Patterns and Determinants of Low-Value Preoperative Testing in Michigan

Preoperative Laboratory Values Predicting Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Morbidly Obese Patients Undergoing Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Morbidly obese patients are an ever-growing high-risk population undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for end-stage osteoarthritis. This study sought to identify preoperative laboratory values that may serve as predictors of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in morbidly obese patients undergoing THA or TKA.

METHODS

All morbidly obese patients with preoperative laboratory data before undergoing primary elective TKA or THA were identified using the Premier Healthcare Database. Patients who developed PJI within 90 days after surgery were compared with patients without PJI. Laboratory value thresholds were defined by clinical guidelines or primary literature. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were utilized to assess the association between PJI and preoperative laboratory values, including total lymphocyte count, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), monocyte-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), albumin level, platelet count, albumin-globulin ratio, hemoglobin level, and hemoglobin A1c.

RESULTS

Of the 6,780 patients identified (TKA: 76.67%; THA: 23.33%), 47 (0.69%) developed PJI within 90 days after surgery. The rate of PJI was 1.69% for patients with a hemoglobin level of <12 g/dL (for females) or <13 g/dL (for males), 2.14% for those with a platelet count of <142,000/µL or >417,000/µL, 1.11% for those with an NLR of >3.31, 1.69% for those with a PLR of >182.3, and 1.05% for those with an SII of >776.2. After accounting for potential confounding factors, we observed an association between PJI and an abnormal preoperative NLR (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04 to 5.44, p = 0.039), PLR (aOR: 4.86, 95% CI: 2.15 to 10.95, p < 0.001), SII (aOR: 2.44, 95% CI: 1.09 to 5.44, p = 0.029), platelet count (aOR: 3.50, 95% CI: 1.11 to 10.99, p = 0.032), and hemoglobin level (aOR: 2.62, 95% CI: 1.06 to 6.50, p = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified preoperative anemia, abnormal platelet count, and elevated NLR, PLR, and SII to be associated with an increased risk of PJI among patients with a body mass index of ≥40 kg/m 2 . These findings may help surgeons risk-stratify this high-risk patient population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Prevalence, Characteristics, and Trends in Retracted Spine Literature: 2000-2023

BACKGROUND

Retraction of scientific publications is an important check on scientific misconduct and serves to maintain the integrity of the scientific literature. The present study aims to examine the prevalence, trends, and characteristics of retracted spine literature across basic science and clinical spine literature.

METHODS

Multiple databases were queried for retracted papers relating to spine or spine surgery, between January 2000 and May 2023. Of 112,668 publications initially identified, 125 were ultimately included in the present study following screening by 2 independent reviewers. Journal of origin, reasons for retraction, date of publication, date of retraction, impact factor of journal, countries of research origin, and study design were collected for each included publication.

RESULTS

Clinical studies were the most frequent type of retracted publication (n = 70). The most common reason for retraction was fraud (n = 58), followed by plagiarism (n = 22), and peer review process manipulation (n = 16). Impact factors ranged from 0.3 to 11.1 with a median of 3.75. Average months from publication to retraction across all studies was 37.5 months. The higher the journal impact factor, the longer the amount of time between publication and retraction (P = 0.01). China (n = 63) was the country of origin of more than half of all retracted spine publications.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of retractions has been increasing over the past 23 years, and clinical studies have been the most frequently retracted publication type. Clinicians treating disorders of the spine should be aware of these trends when relying on the clinical literature to inform their practice.

The deimplementation of laboratory testing in low-risk patients as recommended by the American society of anesthesiologists: An ACS-NSQIP longitudinal analysis

BACKGROUND

In 2012, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) published guidelines recommending against routine preoperative laboratory testing for low-risk patients to reduce unnecessary medical expenditures. The aim of this study was to assess the change in routine preoperative laboratory testing in low-risk versus higher-risk patients before and after release of these guidelines.

METHODS

The ACS-NSQIP database, 2005-2018, was separated into low-risk versus higher-risk patients based upon a previously published stratification. The guideline implementation date was defined as January 2013. Changes in preoperative laboratory testing over time were compared between low- and higher-risk patients. A difference-in-differences model was applied. The primary outcome included any laboratory test obtained ≤90 days prior to surgery.

