Search

Pharmacogenomics, which offers a potential means by which to inform prescribing and avoid adverse drug reactions, has gained increasing consideration in other medical settings but has not been broadly evaluated during perioperative care.The Implementation of Pharmacogenomic Decision Support in Surgery (ImPreSS) Trial is a prospective, single-center study consisting of a prerandomization pilot and a subsequent randomized phase. We describe findings from the pilot period. Patients planning elective surgeries were genotyped with pharmacogenomic results, and decision support was made available to anesthesia providers in advance of surgery. Pharmacogenomic result access and prescribing records were analyzed. Surveys (Likert-scale) were administered to providers to understand utilization barriers.Of eligible anesthesiology providers, 166 of 211 (79%) enrolled. A total of 71 patients underwent genotyping and surgery (median, 62 years; 55% female; average American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, 2.6; 58 inpatients and 13 ambulatories). No patients required postoperative intensive care or pain consultations. At least 1 provider accessed pharmacogenomic results before or during 41 of 71 surgeries (58%). Faculty were more likely to access results (78%) compared to house staff (41%; P = .003) and midlevel practitioners (15%) ( P.0001). Notably, all administered intraoperative medications had favorable genomic results with the exception of succinylcholine administration to 1 patient with genomically increased risk for prolonged apnea (without adverse outcome). Considering composite prescribing in preoperative, recovery, throughout hospitalization, and at discharge, each patient was prescribed a median of 35 (range 15-83) total medications, 7 (range 1-22) of which had annotated pharmacogenomic results. Of 2371 prescribing events, 5 genomically high-risk medications were administered (all tramadol or omeprazole; with 2 of 5 pharmacogenomic results accessed), and 100 genomically cautionary mediations were administered (hydralazine, oxycodone, and pantoprazole; 61% rate of accessing results). Providers reported that although results were generally easy to access and understand, the most common reason for not considering results was because remembering to access pharmacogenomic information was not yet a part of their normal clinical workflow.Our pilot data for result access rates suggest interest in pharmacogenomics by anesthesia providers, even if opportunities to alter prescribing in response to high-risk genotypes were infrequent. This pilot phase has also uncovered unique considerations for implementing pharmacogenomic information in the perioperative care setting, and new strategies including adding the involvement of surgery teams, targeting patients likely to need intensive care and dedicated pain care, and embedding pharmacists within rounding models will be incorporated in the follow-on randomized phase to increase engagement and likelihood of affecting prescribing decisions and clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Integration of pharmacogenomics into clinical care is being studied in multiple disciplines. We hypothesized that understanding attitudes and perceptions of anesthesiologists, critical care, and pain medicine providers would uncover unique considerations for future implementation within perioperative care. METHODS: A survey (multiple choice and Likert-scale) was administered to providers within our Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care prior to initiation of a department-wide prospective pharmacogenomics implementation program. The survey addressed knowledge, perceptions, experiences, resources, and barriers. RESULTS: Of 153 providers contacted, 149 (97%) completed the survey. Almost all providers (92%) said that genetic results influence drug therapy, and few (22%) were skeptical about the usefulness of pharmacogenomics. Despite this enthusiasm, 87% said their awareness about pharmacogenomic information is lacking. Feeling well-informed about pharmacogenomics was directly related to years in practice/experience: only 38% of trainees reported being well-informed, compared to 46% of those with 1–10 years of experience, and nearly two-thirds with 11+ years (p

Objective: Robotic totally endoscopic coronary bypass (R-TECAB) has been shown to be a safe and effective technique with excellent outcomes. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of R-TECAB in patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and to report our midterm outcomes with up to 7-year follow-up. Methods: All patients undergoing R-TECAB at our institution between July 2013 and July 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 100 patients were identified with low LVEF defined as ≤40%. The preoperative characteristics, perioperative and postoperative outcomes, as well as the midterm results were reviewed. Results: The mean LVEF was 31%, and 62% of all patients had preexisting congestive heart failure. Of the cohort, 59% had 3-vessel disease and 6% underwent previous cardiac surgery. Multivessel TECAB was performed in 54%. Hybrid coronary revascularization occurred in 36 individuals. Two patients required cardiopulmonary bypass, and 35% were extubated in the operating room. No sternotomy conversions were required. One patient underwent reoperation for bleeding. No perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction, or mortality occurred. The left internal mammary artery graft patency was 97% at a mean of 1.6 months in the staged hybrid percutaneous coronary intervention group. At midterm follow-up the cardiac-related mortality was 5%. Heart transplant or left ventricular assist device was required in 4 patients, and 1 patient experienced a myocardial infarction. Freedom from major adverse cardiac events was 89%. Conclusions: Off-pump TECAB can be successfully performed in patients with low LVEF in the setting of an experienced and dedicated robotic cardiac surgery team. Our data demonstrate the feasibility of the technique with excellent perioperative and midterm outcomes.

Neuraxial labor analgesia is associated with elevations in maternal temperature; the mechanism responsible is unknown. Proposed mechanisms have included infection, altered thermoregulation, and inflammation, potentially triggered by local anesthetics. Studies of the association between neuraxial labor analgesia and maternal fever have focused on epidural analgesia, and there have been no comparisons of the rate of maternal fever between continuous spinal and epidural labor analgesia.We performed a retrospective study to compare the rate of maternal fever between patients who received continuous spinal versus epidural labor analgesia between June 2012 and March 2020. Each patient who received continuous spinal analgesia was matched to 2 patients who received epidural analgesia and had the same nulliparous status. The primary outcome of our study was the incidence of intrapartum maternal fever, which we defined as any temperature ≥38 °C before delivery and compared between the continuous spinal and epidural groups using Fisher exact test.We identified 81 patients who received continuous spinal analgesia and 162 matched controls who received epidural analgesia. Demographic and obstetric characteristics of the patients were similar between groups. While the duration of analgesia did not significantly differ, there was markedly increased bupivacaine consumption in women with epidural analgesia. Eight of 81 (9.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.1-18.3) women with continuous spinal analgesia developed an intrapartum fever compared to 18 of 162 (11.1%; 95% CI, 7.1-16.9) of women with epidural analgesia ( P = .83; Fisher exact test).There was no significant difference in the rate of maternal fever between women with continuous spinal compared to epidural labor analgesia. While the route of administration and dose of bupivacaine differs between epidural and spinal labor analgesia, they are titrated to produce similar levels of neuraxial blockade. Our results are consistent with a model in which epidural related maternal fever is due to altered thermoregulation from a central neuraxial block and argue against a direct effect of bupivacaine or fentanyl, although we cannot rule out a concentration-independent effect of bupivacaine or fentanyl or an inflammatory effect of the catheter itself. These retrospective results highlight the importance of prospective and mechanistic study of neuraxial analgesia-related maternal fever.