RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia (< 36 °C) occurs frequently during elective cesarean delivery and most institutions do employ perioperative active warming. The purpose of this retrospective observational cohort study was to determine if the addition of preoperative forced air warming in conjunction with intraoperative underbody forced air warming improved core temperature and reducing inadvertent perioperative hypothermia during elective repeat elective cesarean delivery with neuraxial anesthesia. METHODS: We evaluated the addition of perioperative active warming to standard passive warming methods (preheated intravenous/irrigation fluids and cotton blankets) in 120 parturients scheduled for repeat elective cesarean delivery (passive warming, n = 60 vs. active + passive warming, n = 60) in a retrospective observational cohort study. The primary outcomes of interest were core temperature at the end of the procedure and a decrease in inadvertent perioperative hypothermia (< 36 °C). Secondary outcomes were surgical site infections and adverse markers of neonatal outcome. RESULTS: The mean temperature at the end of surgery after instituting the active warming protocol was 36.0 ± 0.5 °C (mean ± SD, 95% CI 35.9-36.1) vs. 35.4 ± 0.5 °C (mean ± SD, 95% CI 35.3-35.5) compared to passive warming techniques (p <  0.001) and the incidence of inadvertent perioperative hypothermia at the end of the procedure was less in the active warming group - 68% versus 92% in the control group (p <  0.001). There was no difference in surgical site infections or neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative active warming in combination with passive warming techniques was associated with a higher maternal temperature and lower incidence of inadvertent perioperative hypothermia with no detectable differences in surgical site infections or indicators of adverse neonatal outcomes.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To examine the hospital variability in use of red blood cells (RBCs), fresh-frozen plasma (FFP), and platelet transfusions in patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery. BACKGROUND: Blood transfusion is commonly used in surgical procedures in the United States. Little is known about the hospital variability in perioperative transfusion rates for noncardiac surgery. METHODS: We used the University HealthSystem Consortium database (2006-2010) to examine hospital variability in use of allogeneic RBC, FFP, and platelet transfusions in patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery. We used regression-based techniques to quantify the variability in hospital transfusion practices and to study the association between hospital characteristics and the likelihood of transfusion. RESULTS: After adjusting for patient risk factors, hospital transfusion rates varied widely for patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR), colectomy, and pancreaticoduodenectomy. Compared with patients undergoing THR in average-transfusion hospitals, patients treated in high-transfusion hospitals have a greater than twofold higher odds of being transfused with RBCs [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 2.41; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.89-3.09], FFP (AOR = 2.81; 95% CI, 2.02-3.91), and platelets (AOR = 2.52; 95% CI, 1.95-3.25), whereas patients in low-transfusion hospitals have an approximately 50% lower odds of receiving RBCs (AOR = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.35-0.57), FFP (AOR = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.27-0.51), and platelets (AOR = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.29-0.62). Similar results were obtained for colectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy. CONCLUSIONS: There was dramatic hospital variability in perioperative transfusion rates among patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery at academic medical centers. In light of the potential complications of transfusion therapy, reducing this variability in hospital transfusion practices may result in improved surgical outcomes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The Leapfrog Group reports on hospitals' adoption of the National Quality Forum Patient Safety Practices. However, it is unknown whether hospital compliance with these safe practices is associated with improved outcomes in patients undergoing major surgery. METHODS: We analyzed the association between hospital mortality and Leapfrog Safe Practices among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery (n=18,565), abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (n=2777), and hip replacement (n=25,067) in hospitals participating in the 2007 Leapfrog Hospital Survey using logistic regression. RESULTS: After adjusting for patient and hospital factors, we found that the total safety score (adjusted odds ratio: 1.000, 95% confidence interval: 0.999-1.001) was not associated with hospital mortality. Computerized physician order entry and ICU physician staffing were also not associated with hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence that patients undergoing major surgery at hospitals which scored higher on the Leapfrog Safe Practices Survey had lower mortality rates. The Leapfrog safe practices score as a standalone quality measure may have limited power to distinguish between high-quality and low-quality hospitals.

Asunto(s)