Preoperative depression and outcomes after metabolic and bariatric surgery: A systematic narrative review

Preoperative depression is prevalent among patients undergoing metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) and is a potentially modifiable risk factor. However, the impact of preoperative depression on MBS outcomes has not been systematically reviewed. A search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and PsychINFO (inception to June 2023) was conducted for studies reporting associations between preoperative depression and any clinical or patient-reported outcomes after MBS. Eighteen studies (5 prospective and 13 retrospective) reporting on 5933 participants were included. Most participants underwent gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy. Meta-analyses were not conducted due to heterogeneity in reported outcomes; findings were instead synthesized using a narrative and tabular approach. Across 13 studies (n = 3390) the associations between preoperative depression and weight loss outcomes at 6-72 months were mixed overall. This may be related to differences in cohort characteristics, outcome definitions, and instruments used to measure depression. A small number of studies reported that preoperative depression was associated with lower quality of life, worse acute pain, and more perioperative complications after surgery. Most of the included studies were deemed to be at high risk of bias, resulting in low or very low certainty of evidence according to the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Exposure (ROBINS-E) tool. While the impact of preoperative depression on weight loss after MBS remains unclear, there is early evidence that depression has negative consequences on other patient-important outcomes. Adequately powered studies using more sophisticated statistical methods are needed to accurately estimate these associations.

Psychological Distress After Inpatient Noncardiac Surgery: A Secondary Analysis of the Measurement of Exercise Tolerance Before Surgery Prospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To describe the incidence and natural progression of psychological distress after major surgery.

BACKGROUND

The recovery process after surgery imposes physical and mental burdens that put patients at risk of psychological distress. Understanding the natural course of psychological distress after surgery is critical to supporting the timely and tailored management of high-risk individuals.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of the "Measurement of Exercise Tolerance before Surgery" multicentre cohort study (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK). Measurement of Exercise Tolerance before Surgery recruited adult participants (≥40 years) undergoing elective inpatient noncardiac surgery and followed them for 1 year. The primary outcome was the severity of psychological distress measured using the anxiety-depression item of EQ-5D-3L. We used cumulative link mixed models to characterize the time trajectory of psychological distress among relevant patient subgroups. We also explored potential predictors of severe and/or worsened psychological distress at 1 year using multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Of 1546 participants, moderate-to-severe psychological distress was reported by 32.6% of participants before surgery, 27.3% at 30 days after surgery, and 26.2% at 1 year after surgery. Psychological distress appeared to improve over time among females [odds ratio (OR): 0.80, 95% CI: 0.65-0.95] and patients undergoing orthopedic procedures (OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.55-0.91), but not among males (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.87-1.07) or patients undergoing nonorthopedic procedures (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.87-1.04). Among the average middle-aged adult, there were no time-related changes (OR: 0.94, 97% CI: 0.75-1.13), whereas the young-old (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.79-0.99) and middle-old (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.73-1.01) had small improvements. Predictors of severe and/or worsened psychological distress at 1 year were younger age, poor self-reported functional capacity, smoking history, and undergoing open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

One-third of adults experience moderate to severe psychological distress before major elective noncardiac surgery. This distress tends to persist or worsen over time among select patient subgroups.

Clinical tools to assess functional capacity before elective non-cardiac surgery: a scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this scoping review is to map the evidence on clinical tools to assess functional capacity prior to elective non-cardiac surgery.

INTRODUCTION

Functional capacity is a strong prognostic indicator before surgery, which can be used to identify patients at elevated risk of postoperative complications, yet, there is no consensus on which clinical tools should be used to assess functional capacity in patients prior to non-cardiac surgery.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This review will consider any randomized or non-randomized studies that evaluate the performance of a functional capacity assessment tool in adults (≥18 years) prior to non-cardiac surgery. For studies to be included, the tool must be used clinically for risk stratification. We will exclude studies on lung and liver transplant surgery, as well as ambulatory procedures performed under local anesthesia.

METHODS

The review will be conducted in line with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. A peer-reviewed search strategy will be used to query relevant databases (ie, MEDLINE, Embase, EBM Reviews). Additional sources of evidence will include databases of non-peer-reviewed literature and the reference lists of included studies. Two independent reviewers will identify eligible studies in 2 stages: stage 1, based on titles and abstracts; and stage 2, based on full texts. Information on study details, measurement properties, pragmatic qualities, and/or clinical utility metrics will be charted in duplicate onto standardized data collection forms. The results will be presented using descriptive summaries, frequency tables, and visual plots that highlight the extent of evidence and remaining gaps in the validation process of each tool.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework https://osf.io/6nfht.

