Preoperative Testing for Urethral Sling Surgery for Stress Urinary Incontinence: Overuse, Underuse and Cost Implications

Cost of Low-Value Imaging Worldwide: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Imaging with low or no benefit for the patient undermines the quality of care and amounts to vast opportunity costs. More than 3.6 billion imaging examinations are performed annually, and about 20-50% of these are of low value. This study aimed to synthesize knowledge of the costs of low-value imaging worldwide.

METHODS

This systematic review was based on the PRISMA statement. The database search was developed in Medline and further adapted to Embase-Ovid, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. Primary empirical studies assessing the costs of low-value diagnostic imaging were included if published between 2012 and March 2022. Studies designed as randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, descriptive studies, cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and mixed-methods studies were eligible. The analysis was descriptive.

RESULTS

Of 5,567 records identified, 106 were included. Most of the studies included were conducted in the USA (n = 76), and a hospital or medical center was the most common setting (n = 82). Thirty-eight of the included studies calculated the costs of multiple imaging modalities; in studies with only one imaging modality included, conventional radiography was the most common (n = 32). Aggregated costs for low-value examinations amounts to billions of dollars per year globally. Initiatives to reduce low-value imaging may reduce costs by up to 95% without harming patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first systematic review of the cost of low-value imaging worldwide, documenting a high potential for cost reduction. Given the universal challenges with resource allocation, the large amount used for low-value imaging represents a vast opportunity cost and offers great potential to improve the quality and efficiency of care.

Utility of Routine Preoperative Laboratory Testing for Low-risk Patients in Ambulatory Gynecologic Surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To examine the current use of routine preoperative laboratory testing in low-risk patients undergoing ambulatory gynecologic surgery and to determine if such testing affects surgical outcomes.

DESIGN

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was queried for ambulatory gynecologic surgeries between 2015 and 2018. Low-risk patients included in this study were defined as being American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 or 2. The rate of preoperative laboratory testing before ambulatory gynecologic surgery in low-risk patients was determined and factors associated with testing including patient characteristics and comorbidities were evaluated. NSQIP-defined complications were compared between those with and without preoperative laboratory testing. Preoperative laboratory testing was defined as chemistry, hematology, coagulation, or liver function studies obtained within 30 days preoperatively.

SETTING

National health systems that participate in the NSQIP.

PATIENTS

There were 19 855 patients who underwent an ambulatory gynecologic procedure.

INTERVENTIONS

Preoperative laboratory testing in low-risk patients before ambulatory gynecologic surgery.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of the 19 855 patients studied, 14 258 (71.8%) received preoperative laboratory testing. Statistically significant differences were seen between patients who underwent preoperative testing and patients who did not. The most frequent preoperative test was a complete blood cell count (70.4%). Among patients who received preoperative testing, 4053 (28.4%) had at least 1 abnormal result. No statistically significant difference was seen in overall postoperative complication rate when comparing patients who received preoperative laboratory testing with those who did not (2.5% vs 2.2%, p = .30). Specifically, no statistically significant difference was seen among wound complications (1.0% vs 1.0%, p = .78), major complications (1.0% vs 0.8%, p = .11), unplanned return to the operating room (0.1% vs 0.2%, p = .40), unplanned readmission (0.7% vs 0.5%, p = .10), or overall morbidity (2.1% vs 1.9%, p = .38). Chi-square analyses were performed to compare categoric variables. Continuous variables were compared using unpaired t tests.

CONCLUSION

This large study using a reputable national database revealed that despite updated evidence-based guidelines that recommend against the practice, preoperative laboratory testing continues to be performed for most low-risk patients undergoing ambulatory gynecologic surgery. This study also further supports current guidelines in demonstrating no difference in surgical outcomes between low-risk patients who did and did not receive preoperative laboratory testing. Preoperative laboratory testing practices for low-risk patients undergoing ambulatory gynecologic surgery do not follow current evidence-based guidelines and should be re-evaluated.

Utility of Preoperative Laboratory Testing in Women Undergoing Suburethral Sling

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to examine current patterns and factors associated with preoperative testing in patients undergoing midurethral sling and to compare 30-day outcomes in subjects.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was performed using the National Surgery Quality Improvement Program database from 2005 to 2014. All women undergoing midurethral slings were identified by Current Procedural Terminology code. Clinical variables were abstracted and the incidence of preoperative serum labs was determined. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate associations between clinical factors and collection of preoperative serum labs and between 30-day outcomes and collection of labs.

