Repeat surgery is worth considering in patients with intractable epilepsy if they continue to have debilitating episodes after the first procedure, according to a meta-analysis and systematic review that looked at 782 patients from 36 studies. But the success of repeat resection is dependent on several positive and negative predictive factors.

• Krucoff et al conducted the first quantitative meta-analysis of theresearch literature from the last 30 years to determine the rate of successful repeat surgeries and to find predictors.
• Congruent electrophysiology data was a better predictor of seizure freedom when compared to noncongruent data, with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.6.
• Freedom from seizures after repeat surgery was better predicted for lesional than nonlesional epilepsy (OR, 3.2).
• Another predictor of seizure freedom was surgical limitations, when compared to disease-related factors that had been associated with failure of the first surgery. (OR, 2.6).
• 58% of patients were seizure free after repeat resection if they had at least one of these predictive factors.

Krucoff MO, Chan AY, Harward SC, et al. Rates and predictors of success and failure in repeat epilepsy surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review. [Published online ahead of print October 10, 2017] Epilepsia. doi: 10.1111/epi.13920.

Repeat surgery is worth considering in patients with intractable epilepsy if they continue to have debilitating episodes after the first procedure, according to a meta-analysis and systematic review that looked at 782 patients from 36 studies. But the success of repeat resection is dependent on several positive and negative predictive factors.

• Krucoff et al conducted the first quantitative meta-analysis of theresearch literature from the last 30 years to determine the rate of successful repeat surgeries and to find predictors.
• Congruent electrophysiology data was a better predictor of seizure freedom when compared to noncongruent data, with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.6.
• Freedom from seizures after repeat surgery was better predicted for lesional than nonlesional epilepsy (OR, 3.2).
• Another predictor of seizure freedom was surgical limitations, when compared to disease-related factors that had been associated with failure of the first surgery. (OR, 2.6).
• 58% of patients were seizure free after repeat resection if they had at least one of these predictive factors.

Krucoff MO, Chan AY, Harward SC, et al. Rates and predictors of success and failure in repeat epilepsy surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review. [Published online ahead of print October 10, 2017] Epilepsia. doi: 10.1111/epi.13920.

Repeat surgery is worth considering in patients with intractable epilepsy if they continue to have debilitating episodes after the first procedure, according to a meta-analysis and systematic review that looked at 782 patients from 36 studies. But the success of repeat resection is dependent on several positive and negative predictive factors.

• Krucoff et al conducted the first quantitative meta-analysis of theresearch literature from the last 30 years to determine the rate of successful repeat surgeries and to find predictors.
• Congruent electrophysiology data was a better predictor of seizure freedom when compared to noncongruent data, with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.6.
• Freedom from seizures after repeat surgery was better predicted for lesional than nonlesional epilepsy (OR, 3.2).
• Another predictor of seizure freedom was surgical limitations, when compared to disease-related factors that had been associated with failure of the first surgery. (OR, 2.6).
• 58% of patients were seizure free after repeat resection if they had at least one of these predictive factors.

Krucoff MO, Chan AY, Harward SC, et al. Rates and predictors of success and failure in repeat epilepsy surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review. [Published online ahead of print October 10, 2017] Epilepsia. doi: 10.1111/epi.13920.

SAN DIEGO – Epilepsy is a common condition, but many people live in areas too poor or underserved to benefit from electroencephalogram (EEG) testing to confirm a diagnosis. Modern technology may be changing that. Smartphones wirelessly linked to headsets can collect EEG data and potentially serve as an alternate platform for diagnosis of epilepsy.

To test the efficacy of one such system, Farrah Mateen, MD, PhD, a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, conducted a study in the remote, mountainous Kingdom of Bhutan, which lies between India and China. Her group compared the signals between a smartphone EEG and standard EEG.

The sensitivity was low, at around 40%, but the device’s specificity was 90%-95%. For now, the device performs better as a confirmatory test than as a screening device, but the researchers hope to adjust the lead location to improve sensitivity.

The headset used was designed for use by video gamers, and at a cost of less than $300, it represents a low-cost entry into portable EEG.

Dr. Mateen discussed the smartphone EEG study in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Neurological Association.

SAN DIEGO – Epilepsy is a common condition, but many people live in areas too poor or underserved to benefit from electroencephalogram (EEG) testing to confirm a diagnosis. Modern technology may be changing that. Smartphones wirelessly linked to headsets can collect EEG data and potentially serve as an alternate platform for diagnosis of epilepsy.

To test the efficacy of one such system, Farrah Mateen, MD, PhD, a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, conducted a study in the remote, mountainous Kingdom of Bhutan, which lies between India and China. Her group compared the signals between a smartphone EEG and standard EEG.

The sensitivity was low, at around 40%, but the device’s specificity was 90%-95%. For now, the device performs better as a confirmatory test than as a screening device, but the researchers hope to adjust the lead location to improve sensitivity.

The headset used was designed for use by video gamers, and at a cost of less than $300, it represents a low-cost entry into portable EEG.

Dr. Mateen discussed the smartphone EEG study in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Neurological Association.

SAN DIEGO – Epilepsy is a common condition, but many people live in areas too poor or underserved to benefit from electroencephalogram (EEG) testing to confirm a diagnosis. Modern technology may be changing that. Smartphones wirelessly linked to headsets can collect EEG data and potentially serve as an alternate platform for diagnosis of epilepsy.

To test the efficacy of one such system, Farrah Mateen, MD, PhD, a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, conducted a study in the remote, mountainous Kingdom of Bhutan, which lies between India and China. Her group compared the signals between a smartphone EEG and standard EEG.

The sensitivity was low, at around 40%, but the device’s specificity was 90%-95%. For now, the device performs better as a confirmatory test than as a screening device, but the researchers hope to adjust the lead location to improve sensitivity.

The headset used was designed for use by video gamers, and at a cost of less than $300, it represents a low-cost entry into portable EEG.

Dr. Mateen discussed the smartphone EEG study in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Neurological Association.

Magnetic resonance-guided laser interstitial therapy (MRgLITT) is as efficacious as open surgery for patients with medically intractable epilepsy, according to a recent review of the research literature. 

• MRgLITT can effectively ablate seizure foci without disrupting neuropsychological functioning.
• The procedure allows clinicians to receive real-time feedback and lets them monitor tissue ablation.
• By contrast, open surgery can control seizures but risks complications, including cognitive problems and neurologic deficits.
• Patients who undergo MRgLITT will likely spend less time in the hospital and experience less postoperative pain, when compared to open surgical procedures.
• Although the research comparing open surgery to laser interstitial therapy suggests the latter offers advantages, the review points out that the research under consideration involved small sample sizes.
• Another limitation of the available studies is that they do not report the long-term outcomes of MRgLITT.

Shukla ND, Ho AL, Pendharkar AV, Sussman ES, Halpern CH. Laser interstitial thermal therapy for the treatment of epilepsy: evidence to date. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2017;13:2469-2475.

Magnetic resonance-guided laser interstitial therapy (MRgLITT) is as efficacious as open surgery for patients with medically intractable epilepsy, according to a recent review of the research literature. 

• MRgLITT can effectively ablate seizure foci without disrupting neuropsychological functioning.
• The procedure allows clinicians to receive real-time feedback and lets them monitor tissue ablation.
• By contrast, open surgery can control seizures but risks complications, including cognitive problems and neurologic deficits.
• Patients who undergo MRgLITT will likely spend less time in the hospital and experience less postoperative pain, when compared to open surgical procedures.
• Although the research comparing open surgery to laser interstitial therapy suggests the latter offers advantages, the review points out that the research under consideration involved small sample sizes.
• Another limitation of the available studies is that they do not report the long-term outcomes of MRgLITT.

Shukla ND, Ho AL, Pendharkar AV, Sussman ES, Halpern CH. Laser interstitial thermal therapy for the treatment of epilepsy: evidence to date. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2017;13:2469-2475.

Magnetic resonance-guided laser interstitial therapy (MRgLITT) is as efficacious as open surgery for patients with medically intractable epilepsy, according to a recent review of the research literature. 

• MRgLITT can effectively ablate seizure foci without disrupting neuropsychological functioning.
• The procedure allows clinicians to receive real-time feedback and lets them monitor tissue ablation.
• By contrast, open surgery can control seizures but risks complications, including cognitive problems and neurologic deficits.
• Patients who undergo MRgLITT will likely spend less time in the hospital and experience less postoperative pain, when compared to open surgical procedures.
• Although the research comparing open surgery to laser interstitial therapy suggests the latter offers advantages, the review points out that the research under consideration involved small sample sizes.
• Another limitation of the available studies is that they do not report the long-term outcomes of MRgLITT.

Shukla ND, Ho AL, Pendharkar AV, Sussman ES, Halpern CH. Laser interstitial thermal therapy for the treatment of epilepsy: evidence to date. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2017;13:2469-2475.

Efficacy data from adult clinical trials of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) can be used to determine the efficacy of these agents in children according to a recent analysis published in Epilepsia.

• The need for efficacious AEDs for children is urgent given the fact that epileptic seizures are the most common serious neurological problem in this population.
• The pathophysiology of focal epilepsy in children is similar to that found in adults, based on anatomical and neurophysiological evidence.
• The structural and physiological features that underlie seizures in adults and children aged 2 years and older are similar and justify extrapolation of efficacy data from adults to children.
• However, these similarities do not justify extrapolating pharmacokinetic, tolerability, and safety data from adults to children.
• Similarly, published data do not allow one to assume that long-term follow-up in children on AEDs will be the same as follow-up results in adults.

Pellock JM, Arzimanoglou A, D’Cruz O, Holmes GL, Nordli D, Shinnar S; Pediatric Epilepsy Academic Consortium for Extrapolation. Extrapolating evidence of antiepileptic drug efficacy in adults to children ≥2 years of age with focal seizures: The case for disease similarity. Epilepsia. 2017;58(10):1686-1696.

Efficacy data from adult clinical trials of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) can be used to determine the efficacy of these agents in children according to a recent analysis published in Epilepsia.

• The need for efficacious AEDs for children is urgent given the fact that epileptic seizures are the most common serious neurological problem in this population.
• The pathophysiology of focal epilepsy in children is similar to that found in adults, based on anatomical and neurophysiological evidence.
• The structural and physiological features that underlie seizures in adults and children aged 2 years and older are similar and justify extrapolation of efficacy data from adults to children.
• However, these similarities do not justify extrapolating pharmacokinetic, tolerability, and safety data from adults to children.
• Similarly, published data do not allow one to assume that long-term follow-up in children on AEDs will be the same as follow-up results in adults.

Pellock JM, Arzimanoglou A, D’Cruz O, Holmes GL, Nordli D, Shinnar S; Pediatric Epilepsy Academic Consortium for Extrapolation. Extrapolating evidence of antiepileptic drug efficacy in adults to children ≥2 years of age with focal seizures: The case for disease similarity. Epilepsia. 2017;58(10):1686-1696.

Efficacy data from adult clinical trials of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) can be used to determine the efficacy of these agents in children according to a recent analysis published in Epilepsia.

