Displaying all 18 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Lin SJ, Sun CY, Chen DN, Kang YN, Lai NM, Chen KH, et al.
    BMJ Health Care Inform, 2024 Jul 20;31(1).
    PMID: 39032946 DOI: 10.1136/bmjhci-2023-100985
    BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patient-clinician communication and shared decision-making face challenges in the perioperative period. Chatbots have emerged as valuable support tools in perioperative care. A simultaneous and complete comparison of overall benefits and harm of chatbot application is conducted.

    MATERIALS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies published before May 2023 on the benefits and harm of chatbots used in the perioperative period. The major outcomes assessed were patient satisfaction and knowledge acquisition. Untransformed proportion (PR) with a 95% CI was used for the analysis of continuous data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool version 2 and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies.

    RESULTS: Eight trials comprising 1073 adults from four countries were included. Most interventions (n = 5, 62.5%) targeted perioperative care in orthopaedics. Most interventions use rule-based chatbots (n = 7, 87.5%). This meta-analysis found that the majority of the participants were satisfied with the use of chatbots (mean proportion=0.73; 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.85), and agreed that they gained knowledge in their perioperative period (mean proportion=0.80; 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.87).

    CONCLUSION: This review demonstrates that perioperative chatbots are well received by the majority of patients with no reports of harm to-date. Chatbots may be considered as an aid in perioperative communication between patients and clinicians and shared decision-making. These findings may be used to guide the healthcare providers, policymakers and researchers for enhancing perioperative care.

    Matched MeSH terms: Perioperative Care*
  2. Yusoff K
    Med J Malaysia, 2007 Jun;62(2):95-6.
    PMID: 18705437 MyJurnal

    Getting through major surgeries safely and timely with success and minimal complications is one of the great achievements of modern medicine. As the surgical techniques and the organs and systems involved become more varied, there are a number of important issues which determine the success of surgery. But one overriding theme is cardiovascular stability during and immediately after surgery.
    Matched MeSH terms: Perioperative Care*
  3. Achanna KS, Zaleha AM, Sachchithanantham, Farouk AM
    Med J Malaysia, 2006 Aug;61(3):312-9.
    PMID: 17240582 MyJurnal
    Pregnancy-related deaths in four published perioperative mortality review reports were analysed. The aim is to look at the quality of surgical and anaesthetic services along with the perioperative care provided. The audit identified shortfalls in the logistic and support services and recommended remedial strategies. The review was conducted by a committee consisting of practising anaesthetists, surgeons and obstetricians who analysed the questionnaires collectively. A consensus was reached to categorise the death. There were 280 pregnancy-related deaths. Post-partum haemorrhage accounted for 31.8%, followed by hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (20.0% obstetric embolism (16.1%), sepsis (10.7%) and associated medical conditions (21.4%). In brief, there were comings in preoperative, intra-operative and post-operative care in some of the cases. Increased consultant input, clinical audit, improvements in monitoring and expansion of critical care facilities were the integral issues recommended.
    Matched MeSH terms: Perioperative Care/standards
  4. Marcucci M, Painter TW, Conen D, Leslie K, Lomivorotov VV, Sessler D, et al.
    Trials, 2022 Jan 31;23(1):101.
    PMID: 35101083 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-021-05992-1
    BACKGROUND: For patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, bleeding and hypotension are frequent and associated with increased mortality and cardiovascular complications. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic agent with the potential to reduce surgical bleeding; however, there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety in noncardiac surgery. Although usual perioperative care is commonly consistent with a hypertension-avoidance strategy (i.e., most patients continue their antihypertensive medications throughout the perioperative period and intraoperative mean arterial pressures of 60 mmHg are commonly accepted), a hypotension-avoidance strategy may improve perioperative outcomes.