Improved Re-estimation of Perioperative Cardiac Risk Using the Surgical Apgar Score: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether the Surgical Apgar Score (SAS) improves re-estimation of perioperative cardiac risk.

BACKGROUND

The SAS is a novel risk index that integrates three relevant and easily measurable intraoperative parameters (blood loss, heart rate, mean arterial pressure) to predict outcomes. The incremental prognostic value of the SAS when used in combination with standard preoperative risk indices is unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults (18 years and older) who underwent elective noncardiac surgery at a quaternary care hospital in Canada (2009-2014). The primary outcome was postoperative acute myocardial injury. The SAS (range 0-10) was calculated based on intraoperative estimated blood loss, lowest mean arterial pressure, and lowest heart rate documented in electronic medical records. Incremental prognostic value of the SAS when combined with the Revised Cardiac Risk Index was assessed based on discrimination (c-statistic), reclassification (integrated discrimination improvement, net reclassification index), and clinical utility (decision curve analysis).

RESULTS

The cohort included 16,835 patients, of whom 607 (3.6%) patients had acute postoperative myocardial injury. Addition of the SAS to the Revised Cardiac Risk Index improved risk estimation based on the integrated discrimination improvement [2.0%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5%-2.4%], continuous net reclassification index (54%; 95% CI: 46%-62%), and c-index, which increased from 0.68 (95% CI: 0.65-0.70) to 0.75 (95% CI: 0.73-0.77). On decision curve analysis, addition of the SAS to the Revised Cardiac Risk Index resulted in a higher net benefit at all decision thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

When combined with a validated preoperative risk index, the SAS improved the accuracy of cardiac risk assessment for noncardiac surgery. Further research is needed to delineate how intraoperative data can better guide postoperative decision-making.

Geriatric assessment and treatment decision-making in surgical oncology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Present an approach for surgical decision-making in cancer that incorporates geriatric assessment by building upon the common categories of tumor, technical, and patient factors to enable dual assessment of disease and geriatric factors.

RECENT FINDINGS

Conventional preoperative assessment is insufficient for older adults missing important modifiable deficits, and inaccurately estimating treatment intolerance, complications, functional impairment and disability, and death. Including geriatric-focused assessment into routine perioperative care facilitates improved communications between clinicians and patients and among interdisciplinary teams. In addition, it facilitates the detection of geriatric-specific deficits that are amenable to treatment. We propose a framework for embedding geriatric assessment into surgical oncology practice to allow more accurate risk stratification, identify and manage geriatric deficits, support decision-making, and plan proactively for both cancer-directed and non-cancer-directed therapies. This patient-centered approach can reduce adverse outcomes such as functional decline, delirium, prolonged hospitalization, discharge to long-term care, immediate postoperative complications, and death.

SUMMARY

Geriatric assessment and management has substantial benefits over conventional preoperative assessment alone. This article highlights these advantages and outlines a feasible strategy to incorporate both disease-based and geriatric-specific assessment and treatment when caring for older surgical patients with cancer.

Measurement properties of the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 for evaluating functional status after inpatient surgery

BACKGROUND

Expert recommendations propose the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 as a core outcome measure in surgical studies, yet data on its long-term measurement properties remain limited. These were evaluated in a secondary analysis of the Measurement of Exercise Tolerance before Surgery (METS) prospective cohort.

METHODS

Participants were adults (40 years of age or older) who underwent inpatient non-cardiac surgery. The 12-item WHODAS and EQ-5DTM-3L questionnaires were administered preoperatively (in person) and 1 year postoperatively (by telephone). Responsiveness was characterized using standardized response means (SRMs) and correlation coefficients between change scores. Construct validity was evaluated using correlation coefficients between 1-year scores and comparisons of WHODAS scores across clinically relevant subgroups.

RESULTS

The analysis included 546 patients. There was moderate correlation between changes in WHODAS and various EQ-5DTM subscales. The strongest correlation was between changes in WHODAS and changes in the functional domains of the EQ-5D-3L-for example, mobility (Spearman's rho 0.40, 95 per cent confidence interval [c.i.] 0.32 to 0.48) and usual activities (rho 0.45, 95 per cent c.i. 0.30 to 0.52). When compared across quartiles of EQ-5D index change, median WHODAS scores followed expected patterns of change. In subgroups with expected functional status changes, the WHODAS SRMs ranged from 'small' to 'large' in the expected directions of change. At 1 year, the WHODAS demonstrated convergence with the EQ-5D-3L functional domains, and good discrimination between patients with expected differences in functional status.

CONCLUSION

The WHODAS questionnaire has construct validity and responsiveness as a measure of functional status at 1 year after major surgery.