• The need for efficacious AEDs for children is urgent given the fact that epileptic seizures are the most common serious neurological problem in this population.
• The pathophysiology of focal epilepsy in children is similar to that found in adults, based on anatomical and neurophysiological evidence.
• The structural and physiological features that underlie seizures in adults and children aged 2 years and older are similar and justify extrapolation of efficacy data from adults to children.
• However, these similarities do not justify extrapolating pharmacokinetic, tolerability, and safety data from adults to children.
• Similarly, published data do not allow one to assume that long-term follow-up in children on AEDs will be the same as follow-up results in adults.

Pellock JM, Arzimanoglou A, D’Cruz O, Holmes GL, Nordli D, Shinnar S; Pediatric Epilepsy Academic Consortium for Extrapolation. Extrapolating evidence of antiepileptic drug efficacy in adults to children ≥2 years of age with focal seizures: The case for disease similarity. Epilepsia. 2017;58(10):1686-1696.

Editor’s note: The Society of Hospital Medicine’s (SHM’s) Physician in Training Committee launched a scholarship program in 2015 for medical students to help transform health care and revolutionize patient care. The program has been expanded for the 2017-2018 year, offering two options for students to receive funding and engage in scholarly work during their first, second, and third years of medical school. As a part of the longitudinal (18-month) program, recipients are required to write about their experience on a monthly basis.

Vanderbilt University Medical Center will be converting to the most common electronic medical record (EMR) systems used today: Epic. Until that time, Vanderbilt used a homegrown system to keep track of patient data. The “system” was actual comprised of a few separate programs that integrated data, depending on the functions being accessed and who was accessing them.

Monisha Bhatia, a native of Nashville, Tenn., is a fourth-year medical student at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. She is hoping to pursue either a residency in internal medicine or a combined internal medicine/emergency medicine program. Prior to medical school, she completed a JD/MPH program at Boston University, and she hopes to use her legal training in working with regulatory authorities to improve access to health care for all Americans.

Editor’s note: The Society of Hospital Medicine’s (SHM’s) Physician in Training Committee launched a scholarship program in 2015 for medical students to help transform health care and revolutionize patient care. The program has been expanded for the 2017-2018 year, offering two options for students to receive funding and engage in scholarly work during their first, second, and third years of medical school. As a part of the longitudinal (18-month) program, recipients are required to write about their experience on a monthly basis.

Vanderbilt University Medical Center will be converting to the most common electronic medical record (EMR) systems used today: Epic. Until that time, Vanderbilt used a homegrown system to keep track of patient data. The “system” was actual comprised of a few separate programs that integrated data, depending on the functions being accessed and who was accessing them.

Monisha Bhatia, a native of Nashville, Tenn., is a fourth-year medical student at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. She is hoping to pursue either a residency in internal medicine or a combined internal medicine/emergency medicine program. Prior to medical school, she completed a JD/MPH program at Boston University, and she hopes to use her legal training in working with regulatory authorities to improve access to health care for all Americans.

Editor’s note: The Society of Hospital Medicine’s (SHM’s) Physician in Training Committee launched a scholarship program in 2015 for medical students to help transform health care and revolutionize patient care. The program has been expanded for the 2017-2018 year, offering two options for students to receive funding and engage in scholarly work during their first, second, and third years of medical school. As a part of the longitudinal (18-month) program, recipients are required to write about their experience on a monthly basis.

Vanderbilt University Medical Center will be converting to the most common electronic medical record (EMR) systems used today: Epic. Until that time, Vanderbilt used a homegrown system to keep track of patient data. The “system” was actual comprised of a few separate programs that integrated data, depending on the functions being accessed and who was accessing them.

Monisha Bhatia, a native of Nashville, Tenn., is a fourth-year medical student at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. She is hoping to pursue either a residency in internal medicine or a combined internal medicine/emergency medicine program. Prior to medical school, she completed a JD/MPH program at Boston University, and she hopes to use her legal training in working with regulatory authorities to improve access to health care for all Americans.

Perioperative care is increasingly complex, and the rapid evolution of literature in this field makes it a challenge for clinicians to stay up-to-date. To help meet this challenge, we used a systematic approach to identify appropriate articles in the medical literature and then, by consensus, to develop a list of 6 clinical questions based on their novelty and potential to change perioperative medical practice:

• How should we screen for cardiac risk in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery?
• What is the appropriate timing for surgery after coronary intervention?
• Can we use statin therapy to reduce perioperative cardiac risk?
• How should we manage sleep apnea risk perioperatively?
• Which patients with atrial fibrillation should receive perioperative bridging anticoagulation?
• Is frailty screening beneficial for elderly patients before noncardiac surgery?

The summaries in this article are a composite of perioperative medicine updates presented at the Perioperative Medicine Summit and the annual meetings of the Society for General Internal Medicine and the Society of Hospital Medicine. “Perioperative care is complex and changing”^1–10 (page 864) offers a brief overview.

HOW TO SCREEN FOR CARDIAC RISK BEFORE NONCARDIAC SURGERY

Perioperative cardiac risk can be estimated by clinical risk indexes (based on history, physical examination, common blood tests, and electrocardiography), cardiac biomarkers (natriuretic peptide or troponin levels), and noninvasive cardiac tests.

American and European guidelines

In 2014, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association² and the European Society of Cardiology¹¹ published guidelines on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management. They recommended several tools to calculate the risk of postoperative cardiac complications but did not specify a preference. These tools include:

• The Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI)¹² (www.mdcalc.com/revised-cardiac-risk-index-pre-operative-risk), which has been externally validated in multiple studies and is the most widely used
• The American College of Surgeons surgical risk calculator¹³ (www.riskcalculator.facs.org), derived from the National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database
• The myocardial infarction or cardiac arrest (MICA) calculator¹⁴ (www.surgicalriskcalculator.com/miorcardiacarrest), also derived from the NSQIP database.

2017 Canadian guidelines differ

In 2017, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society published its own guidelines on perioperative risk assessment and management.¹ These differ from the American and European guidelines on several points.

RCRI recommended. The Canadian guidelines suggested using the RCRI over the other risk predictors, which despite superior discrimination lacked external validation (conditional recommendation; low-quality evidence). Additionally, the Canadians believed that the NSQIP risk indexes underestimated cardiac risk because patients did not undergo routine biomarker screening.

Biomarker measurement. The Canadian  guidelines went a step further in their algorithm (Figure 1) and recommended measuring N-terminal-pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) or BNP preoperatively to improve risk prediction in 3 groups (strong recommendation; moderate-quality evidence):

• Patients ages 65 and older
• Patients ages 45 to 64 with significant cardiovascular disease
• Patients with an RCRI score of 1 or more.

This differs from the American guidelines, which did not recommend measuring preoperative biomarkers but did acknowledge that they may provide incremental value. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association authors felt that there were no data to suggest that targeting these biomarkers for treatment and intervention would reduce postoperative risk. The European guidelines did not recommend routinely using biomarkers, but stated that they may be considered in high-risk patients (who have a functional capacity ≤ 4 metabolic equivalents or an RCRI score > 1 undergoing vascular surgery, or > 2 undergoing nonvascular surgery).

Stress testing deemphasized. The Canadian guidelines recommended biomarker testing rather than noninvasive tests to enhance risk assessment based on cost, potential delays in surgery, and absence of evidence of an overall absolute net improvement in risk reclassification. This contrasts with the American and European guidelines and algorithms, which recommended pharmacologic stress testing in patients at elevated risk with poor functional capacity undergoing intermediate- to high-risk surgery if the results would change how they are managed.

Postoperative monitoring. The Canadian guidelines recommended that if patients have an NT-proBNP level higher than 300 mg/L or a BNP level higher than 92 mg/L, they should receive  postoperative monitoring with electrocardiography in the postanesthesia care unit and daily troponin measurements for 48 to 72 hours. The American guidelines recommended postoperative electrocardiography and troponin measurement only for patients suspected of having myocardial ischemia, and the European guidelines said postoperative biomarkers may be considered in patients at high risk.

Physician judgment needed

While guidelines and risk calculators are potentially helpful in risk assessment, the lack of consensus and the conflicting recommendations force the physician to weigh the evidence and make individual decisions based on his or her interpretation of the data.

Until there are studies directly comparing the various risk calculators, physicians will most likely use the RCRI, which is simple and has been externally validated, in conjunction with the American guidelines.

At this time, it is unclear how biomarkers should be used—preoperatively, postoperatively, or both—because there are no studies demonstrating that management strategies based on the results lead to better outcomes. We do not believe that biomarker testing will be accepted in lieu of stress testing by our surgery, anesthesiology, or cardiology colleagues, but going forward, it will probably be used more frequently postoperatively, particularly in patients at moderate to high risk.

WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE TIMING FOR SURGERY AFTER PCI?

A 2014 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline recommended delaying noncardiac surgery for 1 month after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare-metal stents and 1 year after PCI with drug-eluting stents.¹⁵ The guideline suggested that surgery may be performed 6 months after drug-eluting stent placement if the risks of delaying surgery outweigh the risk of thrombosis.¹⁵

The primary rationale behind these timeframes was to provide dual antiplatelet therapy for a minimally acceptable duration before temporary interruption for a procedure. These recommendations were influenced largely by observational studies of first-generation devices, which are no longer used. Studies of newer-generation stents have suggested that the risk of stent thrombosis reaches a plateau considerably earlier than 6 to 12 months after PCI.

2016 Revised guideline on dual antiplatelet therapy

Although not separately delineated in the recommendations, risk factors for stent thrombosis that should influence the decision include smoking, multivessel coronary artery disease, and suboptimally controlled diabetes mellitus or hyperlipidemia.¹⁷ The presence of such stent thrombosis risk factors should be factored into the decision about proceeding with surgery within 3 to 6 months after drug-eluting stent placement.

Holcomb et al: Higher postoperative risk after PCI for myocardial infarction

Another important consideration is the indication for which PCI was performed. In a recent study, Holcomb et al¹⁶ found an association between postoperative major adverse cardiac events and PCI for myocardial infarction (MI) that was independent of stent type.

Compared with patients who underwent PCI not associated with acute coronary syndrome, the odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for major adverse cardiac events in those who underwent PCI for MI were:

• 5.25 (4.08–6.75) in the first 3 months
• 2.45 (1.80–3.35) in months 3 to 6
• 2.50 (1.90–3.28) in months 6 to 12.

In absolute terms, patients with stenting performed for an MI had an incidence of major adverse cardiac events of:

• 22.2% in the first 3 months
• 9.4% in months 3 to 6
• 5.8% in months 6 to 12
• 4.4% in months 12 to 24.

The perioperative risks were reduced after 12 months but still remained greater in patients whose PCI was performed for MI rather than another indication.¹⁶

The authors of this study suggested delaying noncardiac surgery for up to 6 months after PCI for MI, regardless of stent type.¹⁶

A careful, individualized approach

Optimal timing of noncardiac surgery PCI requires a careful, individualized approach and should always be coordinated with the patient’s cardiologist, surgeon, and anesthesiologist.^3,15 For most patients, surgery should be delayed for 30 days after bare-metal stent placement and 6 months after drug-eluting stent placement.³ However, for those with greater surgical need and less thrombotic risk, noncardiac surgery can be considered 3 to 6 months after drug-eluting stent placement.³

Additional discussion of the prolonged increased risk of postoperative major adverse cardiac events is warranted in patients whose PCI was performed for MI, in whom delaying noncardiac surgery for up to 6 months (irrespective of stent type) should be considered.¹⁶

CAN WE USE STATINS TO REDUCE PERIOPERATIVE RISK?