RESULTS

Of 7,507,991 patients, 972,431 (13.0%) were defined as low-risk and 6,535,560 (87.0%) higher-risk. Use of any preoperative laboratory test declined in low-risk patients from 66.5% before to 59.6% after guidelines, a 6.9 percentage point reduction, versus 93.0%-91.9% in higher-risk patients, a 1.1 percentage point reduction (p < 0.0001, comparing percentage point reductions). After risk-adjustment, the adjusted odds ratio for having any preoperative laboratory test after versus before the guidelines was 0.77 (95% CI 0.76-0.78) in low-risk versus 0.93 (0.92-0.94) in higher-risk patients. In low-risk patients, lack of any preoperative testing was not associated with worse outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

While a majority of low-risk patients continue to receive preoperative laboratory testing not recommended by the ASA, there has been a decline after implementation of guidelines. Continued effort should be directed at the deimplementation of routine preoperative laboratory testing for low-risk patients.

Prevalence and Cost of Routine Preoperative Care for Low-Risk Cataract Surgery a Decade after Choosing Wisely

PURPOSE

Examine the frequency and cost of procedural clearance tests and examinations in preparation for low-risk cataract surgery among members of a commercial healthcare organization in the United States. Determine what characteristics most strongly predict receipt of preoperative care and the probability that preoperative care impacts postsurgical adverse events.

DESIGN

Retrospective healthcare claims analysis and medical records review from a large, blended-health organization headquartered in Western Pennsylvania.

PARTICIPANTS

Members aged ≥ 65 years who were continuously enrolled 6 months before and after undergoing cataract surgery from 2018 to 2021 and had approved surgery claims.

METHODS

Preoperative exams or tests occurring in the 30 days before surgery were identified via procedural and diagnosis codes on claims of eligible members (e.g., Current Procedural Terminology codes for blood panels and preprocedural International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification codes). Prevalence and cost were directly estimated from claims; variables predictive of preoperative care receipt and adverse events were tested using mixed effects modeling.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Total costs, prevalence, and strength of association as indicated by odds ratios.

RESULTS

Up to 42% of members undergoing cataract surgery had a physician office visit for surgical clearance, and up to 23% of members had testing performed in isolation or along with clearance visits. The combined costs for the preoperative visits and tests were $4.3 million (approximately $107-$114 per impacted member). There was little difference in member characteristics between those receiving and not receiving preoperative testing or exams. Mixed effects models showed that the most impactful determinants of preoperative care were the surgical facility and member's care teams; for preoperative testing, facilities were a stronger predictor than care teams. Adverse events were rare and unassociated with receipt of preoperative testing, exams, or a combination of the two.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of routine preoperative testing before cataract surgery appear similar to those prior to the implementation of the Choosing Wisely campaign, which was meant to reduce this use. Additionally, preoperative evaluations, many likely unnecessary, were common. Further attention to and reconsideration of current policies and practice for preoperative care may be warranted, especially at the facility level.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Behavioral Interventions on Surgeons' Preoperative Decision-Making: A Scoping Review and Critical Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Consensus is lacking regarding the optimal strategy to influence surgeons' behaviors to reduce low-value surgical care. Comprehensively describing the existing body of literature that seeks to intervene on surgeons' preoperative decision-making may aid in structuring future behavior change strategies.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review using four databases (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Embase, Web of Science, and Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) for articles that tested the effect of behavioral-based interventions on any aspect of surgeons' decision-making in the preoperative setting. Abstracted data were characterized by summative descriptions and analyzed using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Disease framework, mapping aspects of deimplementation strategies in the studies onto the determinant(s) that they altered. Data abstraction and mapping tools were piloted and iteratively revised before two researchers independently assessing studies and categorizing determinants, and then meeting to discuss their decisions.

RESULTS

There were 1460 articles identified from the initial search, with 17 full text articles ultimately included in the scoping review. Eight studies relied on a multidisciplinary preoperative conference to accomplish their aims, while five were multifaceted in their approach to deimplementation, and four studies used only a clinical decision support tool to accomplish their aims. Mapping determinants addressed in these studies onto the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Disease framework demonstrated that most strategies attempted to close knowledge gaps, leverage communication between providers, and broadcast institutional prioritization of change.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a small but growing field of implementation and deimplementation strategies in preoperative surgical decision-making, and different approaches may be equally effective in varied clinical contexts. Deliberate measurement and comparison of outcomes, as well as selection of control groups, are areas for improvement in future work.