    METHODS: The PeriOperative Ischemic Evaluation (POISE)-3 Trial is a large international randomized controlled trial designed to determine if TXA is superior to placebo for the composite outcome of life-threatening, major, and critical organ bleeding, and non-inferior to placebo for the occurrence of major arterial and venous thrombotic events, at 30 days after randomization. Using a partial factorial design, POISE-3 will additionally determine the effect of a hypotension-avoidance strategy versus a hypertension-avoidance strategy on the risk of major cardiovascular events, at 30 days after randomization. The target sample size is 10,000 participants. Patients ≥45 years of age undergoing noncardiac surgery, with or at risk of cardiovascular and bleeding complications, are randomized to receive a TXA 1 g intravenous bolus or matching placebo at the start and at the end of surgery. Patients, health care providers, data collectors, outcome adjudicators, and investigators are blinded to the treatment allocation. Patients on ≥ 1 chronic antihypertensive medication are also randomized to either of the two blood pressure management strategies, which differ in the management of patient antihypertensive medications on the morning of surgery and on the first 2 days after surgery, and in the target mean arterial pressure during surgery. Outcome adjudicators are blinded to the blood pressure treatment allocation. Patients are followed up at 30 days and 1 year after randomization.

    DISCUSSION: Bleeding and hypotension in noncardiac surgery are common and have a substantial impact on patient prognosis. The POISE-3 trial will evaluate two interventions to determine their impact on bleeding, cardiovascular complications, and mortality.

    TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03505723. Registered on 23 April 2018.

    Matched MeSH terms: Perioperative Care
  5. Poh KS, Lim TA, Airini IN
    Med J Malaysia, 2007 Jun;62(2):97-103.
    PMID: 18705438
    Controversy surrounds the acceptance of hypertension as an independent risk factor for anaesthesia. In an attempt to identify variables that are associated with increased haemodynamic instability during surgery, the blood pressure profiles of 128 patients were analysed. The two variables that contributed most to the instability were pre-operative control of blood pressure and anaesthetic technique. To reduce the fluctuation in blood pressure, it is advisable for patients to be given a regional anaesthetic. Current therapy for hypertension appears to exaggerate the depressant effects of anaesthetic drugs. Care must be taken not only to prevent hypertensive episodes during surgery, but also hypotension.
    Matched MeSH terms: Perioperative Care*
  6. Tan BL, Lim TA
    Med J Malaysia, 2006 Mar;61(1):122-4.
    PMID: 16708751
    Surgery induces a 'stress' state leading to post-operative hyperglycaemia. To investigate this effect on patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, we reviewed the records of 50 diabetic patients who underwent surgery without intraoperative insulin. Demographic features together with pre-operative and post-operative blood glucose readings were noted. 27.3% of patients with well controlled pre-operative blood glucose levels developed post-operative hyperglycaemia. In contrast, 84.6% of patients with poorly controlled levels developed the same. Poor control of blood glucose and duration of operation were the only significant predictors of post-operative hyperglycaemia.
    Matched MeSH terms: Perioperative Care/standards*
  7. Inbasegaran K, Kandasami P, Sivalingam N
    Med J Malaysia, 1998 Dec;53(4):334-42.
    PMID: 10971975
    An audit of all perioperative deaths within seven days of surgery in 14 major public hospitals is presented. This study is part of a quality assurance programme examining the surgical and anaesthetic practices in these hospitals. During the study period from July 1992 till June 1994, 211,354 surgeries were performed and 715 deaths were reported out of which 699 were available for analysis. The data was obtained by confidential enquiry using predetermined questionnaires filled by participating surgeons and anaesthetists and analysed by a group of peers. The overall crude mortality rate was 0.34% and the majority of the deaths occurred in severely ill patients in whom the clinical management was satisfactory. Polytrauma including head, intra-abdominal and skeletal trauma accounted for 253 of the deaths (36.19%). The other causes were bowel obstruction with sepsis, burns, ischaemic limbs, congenital malformations in neonates and pregnancy-related hemorrhage. 62.52% of the deaths occurred within two days of surgery and 85.87% were related to emergency procedures. The review identified some shortfalls in perioperative care and these were lack of adequate critical care facilities, lack of supervision, unnecessary surgery in the moribund and inadequate preoperative optimisation. The results of the study have been forwarded to all participating hospitals for implementation of remedial measures.
    Matched MeSH terms: Perioperative Care/mortality*
  8. Koh W, Chakravarthy M, Simon E, Rasiah R, Charuluxananan S, Kim TY, et al.
    BMC Anesthesiol, 2021 08 16;21(1):205.
    PMID: 34399681 DOI: 10.1186/s12871-021-01414-6
    BACKGROUND: Anesthesia leads to impairments in central and peripheral thermoregulatory responses. Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia is hence a common perioperative complication, and is associated with coagulopathy, increased surgical site infection, delayed drug metabolism, prolonged recovery, and shivering. However, surveys across the world have shown poor compliance to perioperative temperature management guidelines. Therefore, we evaluated the prevalent practices and attitudes to perioperative temperature management in the Asia-Pacific region, and determined the individual and institutional factors that lead to noncompliance.