Current recommendations from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association support continuing statins in the perioperative period, but the evidence supporting starting statins in this period has yet to be fully determined. In 2013, a Cochrane review¹⁸ found insufficient evidence to conclude that statins reduced perioperative adverse cardiac events, though several large studies were excluded due to controversial methods and data.

In contrast, the Vascular Events in Noncardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation (VISION) study,⁴ a multicenter, prospective, cohort-matched study of approximately 7,200 patients, found a lower risk of a composite primary outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, or stroke at 30 days for patients exposed to statin therapy (relative risk [RR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.73–0.95, P = .007).⁴

London et al retrospective study: 30-day mortality rate is lower with statins

In 2017, London et al⁵ published the results of a very large retrospective, observational cohort study of approximately 96,000 elective or emergency surgery patients in Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals. The patients were propensity-matched and evaluated for exposure to statins on the day of or the day after surgery, for a total of approximately 48,000 pairs.

The primary outcome was death at 30 days, and statin exposure was associated with a significant reduction (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.75–0.89; P < .001). Significant risk reductions were demonstrated in nearly all secondary end points as well, except for stroke or coma and thrombosis (pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or graft failure). Overall, the number needed to treat to prevent any complication was 67. Statin therapy did not show significant harm, though on subgroup analysis, those who received high-intensity statin therapy had a slightly higher risk of renal injury (odds ratio 1.18, 95% CI 1.02–1.37, P = .03). Also on subgroup analysis, after propensity matching, patients on long-term moderate- or high-intensity statin therapy for 6 to 12 months before surgery had a small risk reduction for many of the outcomes, including death.

The authors also noted that only 62% of the patients who were prescribed statins as outpatients received them in the hospital, which suggests that improvement is necessary in educating perioperative physicians about the benefits and widespread support for continuing statins perioperatively.⁵

Both London et al⁵ and the VISION investigators⁴ called for a large randomized controlled trial of perioperative statin initiation. The Lowering the Risk of Operative Complications Using Atorvastatin Loading Dose (LOAD) trial attempted to answer this call.⁶

This trial randomized 648 statin-naïve Brazilian patients at high risk of perioperative cardiac events to receive either atorvastatin or placebo before surgery and then continuously for another 7 days. The primary outcomes were the rates of death, nonfatal myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, and cerebrovascular accident at 30 days.⁶

The investigators found no significant difference in outcomes between the two groups and estimated that the sample size would need to be approximately 7,000 patients to demonstrate a significant benefit. Nonetheless, this trial established that a prospective perioperative statin trial is feasible.

When to continue or start statins

Although we cannot recommend starting statins for all perioperative patients, perioperative statins clearly can carry significant benefit and should be continued in all patients who have been taking them. It is also likely beneficial to initiate statins in those patients who would otherwise warrant therapy based on the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations Risk calculator.¹⁹

HOW SHOULD WE MANAGE SLEEP APNEA RISK PERIOPERATIVELY?

From 20% to 30% of US men and 10% to 15% of US women have obstructive sleep apnea, and many are undiagnosed. Obstructive sleep apnea increases the risk of perioperative respiratory failure, unplanned reintubation, unplanned transfer to the intensive care unit, and death.²⁰ Sentinel events (unexpected respiratory arrest after surgery on general surgical wards) have prompted the development of guidelines that aim to identify patients with previously undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea before surgery and to develop approaches to reduce perioperative morbidity and mortality.

Kaw et al: Beware obesity hypoventilation syndrome

A 2016 study suggested that patients with obstructive sleep apnea and obesity hypoventilation syndrome may be at particularly high risk of perioperative complications.²¹

Kaw et al²¹ queried a database of patients with obstructive sleep apnea undergoing elective noncardiac surgery at Cleveland Clinic. All patients (N = 519) had obstructive sleep apnea confirmed by polysomnography, and a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m². The authors considered a patient to have obesity hypoventilation syndrome (n = 194) if he or she also had hypercapnia (Paco₂ ≥ 45 mm Hg) on at least 2 occasions before or after surgery.

In an adjusted analysis, the odds ratios and 95% CIs for adverse outcomes in patients with obesity hypoventilation syndrome were:

• 10.9 (3.7–32.3) for respiratory failure
• 5.4 (1.9–15.7) for heart failure
• 10.9 (3.7–32.3) for intensive care unit transfer.

The absolute increases in risk in the presence of obesity hypoventilation syndrome were:

• 19% (21% vs 2%) for respiratory failure
• 8% (8% vs 0) for heart failure
• 15% (21% vs 6%) for intensive care unit transfer.

There was no difference in rates of perioperative mortality.²¹

The authors proposed an algorithm to identify patients with possible obesity hypoventilation syndrome before surgery that included prior sleep study results, STOP-BANG score (Table 2),²² and serum bicarbonate level.

Important limitations of the study were that most patients with obesity hypoventilation syndrome were undiagnosed at the time of surgery. Still, the study does offer a tool to potentially identify patients at high risk for perioperative morbidity due to obesity hypoventilation syndrome. Clinicians could then choose to cancel nonessential surgery, propose a lower-risk alternative procedure, or maximize the use of strategies known to reduce perioperative risk for patients with obstructive sleep apnea in general.

Two guidelines on obstructive sleep apnea

Two professional societies have issued guidelines aiming to improve detection of previously undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea and perioperative outcomes in patients known to have it or suspected of having it:

• The American Society of Anesthesiologists in 2014²³ 
• The Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine in 2016.⁷

Both guidelines recommend that each institution develop a local protocol to screen patients for possible obstructive sleep apnea before elective surgery. The American Society of Anesthesiologists does not recommend any particular tool, but does recommend taking a history and performing a focused examination that includes evaluation of the airway, nasopharyngeal characteristics, neck circumference, and tonsil and tongue size. The Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine recommends using a validated tool such as the STOP-BANG score to estimate the risk of obstructive sleep apnea.

If this screening suggests that a patient has obstructive sleep apnea, should surgery be delayed until a formal sleep study can be done? Or should the patient be treated empirically as if he or she has obstructive sleep apnea?  Both professional societies recommend shared decision-making with the patient in this situation, with the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine recommending additional cardiopulmonary evaluation for patients with hypoventilation, severe pulmonary hypertension, or resting hypoxemia.

Both recommend using continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) after surgery in patients with known obstructive sleep apnea, although there is not enough evidence to determine if empiric CPAP for screening-positive patients (without polysomnography-diagnosed obstructive sleep apnea) is beneficial. The Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine advises that it is safe to proceed to surgery if obstructive sleep apnea is suspected as long as monitoring and risk-reduction strategies are implemented after surgery to reduce complication rates.

During surgery, the American Society of Anesthesiologists advises peripheral nerve blocks when appropriate, general anesthesia with a secure airway rather than deep sedation, capnography when using moderate sedation, awake extubation, and full reversal of neuromuscular blockade before extubation. After surgery, they recommend reducing opioid use, minimizing postoperative sedatives, supplemental oxygen, and continuous pulse oximetry. The Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine guideline addresses preoperative assessment and therefore makes no recommendations regarding postoperative care.

In conclusion, use of pertinent findings from the history and physical examination and a validated obstructive sleep apnea screening tool such as STOP-BANG before surgery are recommended, with joint decision-making as to proceeding with surgery with empiric CPAP vs a formal sleep study for patients who screen as high risk. The Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine recommends further cardiopulmonary evaluation if there is evidence of hypoventilation, hypoxemia, or pulmonary hypertension in addition to likely obstructive sleep apnea.

When patients receiving anticoagulation need surgery, we need to carefully assess the risks of thromboembolism without anticoagulation vs bleeding with anticoagulation.

Historically, we tended to worry more about thromboembolism²⁴; however, recent studies have revealed a significant risk of bleeding when long-term anticoagulant therapy is bridged (ie, interrupted and replaced with a shorter-acting agent in the perioperative period), with minimal to no decrease in thromboembolic events.^25–27

American College of Cardiology guideline

In 2017, the American College of Cardiology⁸  published a guideline on periprocedural management of anticoagulation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The guideline includes a series of decision algorithms on whether and when to interrupt anticoagulation, whether and how to provide bridging anticoagulation, and how to restart postprocedural anticoagulation.

When deciding whether to interrupt anticoagulation, we need to consider the risk of bleeding posed both by patient-specific factors and by the type of surgery. Bridging anticoagulation is not indicated when direct oral anticoagulants (eg, dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban,  rivaroxaban) are interrupted for procedures.

Unlike an earlier guideline statement by the American College of Chest Physicians,²⁴ this consensus statement emphasizes using the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score as a predictor of thromboembolic events rather than the CHADS₂ core.

Table 3 summarizes the key points in the guidance statement about which patients should receive periprocedural bridging anticoagulation.

As evidence continues to evolve in this complicated area of perioperative medicine, it will remain important to continue to create patient management plans that take individual patient and procedural risks into account.

IS FRAILTY SCREENING BENEFICIAL BEFORE NONCARDIAC SURGERY?

Frailty, defined as a composite score of a patient’s age and comorbidities, has great potential to become an obligatory factor in perioperative risk assessment. However, it remains difficult to incorporate frailty scoring into clinical practice due to variations among scoring systems,²⁸ uncertain outcome data, and the imprecise role of socioeconomic factors. In particular, the effect of frailty on perioperative mortality over longer periods of time is uncertain.

McIsaac et al: Higher risk in frail patients

McIsaac and colleagues at the University of Ottawa used a frailty scoring system developed at Johns Hopkins University to evaluate the effect of frailty on all-cause postoperative mortality in approximately 202,000 patients over a 10-year period.⁹ Although this scoring system is proprietary, it is based on factors such as malnutrition, dementia, impaired vision, decubitus ulcers, urinary incontinence, weight loss, poverty, barriers to access of care, difficulty in walking, and falls.

After adjusting for the procedure risk, patient age, sex, and neighborhood income quintile, the 1-year mortality risk was significantly higher in the frail group (absolute risk 13.6% vs 4.8%; adjusted hazard ratio 2.23; 95% CI 2.08–2.40). The risk of death in the first 3 days was much higher in frail than in nonfrail patients (hazard ratio 35.58; 95% CI 29.78–40.1), but the hazard ratio decreased to approximately 2.4 by day 90.

The authors emphasize that the elevated risk for frail patients warrants particular perioperative planning, though it is not yet clear what frailty-specific interventions should be performed. Further study is needed into the benefit of “prehabilitation” (ie, exercise training to “build up” a patient before surgery) for perioperative risk reduction.

Hall et al: Better care for frail patients

Hall et al¹⁰ instituted a quality improvement initiative for perioperative care of patients at the Omaha Veterans Affairs Hospital. Frail patients were identified using the Risk Analysis Index, a 14-question screening tool previously developed and validated over several years using Veterans Administration databases.²⁹ Questions in the Risk Analysis Index cover living situation, any diagnosis of cancer, ability to perform activities of daily living, and others.

To maximize compliance, a Risk Analysis Index score was required to schedule a surgery. Patients with high scores underwent further review by a designated team of physicians who initiated informal and formal consultations with anesthesiologists, critical care physicians, surgeons, and palliative care providers, with the goals of minimizing risk, clarifying patient goals or resuscitation wishes, and developing comprehensive perioperative planning.¹⁰

Approximately 9,100 patients were included in the cohort. The authors demonstrated a significant improvement in mortality for frail patients at 30, 180, and 365 days, but noted an improvement in postoperative mortality for the nonfrail patients as well, perhaps due to increased focus on geriatric patient care. In particular, the mortality rate at 365 days dropped from 34.5% to 11.7% for frail patients who underwent this intervention.

