Multicentre analysis of practice patterns regarding benzodiazepine use in cardiac surgery

Anesthesia Techniques for Vitreoretinal Surgery in the United States: A Report from the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group Research Consortium

PURPOSE

To explore the patterns of anesthesia use and their determinants during vitreoretinal (VR) surgeries in academic and community hospitals across the US, using data from the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG).

DESIGN

A retrospective, multicenter, cohort study.

METHODS

We queried the MPOG database of 107,066 patients undergoing VR surgeries. Patients (≥18 yrs.) undergoing VR surgery with monitored anesthesia care (MAC) or general anesthesia (GA) from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2021 were included. Patient-level, case-based, and institutional-level covariates were collected. We performed multivariable mixed-effects models to determine predictors of anesthesia type use. The primary outcome was the type of anesthesia (MAC or GA) used during VR surgeries. As a secondary outcome, MAC cases were further classified based on the additional use of sedation into MAC with or without sedation.

RESULTS

We found that 67.45% of VR surgery cases received MAC, and 73.63% of institutions administered MAC to more than half of cases. Random effect modeling revealed that 47.76% of the variation in MAC use was attributed to institutions. A trend toward increased use of MAC with increasing age was observed. Patients diagnosed with chronic pulmonary disease, liver disease, or a history of drug abuse were less likely to receive MAC. Conversely, we found that patients with reported alcohol abuse disorder, diabetes with complications, and those with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status of 4 (vs. 1, 2, or 3) were more likely to use MAC. Compared to non-complex VR surgeries, there was a notably decreased likelihood of MAC use in complex PPV (P = 0.004), PPV + scleral buckle (SB) for retinal detachment (P < 0.0001), and primary SB surgery (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 2/3 of VR anesthesia is under MAC, but GA is still preferred for SBs, complex vitrectomy, and younger patients. We show that large interinstitutional variation for using MAC in practice exists.

Factors Associated With Decision to Use and Dosing of Sugammadex in Children: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Sugammadex was initially approved for reversal of neuromuscular blockade in adults in the United States in 2015. Limited data suggest sugammadex is widely used in pediatric anesthesia practice however the factors influencing use are not known. We explore patient, surgical, and institutional factors associated with the decision to use sugammadex versus neostigmine or no reversal, and the decision to use 2 mg/kg vs 4 mg/kg dosing.

METHODS

Using data from the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG) database, an EHR-derived registry, we conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study. Eligible cases were performed between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020, for children 0 to 17 years at US hospitals. Cases involved general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation and administration of rocuronium or vecuronium. Using generalized linear mixed models with institution and anesthesiologist-specific random intercepts, we measured the importance of a variety of patient, clinician, institution, anesthetic, and surgical risk factors in the decision to use sugammadex versus neostigmine, and the decision to use a 2 mg/kg vs 4 mg/kg dose. We then used intraclass correlation statistics to evaluate the proportion of variance contributed by institution and anesthesiologist specifically.

RESULTS

There were 97,654 eligible anesthetics across 30 institutions. Of these 47.1% received sugammadex, 43.1% received neostigmine, and 9.8% received no reversal agent. Variability in the choice to use sugammadex was attributable primarily to institution (40.4%) and attending anesthesiologist (27.1%). Factors associated with sugammadex use (compared to neostigmine) include time from first institutional use of sugammadex (odds ratio [OR], 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-1.09, per month, P < .001), younger patient age groups (0-27 days OR, 2.59 [2.00-3.34], P < .001; 28 days-1 year OR, 2.72 [2.16-3.43], P < .001 vs 12-17 years), increased American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] physical status (ASA III: OR, 1.32 [1.23-1.42], P < .001 ASA IV OR, 1.71 [1.46-2.00], P < .001 vs ASA I), neuromuscular disease (OR, 1.14 (1.04-1.26], P = .006), cardiac surgery (OR, 1.76 [1.40-2.22], P < .001), dose of neuromuscular blockade within the hour before reversal (>2 ED95s/kg OR, 4.58 (4.14-5.07], P < .001 vs none), and shorter case duration (case duration <60 minutes OR, 2.06 [1.75-2.43], P < .001 vs >300 minutes).