    METHODS: A 40-question anonymous online questionnaire was distributed to anesthesiologists and anesthesia trainees in six countries in the Asia-Pacific (Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, India and South Korea). Participants were polled about their current practices in patient warming and temperature measurement across the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative periods. Questions were also asked regarding various individual and environmental barriers to compliance.

    RESULTS: In total, 1154 valid survey responses were obtained and analyzed. 279 (24.2%) of respondents prewarm, 508 (44.0%) perform intraoperative active warming, and 486 (42.1%) perform postoperative active warming in the majority of patients. Additionally, 531 (46.0%) measure temperature preoperatively, 767 (67.5%) measure temperature intraoperatively during general anesthesia, and 953 (82.6%) measure temperature postoperatively in the majority of patients. The availability of active warming devices in the operating room (p 

    Matched MeSH terms: Perioperative Care*
  9. Lo SY, Teah MK, Ho YZ, Yeap TB
    BMJ Case Rep, 2021 Feb 05;14(2).
    PMID: 33547110 DOI: 10.1136/bcr-2020-241189
    A young man presented to our centre needing an urgent debridement of his postcraniotomy wound due to massive myiasis during the COVID-19 pandemic in October 2020. Prior to the surgery, his nasopharyngeal swab real-time PCR test result was unknown. One day later, it returned as SARS-CoV-2 positive. All healthcare workers who were involved in the patient management avoided cross infection as they wore appropriate personal protective equipment. This article depicts the importance of adequate preparations when handling potentially infectious patients and the perioperative issues associated with it.
    Matched MeSH terms: Perioperative Care/methods*
  10. Kwan MK, Chiu CK, Hasan MS, Tan SH, Loh LH, Yeo KS, et al.
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2019 03 15;44(6):E348-E356.
    PMID: 30130336 DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002848
    STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study.

    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the perioperative outcome of dual attending surgeon strategy for severe adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients with Cobb angle more than or equal to 90°.

    SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The overall complication rate for AIS remains significant and is higher in severe scoliosis. Various operative strategies had been reported for severe scoliosis. However the role of dual attending surgeon strategy in improving the perioperative outcome in severe scoliosis has not been investigated.

    METHODS: The patients were stratified into two groups, Cobb angles 90° to 100° (Group 1) and more than 100° (Group 2). Demographic, intraoperative, preoperative, and postoperative day 2 data were collected. The main outcome measures were intraoperative blood loss, use of allogeneic blood transfusion, operative time, duration of hospital stay postsurgery, and documentation of any perioperative complications.

    RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were recruited. The mean age for the whole cohort was 16.2 ± 5.2 years old. The mean age of Group 1 was 16.7 ± 5.7 and Group 2 was 15.6 ± 4.8 years old. The majority of the patients in both groups were Lenke 2 curves with the average Cobb angle of 93.9 ± 3.0° in Group 1 and 114.2 ± 10.2° in Group 2. The average operative time was 198.5 ± 47.5 minutes with an average blood loss of 1699.5 ± 939.3 mL. The allogeneic blood transfusion rate was 17.6%. The average length of stay postoperation was 71.6 ± 22.5 hours. When comparing the patients between Group 1 and Group 2, the operating time, total blood loss, allogeneic transfusion rate showed significant intergroup differences. Five complications were documented (one intraoperative seizure, one massive blood loss, one intraoperative loss of somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) signal, and two superficial wound breakdown).

    CONCLUSION: Dual attending surgeon strategy in severe AIS more than or equal to 90° demonstrated an average operative time of 199 minutes, intraoperative blood loss of 1.7 L, postoperative hospital stay of 71.6 hours, and a complication rate of 5.9% (5/85 patients). Curves with Cobb angle more than 100° lead to longer operating time, greater blood loss, and allogeneic transfusion rate.

    LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

    Matched MeSH terms: Perioperative Care/methods; Perioperative Care/trends*
  11. Mihara Y, Chung WH, Chiu CK, Hasan MS, Lee SY, Ch'ng PY, et al.
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2020 Mar 15;45(6):381-389.
    PMID: 31574058 DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003274
    STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study from a prospectively collected database.

    OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative outcome between after-hours and daytime surgery carried out by a dedicated spinal deformity team for severe Idiopathic Scoliosis (IS) patients with Cobb angle ≥ 90°.

    SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There were concerns that after-hours corrective surgeries in severe IS have higher morbidity compared to daytime surgeries.

    METHODS: Seventy-one severe IS patients who underwent single-staged Posterior Spinal Fusion (PSF) were included. Surgeries performed between 08:00H and 16:59H were classified as "daytime" group and surgeries performed between 17:00H and 06:00H were classified as "after-hours" group. Perioperative outcome parameters were average operation start time and end time, operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative hemodynamic parameters, preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin, blood transfusion rate, total patient-controlled anesthesia (PCA) morphine usage, length of postoperative hospitalization, and complications. Radiological variables assessed were preoperative and postoperative Cobb angle, side bending flexibility, number of fusion levels, number of screws used, Correction Rate, and Side Bending Correction Index.

    RESULTS: Thirty patients were operated during daytime and 41 patients were operated after-hours. The mean age was 16.1 ± 5.8 years old. The mean operation start time for daytime group was 11:31 ± 2:45H versus 19:10 ± 1:24H for after-hours group. There were no significant differences between both groups in the operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative hemodynamic parameters, postoperative hemoglobin, hemoglobin drift, transfusion rate, length of postoperative hospitalization, postoperative Cobb angle, Correction Rate, and Side Bending Correction Index. There were four complications (1 SSEP loss, 1 massive blood loss, and 2 superficial wound infections) with no difference between daytime and after-hours group.

    CONCLUSION: After-hours elective spine deformity corrective surgeries in healthy ambulatory patients with severe IS performed by a dedicated spinal deformity team using dual attending surgeon strategy were as safe as those performed during daytime.

    LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

    Matched MeSH terms: Perioperative Care/methods*; Perioperative Care/trends
  12. Liew NC, Moissinac K, Lee L, Gee T, Zezeman RB
    Med J Malaysia, 2011 Oct;66(4):386-8; quiz 389.
    PMID: 22299571 MyJurnal
    There has been much progress made in the management of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in the past two decades. Progress in the understanding of the endothelial-platelet interaction during health and disease state have resulted in better antiplatelet drugs that can prevent platelet aggregation, activation and thrombosis during angioplasty and stenting. Collaborative effort by different international societies has resulted in a consensus guideline that recommends the modality of intervention in certain disease states. Progress in perioperative care has reduced the morbidity and mortality associated with peripheral vascular reconstruction surgery. Nevertheless, the advances in percutaneous peripheral intervention (PPI) have made a paradigm shift in the current management of patients. The procedure is safe and effective and is emerging as the first choice revascularization procedure.
    Matched MeSH terms: Perioperative Care
  13. Jacka MJ, Guyatt G, Mizera R, Van Vlymen J, Ponce de Leon D, Schricker T, et al.
    Anesth Analg, 2018 04;126(4):1150-1157.
    PMID: 29369093 DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002804
    BACKGROUND: Perioperative β-blockade reduces the incidence of myocardial infarction but increases that of death, stroke, and hypotension. The elderly may experience few benefits but more harms associated with β-blockade due to a normal effect of aging, that of a reduced resting heart rate. The tested hypothesis was that the effect of perioperative β-blockade is more significant with increasing age.

    METHODS: To determine whether the effect of perioperative β-blockade on the primary composite event, clinically significant hypotension, myocardial infarction, stroke, and death varies with age, we interrogated data from the perioperative ischemia evaluation (POISE) study. The POISE study randomly assigned 8351 patients, aged ≥45 years, in 23 countries, undergoing major noncardiac surgery to either 200 mg metoprolol CR daily or placebo for 30 days. Odds ratios or hazard ratios for time to events, when available, for each of the adverse effects were measured according to decile of age, and interaction term between age and treatment was calculated. No adjustment was made for multiple outcomes.

