Effectiveness of nurse-led preoperative assessment services for elective surgery : a systematic review

Background--The admission and assessment of patients for elective procedures is a task faced by all healthcare organisations that provide elective surgical services. Several different strategies have been used to facilitate the management of these tasks. Nurse-led preadmission clinics or services have been implemented in many health services as one of these management strategies; however their effectiveness has not been established. Objectives--The objective of this review was to examine the available research on the effectiveness of nurse-led elective surgery preoperative assessment clinics or services on patient outcomes.--Results--Of the 19 included articles, there were 10 audits of patient and hospital data, 3 surveys or questionnaires, 3 descriptive studies, 1 action research design, 1 prospective observational study and 1 RCT. Five of ten studies reporting data on cancellations rates found that nurse-led preadmission services reduced the number of day-of-surgery cancellations. Non-attendance for surgery was also reduced, with nine studies reporting decreases in the number of patients failing to attend. Eight studies reporting data on patient or parent satisfaction found high levels of satisfaction with nurse-led preadmission services. Three of four studies investigating the effect of the nurse-led preadmission service on patient anxiety found a reduction in reported anxiety levels. Three studies found that preoperative preparation was enhanced by the use of a nurse-led preadmission service.--Conclusions--While all included studies reported evidence of effectiveness for nurse-led preadmission services on a wide range of outcomes for elective surgery patients, the lack of experimental trials means that the level of evidence is low, and further research is needed.--Implications for practice--Nurse-led preadmission services may be an effective strategy for reducing procedural cancellations, failure to attend for procedures, and patient anxiety, however currently the evidence level is low.

Evaluation of DNA damage and lipoperoxidation of propofol in patients undergoing elective surgery

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Genotoxicity, cytotoxicity and gene expression in patients undergoing elective surgery under isoflurane anaesthesia

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Evaluation of DNA damage and lipoperoxidation of propofol in patients undergoing elective surgery

Inhaled anaesthetics have been studied regarding their genotoxic and mutagenic potential in vivo. Propofol differs from volatile anaesthetics because it does not show mutagenic effects and it has been reported to be an antioxidant. However, there are no studies with propofol and genotoxicity in vivo. The study aimed to evaluate the hypothesis that propofol is not genotoxic and it inhibits lipid peroxidation [malondialdehyde (MDA)] in patients undergoing propofol anaesthesia. ASA physical status I patients scheduled for elective surgery, lasting at least 90 min, were enrolled in this study. Initially, the estimated plasma concentration of propofol was targeted at 4 microg ml(-1) and then maintained at 2-4 microg ml(-1) until the end of surgery. Haemodynamic data were determined at baseline (before premedication) and in conjunction with target-controlled infusion of propofol: after tracheal intubation, 30, 60 and 90 min after anaesthesia induction and at the end of the surgery. Venous blood samples were collected at baseline, after tracheal intubation, at the end of the surgery and on the postoperative first day for evaluating DNA damage in white blood cells (WBCs), by comet assay, and MDA levels. Haemodynamic data did not differ among times. No statistically significant differences were observed for the levels of DNA damage in WBCs, nor in plasma MDA, among the four times. Propofol does not induce DNA damage in WBCs and does not alter MDA in plasma of patients.

Isoflurane and propofol contribute to increasing the antioxidant status of patients during minor elective surgery: a randomized clinical study