Frailty assessment tools for use by surgeons when evaluating older adults prior to surgery: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Despite growing evidence, uncertainty persists about which frailty assessment tools are best suited for routine perioperative care. We aim to understand which frailty assessment tools perform well and are feasible to implement.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Using a registered protocol following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA), we will conduct a scoping review informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute Guide for Scoping Reviews and reported using PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews recommendations. We will develop a comprehensive search strategy with information specialists using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies checklist, and implement this across relevant databases from 2005 to 13 October 2021 and updated prior to final review publication. We will include all studies evaluating a frailty assessment tool preoperatively in patients 65 years or older undergoing intracavitary, non-cardiac surgery. We will exclude tools not assessed in clinical practice, or using laboratory or radiologic values alone. After pilot testing, two reviewers will independently assess information sources for eligibility first by titles and abstracts, then by full-text review. Two reviewers will independently chart data from included full texts using a piloted standardised electronic data charting. In this scoping review process, we will (1) index frailty assessment tools evaluated in the preoperative clinical setting; (2) describe the level of investigation supporting each tool; (3) describe useability of each tool and (4) describe direct comparisons between tools. The results will inform ready application of frailty assessment tools in routine clinical practice by surgeons and other perioperative clinicians.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethic approval is not required for this secondary data analysis. This scoping review will be published in a peer-review journal. Results will be used to inform an ongoing implementation study focused on geriatric surgery to overcome the current lack of uptake of older adult-oriented care recommendations and ensure broad impact of research findings.

Functional Improvement Trajectories After Surgery (FIT After Surgery) study: protocol for a multicentre prospective cohort study to evaluate significant new disability after major surgery in older adults

INTRODUCTION

Older adults prioritise surviving surgery, but also preservation of their functional status and quality of life. Current approaches to measure postoperative recovery, which focus on death, complications and length of hospitalisation, may miss key relevant domains. We propose that postoperative disability is an important patient-centred outcome to measure intermediate-to-long recovery after major surgery in older adults.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Functional Improvement Trajectories After Surgery (FIT After Surgery) study is a multicentre cohort study of 2000 older adults (≥65 years) having major non-cardiac surgery. Its objectives are to characterise the incidence, trajectories, risk factors and impact of new significant disability after non-cardiac surgery. Disability is assessed using WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 instrument and participants' level-of-care needs. Disability assessments occur before surgery, and at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after surgery. The primary outcome is significantly worse WHODAS score or death at 6 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes are (1) significantly worse WHODAS score or death at 1 year after surgery, (2) increased care needs or death at 6 months after surgery and (3) increased care needs or death at 1 year after surgery. We will use multivariable logistic regression models to determine the association of preoperative characteristics and surgery type with outcomes, joint modelling to characterise longitudinal time trends in WHODAS scores over 12 months after surgery, and longitudinal latent class mixture models to identify clusters following similar trajectories of disability.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The FIT After Surgery study has received research ethics board approval at all sites. Recruitment began in December 2019 but was placed on hold in March 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Recruitment was gradually restarted in October 2020, with 1-year follow-up expected to finish in 2023. Publication of the primary results is anticipated to occur in 2024.

Prognostic value of blood pressure in ambulatory heart failure: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Ambulatory blood pressure predicts heart failure prognosis

Previous primary studies have explored the association between blood pressure (BP) and mortality in ambulatory heart failure (HF) patients reporting varying and contrasting associations. The aim is to determine the pooled BP prognostic value and explore potential reasons for between-study inconsistency. We searched Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE and CINAHL from January 2005 to October 2018 for studies with ≥ 50 events (mortality and/or hospitalization) and included BP in a multivariable model in ambulatory HF patients. We pooled hazard ratios (random effects model) for systolic BP (SBP) or diastolic BP (DBP) effect on mortality and/or hospitalization risk. We used a priori defined sub-group analyses to explore heterogeneity and GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. Seventy-one eligible articles (239,467 screened) at low to moderate risk of bias included 235,752 participants. Higher SBP was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.91-0.95, I2 = 87.13%, moderate certainty), all-cause hospitalization events (HR 0.91, 95%CI 0.88-0.93, I2 = 44.4%, high certainty) and their composite endpoint (HR 0.93 per 10 mmHg, 95%CI 0.91-0.94, I2 = 86.3%, high certainty). DBP did not demonstrate a statistically significant effect for all outcomes. The association strength was significantly weaker in studies following patients with either LVEF > 40%, higher average SBP (> 130 mmHg), increasing age and diabetes. All other a priori subgroup hypotheses did not explain between study differences. Higher ambulatory SBP is associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality and hospitalization. Patients with lower BP and reduced LVEF are in a high-risk group of developing adverse events with moderate certainty of evidence.