While this quality improvement initiative was unable to examine how surgical rates changed in frail patients, it is highly likely that very high-risk patients opted out of surgery or had their surgical plan change, though the authors point out that the overall surgical volume at the institution did not change significantly. As well, it remains unclear which particular interventions may have had the most effect in improving survival, as the perioperative plans were individualized and continually adjusted throughout the study period.

Nonetheless, this article highlights how higher vigilance, individualized planning and appreciation of the high risks of frail patients is associated with improved patient survival postoperatively. Although frailty screening is still in its early stages and further work is needed, it is likely that performing frailty screening in elderly patients and utilizing interdisciplinary collaboration for comprehensive management of frail patients can improve their postoperative course.

Perioperative care is increasingly complex, and the rapid evolution of literature in this field makes it a challenge for clinicians to stay up-to-date. To help meet this challenge, we used a systematic approach to identify appropriate articles in the medical literature and then, by consensus, to develop a list of 6 clinical questions based on their novelty and potential to change perioperative medical practice:

• How should we screen for cardiac risk in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery?
• What is the appropriate timing for surgery after coronary intervention?
• Can we use statin therapy to reduce perioperative cardiac risk?
• How should we manage sleep apnea risk perioperatively?
• Which patients with atrial fibrillation should receive perioperative bridging anticoagulation?
• Is frailty screening beneficial for elderly patients before noncardiac surgery?

The summaries in this article are a composite of perioperative medicine updates presented at the Perioperative Medicine Summit and the annual meetings of the Society for General Internal Medicine and the Society of Hospital Medicine. “Perioperative care is complex and changing”^1–10 (page 864) offers a brief overview.

HOW TO SCREEN FOR CARDIAC RISK BEFORE NONCARDIAC SURGERY

Perioperative cardiac risk can be estimated by clinical risk indexes (based on history, physical examination, common blood tests, and electrocardiography), cardiac biomarkers (natriuretic peptide or troponin levels), and noninvasive cardiac tests.

American and European guidelines

In 2014, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association² and the European Society of Cardiology¹¹ published guidelines on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management. They recommended several tools to calculate the risk of postoperative cardiac complications but did not specify a preference. These tools include:

• The Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI)¹² (www.mdcalc.com/revised-cardiac-risk-index-pre-operative-risk), which has been externally validated in multiple studies and is the most widely used
• The American College of Surgeons surgical risk calculator¹³ (www.riskcalculator.facs.org), derived from the National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database
• The myocardial infarction or cardiac arrest (MICA) calculator¹⁴ (www.surgicalriskcalculator.com/miorcardiacarrest), also derived from the NSQIP database.

2017 Canadian guidelines differ

In 2017, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society published its own guidelines on perioperative risk assessment and management.¹ These differ from the American and European guidelines on several points.

RCRI recommended. The Canadian guidelines suggested using the RCRI over the other risk predictors, which despite superior discrimination lacked external validation (conditional recommendation; low-quality evidence). Additionally, the Canadians believed that the NSQIP risk indexes underestimated cardiac risk because patients did not undergo routine biomarker screening.

Biomarker measurement. The Canadian  guidelines went a step further in their algorithm (Figure 1) and recommended measuring N-terminal-pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) or BNP preoperatively to improve risk prediction in 3 groups (strong recommendation; moderate-quality evidence):

• Patients ages 65 and older
• Patients ages 45 to 64 with significant cardiovascular disease
• Patients with an RCRI score of 1 or more.

This differs from the American guidelines, which did not recommend measuring preoperative biomarkers but did acknowledge that they may provide incremental value. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association authors felt that there were no data to suggest that targeting these biomarkers for treatment and intervention would reduce postoperative risk. The European guidelines did not recommend routinely using biomarkers, but stated that they may be considered in high-risk patients (who have a functional capacity ≤ 4 metabolic equivalents or an RCRI score > 1 undergoing vascular surgery, or > 2 undergoing nonvascular surgery).

Stress testing deemphasized. The Canadian guidelines recommended biomarker testing rather than noninvasive tests to enhance risk assessment based on cost, potential delays in surgery, and absence of evidence of an overall absolute net improvement in risk reclassification. This contrasts with the American and European guidelines and algorithms, which recommended pharmacologic stress testing in patients at elevated risk with poor functional capacity undergoing intermediate- to high-risk surgery if the results would change how they are managed.

Postoperative monitoring. The Canadian guidelines recommended that if patients have an NT-proBNP level higher than 300 mg/L or a BNP level higher than 92 mg/L, they should receive  postoperative monitoring with electrocardiography in the postanesthesia care unit and daily troponin measurements for 48 to 72 hours. The American guidelines recommended postoperative electrocardiography and troponin measurement only for patients suspected of having myocardial ischemia, and the European guidelines said postoperative biomarkers may be considered in patients at high risk.

Physician judgment needed

While guidelines and risk calculators are potentially helpful in risk assessment, the lack of consensus and the conflicting recommendations force the physician to weigh the evidence and make individual decisions based on his or her interpretation of the data.

Until there are studies directly comparing the various risk calculators, physicians will most likely use the RCRI, which is simple and has been externally validated, in conjunction with the American guidelines.

At this time, it is unclear how biomarkers should be used—preoperatively, postoperatively, or both—because there are no studies demonstrating that management strategies based on the results lead to better outcomes. We do not believe that biomarker testing will be accepted in lieu of stress testing by our surgery, anesthesiology, or cardiology colleagues, but going forward, it will probably be used more frequently postoperatively, particularly in patients at moderate to high risk.

WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE TIMING FOR SURGERY AFTER PCI?

A 2014 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline recommended delaying noncardiac surgery for 1 month after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare-metal stents and 1 year after PCI with drug-eluting stents.¹⁵ The guideline suggested that surgery may be performed 6 months after drug-eluting stent placement if the risks of delaying surgery outweigh the risk of thrombosis.¹⁵

The primary rationale behind these timeframes was to provide dual antiplatelet therapy for a minimally acceptable duration before temporary interruption for a procedure. These recommendations were influenced largely by observational studies of first-generation devices, which are no longer used. Studies of newer-generation stents have suggested that the risk of stent thrombosis reaches a plateau considerably earlier than 6 to 12 months after PCI.

2016 Revised guideline on dual antiplatelet therapy

Although not separately delineated in the recommendations, risk factors for stent thrombosis that should influence the decision include smoking, multivessel coronary artery disease, and suboptimally controlled diabetes mellitus or hyperlipidemia.¹⁷ The presence of such stent thrombosis risk factors should be factored into the decision about proceeding with surgery within 3 to 6 months after drug-eluting stent placement.

Holcomb et al: Higher postoperative risk after PCI for myocardial infarction

Another important consideration is the indication for which PCI was performed. In a recent study, Holcomb et al¹⁶ found an association between postoperative major adverse cardiac events and PCI for myocardial infarction (MI) that was independent of stent type.

Compared with patients who underwent PCI not associated with acute coronary syndrome, the odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for major adverse cardiac events in those who underwent PCI for MI were:

• 5.25 (4.08–6.75) in the first 3 months
• 2.45 (1.80–3.35) in months 3 to 6
• 2.50 (1.90–3.28) in months 6 to 12.

In absolute terms, patients with stenting performed for an MI had an incidence of major adverse cardiac events of:

• 22.2% in the first 3 months
• 9.4% in months 3 to 6
• 5.8% in months 6 to 12
• 4.4% in months 12 to 24.

The perioperative risks were reduced after 12 months but still remained greater in patients whose PCI was performed for MI rather than another indication.¹⁶

The authors of this study suggested delaying noncardiac surgery for up to 6 months after PCI for MI, regardless of stent type.¹⁶

A careful, individualized approach

Optimal timing of noncardiac surgery PCI requires a careful, individualized approach and should always be coordinated with the patient’s cardiologist, surgeon, and anesthesiologist.^3,15 For most patients, surgery should be delayed for 30 days after bare-metal stent placement and 6 months after drug-eluting stent placement.³ However, for those with greater surgical need and less thrombotic risk, noncardiac surgery can be considered 3 to 6 months after drug-eluting stent placement.³

Additional discussion of the prolonged increased risk of postoperative major adverse cardiac events is warranted in patients whose PCI was performed for MI, in whom delaying noncardiac surgery for up to 6 months (irrespective of stent type) should be considered.¹⁶

CAN WE USE STATINS TO REDUCE PERIOPERATIVE RISK?

Current recommendations from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association support continuing statins in the perioperative period, but the evidence supporting starting statins in this period has yet to be fully determined. In 2013, a Cochrane review¹⁸ found insufficient evidence to conclude that statins reduced perioperative adverse cardiac events, though several large studies were excluded due to controversial methods and data.

In contrast, the Vascular Events in Noncardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation (VISION) study,⁴ a multicenter, prospective, cohort-matched study of approximately 7,200 patients, found a lower risk of a composite primary outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, or stroke at 30 days for patients exposed to statin therapy (relative risk [RR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.73–0.95, P = .007).⁴

London et al retrospective study: 30-day mortality rate is lower with statins

In 2017, London et al⁵ published the results of a very large retrospective, observational cohort study of approximately 96,000 elective or emergency surgery patients in Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals. The patients were propensity-matched and evaluated for exposure to statins on the day of or the day after surgery, for a total of approximately 48,000 pairs.

The primary outcome was death at 30 days, and statin exposure was associated with a significant reduction (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.75–0.89; P < .001). Significant risk reductions were demonstrated in nearly all secondary end points as well, except for stroke or coma and thrombosis (pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or graft failure). Overall, the number needed to treat to prevent any complication was 67. Statin therapy did not show significant harm, though on subgroup analysis, those who received high-intensity statin therapy had a slightly higher risk of renal injury (odds ratio 1.18, 95% CI 1.02–1.37, P = .03). Also on subgroup analysis, after propensity matching, patients on long-term moderate- or high-intensity statin therapy for 6 to 12 months before surgery had a small risk reduction for many of the outcomes, including death.

The authors also noted that only 62% of the patients who were prescribed statins as outpatients received them in the hospital, which suggests that improvement is necessary in educating perioperative physicians about the benefits and widespread support for continuing statins perioperatively.⁵

Both London et al⁵ and the VISION investigators⁴ called for a large randomized controlled trial of perioperative statin initiation. The Lowering the Risk of Operative Complications Using Atorvastatin Loading Dose (LOAD) trial attempted to answer this call.⁶

This trial randomized 648 statin-naïve Brazilian patients at high risk of perioperative cardiac events to receive either atorvastatin or placebo before surgery and then continuously for another 7 days. The primary outcomes were the rates of death, nonfatal myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, and cerebrovascular accident at 30 days.⁶

The investigators found no significant difference in outcomes between the two groups and estimated that the sample size would need to be approximately 7,000 patients to demonstrate a significant benefit. Nonetheless, this trial established that a prospective perioperative statin trial is feasible.