Isoflurane is a volatile halogenated anesthetic used especially for anesthesia maintenance whereas propofol is a venous anesthetic utilized for anesthesia induction and maintenance, and reportedly an antioxidant. However, there are still controversies related to isoflurane-induced oxidative stress and it remains unanswered whether the antioxidant effects occur in patients under propofol anesthesia.Taking into account the importance of better understanding the role of anesthetics on oxidative stress in anesthetized patients, the present study was designed to evaluate general anesthesia maintained with isoflurane or propofol on antioxidant status in patients who underwent minimally invasive surgeries.We conducted a prospective randomized trial in 30 adult patients without comorbidities who underwent elective minor surgery (septoplasty) lasting at least 2 h admitted to a Brazilian tertiary hospital.The patients were randomly allocated into 2 groups, according to anesthesia maintenance (isoflurane, n = 15 or propofol, n = 15). Peripheral blood samples were drawn before anesthesia (baseline) and 2-h after anesthesia induction.The primary outcomes were to investigate the effect of either isoflurane or propofol anesthesia on aqueous plasma oxidizability and total antioxidant performance (TAP) by fluorometry as well as several individual antioxidants by high-performance liquid chromatography. As secondary outcome, oxidized genetic damage (7,8-dihydro-8-oxoguanine, known as 8-oxo-Gua) was investigated by the comet assay.Both anesthesia techniques (isoflurane or propofol) for a 2-h period resulted in a significant decrease of plasma α-tocopherol, but not other antioxidants including uric acid, carotenoids, and retinol (P > 0.05). Propofol, in contrast to isoflurane anesthesia, significantly increased (P < 0.001) anti-inflammatory/antioxidant plasma γ-tocopherol concentration in patients. Both anesthesia types significantly enhanced hydrophilic antioxidant capacity and TAP, with no significant difference between them, and 8-oxo-Gua remained unchanged during anesthesia in both groups. In addition, both anesthetics showed antioxidant capacity in vitro.This study shows that anesthesia maintained with either propofol or isoflurane increase both hydrophilic and total antioxidant capacity in plasma, but only propofol anesthesia increases plasma γ-tocopherol concentration. Additionally, both types of anesthetics do not lead to oxidative DNA damage in patients without comorbidities undergoing minimally invasive surgery.

Elective foot and ankle surgery : activity and perioperative complications in Queensland public hospitals, Australia

Objective: To conduct an audit of elective foot and ankle surgery in Queensland public hospitals and to compare the frequency of these procedures performed to other states and territories of Australia. ---------- Methods: ICD-10-AM data was used to extract elective foot and ankle procedures from the Data Services Unit of Queensland Health, and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare between the years of 2000 and 2004. ---------- Results During the 4-year audit period 3846 primary procedures were performed during the 4-year period with a complication rate of 2.2% during the hospital admission period. Mean length of stay was 1.7 days. Post-operative infection rates were 0.26%. With the exception of Tasmania and the Northern Territory, Queensland performs the least number of elective foot and ankle procedures per capita per year in Australia. ---------- Conclusions This is the first reported audit of elective foot and ankle surgery for Queensland public hospitals. Complication rates cannot be directly compared to the literature as this data could only capture complications within hospital admission period. Fewer elective foot and ankle procedures were performed in Queensland public hospitals compared to all other mainland states of Australia during the data collection period.

The effectiveness of information-sharing interventions as a means to reduce anxiety in families waiting for surgical patients undergoing an elective surgical procedure : a systematic review protocol

Review question/objective What are the most effective information sharing strategies used to reduce anxiety in families of patients undergoing elective surgery? This review seeks to synthesize the best available evidence in relation to the most effective information-sharing intervention to reduce anxiety for families waiting for patients undergoing an elective surgical procedure. The specific objectives are to review the effectiveness of evidence of interventions designed to reduce the anxiety of families waiting whilst their loved one undergoes a surgical intervention. A variety of interventions exist and include surgical nurse liaison services, intraoperative reporting either by face-to-face or telephone delivery, informational cards, visual information screens, and intraoperative paging devices for families. Inclusion criteria Types of participants All studies of family members over 18 years of age waiting for patients undergoing an elective surgical procedure will be included, including those waiting for both adult and paediatric patients. Studies of families waiting for other patient populations, eg emergency surgery, chemotherapy or intensive care patients will be excluded. Types of intervention(s)/phenomena of interest All information-sharing Interventions for families of patients undergoing an elective surgical procedure will be included, including but not limited to: surgical nurse liaison services, in-person intraoperative reporting, visual information screens, paging devices, informational cards and telephone delivery of intraoperative progress reports. Interventions that take place during the intraoperative phase of care only will be included in the review. Preadmission information sharing interventions will be excluded. Types of outcomes The outcomes of interest include: Primary outcome: the level of anxiety amongst family members or close relatives whilst waiting for patients undergoing surgery, as measured by a validated instrument (such as the S-Anxiety portion of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory).4 Secondary outcomes: family satisfaction and other measurements that may be considered indicators of stress and anxiety, such as mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate.

