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

HDL a negative risk factor? or cholesterol efflux??

Although the data on HDL being protective of atherosclerotic disease is pretty consistent, there are negative studies, and the data on medications which dramatically improve HDL levels (eg, the cholesteryl ester transfer protein --CETP --inhibitors, such as torcetrapib) are clinically disappointing. there have been several explanations for this. for example, some HDL particles are "pro-inflammatory" and elicit an atherosclerotic response (which may be related to apolipoprotein C-III). a new article in NEJM highlights another angle -- that the issue is not the HDL number, but HDL's functionality in the reverse transport of cholesterol, as measured by the cholesterol efflux capacity (see  lipids HDL efflux capacity vs amt NEJM 2014 in dropbox, or  DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1409065). This article looks at the Dallas Heart Study, where they measured HDL levels, HDL particle concentrations, and cholesterol efflux capacity in 2924 adults free of cardiovascular disease and followed p
Read more

Drug company shenanigans: narcolepsy drug

I have not done a blog for a long time on drug company shenanigans. So it is my great pleasure to bring up a brand-new drug company approach to garner huge amounts of money (see  https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/28/business/jazz-narcolepsy-avadel-patents.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare  ).  Based on an article by  Rebecca Robbins of the New York Times, who has written several articles on drug company excesses   As background, this will be my 42 nd  such blog: for the array, see  https://bucommunitymed.wpengine.com/page/4/?s=drug+company+shenanigans   Th e drug company  approach  this time  to extending  their  patents has a few “interesting” angles: -- this is a medication manufactured by Jazz Pharmaceuticals to treat narcolepsy: there are 2 versions: Xyrem and Xywav (Xywav has less sodium, so is marketed to those who should be on a low sodium diet). These meds are basically derivatives of gammahydroxybutyric acid (GHB)      -- the drug actually has a pretty
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 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:              -- there is very clear evidence that there are many individual risk factors that are associated with increased risk of a cardiovascu
Read more