MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791827025 · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000002124

Association of Polypharmacy with Survival, Complications, and Healthcare Resource Use after Elective Noncardiac Surgery

2018· article· en· W2791827025 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel I. McIsaac, Coralie A. Wong, Gregory L. Bryson, Carl van Walraven

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolypharmacyMedicineComorbidityMedical prescriptionPerioperativeHazard ratioEmergency medicineElective surgeryGeriatricsPopulationIntensive care medicineInternal medicineSurgeryPsychiatryEnvironmental healthConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is increasingly prevalent in older patients and is associated with adverse events among medical patients. The impact of polypharmacy on outcomes after elective surgery is poorly described. The authors' objective was to measure the association of polypharmacy with survival, complications, and resource use among older patients undergoing elective surgery. METHODS: After registration (NCT03133182), the authors identified all individuals older than 65 yr old having their first elective noncardiac surgery in Ontario, Canada, between 2002 and 2014. Using linked administrative data, the authors identified all prescriptions dispensed in the 90 days before surgery and classified people receiving five or more unique medications with polypharmacy. The associations of polypharmacy with 90-day survival (primary outcome), complications, length of stay, costs, discharge location, and readmissions were estimated after multilevel, multivariable adjustment for demographics, comorbidities, previous healthcare use, and surgical factors. Prespecified and post hoc sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS: Of 266,499 patients identified, 146,026 (54.8%) had polypharmacy. Death within 90 days occurred in 4,356 (3.0%) patients with polypharmacy and 1,919 (1.6%) without (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.21; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.27). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated no increase in effect when only high-risk medications were considered and attenuation of the effect when only prescriptions filled in the 30 preoperative days were considered (hazard ratio = 1.07). Associations were attenuated or not significant in patients with frailty and higher comorbidity scores. CONCLUSIONS: Older patients with polypharmacy represent a high-risk stratum of the perioperative population. However, the authors' findings call into question the causality and generalizability of the polypharmacy-adverse outcome association that is well documented in nonsurgical patients.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations78
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesiologySame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207