Immunonutrition in gastrointestinal surgery.

Background: Patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery are at increased risk of developing complications. The use of immunonutrition (IN) in such patients is not widespread because the available data are heterogeneous, and some show contradictory results with regard to complications, mortality and length of hospital stay. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 1985 and September 2009 that assessed the clinical impact of perioperative enteral IN in major gastrointestinal elective surgery were included in a meta-analysis. Results: Twenty-one RCTs enrolling a total of 2730 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Twelve were considered as high-quality studies. The included studies showed significant heterogeneity with respect to patients, control groups, timing and duration of IN, which limited group analysis. IN significantly reduced overall complications when used before surgery (odds ratio (OR) 0.48, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.34 to 0.69), both before and after operation (OR 0.39, 0.28 to 0.54) or after surgery (OR 0.46, 0.25 to 0.84). For these three timings of IN administration, ORs of postoperative infection were 0.36 (0.24 to 0.56), 0.41 (0.28 to 0.58) and 0.53 (0.40 to 0.71) respectively. Use of IN led to a shorter hospital stay: mean difference -2.12 (95 per cent c.i. -2.97 to -1.26) days. Beneficial effects of IN were confirmed when low-quality trials were excluded. Perioperative IN had no influence on mortality (OR 0.90, 0.46 to 1.76). Conclusion: Perioperative enteral IN decreases morbidity and hospital stay but not mortality after major gastrointestinal surgery; its routine use can be recommended.

Lower levels of oxidative DNA damage and apoptosis in lymphocytes from patients undergoing surgery with propofol anesthesia

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Persistent symptoms after elective sigmoid resection for diverticulitis

PURPOSE: Despite technically successful surgery for diverticular disease, a significant group of patients who experience persistent or recurrent symptoms remains. This study was designed to determine the incidence and pattern of persistent symptoms and their association with peroperative parameters. METHODS: Follow-up (33 (range, 4-72) months) through structured interviews with patients who had surgery for diverticulitis in our department from December 1999 to November 2004 was conducted. Of 162 patients, 124 (76.5 percent) were available for follow-up. Nonparametric tests were used for comparison of patients who had undergone elective (n = 68) or emergency (n = 56) procedures. RESULTS: Of patients who had elective surgery, 25 percent suffered persistent symptoms, including painful constipation, painful abdominal distension, abdominal cramps, and frequent painful diarrhea. Neither the stage of disease (complicated or uncomplicated) nor the surgical technique (laparotomy or laparoscopy) were significantly related to the occurrence of symptoms. Recurrent diverticulitis was not observed. Similar results were obtained from comparisons with emergency patients. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of persistent symptoms after successful surgery for diverticular disease may be an additional reason to carefully discuss the indication for prophylactic surgery. In any case, preoperative counseling and informed consent regarding the possibility of persistent symptoms after prophylactic elective surgery is essential.

[Preoperative preparation of patients with cardiovascular disease for noncardiac surgery]

Preoperative preparation of patients with cardiovascular disease is best initiated by the general practitioner. Updated Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Care for Noncardiac Surgery have been published by the American Heart Association und American College of Cardiology (2007). Individual cardiac evaluation must take into account active cardiac conditions, functional capacity, additional clinical risk factors and surgical risk. Stable, asymptomatic patients with normal functional capacity can proceed to elective anesthesia and surgery without further cardiac evaluation. Active cardiac conditions require evaluation and treatment by a cardiology service prior to elective surgery. In stable patients with poor (<4 metabolic equivalents, MET) or unknown functional capacity and clinical risk factors, who are scheduled for intermediate- or high-risk surgery, further cardiac evaluation and preparation is to be considered. Established indicated beta blocker and statin medication is to be continued; timely institution of beta blocker medication (target heart rate, <65 bpm) may be required depending on the risk of surgery, the presence of coronary heart disease, and the number of clinical risk factors present. Following percutaneous coronary intervention, specific waiting periods are required prior to elective surgery. In patients on antiplatelet therapy, the risk of stopping it should be weighed against the benefit of reduction in bleeding complications from the planned surgery.