MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292475664 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000006185

Potentially Inappropriate Medication Administration Is Associated With Adverse Postoperative Outcomes in Older Surgical Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

2022· article· en· W4292475664 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kevin G. Burfeind, Yalda Zarnegarnia, Praveen Tekkali, Avital Y. O’Glasser, Joseph F. Quinn, Katie J. Schenning

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeRetrospective cohort studyGeriatricsCohortIntensive care unitEmergency medicineAdverse effectBeers CriteriaPolypharmacyInternal medicineSurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The American Geriatrics Society (AGS) Beers Criteria is an explicit list of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) best avoided in adults ≥65 years of age. Cognitively impaired and frail surgical patients often experience poor outcomes after surgery, but the impacts of PIMs on these patients are unclear. Our objective was to assess whether perioperative PIM administration was associated with poor outcomes in geriatric surgical patients. We then evaluated the association between PIM administration and postoperative outcomes in subgroups of patients who were frail or cognitively impaired. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients ≥65 years of age who underwent elective inpatient surgery at a large academic medical center from February 2018 to January 2020. Edmonton Frail Scale and Mini-Cog screening tools were administered to all patients at their preoperative clinic visit. A Mini-Cog score of 0 to 2 was considered cognitive impairment, and frailty was defined by an Edmonton Frail Scale score of ≥8. Patients were divided into 2 groups depending on whether they received at least 1 PIM (PIM+), based on the 2019 AGS Beers Criteria, in the perioperative period or none (PIM-). We assessed the association of preoperative frailty, cognitive impairment, and perioperative PIM administration with the length of hospital stay and discharge disposition using multiple regression analyses adjusted for age, sex, ASA physical status, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. RESULTS: Of the 1627 included patients (mean age, 73.7 years), 69.3% (n = 1128) received at least 1 PIM. A total of 12.7% of patients were frail, and 11.1% of patients were cognitively impaired; 64% of the frail patients and 58% of the cognitively impaired patients received at least 1 PIM. Perioperative PIM administration was associated with longer hospital stay after surgery (PIM-, 3.56 ± 5.2 vs PIM+, 4.93 ± 5.66 days; P < .001; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.360-0.546). Frail patients who received PIMs had an average length of stay (LOS) that was nearly 2 days longer than frail patients who did not receive PIMs (PIM-, 4.48 ± 5.04 vs PIM+, 6.33 ± 5.89 days; P = .02). Multiple regression analysis revealed no significant association between PIM administration and proportion of patients discharged to a care facility (PIM+, 26.3% vs PIM-, 28.7%; P = .87; 95% CI, -0.046 to 0.054). CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative PIM administration was common in older surgical patients, including cognitively impaired and frail patients. PIM administration was associated with an increased hospital LOS, particularly in frail patients. There was no association found between PIM administration and discharge disposition.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207