RESULTS

A total of 12,368 women underwent midurethral sling in the National Surgery Quality Improvement Program database during the study period. Preoperative serum testing within 30 days before surgery was observed in 9172 (74.2%) women. Age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, diabetes, and hypertension were strongly associated with preoperative testing when modeling together in multivariable regression. Of the 543 women who had any complication, 410 (75.5%) received preoperative testing. Urinary tract infection was the most frequent complication (66.1%). Age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, body mass index, and presence of any comorbidity were associated with the presence of any complication at 30 days. Adjusting for these factors, the odds of complications were not significantly different between those who did and did not have preoperative testing (adjusted odds ratio = 0.98, 95% confidence interval = 0.78-1.24).

CONCLUSIONS

Most women who underwent midurethral sling procedures had preoperative testing. Major postoperative complications were uncommon, and there was no substantial difference in outcomes between women who underwent preoperative testing and those who did not. In the future, surgeons may consider eliminating preoperative testing in low-risk patients.

Preoperative laboratory data are associated with complications and surgical site infection in composite head and neck surgical resections

OBJECTIVES

1) Describe normal/abnormal preoperative laboratory testing incidence in head and neck (H&N) composite resections and 2) determine complication, surgical site infection (SSI), and transfusion predictors by laboratory test.

METHODS

The 2006 to 2013 NSQIP databases were queried for H&N composite resections. Laboratory data was categorized within, under, or above the normal reference range according to NSQIP definitions. Overall complications and SSI were analyzed with multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

From 2006 to 2013, there were 1193H&N composite resections, of which 1135 (95.1%) underwent ≥1 preoperative laboratory test. Complete blood counts were obtained in 92.3%, basic metabolic panels in 90.7%, coagulation studies in 56.2%, and liver function tests (LFTs) in 52.6%. Low sodium was found in 11.5%, increasing complication odds by 2.30 (p = 0.005). High AST comprised 10.0% and increased complication odds (OR = 2.93, p = 0.012). Additionally, 9.2% had a high white blood cell (WBC) count and 3.5% had high platelets, increasing complications by 1.92 (p = 0.030) and 3.13 (p = 0.015), respectively. BUN, creatinine, total bilirubin, albumin, alkaline phosphatase, INR, PT, and aPTT abnormal values did not affect postoperative complications. Increased SSI odds were appreciated with low sodium (OR: 2.83, p = 0.002), high AST (OR: 6.85, p < 0.001), and high alkaline phosphatase (OR: 5.46, p = 0.007). Importantly, INR had no effect on transfusion rates. High PT, aPTT, or low platelets did not change transfusion odds.

CONCLUSION

Inflammatory markers are associated with complications but not SSI. High LFTs and low sodium are associated with complications and SSI. Coagulopathies did not increase transfusion rates. These findings identify laboratory studies to focus on during H&N resection preoperative assessments.

Duplicate Type and Screen Testing: Waste in the Clinical Laboratory

CONTEXT

- In the United States, approximately $65 billion dollars is spent per year on clinical laboratory testing, of which 20% to 30% of all testing is deemed inappropriate. There have been multiple studies in the field of transfusion medicine regarding evidence-based transfusion practices, but limited data exist regarding inappropriate pretransfusion testing and its financial and clinical implications.

OBJECTIVE

- To assess duplicative testing practices in the transfusion medicine service.

DESIGN

- A 24-month retrospective review was performed at a 1025-bed tertiary care center, identifying all duplicate type and screen (TS) tests performed within 72 hours of the previous TS. Duplicative testing was classified as appropriate or inappropriate by predetermined criteria. The level of underordering was analyzed through a query of the electronic event reporting system. A cost analysis was performed to determine the financial impact of inappropriate duplicative TS.

RESULTS

- The mean rate of inappropriate, duplicative TS orders was 4.13% (standard deviation ± 4.09%). Rates of inappropriate ordering ranged from 0.01% to 15.5% depending on the clinical service and did not correlate with volume of tests ordered. There were 8 reported cases of delayed blood delivery due to lack of a valid TS during the study period, demonstrating that underordering is also a harmful practice. The laboratory cost of inappropriate testing for the study period was $80,434, and phlebotomy costs were $45,469.

CONCLUSIONS

- Our study demonstrates that inappropriate TS ordering is costly, both financially and clinically. By evaluating the percentage of inappropriate TS tests by clinical services, we have identified services that may benefit from additional education and technologic intervention.