Timing of Intraoperative Transitions of Care Among Anesthesiologists Is Not Associated With Postoperative Adverse Outcomes: Retrospective Cohort Study

Piyush Mathur, Sven Halvorson, Jacek B. Cywinski, Sandra Machado, Reem Khatib, Andrea M. Kurz, Ursula Galway, Edward J. Mascha
{"title":"Timing of Intraoperative Transitions of Care Among Anesthesiologists Is Not Associated With Postoperative Adverse Outcomes: Retrospective Cohort Study","authors":"Piyush Mathur, Sven Halvorson, Jacek B. Cywinski, Sandra Machado, Reem Khatib, Andrea M. Kurz, Ursula Galway, Edward J. Mascha","doi":"10.1213/ane.0000000000006853","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"en less data if the timing of the anesthesiologist handovers during the critical portion of the anesthetic continuum (induction or emergence versus surgical period) plays a role in patient outcomes. Therefore, we investigated if the anesthesiologist handovers during induction and emergence are associated with adverse patient outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective investigation included noncardiac surgical procedures occurring between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2019 that had exactly 1 attending anesthesiologist handover. We categorized transitions of care between attending anesthesiologists as being before incision, between incision and closing, and after closing. Our primary outcome was a composite of 6 categories of surgical complications and in-hospital mortality. We created logistic generalized estimating equation models to estimate the average relative effect odds ratio between each pair of the 3 transition timing groups across the components of the composite outcome. Inverse probability of treatment weights were used to mitigate confounding on a host of baseline variables. We used Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons between the transition groups. RESULTS: In total, we studied 36,937 procedures with exactly 1 attending anesthesiologist handover. Of these records, 4370 had the transition during induction, 24,999 between incision and closure, and 7568 during emergence. No differences were found between the transition periods and the composite outcome. The estimated average relative effect odds ratio (98.3% confidence interval [CI]) across the components of the composite outcome was as follows: (1.0002 [0.81–1.24], P = .99) between the induction and surgical period; (1.10 [0.87–1.40], P = .32) between the induction and emergence periods; and (0.91 [0.79–1.04], P = .08) between the emergence and surgical periods. CONCLUSIONS: Timing of intraoperative handover among attending anesthesiologists during noncardiac surgery is not associated with adverse patient outcomes....","PeriodicalId":7799,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia & Analgesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia & Analgesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000006853","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

en less data if the timing of the anesthesiologist handovers during the critical portion of the anesthetic continuum (induction or emergence versus surgical period) plays a role in patient outcomes. Therefore, we investigated if the anesthesiologist handovers during induction and emergence are associated with adverse patient outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective investigation included noncardiac surgical procedures occurring between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2019 that had exactly 1 attending anesthesiologist handover. We categorized transitions of care between attending anesthesiologists as being before incision, between incision and closing, and after closing. Our primary outcome was a composite of 6 categories of surgical complications and in-hospital mortality. We created logistic generalized estimating equation models to estimate the average relative effect odds ratio between each pair of the 3 transition timing groups across the components of the composite outcome. Inverse probability of treatment weights were used to mitigate confounding on a host of baseline variables. We used Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons between the transition groups. RESULTS: In total, we studied 36,937 procedures with exactly 1 attending anesthesiologist handover. Of these records, 4370 had the transition during induction, 24,999 between incision and closure, and 7568 during emergence. No differences were found between the transition periods and the composite outcome. The estimated average relative effect odds ratio (98.3% confidence interval [CI]) across the components of the composite outcome was as follows: (1.0002 [0.81–1.24], P = .99) between the induction and surgical period; (1.10 [0.87–1.40], P = .32) between the induction and emergence periods; and (0.91 [0.79–1.04], P = .08) between the emergence and surgical periods. CONCLUSIONS: Timing of intraoperative handover among attending anesthesiologists during noncardiac surgery is not associated with adverse patient outcomes....
麻醉医师术中护理转换的时间与术后不良结局无关:回顾性队列研究
在麻醉连续过程的关键部分(诱导或唤醒期与手术期),麻醉医师的交接时间是否会对患者预后产生影响,这方面的数据较少。因此,我们研究了麻醉医师在诱导和清醒期间的交接是否与患者的不良预后有关。方法:这项回顾性调查纳入了 2012 年 1 月 1 日至 2019 年 12 月 31 日期间发生的非心脏手术,这些手术正好有一次主治麻醉师交接。我们将主治麻醉师之间的护理交接分为切口前、切口至缝合之间和缝合后。我们的主要结果是 6 类手术并发症和院内死亡率的综合结果。我们建立了逻辑广义估计方程模型,以估算综合结果各组成部分中 3 个过渡时间组中每一对之间的平均相对效应几率。我们使用治疗的逆概率权重来减少一系列基线变量的混杂。我们使用 Bonferroni 校正来调整过渡组之间的多重比较。结果:我们总共研究了 36,937 例手术,其中正好有 1 位主治麻醉师进行了交接。在这些记录中,4370 例在诱导过程中进行了交接,24999 例在切口和闭合之间进行了交接,7568 例在苏醒过程中进行了交接。交接期与综合结果之间没有差异。综合结果各组成部分的估计平均相对效应几率比(98.3% 置信区间 [CI])如下:诱导期和手术期之间为 (1.0002 [0.81-1.24],P = .99);诱导期和清醒期之间为 (1.10 [0.87-1.40],P = .32);清醒期和手术期之间为 (0.91 [0.79-1.04],P = .08)。结论:非心脏手术中主治麻醉师术中交接的时间与患者的不良预后无关....。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信