When to continue or start statins

Although we cannot recommend starting statins for all perioperative patients, perioperative statins clearly can carry significant benefit and should be continued in all patients who have been taking them. It is also likely beneficial to initiate statins in those patients who would otherwise warrant therapy based on the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations Risk calculator.¹⁹

HOW SHOULD WE MANAGE SLEEP APNEA RISK PERIOPERATIVELY?

From 20% to 30% of US men and 10% to 15% of US women have obstructive sleep apnea, and many are undiagnosed. Obstructive sleep apnea increases the risk of perioperative respiratory failure, unplanned reintubation, unplanned transfer to the intensive care unit, and death.²⁰ Sentinel events (unexpected respiratory arrest after surgery on general surgical wards) have prompted the development of guidelines that aim to identify patients with previously undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea before surgery and to develop approaches to reduce perioperative morbidity and mortality.

Kaw et al: Beware obesity hypoventilation syndrome

A 2016 study suggested that patients with obstructive sleep apnea and obesity hypoventilation syndrome may be at particularly high risk of perioperative complications.²¹

Kaw et al²¹ queried a database of patients with obstructive sleep apnea undergoing elective noncardiac surgery at Cleveland Clinic. All patients (N = 519) had obstructive sleep apnea confirmed by polysomnography, and a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m². The authors considered a patient to have obesity hypoventilation syndrome (n = 194) if he or she also had hypercapnia (Paco₂ ≥ 45 mm Hg) on at least 2 occasions before or after surgery.

In an adjusted analysis, the odds ratios and 95% CIs for adverse outcomes in patients with obesity hypoventilation syndrome were:

• 10.9 (3.7–32.3) for respiratory failure
• 5.4 (1.9–15.7) for heart failure
• 10.9 (3.7–32.3) for intensive care unit transfer.

The absolute increases in risk in the presence of obesity hypoventilation syndrome were:

• 19% (21% vs 2%) for respiratory failure
• 8% (8% vs 0) for heart failure
• 15% (21% vs 6%) for intensive care unit transfer.

There was no difference in rates of perioperative mortality.²¹

The authors proposed an algorithm to identify patients with possible obesity hypoventilation syndrome before surgery that included prior sleep study results, STOP-BANG score (Table 2),²² and serum bicarbonate level.

Important limitations of the study were that most patients with obesity hypoventilation syndrome were undiagnosed at the time of surgery. Still, the study does offer a tool to potentially identify patients at high risk for perioperative morbidity due to obesity hypoventilation syndrome. Clinicians could then choose to cancel nonessential surgery, propose a lower-risk alternative procedure, or maximize the use of strategies known to reduce perioperative risk for patients with obstructive sleep apnea in general.

Two guidelines on obstructive sleep apnea

Two professional societies have issued guidelines aiming to improve detection of previously undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea and perioperative outcomes in patients known to have it or suspected of having it:

• The American Society of Anesthesiologists in 2014²³ 
• The Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine in 2016.⁷

Both guidelines recommend that each institution develop a local protocol to screen patients for possible obstructive sleep apnea before elective surgery. The American Society of Anesthesiologists does not recommend any particular tool, but does recommend taking a history and performing a focused examination that includes evaluation of the airway, nasopharyngeal characteristics, neck circumference, and tonsil and tongue size. The Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine recommends using a validated tool such as the STOP-BANG score to estimate the risk of obstructive sleep apnea.

If this screening suggests that a patient has obstructive sleep apnea, should surgery be delayed until a formal sleep study can be done? Or should the patient be treated empirically as if he or she has obstructive sleep apnea?  Both professional societies recommend shared decision-making with the patient in this situation, with the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine recommending additional cardiopulmonary evaluation for patients with hypoventilation, severe pulmonary hypertension, or resting hypoxemia.

Both recommend using continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) after surgery in patients with known obstructive sleep apnea, although there is not enough evidence to determine if empiric CPAP for screening-positive patients (without polysomnography-diagnosed obstructive sleep apnea) is beneficial. The Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine advises that it is safe to proceed to surgery if obstructive sleep apnea is suspected as long as monitoring and risk-reduction strategies are implemented after surgery to reduce complication rates.

During surgery, the American Society of Anesthesiologists advises peripheral nerve blocks when appropriate, general anesthesia with a secure airway rather than deep sedation, capnography when using moderate sedation, awake extubation, and full reversal of neuromuscular blockade before extubation. After surgery, they recommend reducing opioid use, minimizing postoperative sedatives, supplemental oxygen, and continuous pulse oximetry. The Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine guideline addresses preoperative assessment and therefore makes no recommendations regarding postoperative care.

In conclusion, use of pertinent findings from the history and physical examination and a validated obstructive sleep apnea screening tool such as STOP-BANG before surgery are recommended, with joint decision-making as to proceeding with surgery with empiric CPAP vs a formal sleep study for patients who screen as high risk. The Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine recommends further cardiopulmonary evaluation if there is evidence of hypoventilation, hypoxemia, or pulmonary hypertension in addition to likely obstructive sleep apnea.

When patients receiving anticoagulation need surgery, we need to carefully assess the risks of thromboembolism without anticoagulation vs bleeding with anticoagulation.

Historically, we tended to worry more about thromboembolism²⁴; however, recent studies have revealed a significant risk of bleeding when long-term anticoagulant therapy is bridged (ie, interrupted and replaced with a shorter-acting agent in the perioperative period), with minimal to no decrease in thromboembolic events.^25–27

American College of Cardiology guideline

In 2017, the American College of Cardiology⁸  published a guideline on periprocedural management of anticoagulation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The guideline includes a series of decision algorithms on whether and when to interrupt anticoagulation, whether and how to provide bridging anticoagulation, and how to restart postprocedural anticoagulation.

When deciding whether to interrupt anticoagulation, we need to consider the risk of bleeding posed both by patient-specific factors and by the type of surgery. Bridging anticoagulation is not indicated when direct oral anticoagulants (eg, dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban,  rivaroxaban) are interrupted for procedures.

Unlike an earlier guideline statement by the American College of Chest Physicians,²⁴ this consensus statement emphasizes using the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score as a predictor of thromboembolic events rather than the CHADS₂ core.

Table 3 summarizes the key points in the guidance statement about which patients should receive periprocedural bridging anticoagulation.

As evidence continues to evolve in this complicated area of perioperative medicine, it will remain important to continue to create patient management plans that take individual patient and procedural risks into account.

IS FRAILTY SCREENING BENEFICIAL BEFORE NONCARDIAC SURGERY?

Frailty, defined as a composite score of a patient’s age and comorbidities, has great potential to become an obligatory factor in perioperative risk assessment. However, it remains difficult to incorporate frailty scoring into clinical practice due to variations among scoring systems,²⁸ uncertain outcome data, and the imprecise role of socioeconomic factors. In particular, the effect of frailty on perioperative mortality over longer periods of time is uncertain.

McIsaac et al: Higher risk in frail patients

McIsaac and colleagues at the University of Ottawa used a frailty scoring system developed at Johns Hopkins University to evaluate the effect of frailty on all-cause postoperative mortality in approximately 202,000 patients over a 10-year period.⁹ Although this scoring system is proprietary, it is based on factors such as malnutrition, dementia, impaired vision, decubitus ulcers, urinary incontinence, weight loss, poverty, barriers to access of care, difficulty in walking, and falls.

After adjusting for the procedure risk, patient age, sex, and neighborhood income quintile, the 1-year mortality risk was significantly higher in the frail group (absolute risk 13.6% vs 4.8%; adjusted hazard ratio 2.23; 95% CI 2.08–2.40). The risk of death in the first 3 days was much higher in frail than in nonfrail patients (hazard ratio 35.58; 95% CI 29.78–40.1), but the hazard ratio decreased to approximately 2.4 by day 90.

The authors emphasize that the elevated risk for frail patients warrants particular perioperative planning, though it is not yet clear what frailty-specific interventions should be performed. Further study is needed into the benefit of “prehabilitation” (ie, exercise training to “build up” a patient before surgery) for perioperative risk reduction.

Hall et al: Better care for frail patients

Hall et al¹⁰ instituted a quality improvement initiative for perioperative care of patients at the Omaha Veterans Affairs Hospital. Frail patients were identified using the Risk Analysis Index, a 14-question screening tool previously developed and validated over several years using Veterans Administration databases.²⁹ Questions in the Risk Analysis Index cover living situation, any diagnosis of cancer, ability to perform activities of daily living, and others.

To maximize compliance, a Risk Analysis Index score was required to schedule a surgery. Patients with high scores underwent further review by a designated team of physicians who initiated informal and formal consultations with anesthesiologists, critical care physicians, surgeons, and palliative care providers, with the goals of minimizing risk, clarifying patient goals or resuscitation wishes, and developing comprehensive perioperative planning.¹⁰

Approximately 9,100 patients were included in the cohort. The authors demonstrated a significant improvement in mortality for frail patients at 30, 180, and 365 days, but noted an improvement in postoperative mortality for the nonfrail patients as well, perhaps due to increased focus on geriatric patient care. In particular, the mortality rate at 365 days dropped from 34.5% to 11.7% for frail patients who underwent this intervention.

While this quality improvement initiative was unable to examine how surgical rates changed in frail patients, it is highly likely that very high-risk patients opted out of surgery or had their surgical plan change, though the authors point out that the overall surgical volume at the institution did not change significantly. As well, it remains unclear which particular interventions may have had the most effect in improving survival, as the perioperative plans were individualized and continually adjusted throughout the study period.

Nonetheless, this article highlights how higher vigilance, individualized planning and appreciation of the high risks of frail patients is associated with improved patient survival postoperatively. Although frailty screening is still in its early stages and further work is needed, it is likely that performing frailty screening in elderly patients and utilizing interdisciplinary collaboration for comprehensive management of frail patients can improve their postoperative course.

Perioperative care is increasingly complex, and the rapid evolution of literature in this field makes it a challenge for clinicians to stay up-to-date. To help meet this challenge, we used a systematic approach to identify appropriate articles in the medical literature and then, by consensus, to develop a list of 6 clinical questions based on their novelty and potential to change perioperative medical practice:

• How should we screen for cardiac risk in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery?
• What is the appropriate timing for surgery after coronary intervention?
• Can we use statin therapy to reduce perioperative cardiac risk?
• How should we manage sleep apnea risk perioperatively?
• Which patients with atrial fibrillation should receive perioperative bridging anticoagulation?
• Is frailty screening beneficial for elderly patients before noncardiac surgery?

The summaries in this article are a composite of perioperative medicine updates presented at the Perioperative Medicine Summit and the annual meetings of the Society for General Internal Medicine and the Society of Hospital Medicine. “Perioperative care is complex and changing”^1–10 (page 864) offers a brief overview.

HOW TO SCREEN FOR CARDIAC RISK BEFORE NONCARDIAC SURGERY

Perioperative cardiac risk can be estimated by clinical risk indexes (based on history, physical examination, common blood tests, and electrocardiography), cardiac biomarkers (natriuretic peptide or troponin levels), and noninvasive cardiac tests.

American and European guidelines

In 2014, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association² and the European Society of Cardiology¹¹ published guidelines on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management. They recommended several tools to calculate the risk of postoperative cardiac complications but did not specify a preference. These tools include:

• The Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI)¹² (www.mdcalc.com/revised-cardiac-risk-index-pre-operative-risk), which has been externally validated in multiple studies and is the most widely used
• The American College of Surgeons surgical risk calculator¹³ (www.riskcalculator.facs.org), derived from the National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database
• The myocardial infarction or cardiac arrest (MICA) calculator¹⁴ (www.surgicalriskcalculator.com/miorcardiacarrest), also derived from the NSQIP database.