Transforming the Future of Surgeon-Scientists

OBJECTIVE

To create a blueprint for surgical department leaders, academic institutions, and funding agencies to optimally support surgeon-scientists.

BACKGROUND

Scientific contributions by surgeons have been transformative across many medical disciplines. Surgeon-scientists provide a distinct approach and mindset toward key scientific questions. However, lack of institutional support, pressure for increased clinical productivity, and growing administrative burden are major challenges for the surgeon-scientist, as is the time-consuming nature of surgical training and practice.

METHODS

An American Surgical Association Research Sustainability Task Force was created to outline a blueprint for sustainable science in surgery. Leaders from top NIH-sponsored departments of surgery engaged in video and in-person meetings between January and April 2023. A strength, weakness, opportunities, threats analysis was performed, and workgroups focused on the roles of surgeons, the department and institutions, and funding agencies.

RESULTS

Taskforce recommendations: (1) SURGEONS: Growth mindset : identifying research focus, long-term planning, patience/tenacity, team science, collaborations with disparate experts; Skill set : align skills and research, fill critical skill gaps, develop team leadership skills; DEPARTMENT OF SURGERY (DOS): (2) MENTORSHIP: Chair : mentor-mentee matching/regular meetings/accountability, review of junior faculty progress, mentorship training requirement, recognition of mentorship (eg, relative value unit equivalent, awards; Mentor: dedicated time, relevant scientific expertise, extramural funding, experience and/or trained as mentor, trusted advisor; Mentee : enthusiastic/eager, proactive, open to feedback, clear about goals; (3) FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY: diversification of research portfolio, identification of matching funding sources, departmental resource awards (eg, T-/P-grants), leveraging of institutional resources, negotiation of formalized/formulaic funds flow investment from academic medical center toward science, philanthropy; (4) STRUCTURAL/STRATEGIC SUPPORT: Structural: grants administrative support, biostats/bioinformatics support, clinical trial and research support, regulatory support, shared departmental laboratory space/equipment; Strategic: hiring diverse surgeon-scientist/scientists faculty across DOS, strategic faculty retention/ recruitment, philanthropy, career development support, progress tracking, grant writing support, DOS-wide research meetings, regular DOS strategic research planning; (5) COMMUNITY AND CULTURE: Community: right mix of faculty, connection surgeon with broad scientific community; Culture: building research infrastructure, financial support for research, projecting importance of research (awards, grand rounds, shoutouts); (6) THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS: Foundation: research space co-location, flexible start-up packages, courses/mock study section, awards, diverse institutional mentorship teams; Nurture: institutional infrastructure, funding (eg, endowed chairs), promotion friendly toward surgeon-scientists, surgeon-scientists in institutional leadership positions; Expectations: RVU target relief, salary gap funding, competitive starting salaries, longitudinal salary strategy; (7) THE ROLE OF FUNDING AGENCIES: change surgeon research training paradigm, offer alternate awards to K-awards, increasing salary cap to reflect market reality, time extension for surgeon early-stage investigator status, surgeon representation on study section, focused award strategies for professional societies/foundations.

CONCLUSIONS

Authentic recommitment from surgeon leaders with intentional and ambitious actions from institutions, corporations, funders, and society is essential in order to reap the essential benefits of surgeon-scientists toward advancements of science.

Targets for De-implementation of Unnecessary Testing Before Low-Risk Surgery: A Qualitative Study

INTRODUCTION

Despite multispecialty recommendations to avoid routine preoperative testing before low-risk surgery, the practice remains common and de-implementation has proven difficult. The goal of this study as to elicit determinants of unnecessary testing before low-risk surgery to inform de-implementation efforts.

METHODS

We conducted focused ethnography at a large academic institution, including semi-structured interviews and direct observations at two preoperative evaluation clinics and one outpatient surgery center. Themes were identified through narrative thematic analysis and mapped to a comprehensive and integrated checklist of determinants of practice, the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases framework (TICD).