    RESULTS: Age was associated with higher incidences of the major outcomes of clinically significant hypotension, myocardial infarction, and death. Age was associated with a minimal reduction in resting heart rate from 84.2 (standard error, 0.63; ages 45-54 years) to 80.9 (standard error, 0.70; ages >85 years; P < .0001). We found no evidence of any interaction between age and study group regarding any of the major outcomes, although the limited sample size does not exclude any but large interactions.

    CONCLUSIONS: The effect of perioperative β-blockade on the major outcomes studied did not vary with age. Resting heart rate decreases slightly with age. Our data do not support a recommendation for the use of perioperative β-blockade in any age subgroup to achieve benefits but avoid harms. Therefore, current recommendations against the use of β-blockers in high-risk patients undergoing noncardiac surgery apply across all age groups.

    Matched MeSH terms: Perioperative Care/adverse effects; Perioperative Care/methods*; Perioperative Care/mortality
  14. Choy YC, Lim WL, Ng SH
    Med J Malaysia, 2007 Oct;62(4):299-302.
    PMID: 18551933 MyJurnal
    The main goal of perioperative transfusion is to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with inadequate delivery of oxygen to the tissues during surgery. In this audit, the primary trigger for transfusion was clinical anaemia assessed by examination of a patient's conjunctiva [40.7%] followed by estimation of blood loss of greater 20% of total blood volume [29.3%]. Haemoglobin estimation in the operation theater was not done in 45.9% of studied patients and only 7.8% patients had transfusion based on this criteria. A common practice is to transfuse blood for hypovolaemia. This was the indication for blood transfusion in 96 patients (7.8%). Inappropriate use of blood in this way has led to wastage of a valuable resource and exposed patients to potential risks of unwanted side effects. Analysis of haemoglobin estimation at recovery room showed 32% of patient with co-morbidities had Hb > 10 gm% while 65% and 29.5% of patients without co-morbidities had Hb > 8 gm% and 10 gm% respectively. This reflects the practice of anaesthetists in maintaining a target of Hb of 10 gm% for both groups of patients while a target of 8 gm% is still relatively safe for patients with good cardiovascular reserves. This has resulted in signifant use of homologous blood which will certainly burden the blood bank and increase the cost of healthcare.
    Matched MeSH terms: Perioperative Care*
  15. Sartini C, Lomivorotov V, Pisano A, Riha H, Baiardo Redaelli M, Lopez-Delgado JC, et al.
    J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth, 2019 Oct;33(10):2685-2694.
    PMID: 31064730 DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2019.03.022
    OBJECTIVE: Reducing mortality is a key target in critical care and perioperative medicine. The authors aimed to identify all nonsurgical interventions (drugs, techniques, strategies) shown by randomized trials to increase mortality in these clinical settings.

    DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature followed by a consensus-based voting process.

    SETTING: A web-based international consensus conference.

    PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred fifty-one physicians from 46 countries.

    INTERVENTIONS: The authors performed a systematic literature search and identified all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing a significant increase in unadjusted landmark mortality among surgical or critically ill patients. The authors reviewed such studies during a meeting by a core group of experts. Studies selected after such review advanced to web-based voting by clinicians in relation to agreement, clinical practice, and willingness to include each intervention in international guidelines.

    MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The authors selected 12 RCTs dealing with 12 interventions increasing mortality: diaspirin-crosslinked hemoglobin (92% of agreement among web voters), overfeeding, nitric oxide synthase inhibitor in septic shock, human growth hormone, thyroxin in acute kidney injury, intravenous salbutamol in acute respiratory distress syndrome, plasma-derived protein C concentrate, aprotinin in high-risk cardiac surgery, cysteine prodrug, hypothermia in meningitis, methylprednisolone in traumatic brain injury, and albumin in traumatic brain injury (72% of agreement). Overall, a high consistency (ranging from 80% to 90%) between agreement and clinical practice was observed.

    CONCLUSION: The authors identified 12 clinical interventions showing increased mortality supported by randomized controlled trials with nonconflicting evidence, and wide agreement upon clinicians on a global scale.

    Matched MeSH terms: Perioperative Care/methods*
  16. Biccard BM, Sigamani A, Chan MTV, Sessler DI, Kurz A, Tittley JG, et al.
    Br J Surg, 2018 11;105(12):1591-1597.
    PMID: 30019751 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10925
    BACKGROUND: In the POISE-2 (PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation 2) trial, perioperative aspirin did not reduce cardiovascular events, but increased major bleeding. There remains uncertainty regarding the effect of perioperative aspirin in patients undergoing vascular surgery. The aim of this substudy was to determine whether there is a subgroup effect of initiating or continuing aspirin in patients undergoing vascular surgery.