CONCLUSIONS

Variation in sugammadex use was primarily explained by institution and attending anesthesiologist. Patient factors associated with the decision to use sugammadex included younger age, higher doses of neuromuscular blocking agents, and increased medical complexity.

Association Between the Use of Midazolam During Cardiac Anesthesia and the Incidence of Postoperative Delirium: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using a Nationwide Database

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between the intraoperative administration of midazolam and the incidence of postoperative delirium in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational cohort study.

SETTING

The Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 65 years and older who underwent cardiovascular surgery (excluding transcatheter surgeries, multiple surgeries per admission, and preoperative delirium) between April 1, 2015, and October 31, 2019.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Patients who received midazolam (midazolam group) were compared with those who did not receive midazolam (no midazolam group). The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative delirium. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, mortality, and duration of intensive care unit stay and hospitalization. Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression based on the covariates. The outcomes were compared using stabilized inverse probability of treatment-weighting analyses. Among the 16,185 patients analyzed, 10,633 (65.7%) received midazolam. No significant differences were observed in the incidences of postoperative delirium (odds ratio [OR] 0.95; 95% CI 0.87-1.03; p = 0.21) and hospital mortality (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.76-1.11; p = 0.39) between the groups; however, the midazolam group had slightly longer durations of intensive care unit stay (3.5 [3.5-3.6] v 3.3 [3.3-3.4] days, p < 0.001) and hospitalization (31.5 [31.1-31.9] v 29.4 [28.8-29.9] days, p < 0.001), and slightly lower incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.85-0.99; p = 0.03). The sensitivity analyses supported these results.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative administration of midazolam may not induce postoperative delirium in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Benzodiazepine-Free Cardiac Anesthesia for Reduction of Postoperative Delirium (B-Free): A Protocol for a Multi-centre Randomized Cluster Crossover Trial

Delirium is common after cardiac surgery and is associated with adverse outcomes. Administration of benzodiazepines before and after cardiac surgery is associated with delirium; guidelines recommend minimizing their use. Benzodiazepine administration during cardiac surgery remains common because of its recognized benefits. The Benzodiazepine-Free Cardiac Anesthesia for Reduction of Postoperative Delirium (B-Free) trial is a randomized cluster crossover trial evaluating whether an institutional policy of restricting intraoperative benzodiazepine administration (ie, ≥ 90% of patients do not receive benzodiazepines during cardiac surgery), as compared with a policy of liberal intraoperative benzodiazepine administration (ie, ≥ 90% of patients receive ≥ 0.03 mg/kg midazolam equivalent), reduces delirium. Hospitals performing ≥ 250 cardiac surgeries a year are included if their cardiac anesthesia group agrees to apply both benzodiazepine policies per their randomization, and patients are assessed for postoperative delirium every 12 hours in routine clinical care. Hospitals apply the restricted or liberal benzodiazepine policy during 12 to 18 crossover periods of 4 weeks each. Randomization for all periods takes place in advance of site startup; sites are notified of their allocated policy during the last week of each crossover period. Policies are applied to all patients undergoing cardiac surgery during the trial period. The primary outcome is the incidence of delirium at up to 72 hours after surgery. The B-Free trial will enroll ≥ 18,000 patients undergoing cardiac surgery at 20 hospitals across North America. Delirium is common after cardiac surgery, and benzodiazepines are associated with the occurrence of delirium. The B-Free trial will determine whether an institutional policy restricting the administration of benzodiazepines during cardiac surgery reduces the incidence of delirium after cardiac surgery. Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT03928236 (First registered April 26, 2019).