RESULTS

Thirty individuals participated (surgeons, anesthesiologists, primary care physicians, physician assistants, nurses, and medical assistants). Three themes were identified: (1) Shared Values (TICD Social, Political, and Legal Factors), (2) Gaps in Knowledge (TICD Individual Health Professional Factors, Guideline Factors), and (3) Communication Breakdown (TICD Professional Interactions, Incentives and Resources, Capacity for Organizational Change). Shared Values describe core tenets expressed by all groups of clinicians, namely prioritizing patient safety and utilizing evidence-based medicine. Clinicians had Gaps in Knowledge related to existing data and preoperative testing recommendations. Communication Breakdowns within interdisciplinary teams resulted in unnecessary testing ordered to meet perceived expectations of other providers.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians have knowledge gaps related to preoperative testing recommendations and may be amenable to de-implementation efforts and educational interventions. Consensus guidelines may streamline interdisciplinary communication by clarifying interdisciplinary needs and reducing testing ordered to meet perceived expectations of other clinicians.

Publication retraction in spine surgery: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The number of articles retracted by peer-reviewed journals has increased in recent years. This study systematically reviews retracted publications in the spine surgery literature.

METHODS

A search of PubMed MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Retraction Watch, and the independent websites of 15 spine surgery-related journals from inception to September of 2022 was performed without language restrictions. PRISMA guidelines were followed with title/abstract screening, and full-text screening was conducted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. Study characteristics and bibliometric information for each publication was extracted.

RESULTS

Of 250 studies collected from the search, 65 met the inclusion criteria. The most common reason for retraction was data error (n = 15, 21.13%), followed by plagiarism (n = 14, 19.72%) and submission to another journal (n = 14, 19.72%). Most studies pertained to degenerative pathologies of the spine (n = 32, 80.00%). Most articles had no indication of retraction in their manuscript (n = 24, 36.92%), while others had a watermark or notice at the beginning of the article. The median number of citations per retracted publication was 10.0 (IQR 3-29), and the median 4-year impact factor of the journals was 5.05 (IQR 3.20-6.50). On multivariable linear regression, the difference in years from publication to retraction (p = 0.0343, β = 6.56, 95% CI 0.50-12.62) and the journal 4-year impact factor (p = 0.0029, β = 7.47, 95% CI 2.66-12.28) were positively associated with the total number of citations per retracted publication. Most articles originated from China (n = 30, 46.15%) followed by the United States (n = 12, 18.46%) and Germany (n = 3, 4.62%). The most common study design was retrospective cohort studies (n = 14, 21.54%).

CONCLUSIONS

The retraction of publications has increased in recent years in spine surgery. Researchers consulting this body of literature should remain vigilant. Institutions and journals should collaborate to increase publication transparency and scientific integrity.

Health-Care Patterns for Three Common Elective Surgeries: Implications for Bundled Payment Models

INTRODUCTION

The study objectives were to assess the timing, duration, and nature of health-care service utilization before and after three common elective surgical procedures not currently included in federal episode-based bundled payment programs.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing one of three low-risk surgical procedures (breast reduction, upper extremity nerve decompression, and panniculectomy) between 2010 and 2017 using a private insurer's national claims database. All professional and facility billing claims for health-care services were identified during the 12-mo preoperative and 12-mo postoperative periods for each patient. We compared trends in monthly utilization of health-care services to estimate surgery-related utilization patterns with interrupted time series analyses.

RESULTS

The cohort included 7885 patients receiving breast reduction, 99,404 patients receiving upper extremity nerve decompression, and 955 patients receiving panniculectomy. The mean monthly encounters gradually increased before each procedure, with a gradual decline in services postoperatively. Claims in the preoperative period for all procedures were primarily diagnostic testing and outpatient evaluation and management. There was limited use of postacute care services across the surgical procedures. There were notable differences in service utilization between the three surgeries, including differing inflection points for preoperative services (approximately 7 mo for breast reduction and panniculectomy, compared with at least 9 mo for nerve decompression) and postoperative services (up to 3 mo for panniculectomy and 4 mo for nerve decompression, compared with 6 mo for breast reduction).