2017 Canadian guidelines differ

In 2017, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society published its own guidelines on perioperative risk assessment and management.¹ These differ from the American and European guidelines on several points.

RCRI recommended. The Canadian guidelines suggested using the RCRI over the other risk predictors, which despite superior discrimination lacked external validation (conditional recommendation; low-quality evidence). Additionally, the Canadians believed that the NSQIP risk indexes underestimated cardiac risk because patients did not undergo routine biomarker screening.

Biomarker measurement. The Canadian  guidelines went a step further in their algorithm (Figure 1) and recommended measuring N-terminal-pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) or BNP preoperatively to improve risk prediction in 3 groups (strong recommendation; moderate-quality evidence):

• Patients ages 65 and older
• Patients ages 45 to 64 with significant cardiovascular disease
• Patients with an RCRI score of 1 or more.

This differs from the American guidelines, which did not recommend measuring preoperative biomarkers but did acknowledge that they may provide incremental value. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association authors felt that there were no data to suggest that targeting these biomarkers for treatment and intervention would reduce postoperative risk. The European guidelines did not recommend routinely using biomarkers, but stated that they may be considered in high-risk patients (who have a functional capacity ≤ 4 metabolic equivalents or an RCRI score > 1 undergoing vascular surgery, or > 2 undergoing nonvascular surgery).

Stress testing deemphasized. The Canadian guidelines recommended biomarker testing rather than noninvasive tests to enhance risk assessment based on cost, potential delays in surgery, and absence of evidence of an overall absolute net improvement in risk reclassification. This contrasts with the American and European guidelines and algorithms, which recommended pharmacologic stress testing in patients at elevated risk with poor functional capacity undergoing intermediate- to high-risk surgery if the results would change how they are managed.

Postoperative monitoring. The Canadian guidelines recommended that if patients have an NT-proBNP level higher than 300 mg/L or a BNP level higher than 92 mg/L, they should receive  postoperative monitoring with electrocardiography in the postanesthesia care unit and daily troponin measurements for 48 to 72 hours. The American guidelines recommended postoperative electrocardiography and troponin measurement only for patients suspected of having myocardial ischemia, and the European guidelines said postoperative biomarkers may be considered in patients at high risk.

Physician judgment needed

While guidelines and risk calculators are potentially helpful in risk assessment, the lack of consensus and the conflicting recommendations force the physician to weigh the evidence and make individual decisions based on his or her interpretation of the data.

Until there are studies directly comparing the various risk calculators, physicians will most likely use the RCRI, which is simple and has been externally validated, in conjunction with the American guidelines.

At this time, it is unclear how biomarkers should be used—preoperatively, postoperatively, or both—because there are no studies demonstrating that management strategies based on the results lead to better outcomes. We do not believe that biomarker testing will be accepted in lieu of stress testing by our surgery, anesthesiology, or cardiology colleagues, but going forward, it will probably be used more frequently postoperatively, particularly in patients at moderate to high risk.

WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE TIMING FOR SURGERY AFTER PCI?

A 2014 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline recommended delaying noncardiac surgery for 1 month after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare-metal stents and 1 year after PCI with drug-eluting stents.¹⁵ The guideline suggested that surgery may be performed 6 months after drug-eluting stent placement if the risks of delaying surgery outweigh the risk of thrombosis.¹⁵

The primary rationale behind these timeframes was to provide dual antiplatelet therapy for a minimally acceptable duration before temporary interruption for a procedure. These recommendations were influenced largely by observational studies of first-generation devices, which are no longer used. Studies of newer-generation stents have suggested that the risk of stent thrombosis reaches a plateau considerably earlier than 6 to 12 months after PCI.

2016 Revised guideline on dual antiplatelet therapy

Although not separately delineated in the recommendations, risk factors for stent thrombosis that should influence the decision include smoking, multivessel coronary artery disease, and suboptimally controlled diabetes mellitus or hyperlipidemia.¹⁷ The presence of such stent thrombosis risk factors should be factored into the decision about proceeding with surgery within 3 to 6 months after drug-eluting stent placement.

Holcomb et al: Higher postoperative risk after PCI for myocardial infarction

Another important consideration is the indication for which PCI was performed. In a recent study, Holcomb et al¹⁶ found an association between postoperative major adverse cardiac events and PCI for myocardial infarction (MI) that was independent of stent type.

Compared with patients who underwent PCI not associated with acute coronary syndrome, the odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for major adverse cardiac events in those who underwent PCI for MI were:

• 5.25 (4.08–6.75) in the first 3 months
• 2.45 (1.80–3.35) in months 3 to 6
• 2.50 (1.90–3.28) in months 6 to 12.

In absolute terms, patients with stenting performed for an MI had an incidence of major adverse cardiac events of:

• 22.2% in the first 3 months
• 9.4% in months 3 to 6
• 5.8% in months 6 to 12
• 4.4% in months 12 to 24.

The perioperative risks were reduced after 12 months but still remained greater in patients whose PCI was performed for MI rather than another indication.¹⁶

The authors of this study suggested delaying noncardiac surgery for up to 6 months after PCI for MI, regardless of stent type.¹⁶

A careful, individualized approach

Optimal timing of noncardiac surgery PCI requires a careful, individualized approach and should always be coordinated with the patient’s cardiologist, surgeon, and anesthesiologist.^3,15 For most patients, surgery should be delayed for 30 days after bare-metal stent placement and 6 months after drug-eluting stent placement.³ However, for those with greater surgical need and less thrombotic risk, noncardiac surgery can be considered 3 to 6 months after drug-eluting stent placement.³

Additional discussion of the prolonged increased risk of postoperative major adverse cardiac events is warranted in patients whose PCI was performed for MI, in whom delaying noncardiac surgery for up to 6 months (irrespective of stent type) should be considered.¹⁶

CAN WE USE STATINS TO REDUCE PERIOPERATIVE RISK?

Current recommendations from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association support continuing statins in the perioperative period, but the evidence supporting starting statins in this period has yet to be fully determined. In 2013, a Cochrane review¹⁸ found insufficient evidence to conclude that statins reduced perioperative adverse cardiac events, though several large studies were excluded due to controversial methods and data.

In contrast, the Vascular Events in Noncardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation (VISION) study,⁴ a multicenter, prospective, cohort-matched study of approximately 7,200 patients, found a lower risk of a composite primary outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, or stroke at 30 days for patients exposed to statin therapy (relative risk [RR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.73–0.95, P = .007).⁴

London et al retrospective study: 30-day mortality rate is lower with statins

In 2017, London et al⁵ published the results of a very large retrospective, observational cohort study of approximately 96,000 elective or emergency surgery patients in Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals. The patients were propensity-matched and evaluated for exposure to statins on the day of or the day after surgery, for a total of approximately 48,000 pairs.

The primary outcome was death at 30 days, and statin exposure was associated with a significant reduction (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.75–0.89; P < .001). Significant risk reductions were demonstrated in nearly all secondary end points as well, except for stroke or coma and thrombosis (pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or graft failure). Overall, the number needed to treat to prevent any complication was 67. Statin therapy did not show significant harm, though on subgroup analysis, those who received high-intensity statin therapy had a slightly higher risk of renal injury (odds ratio 1.18, 95% CI 1.02–1.37, P = .03). Also on subgroup analysis, after propensity matching, patients on long-term moderate- or high-intensity statin therapy for 6 to 12 months before surgery had a small risk reduction for many of the outcomes, including death.

The authors also noted that only 62% of the patients who were prescribed statins as outpatients received them in the hospital, which suggests that improvement is necessary in educating perioperative physicians about the benefits and widespread support for continuing statins perioperatively.⁵

Both London et al⁵ and the VISION investigators⁴ called for a large randomized controlled trial of perioperative statin initiation. The Lowering the Risk of Operative Complications Using Atorvastatin Loading Dose (LOAD) trial attempted to answer this call.⁶

This trial randomized 648 statin-naïve Brazilian patients at high risk of perioperative cardiac events to receive either atorvastatin or placebo before surgery and then continuously for another 7 days. The primary outcomes were the rates of death, nonfatal myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, and cerebrovascular accident at 30 days.⁶

The investigators found no significant difference in outcomes between the two groups and estimated that the sample size would need to be approximately 7,000 patients to demonstrate a significant benefit. Nonetheless, this trial established that a prospective perioperative statin trial is feasible.

When to continue or start statins

Although we cannot recommend starting statins for all perioperative patients, perioperative statins clearly can carry significant benefit and should be continued in all patients who have been taking them. It is also likely beneficial to initiate statins in those patients who would otherwise warrant therapy based on the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations Risk calculator.¹⁹

HOW SHOULD WE MANAGE SLEEP APNEA RISK PERIOPERATIVELY?

From 20% to 30% of US men and 10% to 15% of US women have obstructive sleep apnea, and many are undiagnosed. Obstructive sleep apnea increases the risk of perioperative respiratory failure, unplanned reintubation, unplanned transfer to the intensive care unit, and death.²⁰ Sentinel events (unexpected respiratory arrest after surgery on general surgical wards) have prompted the development of guidelines that aim to identify patients with previously undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea before surgery and to develop approaches to reduce perioperative morbidity and mortality.

Kaw et al: Beware obesity hypoventilation syndrome

A 2016 study suggested that patients with obstructive sleep apnea and obesity hypoventilation syndrome may be at particularly high risk of perioperative complications.²¹

Kaw et al²¹ queried a database of patients with obstructive sleep apnea undergoing elective noncardiac surgery at Cleveland Clinic. All patients (N = 519) had obstructive sleep apnea confirmed by polysomnography, and a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m². The authors considered a patient to have obesity hypoventilation syndrome (n = 194) if he or she also had hypercapnia (Paco₂ ≥ 45 mm Hg) on at least 2 occasions before or after surgery.

In an adjusted analysis, the odds ratios and 95% CIs for adverse outcomes in patients with obesity hypoventilation syndrome were:

• 10.9 (3.7–32.3) for respiratory failure
• 5.4 (1.9–15.7) for heart failure
• 10.9 (3.7–32.3) for intensive care unit transfer.

The absolute increases in risk in the presence of obesity hypoventilation syndrome were:

• 19% (21% vs 2%) for respiratory failure
• 8% (8% vs 0) for heart failure
• 15% (21% vs 6%) for intensive care unit transfer.

There was no difference in rates of perioperative mortality.²¹

The authors proposed an algorithm to identify patients with possible obesity hypoventilation syndrome before surgery that included prior sleep study results, STOP-BANG score (Table 2),²² and serum bicarbonate level.

Important limitations of the study were that most patients with obesity hypoventilation syndrome were undiagnosed at the time of surgery. Still, the study does offer a tool to potentially identify patients at high risk for perioperative morbidity due to obesity hypoventilation syndrome. Clinicians could then choose to cancel nonessential surgery, propose a lower-risk alternative procedure, or maximize the use of strategies known to reduce perioperative risk for patients with obstructive sleep apnea in general.

