Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Duncan Neuhauser x
  • By Author: Schiltz, Nicholas K. x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Andreea Seicean, Nicholas K. Schiltz, Sinziana Seicean, Nima Alan, Duncan Neuhauser and Robert J. Weil

Object

The utility of preoperative hemostasis screening to predict complications is uncertain. The authors quantified the screening rate in US neurosurgery patients and evaluated the ability of abnormal test results as compared with history-based risk factors to predict hemostasis-related and general outcomes.

Methods

Eleven thousand eight hundred four adult neurosurgery patients were identified in the 2006–2009 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Multivariate logistic regression modeled the ability of hemostatic tests and patient history to predict outcomes, that is, intra- and postoperative red blood cell [RBC] transfusion, return to the operating room [OR], and 30-day mortality. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using patient subgroups by procedure.

Results

Most patients underwent all 3 hemostatic tests (platelet count, prothrombin time/international normalized ratio [INR], activated partial thromboplastin time), but few had any of the outcomes of interest. The number of screening tests undergone was significantly associated with intraoperative RBC transfusion, a return to the OR, and mortality; an abnormal INR was associated with postoperative RBC transfusion. However, all tests had low sensitivity (0.09–0.2) and platelet count had low specificity (0.04–0.05). The association between patient history and each outcome was approximately the same across all tests, with higher sensitivity but lower specificity. Combining abnormal tests with patient history accounted for 50% of the mortality and 33% of each of the other outcomes.

Conclusions

This is the first study focused on assessing preoperative hemostasis screening as compared with patient history in a large multicenter sample of adult neurosurgery patients to predict hemostasis-related outcomes. Patient history was as predictive as laboratory testing for all outcomes, with higher sensitivity. Routine laboratory screening appears to have limited utility. Testing limited to neurosurgical patients with a positive history would save an estimated $81,942,000 annually.

Full access

Nima Alan, Andreea Seicean, Sinziana Seicean, Nicholas K. Schiltz, Duncan Neuhauser and Robert J. Weil

Object

The goal in this study was to assess whether a current or prior history of smoking and the number of smoking pack years affect the risk for adverse outcomes in the 30-day postoperative period in patients who undergo elective cranial surgery.

Methods

Data from the 2006–2011 American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Project were used in this study. The authors identified 8296 patients who underwent elective cranial surgery, of whom 1718 were current smokers, 854 were prior smokers, and 5724 were never smokers. Using propensity scores and age, the authors matched current and prior smokers to never smokers. Odds ratios for adverse postoperative outcomes were predicted with logistic regression. The relationship between number of pack years and poor outcomes was also examined.

Results

In unadjusted analyses, prior and current smokers did not differ from never smokers for having poor outcomes postoperatively. Similarly, in matched analyses, no association was found between smoking and adverse outcomes. Number of pack years in propensity-matched analyses did not predict worse outcomes in prior or current smokers versus never smokers.

Conclusions

The authors did not find smoking to be associated with 30-day postoperative morbidity or mortality. Although smoking cessation is beneficial for overall health, it may not improve the short-term (≤ 30 days) outcome of elective cranial surgery. Thus postponement of elective cranial cases only for smoking cessation may not be necessary.