among the 34 patients who had suffered an acute injury, 7 (21%) had been NPO for <8 hours at the time of the injury. Ninety-nine out of hundred patients had been NPO for at least 6 hours at the time of the gastric ultrasound. Based on our gastric ultrasound findings, all patients who were appropriately NPO had either Grade 0 or Grade 1 risk for aspiration, indicating a low risk of aspiration.ConclusionsThe preliminary data show that when patients presenting for nonelective surgery are appropriately NPO, they may have a low risk of aspiration. This information may help guide the choice of anesthetic induction technique, particularly when concerns exist about the safety of a rapid sequence induction. It allows for a more stable and controlled induction of anesthesia.

Project description:Study objectivePreoperative assessment is a standard evaluation, traditionally done in-person in a preanesthesia clinic, for patients who will be undergoing a procedure involving anesthesia. Given the increased adoption of virtual care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to review the effectiveness of virtual preoperative assessment for the evaluation of surgical patients.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.SettingMEDLINE (Ovid), MEDLINE InProcess/ePubs, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from the initial coverage of the respective database to May 2021. A manual citation search of Google Scholar and PubMed was conducted to identify missed articles. Continued literature surveillance was done through July 2021.PatientsPatients aged 18 years and older undergoing virtual preoperative anesthesia assessment.InterventionsVirtual preoperative assessment.MeasurementsSurgery cancellation rates, patient experience, resources saved, staff experience, success in using the data collected to diagnose and manage patients.Main resultsFifteen studies (n = 31,496 patients) were included in this review. The average age of patients was 58 ± 15 years, and 47% were male. Virtual preoperative assessment resulted in similar surgery cancellation rates compared to in-person evaluation, with a pooled cancellation rate of 2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1-3%). Most studies reported a positive patient experience, with a pooled estimate of 90% (95% CI, 81-95%). There was a high success rate in using the information collected with virtual care, in the range of 92-100%, to diagnose and manage patients resulting in time and cost savings in the range of 24-137 min and $60-67 per patient.ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates the utility of virtual care for preoperative assessment of surgical patients. Virtual preanesthesia evaluation had similar surgery cancellation rates, high patient satisfaction, and reduced costs compared to in-person evaluation.