Two guidelines on obstructive sleep apnea

Two professional societies have issued guidelines aiming to improve detection of previously undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea and perioperative outcomes in patients known to have it or suspected of having it:

• The American Society of Anesthesiologists in 2014²³ 
• The Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine in 2016.⁷

Both guidelines recommend that each institution develop a local protocol to screen patients for possible obstructive sleep apnea before elective surgery. The American Society of Anesthesiologists does not recommend any particular tool, but does recommend taking a history and performing a focused examination that includes evaluation of the airway, nasopharyngeal characteristics, neck circumference, and tonsil and tongue size. The Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine recommends using a validated tool such as the STOP-BANG score to estimate the risk of obstructive sleep apnea.

If this screening suggests that a patient has obstructive sleep apnea, should surgery be delayed until a formal sleep study can be done? Or should the patient be treated empirically as if he or she has obstructive sleep apnea?  Both professional societies recommend shared decision-making with the patient in this situation, with the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine recommending additional cardiopulmonary evaluation for patients with hypoventilation, severe pulmonary hypertension, or resting hypoxemia.

Both recommend using continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) after surgery in patients with known obstructive sleep apnea, although there is not enough evidence to determine if empiric CPAP for screening-positive patients (without polysomnography-diagnosed obstructive sleep apnea) is beneficial. The Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine advises that it is safe to proceed to surgery if obstructive sleep apnea is suspected as long as monitoring and risk-reduction strategies are implemented after surgery to reduce complication rates.

During surgery, the American Society of Anesthesiologists advises peripheral nerve blocks when appropriate, general anesthesia with a secure airway rather than deep sedation, capnography when using moderate sedation, awake extubation, and full reversal of neuromuscular blockade before extubation. After surgery, they recommend reducing opioid use, minimizing postoperative sedatives, supplemental oxygen, and continuous pulse oximetry. The Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine guideline addresses preoperative assessment and therefore makes no recommendations regarding postoperative care.

In conclusion, use of pertinent findings from the history and physical examination and a validated obstructive sleep apnea screening tool such as STOP-BANG before surgery are recommended, with joint decision-making as to proceeding with surgery with empiric CPAP vs a formal sleep study for patients who screen as high risk. The Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine recommends further cardiopulmonary evaluation if there is evidence of hypoventilation, hypoxemia, or pulmonary hypertension in addition to likely obstructive sleep apnea.

When patients receiving anticoagulation need surgery, we need to carefully assess the risks of thromboembolism without anticoagulation vs bleeding with anticoagulation.

Historically, we tended to worry more about thromboembolism²⁴; however, recent studies have revealed a significant risk of bleeding when long-term anticoagulant therapy is bridged (ie, interrupted and replaced with a shorter-acting agent in the perioperative period), with minimal to no decrease in thromboembolic events.^25–27

American College of Cardiology guideline

In 2017, the American College of Cardiology⁸  published a guideline on periprocedural management of anticoagulation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The guideline includes a series of decision algorithms on whether and when to interrupt anticoagulation, whether and how to provide bridging anticoagulation, and how to restart postprocedural anticoagulation.

When deciding whether to interrupt anticoagulation, we need to consider the risk of bleeding posed both by patient-specific factors and by the type of surgery. Bridging anticoagulation is not indicated when direct oral anticoagulants (eg, dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban,  rivaroxaban) are interrupted for procedures.

Unlike an earlier guideline statement by the American College of Chest Physicians,²⁴ this consensus statement emphasizes using the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score as a predictor of thromboembolic events rather than the CHADS₂ core.

Table 3 summarizes the key points in the guidance statement about which patients should receive periprocedural bridging anticoagulation.

As evidence continues to evolve in this complicated area of perioperative medicine, it will remain important to continue to create patient management plans that take individual patient and procedural risks into account.

IS FRAILTY SCREENING BENEFICIAL BEFORE NONCARDIAC SURGERY?

Frailty, defined as a composite score of a patient’s age and comorbidities, has great potential to become an obligatory factor in perioperative risk assessment. However, it remains difficult to incorporate frailty scoring into clinical practice due to variations among scoring systems,²⁸ uncertain outcome data, and the imprecise role of socioeconomic factors. In particular, the effect of frailty on perioperative mortality over longer periods of time is uncertain.

McIsaac et al: Higher risk in frail patients

McIsaac and colleagues at the University of Ottawa used a frailty scoring system developed at Johns Hopkins University to evaluate the effect of frailty on all-cause postoperative mortality in approximately 202,000 patients over a 10-year period.⁹ Although this scoring system is proprietary, it is based on factors such as malnutrition, dementia, impaired vision, decubitus ulcers, urinary incontinence, weight loss, poverty, barriers to access of care, difficulty in walking, and falls.

After adjusting for the procedure risk, patient age, sex, and neighborhood income quintile, the 1-year mortality risk was significantly higher in the frail group (absolute risk 13.6% vs 4.8%; adjusted hazard ratio 2.23; 95% CI 2.08–2.40). The risk of death in the first 3 days was much higher in frail than in nonfrail patients (hazard ratio 35.58; 95% CI 29.78–40.1), but the hazard ratio decreased to approximately 2.4 by day 90.

The authors emphasize that the elevated risk for frail patients warrants particular perioperative planning, though it is not yet clear what frailty-specific interventions should be performed. Further study is needed into the benefit of “prehabilitation” (ie, exercise training to “build up” a patient before surgery) for perioperative risk reduction.

Hall et al: Better care for frail patients

Hall et al¹⁰ instituted a quality improvement initiative for perioperative care of patients at the Omaha Veterans Affairs Hospital. Frail patients were identified using the Risk Analysis Index, a 14-question screening tool previously developed and validated over several years using Veterans Administration databases.²⁹ Questions in the Risk Analysis Index cover living situation, any diagnosis of cancer, ability to perform activities of daily living, and others.

To maximize compliance, a Risk Analysis Index score was required to schedule a surgery. Patients with high scores underwent further review by a designated team of physicians who initiated informal and formal consultations with anesthesiologists, critical care physicians, surgeons, and palliative care providers, with the goals of minimizing risk, clarifying patient goals or resuscitation wishes, and developing comprehensive perioperative planning.¹⁰

Approximately 9,100 patients were included in the cohort. The authors demonstrated a significant improvement in mortality for frail patients at 30, 180, and 365 days, but noted an improvement in postoperative mortality for the nonfrail patients as well, perhaps due to increased focus on geriatric patient care. In particular, the mortality rate at 365 days dropped from 34.5% to 11.7% for frail patients who underwent this intervention.

While this quality improvement initiative was unable to examine how surgical rates changed in frail patients, it is highly likely that very high-risk patients opted out of surgery or had their surgical plan change, though the authors point out that the overall surgical volume at the institution did not change significantly. As well, it remains unclear which particular interventions may have had the most effect in improving survival, as the perioperative plans were individualized and continually adjusted throughout the study period.

Nonetheless, this article highlights how higher vigilance, individualized planning and appreciation of the high risks of frail patients is associated with improved patient survival postoperatively. Although frailty screening is still in its early stages and further work is needed, it is likely that performing frailty screening in elderly patients and utilizing interdisciplinary collaboration for comprehensive management of frail patients can improve their postoperative course.

Yes, by using a pre-visit questionnaire that zeroes in on weight history, eating habits, and level of physical activity. This information will lay the foundation for effective weight loss counseling and interventions consistent with intensive behavioral therapy for obesity, reimbursable by Medicare.¹

See related editorial

More than one-third of US adults are obese.³ And even though the rate of obesity in adults has leveled off since 2009,³ more needs to be done to bend the arc of the national obesity trend. Clinicians tend to focus on the complications of obesity (coronary artery disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia) rather than on early identification and intervention of obesity itself.^4–6 A national study of outpatient visits showed that only 29% of visits by patients who were obese according to their body mass index (BMI) had a documented diagnosis of obesity, suggesting a profound under­diagnosis of obesity.⁷ According to one study, primary care doctors lack the level of comfort and counseling experience needed to provide obesity and weight loss counseling.⁸ Yet recent changes to Medicare reimbursement encourage obesity screening and management by covering up to 20 visits for intensive behavioral therapy to treat obesity.¹

We offer the following targeted approach to counseling, achievable within the context of a primary care visit and based on recent evidence, including the 2013 joint guidelines for the treatment of obesity of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the Obesity Society.²

START WITH SCREENING

Measure the patient’s height and weight with the patient wearing light clothing and no shoes, and calculate the BMI as the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters. A BMI of 30 kg/m² or greater defines obesity.

OBTAIN AN OBESITY HISTORY

According to the 2013 joint guidelines,² when obtaining a thorough obesity history, the physician should do the following:

• Obtain information about weight the patient has gained and lost over time and previous weight loss efforts
• Ask the patient about eating habits, including number of meals per day, and the contents of a typical breakfast, lunch, and dinner; we recommend also asking about the number of daily beverages high in sugar
• Quantify the type and amount of physical activity performed within a specific time period.

This information can be obtained in advance of an office visit through either an electronic medical record portal or a pre-visit questionnaire (eg, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2002.205/full).

Also assess the patient’s risk of cardiovascular and obesity-related comorbidities. The waist circumference for patients with a BMI between 25 and 35 kg/m² provides additional information on risk: eg, a waist circumference greater than 88 cm for women and greater than 102 cm for men indicates increased cardiometabolic risk.²

SUGGEST SPECIFIC GOALS

Use a shared decision-making process to arrive at a set of incremental goals centered around the following evidence-based targets²:

• Weight loss: 3% to 5% of baseline weight within 6 months
• 6-month commitment to a weight loss intervention
• Exercise: at least 150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity per week
• More vegetables, fewer carbohydrates, and less protein, according to the American Diabetes Association’s “Create your plate” plan⁹
• Mediterranean diet.¹⁰

Use motivational interviewing techniques along with the obesity history to negotiate goals. Exercise-related goals should consider the patient’s cardiovascular and musculoskeletal comorbidities.

The most effective weight loss treatment consists of in-person consultations in which comprehensive lifestyle interventions are included. The components of an effective intervention (Table 1) include a reduced-calorie diet, aerobic physical activity, and behavioral strategies to meaningfully support these changes.²

We recommend addressing potential barriers to initiating and maintaining weight-loss interventions, and revisiting them during follow-up visits. Barriers include the following:

Depression

Adults with depression are more likely to be obese than adults without depression, and the age-adjusted percentage of adults who are obese increases as depression severity increases.¹¹

Access to healthy foods

Limited access to healthy food choices can lead to poor diets and higher levels of obesity.¹² Local grocery store websites and nutrition specialists can help identify a range of healthy and affordable food to sustain a dietary intervention.

Medications associated with weight gain

Certain diabetic medications, contraceptives, tricyclic antidepressants, atypical antipsychotics, antiseizure drugs, and glucocorticoids promote weight gain and may have alternatives that do not promote weight gain.¹³

ARRANGE FOLLOW-UP AND REFERRALS

The literature supports frequent in-person sessions as the basis for a successful weight loss intervention (ie, ≥ 14 sessions in 6 months).² Medicare beneficiaries are eligible for 14 covered visits in the first 6 months and become eligible for an additional monthly visit over the course of 6 subsequent months if a weight loss goal of 3 kg is met in the first 6-month period.