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights important differences in utilization of health-care services by type of surgery. These findings suggest that prior to expanding episode-based bundled payment models to surgical conditions with limited utilization of postacute care services and fewer complications, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and private payers should consider tailoring the timing and duration of clinical episodes to individual surgical procedures.

Comprehensive History and Physicals are Common Before Low-Risk Surgery and Associated With Preoperative Test Overuse

INTRODUCTION

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently eliminated the requirement for preoperative history and physicals (H&Ps) prior to ambulatory surgery. We sought to assess variations in separately billed preoperative H&P utilization prior to low-risk ambulatory surgery, describe any relationship with preoperative testing, and identify independent predictors of these consultations prior to this policy change to help characterize the potential unnecessary utilization of these consultations and potential unnecessary preoperative testing prior to low-risk surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed using claims data from a hospital value collaborative in Michigan from January 2015 to June 2019 and included patients undergoing one of three ambulatory procedures: breast lumpectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Rates of preoperative H&P visits within 30 d of surgical procedure were determined. H&P and preoperative testing associations were explored, and patient-level, practice-level, and hospital-level determinants of utilization were assessed with regression models. Risk and reliability-adjusted caterpillar plots were generated to demonstrate hospital-level variations in utilization.

RESULTS

50,775 patients were included with 50.5% having a preoperative H&P visit, with these visits being more common for patients with increased comorbidities (1.9 ± 2.2 vs 1.4 ± 1.9; P < 0.0001). Preoperative testing was associated with H&P visits (57.2% vs 41.4%; P < 0.0001). After adjusting for patient case-mix and interhospital and intrahospital variations in H&P visits, utilization remained with significant associations in patients with increased comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative H&P visits were common before three low-risk ambulatory surgical procedures across Michigan and were associated with higher rates of low-value preoperative testing, suggesting that preoperative H&P visits may create clinical momentum leading to unnecessary testing. These findings will inform strategies to tailor preoperative care before low-risk surgical procedures and may lead to reduced utilization of low-value preoperative testing.

The role of preoperative toxicology screening in patients undergoing bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

Some programs and insurers may require patients to undergo toxicology screening despite lack of evidence that this practice affects postoperative outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To understand the prevalence of screening positive on toxicology testing in the bariatric surgical population and to examine the association between testing positive and important surgical outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass from an academic health system from 2017-2020. We described the rate of preoperative toxicology positivity as determined by serum and urine testing. We examined the association between toxicology positivity and outcomes of preoperative length, 30-day complications (bleeding, venous thromboembolism, leak, wound infection, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and myocardial infarction), readmissions, and 1-year weight loss using chi-square and t-test analysis.

RESULTS

Of 1057 patients, there were 134 patients (12.7%) who had positive toxicology testing. Of these, 37 (28%) were positive for opiates and 21 (16%) were positive for cotinine. Mean preoperative length was 381.8 days (standard deviation [SD], 222.5) for patients with positive testing versus 287.8 days (SD, 151.5; P = 1.00) for negative testing. Toxicology positivity was not associated with readmissions (5.2% versus 4.3%, X² = 0.22; P = .64). The loss to follow-up at 1 year was 32.5%. There was no association with 1-year mean change in body mass index (mean of loss 12.23kg/m² [SD, 5.61]) versus mean of loss 12.74 (SD, 6.44; P = .20)].

CONCLUSIONS

Our study is the first to describe preoperative toxicology positivity rates. We found no association between toxicology positivity and preoperative length, readmissions, or weight loss. Given its lack of impact on outcomes, toxicology testing prior to bariatric surgery may be an unnecessary burden on patients and healthcare, with regard to cost and wait times.

Streamlining orthopaedic trauma surgical care: do all patients need medical clearance?

INTRODUCTION

Preoperative medical optimization is necessary for safe and efficient care of the orthopaedic trauma patient. To improve care quality and value, a preoperative matrix was created to more appropriately utilize subspecialty consultation and avoid unnecessary consults, testing, and operating room delays. Our study compares surgical variables before and after implementation of the matrix to assess its utility.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all orthopaedic trauma cases 6 months before and after the use of the matrix (2/2021-8/2021) was conducted an urban, level one trauma centre in collaboration with internal medicine, cardiology, anaesthesia, and orthopaedics. Patients were separated into two cohorts based on use of the matrix during the initial orthopaedic consultation. Logistic regressions were performed to limit significant differences in comorbidities. Independent samples t-tests and Chi-squared tests were used to compare means and proportions, respectively, between the two cohorts.