Patient-, Clinician-, and Institution-level Variation in Inotrope Use for Cardiac Surgery: A Multicenter Observational Analysis

BACKGROUND

Conflicting evidence exists regarding the risks and benefits of inotropic therapies during cardiac surgery, and the extent of variation in clinical practice remains understudied. Therefore, the authors sought to quantify patient-, anesthesiologist-, and hospital-related contributions to variation in inotrope use.

METHODS

In this observational study, nonemergent adult cardiac surgeries using cardiopulmonary bypass were reviewed across a multicenter cohort of academic and community hospitals from 2014 to 2019. Patients who were moribund, receiving mechanical circulatory support, or receiving preoperative or home inotropes were excluded. The primary outcome was an inotrope infusion (epinephrine, dobutamine, milrinone, dopamine) administered for greater than 60 consecutive min intraoperatively or ongoing upon transport from the operating room. Institution-, clinician-, and patient-level variance components were studied.

RESULTS

Among 51,085 cases across 611 attending anesthesiologists and 29 hospitals, 27,033 (52.9%) cases received at least one intraoperative inotrope, including 21,796 (42.7%) epinephrine, 6,360 (12.4%) milrinone, 2,000 (3.9%) dobutamine, and 602 (1.2%) dopamine (non-mutually exclusive). Variation in inotrope use was 22.6% attributable to the institution, 6.8% attributable to the primary attending anesthesiologist, and 70.6% attributable to the patient. The adjusted median odds ratio for the same patient receiving inotropes was 1.73 between 2 randomly selected clinicians and 3.55 between 2 randomly selected institutions. Factors most strongly associated with increased likelihood of inotrope use were institutional medical school affiliation (adjusted odds ratio, 6.2; 95% CI, 1.39 to 27.8), heart failure (adjusted odds ratio, 2.60; 95% CI, 2.46 to 2.76), pulmonary circulation disorder (adjusted odds ratio, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.58 to 1.87), loop diuretic home medication (adjusted odds ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.42 to 1.69), Black race (adjusted odds ratio, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.68), and digoxin home medication (adjusted odds ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Variation in inotrope use during cardiac surgery is attributable to the institution and to the clinician, in addition to the patient. Variation across institutions and clinicians suggests a need for future quantitative and qualitative research to understand variation in inotrope use affecting outcomes and develop evidence-based, patient-centered inotrope therapies.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Effect of perioperative benzodiazepine use on intraoperative awareness and postoperative delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies

BACKGROUND

Benzodiazepine use is associated with delirium, and guidelines recommend avoiding them in older and critically ill patients. Their perioperative use remains common because of perceived benefits.

METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Web of Science from inception to June 2021. Pairs of reviewers identified randomised controlled trials and prospective observational studies comparing perioperative use of benzodiazepines with other agents or placebo in patients undergoing surgery. Two reviewers independently abstracted data, which we combined using a random-effects model. Our primary outcomes were delirium, intraoperative awareness, and mortality.

RESULTS

We included 34 randomised controlled trials (n=4354) and nine observational studies (n=3309). Observational studies were considered separately. Perioperative benzodiazepines did not increase the risk of delirium (n=1352; risk ratio [RR] 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9-2.27; I2=72%; P=0.13; very low-quality evidence). Use of benzodiazepines instead of dexmedetomidine did, however, increase the risk of delirium (five studies; n=429; RR 1.83; 95% CI: 1.24-2.72; I2=13%; P=0.002). Perioperative benzodiazepine use decreased the risk of intraoperative awareness (n=2245; RR 0.26; 95% CI: 0.12-0.58; I2=35%; P=0.001; very low-quality evidence). When considering non-events, perioperative benzodiazepine use increased the probability of not having intraoperative awareness (RR 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01-1.13; I2=98%; P=0.03; very low-quality evidence). Mortality was reported by one randomised controlled trial (n=800; RR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.20-3.1; P=0.80; very low quality).

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, perioperative benzodiazepine use did not increase postoperative delirium and decreased intraoperative awareness. Previously observed relationships of benzodiazepine use with delirium could be explained by comparisons with dexmedetomidine.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL

PROSPERO CRD42019128144.