    METHODS: POISE-2 was a blinded, randomized trial of patients having non-cardiac surgery. Patients were assigned to perioperative aspirin or placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of death or myocardial infarction at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included: vascular occlusive complications (a composite of amputation and peripheral arterial thrombosis) and major or life-threatening bleeding.

    RESULTS: Of 10 010 patients in POISE-2, 603 underwent vascular surgery, 319 in the continuation and 284 in the initiation stratum. Some 272 patients had vascular surgery for occlusive disease and 265 had aneurysm surgery. The primary outcome occurred in 13·7 per cent of patients having aneurysm repair allocated to aspirin and 9·0 per cent who had placebo (hazard ratio (HR) 1·48, 95 per cent c.i. 0·71 to 3·09). Among patients who had surgery for occlusive vascular disease, 15·8 per cent allocated to aspirin and 13·6 per cent on placebo had the primary outcome (HR 1·16, 0·62 to 2·17). There was no interaction with the primary outcome for type of surgery (P = 0·294) or aspirin stratum (P = 0·623). There was no interaction for vascular occlusive complications (P = 0·413) or bleeding (P = 0·900) for vascular compared with non-vascular surgery.

    CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the overall POISE-2 results apply to vascular surgery. Perioperative withdrawal of chronic aspirin therapy did not increase cardiovascular or vascular occlusive complications. Registration number: NCT01082874 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

    Matched MeSH terms: Perioperative Care/methods; Perioperative Care/mortality
  17. Sessler DI, Conen D, Leslie K, Yusuf S, Popova E, Graham M, et al.
    Anesthesiology, 2020 04;132(4):692-701.
    PMID: 32022771 DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000003158
    BACKGROUND: The authors previously reported that perioperative aspirin and/or clonidine does not prevent a composite of death or myocardial infarction 30 days after noncardiac surgery. Moreover, aspirin increased the risk of major bleeding and clonidine caused hypotension and bradycardia. Whether these complications produce harm at 1 yr remains unknown.

    METHODS: The authors randomized 10,010 patients with or at risk of atherosclerosis and scheduled for noncardiac surgery in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to clonidine/aspirin, clonidine/aspirin placebo, clonidine placebo/aspirin, or clonidine placebo/aspirin placebo. Patients started taking aspirin or placebo just before surgery; those not previously taking aspirin continued daily for 30 days, and those taking aspirin previously continued for 7 days. Patients were also randomly assigned to receive clonidine or placebo just before surgery, with the study drug continued for 72 h.

    RESULTS: Neither aspirin nor clonidine had a significant effect on the primary 1-yr outcome, a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction, with a 1-yr hazard ratio for aspirin of 1.00 (95% CI, 0.89 to 1.12; P = 0.948; 586 patients [11.8%] vs. 589 patients [11.8%]) and a hazard ratio for clonidine of 1.07 (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.20; P = 0.218; 608 patients [12.1%] vs. 567 patients [11.3%]), with effect on death or nonfatal infarction. Reduction in death and nonfatal myocardial infarction from aspirin in patients who previously had percutaneous coronary intervention at 30 days persisted at 1 yr. Specifically, the hazard ratio was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.95) in those with previous percutaneous coronary intervention and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.91to 1.16) in those without (interaction P = 0.033). There was no significant effect of either drug on death, cardiovascular complications, cancer, or chronic incisional pain at 1 yr (all P > 0.1).

    CONCLUSIONS: Neither perioperative aspirin nor clonidine have significant long-term effects after noncardiac surgery. Perioperative aspirin in patients with previous percutaneous coronary intervention showed persistent benefit at 1 yr, a plausible sub-group effect.

    Matched MeSH terms: Perioperative Care/adverse effects; Perioperative Care/methods*
  18. Azman M, Mohd Yunus MR, Sulaiman S, Syed Omar SN
    Head Neck, 2015 Dec;37(12):1799-807.
    PMID: 24992652 DOI: 10.1002/hed.23839
    Glutamine supplementation is a novel approach to perioperative nutritional management.
    Matched MeSH terms: Perioperative Care/methods
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links