RESULTS

In total, 576 patients were included in this study (281 pre- and 295 post-matrix implementation). Use of the matrix resulted in no significant difference in time to OR, LOS, readmissions, or ER visits; however, it resulted in 18% fewer overall preoperative consults for general trauma, and 25% fewer pre-operative consults for hip fractures. Older patients were more likely to require a consult regardless of matrix use. When controlling for comorbidities, patients with renal disease were at higher risk for increased LOS.

CONCLUSION

Use of an orthopaedic surgical matrix to predict preoperative subspecialty consultation is easy to implement and allows for better care utilization without a corresponding increase in complications and readmissions. Follow-up studies are needed to reassess the relationships between matrix use and a potential decrease in ER to OR time, and validate its use.

What strategies are used by clinician champions to reduce low-value care?

Background

Clinician champions are front-line clinicians who advocate for and influence practice change in their local context. The strategies they use when leading efforts to reduce the use of low-value care have not been well described. The purpose of this study is to identify and describe strategies used by six clinician champions who led a low-value care initiative in their clinical setting.

Methods

Qualitative data collected during an overuse reduction initiative led by clinician champions were used to identify strategies, guided by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change compilation of strategies. Clinician champions were asked to rank the importance of these activities and indicate which one of the six most important activities they would be willing to discuss in an interview. A 30-min semi-structured interview was conducted with each clinician about the activity they selected and thematically analyzed.

Results

Twelve Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change strategies were identified. The top six strategies discussed during interviews were: build a coalition, conduct a local needs assessment, develop a formal implementation blueprint, conduct educational meetings, use facilitation, and develop clinical reminders. Common themes that emerged across all interviews were the use of data to engage clinicians in conversations, including the patient's perspective in designing the interventions, and investing the time upfront to plan and launch the initiative because of the inherent challenges of relinquishing a service.

Conclusions

Clinician champions identified multiple strategies as important when de-implementing a low-value service. Many were used to engage in conversations with stakeholders, including leadership, providers, and patients, to increase buy-in and support, challenge beliefs, promote behavior change, and gather insights about next steps in their effort. Future work is needed to better understand how prepare clinicians for this role and to understand the mechanisms through which these strategies might be effective.

Rethinking the routine: Preoperative laboratory testing among American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 and 2 patients before low-risk ambulatory surgery in the 2017 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program cohort

BACKGROUND

Routine preoperative laboratory testing is not recommended for American Society of Anesthesiologists classification 1 or 2 patients before low-risk ambulatory surgery.

METHODS

The 2017 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data set was retrospectively queried for American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 and 2 patients who underwent low-risk, elective outpatient anorectal, breast, endocrine, gynecologic, hernia, otolaryngology, oral-maxillofacial, orthopedic, plastic/reconstructive, urologic, and vascular operations. Preoperative laboratory testing was defined as any chemistry, hematology, coagulation, or liver function studies obtained ≤30 days preoperatively. Demographics, comorbidities, and outcomes were compared between those with and without testing. The numbers needed to test to prevent serious morbidity or any complication were calculated. Laboratory testing costs were estimated using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data.

RESULTS

Of 111,589 patients studied, 57,590 (51.6%) received preoperative laboratory testing; 26,709 (46.4%) had at least 1 abnormal result. Factors associated with receiving preoperative laboratory testing included increasing age, female sex, non-White race/ethnicity, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 2, diabetes, dyspnea, hypertension, obesity, and steroid use. Mortality did not differ between patients with and without testing. The complication rate was 2.5% among tested patients and 1.7% among patients without tests (P < .01). The numbers needed to test was 599 for serious morbidity and 133 for any complication. An estimated $373 million annually is spent on preoperative laboratory testing in this population.

CONCLUSION

Despite American Society of Anesthesiologists guidelines, a majority of American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 and 2 patients undergo preoperative laboratory testing before elective low-risk outpatient surgery. The differences in the rates of complications between patients with and without testing is low. Preoperative testing should be used more judiciously in this population, which may lead to cost savings.