pre-operative testing

agency for healthcare research and quality (AHRQ) just came out with their synthesis of the data on routine preoperative testing (see link: http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction=displayproduct&productID=1846 ).  assessed literature on kids and adults of routine testing vs no testing or ad hoc testing, and routine vs per-protocol testing (per-protocol testing is testing a subset, eg EKG for those > 50yo, or hct in premenopausal women).  57 studies reviewed (14 comparative and 43 cohort). results:

good news: data for cataract surgery is the best: routine pre-op testing (EKG, metabolic panel or glucose, cbc) has no effect on total perioperative complications.

bad news: insufficient evidence for all other procedures and insufficient evidence comparing routine and per-protocol testing. no evidence regarding quality of life or satisfaction, resource utilization, or harms of testing.  and, results of cataract surgery pre-op is not applicable to other patients undergoing other higher risk procedures. even tonsillectomy/adenoidectomy in kids -- just one retrospective, flawed study, so unable to draw conclusions.

the issue is that there just are not enough good studies (though 4581 citations assessed). many studies done, but poor quality. good studies need to look at real benefits/risks, including positive outcomes by testing (fewer medical complications, appropriate changes in perioperative management) vs risks (false positives or irrelevant findings, leading to further testing with attendant complications -- medical and psychological; unnecessary delays in surgery; unnecessary radiation exposure; cost).

Comments

Post a Comment

if you would like to receive the near-daily emails regularly, please email me at gmodest@uphams.org

Popular posts from this blog

cystatin c: better predictor of bad outcomes than creatinine

  another article found significant discordance between creatinine and cystatin C in assessing renal function,  finding that the latter correlated most strongly with both renal and non-renal adverse clinical outcomes (see   ckd cystatin c better than creat AJKD2023  in  dropbox or doi: 10.1053/ j.ajkd.2023.04.002)   Details: -- 158,601 adults who were in the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) project and had testing of creatinine and cystatin C on the same day during a healthcare encounter, from 2010-2018     -- >400,000 outpatient tests were done for both creatinine and cystatin C levels -- mean age 62, 48% female -- mean eGFR by creatinine (   eGFR cr ) 80; mean eGFR by cystatin C ( eGFR cys  ) 73 -- mean stage of renal insufficiency: 39%  eGFR cr   90+; 38%  eGFR cr  60-89; 12%  eGFR cr  45-59; 7.1%  eGFR cr  30-44; 3.2%  eGFR cr  15-29, 0.7%  eGFR cr ...
Read more

diabetes DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of heart failure

the FDA just came out with a safety alert about 2 DPP-4 inhibitors and the increased risk of heart failure (released 04/05/2016)(see  http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm494252.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery ​ ). details: --saxagliptin and alogliptin were singled out because of 2 clinical trials in diabetic patients with heart disease. in each trial more patients taking these meds were hospitalized for heart failure vs those on placebo     --in the saxagliptin trial: 3.5% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 2.8% on placebo). risk factors included prior heart failure or kidney disease     --in the alogliptin trial: 3.9% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 3.3% on placebo) --recommendation by the FDA:     -- we should consider stopping these drugs if the patient develops heart failure ...
Read more

UPDATE: ASCVD risk factor critique

I decided to do an extensive update of my prior ASCVD (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) risk analysis and critique of risk calculators, with much more information about the “non-traditional” risk factors. I felt that there should be more data/clarification, since I think we are really undertreating/not preventing the most common cause of death by relying on the current ASCVD risk calculators   -- Cardiovascular risk models:      -- many of us rely on the various cardiovascular risk models to determine the appropriate approach to patients, and these are often integrated into the electronic medical records      -- these risk models have several very important limitations:          -- they are typically based on community data, eg from the Framingham study etc. But, in clinical practice, we are dealing with the individual and not the community:          ...
Read more