Resting Heart Rate as an Important Predictor of Mortality and Morbidity in Ambulatory Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Resting heart rate is a risk factor of adverse heart failure outcomes; however, studies have shown controversial results. This meta-analysis evaluates the association of resting heart rate with mortality and hospitalization and identifies factors influencing its effect.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We systematically searched electronic databases in February 2019 for studies published in 2005 or before that evaluated the resting heart rate as a primary predictor or covariate of multivariable models of mortality and/or hospitalization in adult ambulatory patients with heart failure. Random effects inverse variance meta-analyses were performed to calculate pooled hazard ratios. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess evidence quality. Sixty-two studies on 163,445 patients proved eligible. Median population heart rate was 74 bpm (interquartile range 72-76 bpm). A 10-bpm increase was significantly associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval 1.08-1.13, high quality). Overall, subgroup analyses related to patient characteristics showed no changes to the effect estimate; however, there was a strongly positive interaction with age showing increasing risk of all-cause mortality per 10 bpm increase in heart rate.

CONCLUSIONS

High-quality evidence demonstrates increasing resting heart rate is a significant predictor of all-cause mortality in ambulatory patients with heart failure on optimal medical therapy, with consistent effect across most patient factors and an increased risk trending with older age.

Propofol administration by endoscopists versus anesthesiologists in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient safety outcomes

BACKGROUND

With a growing demand for endoscopic services, the role of anesthesiologists in endoscopy units must be reassessed. The aim of this study was to compare patient outcomes in non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) versus anesthesiologist-administered propofol (AAP) during routine endoscopy.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL and the grey literature for studies comparing NAAP and AAP. Primary outcomes included endoscopy- and sedation-related complications. Secondary outcomes included measures of endoscopy quality and of patient and endoscopist satisfaction. We reported treatment effects using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Of 602 articles identified, 5 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies included only patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of I or II. Non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol did not result in increased rates of airway intervention (odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29 to 3.95; 3443 patients) or hypotension (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.40 to 5.41; 17 978 patients) but did result in higher rates of bradycardia (OR 3.68, 95% CI 1.65 to 8.17; 17 978 patients). Nonanesthesiologists administered lower propofol dosages than anesthesiologists (mean difference -61.79, 95% CI -114.46 to -9.12; 3443 patients), and their patients more commonly experienced awareness with recall (OR 19.99, 95% CI 7.88 to 50.76; 2090 patients). However, NAAP neither compromised patient willingness to repeat the procedure (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.83; 2367 patients) nor lengthened total procedure time (mean difference -0.08, 95% CI -3.51 to 3.34; 2367 patients).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopists may safely administer propofol without compromising procedural quality in patients classified as ASA I or II undergoing routine endoscopy. The results of this meta-analysis are limited by a lack of available high-quality studies. Further, large-scale studies are needed for definitive conclusions.

Propofol administration by endoscopists versus anesthesiologists in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient safety outcomes

BACKGROUND

With a growing demand for endoscopic services, the role of anesthesiologists in endoscopy units must be reassessed. The aim of this study was to compare patient outcomes in non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) versus anesthesiologist-administered propofol (AAP) during routine endoscopy.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL and the grey literature for studies comparing NAAP and AAP. Primary outcomes included endoscopy- and sedation-related complications. Secondary outcomes included measures of endoscopy quality and of patient and endoscopist satisfaction. We reported treatment effects using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Of 602 articles identified, 5 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies included only patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of I or II. Non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol did not result in increased rates of airway intervention (odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29 to 3.95; 3443 patients) or hypotension (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.40 to 5.41; 17 978 patients) but did result in higher rates of bradycardia (OR 3.68, 95% CI 1.65 to 8.17; 17 978 patients). Nonanesthesiologists administered lower propofol dosages than anesthesiologists (mean difference -61.79, 95% CI -114.46 to -9.12; 3443 patients), and their patients more commonly experienced awareness with recall (OR 19.99, 95% CI 7.88 to 50.76; 2090 patients). However, NAAP neither compromised patient willingness to repeat the procedure (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.83; 2367 patients) nor lengthened total procedure time (mean difference -0.08, 95% CI -3.51 to 3.34; 2367 patients).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopists may safely administer propofol without compromising procedural quality in patients classified as ASA I or II undergoing routine endoscopy. The results of this meta-analysis are limited by a lack of available high-quality studies. Further, large-scale studies are needed for definitive conclusions.