Nutritionists, dieticians, and behavioral psychologists are often instrumental in comprehensive weight loss interventions. Anti­obesity drugs help curb appetite, promote weight loss, help enhance adherence to lifestyle modifications, and make it easier for patients to start a program of physical activity.¹⁴

The joint 2013 guidelines² recommend referral for bariatric surgery for adults with a BMI 40 kg/m² or higher, or for adults with a BMI 35 kg/m² or higher and obesity-related comorbidities who have not responded to behavioral treatment (with or without pharmacotherapy).

A growing body of evidence promotes the use of group support sessions such as shared medical appointments to encourage healthy eating and physical activity.¹⁵

OBESITY COUNSELING IS ACHIEVABLE AND REIMBURSABLE

To receive reimbursement from Medicare for obesity counseling, the information listed under “assess” and “advise” in Table 1 should be obtained in the initial visit; and follow-up visits should be used to address items under “agree,” “assist,” and “arrange.” Up to 20 visits are eligible for reimbursement when patients meet the goal of a 3-kg weight loss in the first 6 months (or 14 visits).

Yes, by using a pre-visit questionnaire that zeroes in on weight history, eating habits, and level of physical activity. This information will lay the foundation for effective weight loss counseling and interventions consistent with intensive behavioral therapy for obesity, reimbursable by Medicare.¹

See related editorial

More than one-third of US adults are obese.³ And even though the rate of obesity in adults has leveled off since 2009,³ more needs to be done to bend the arc of the national obesity trend. Clinicians tend to focus on the complications of obesity (coronary artery disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia) rather than on early identification and intervention of obesity itself.^4–6 A national study of outpatient visits showed that only 29% of visits by patients who were obese according to their body mass index (BMI) had a documented diagnosis of obesity, suggesting a profound under­diagnosis of obesity.⁷ According to one study, primary care doctors lack the level of comfort and counseling experience needed to provide obesity and weight loss counseling.⁸ Yet recent changes to Medicare reimbursement encourage obesity screening and management by covering up to 20 visits for intensive behavioral therapy to treat obesity.¹

We offer the following targeted approach to counseling, achievable within the context of a primary care visit and based on recent evidence, including the 2013 joint guidelines for the treatment of obesity of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the Obesity Society.²

START WITH SCREENING

Measure the patient’s height and weight with the patient wearing light clothing and no shoes, and calculate the BMI as the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters. A BMI of 30 kg/m² or greater defines obesity.

OBTAIN AN OBESITY HISTORY

According to the 2013 joint guidelines,² when obtaining a thorough obesity history, the physician should do the following:

• Obtain information about weight the patient has gained and lost over time and previous weight loss efforts
• Ask the patient about eating habits, including number of meals per day, and the contents of a typical breakfast, lunch, and dinner; we recommend also asking about the number of daily beverages high in sugar
• Quantify the type and amount of physical activity performed within a specific time period.

This information can be obtained in advance of an office visit through either an electronic medical record portal or a pre-visit questionnaire (eg, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2002.205/full).

Also assess the patient’s risk of cardiovascular and obesity-related comorbidities. The waist circumference for patients with a BMI between 25 and 35 kg/m² provides additional information on risk: eg, a waist circumference greater than 88 cm for women and greater than 102 cm for men indicates increased cardiometabolic risk.²

SUGGEST SPECIFIC GOALS

Use a shared decision-making process to arrive at a set of incremental goals centered around the following evidence-based targets²:

• Weight loss: 3% to 5% of baseline weight within 6 months
• 6-month commitment to a weight loss intervention
• Exercise: at least 150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity per week
• More vegetables, fewer carbohydrates, and less protein, according to the American Diabetes Association’s “Create your plate” plan⁹
• Mediterranean diet.¹⁰

Use motivational interviewing techniques along with the obesity history to negotiate goals. Exercise-related goals should consider the patient’s cardiovascular and musculoskeletal comorbidities.

The most effective weight loss treatment consists of in-person consultations in which comprehensive lifestyle interventions are included. The components of an effective intervention (Table 1) include a reduced-calorie diet, aerobic physical activity, and behavioral strategies to meaningfully support these changes.²

We recommend addressing potential barriers to initiating and maintaining weight-loss interventions, and revisiting them during follow-up visits. Barriers include the following:

Depression

Adults with depression are more likely to be obese than adults without depression, and the age-adjusted percentage of adults who are obese increases as depression severity increases.¹¹

Access to healthy foods

Limited access to healthy food choices can lead to poor diets and higher levels of obesity.¹² Local grocery store websites and nutrition specialists can help identify a range of healthy and affordable food to sustain a dietary intervention.

Medications associated with weight gain

Certain diabetic medications, contraceptives, tricyclic antidepressants, atypical antipsychotics, antiseizure drugs, and glucocorticoids promote weight gain and may have alternatives that do not promote weight gain.¹³

ARRANGE FOLLOW-UP AND REFERRALS

The literature supports frequent in-person sessions as the basis for a successful weight loss intervention (ie, ≥ 14 sessions in 6 months).² Medicare beneficiaries are eligible for 14 covered visits in the first 6 months and become eligible for an additional monthly visit over the course of 6 subsequent months if a weight loss goal of 3 kg is met in the first 6-month period.

Nutritionists, dieticians, and behavioral psychologists are often instrumental in comprehensive weight loss interventions. Anti­obesity drugs help curb appetite, promote weight loss, help enhance adherence to lifestyle modifications, and make it easier for patients to start a program of physical activity.¹⁴

The joint 2013 guidelines² recommend referral for bariatric surgery for adults with a BMI 40 kg/m² or higher, or for adults with a BMI 35 kg/m² or higher and obesity-related comorbidities who have not responded to behavioral treatment (with or without pharmacotherapy).

A growing body of evidence promotes the use of group support sessions such as shared medical appointments to encourage healthy eating and physical activity.¹⁵

OBESITY COUNSELING IS ACHIEVABLE AND REIMBURSABLE

To receive reimbursement from Medicare for obesity counseling, the information listed under “assess” and “advise” in Table 1 should be obtained in the initial visit; and follow-up visits should be used to address items under “agree,” “assist,” and “arrange.” Up to 20 visits are eligible for reimbursement when patients meet the goal of a 3-kg weight loss in the first 6 months (or 14 visits).

Yes, by using a pre-visit questionnaire that zeroes in on weight history, eating habits, and level of physical activity. This information will lay the foundation for effective weight loss counseling and interventions consistent with intensive behavioral therapy for obesity, reimbursable by Medicare.¹

See related editorial

More than one-third of US adults are obese.³ And even though the rate of obesity in adults has leveled off since 2009,³ more needs to be done to bend the arc of the national obesity trend. Clinicians tend to focus on the complications of obesity (coronary artery disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia) rather than on early identification and intervention of obesity itself.^4–6 A national study of outpatient visits showed that only 29% of visits by patients who were obese according to their body mass index (BMI) had a documented diagnosis of obesity, suggesting a profound under­diagnosis of obesity.⁷ According to one study, primary care doctors lack the level of comfort and counseling experience needed to provide obesity and weight loss counseling.⁸ Yet recent changes to Medicare reimbursement encourage obesity screening and management by covering up to 20 visits for intensive behavioral therapy to treat obesity.¹

We offer the following targeted approach to counseling, achievable within the context of a primary care visit and based on recent evidence, including the 2013 joint guidelines for the treatment of obesity of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the Obesity Society.²

START WITH SCREENING

Measure the patient’s height and weight with the patient wearing light clothing and no shoes, and calculate the BMI as the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters. A BMI of 30 kg/m² or greater defines obesity.

OBTAIN AN OBESITY HISTORY

According to the 2013 joint guidelines,² when obtaining a thorough obesity history, the physician should do the following:

• Obtain information about weight the patient has gained and lost over time and previous weight loss efforts
• Ask the patient about eating habits, including number of meals per day, and the contents of a typical breakfast, lunch, and dinner; we recommend also asking about the number of daily beverages high in sugar
• Quantify the type and amount of physical activity performed within a specific time period.

This information can be obtained in advance of an office visit through either an electronic medical record portal or a pre-visit questionnaire (eg, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2002.205/full).

Also assess the patient’s risk of cardiovascular and obesity-related comorbidities. The waist circumference for patients with a BMI between 25 and 35 kg/m² provides additional information on risk: eg, a waist circumference greater than 88 cm for women and greater than 102 cm for men indicates increased cardiometabolic risk.²

SUGGEST SPECIFIC GOALS

Use a shared decision-making process to arrive at a set of incremental goals centered around the following evidence-based targets²:

• Weight loss: 3% to 5% of baseline weight within 6 months
• 6-month commitment to a weight loss intervention
• Exercise: at least 150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity per week
• More vegetables, fewer carbohydrates, and less protein, according to the American Diabetes Association’s “Create your plate” plan⁹
• Mediterranean diet.¹⁰

Use motivational interviewing techniques along with the obesity history to negotiate goals. Exercise-related goals should consider the patient’s cardiovascular and musculoskeletal comorbidities.

The most effective weight loss treatment consists of in-person consultations in which comprehensive lifestyle interventions are included. The components of an effective intervention (Table 1) include a reduced-calorie diet, aerobic physical activity, and behavioral strategies to meaningfully support these changes.²

We recommend addressing potential barriers to initiating and maintaining weight-loss interventions, and revisiting them during follow-up visits. Barriers include the following:

Depression

Adults with depression are more likely to be obese than adults without depression, and the age-adjusted percentage of adults who are obese increases as depression severity increases.¹¹

Access to healthy foods

Limited access to healthy food choices can lead to poor diets and higher levels of obesity.¹² Local grocery store websites and nutrition specialists can help identify a range of healthy and affordable food to sustain a dietary intervention.

Medications associated with weight gain

Certain diabetic medications, contraceptives, tricyclic antidepressants, atypical antipsychotics, antiseizure drugs, and glucocorticoids promote weight gain and may have alternatives that do not promote weight gain.¹³

ARRANGE FOLLOW-UP AND REFERRALS

The literature supports frequent in-person sessions as the basis for a successful weight loss intervention (ie, ≥ 14 sessions in 6 months).² Medicare beneficiaries are eligible for 14 covered visits in the first 6 months and become eligible for an additional monthly visit over the course of 6 subsequent months if a weight loss goal of 3 kg is met in the first 6-month period.

Nutritionists, dieticians, and behavioral psychologists are often instrumental in comprehensive weight loss interventions. Anti­obesity drugs help curb appetite, promote weight loss, help enhance adherence to lifestyle modifications, and make it easier for patients to start a program of physical activity.¹⁴

The joint 2013 guidelines² recommend referral for bariatric surgery for adults with a BMI 40 kg/m² or higher, or for adults with a BMI 35 kg/m² or higher and obesity-related comorbidities who have not responded to behavioral treatment (with or without pharmacotherapy).

A growing body of evidence promotes the use of group support sessions such as shared medical appointments to encourage healthy eating and physical activity.¹⁵

OBESITY COUNSELING IS ACHIEVABLE AND REIMBURSABLE

To receive reimbursement from Medicare for obesity counseling, the information listed under “assess” and “advise” in Table 1 should be obtained in the initial visit; and follow-up visits should be used to address items under “agree,” “assist,” and “arrange.” Up to 20 visits are eligible for reimbursement when patients meet the goal of a 3-kg weight loss in the first 6 months (or 14 visits).

The question posed in the 1-Minute Consult by Zambrano and Burguera¹ in this issue of Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine forces us to evaluate the current management of one of our nation’s most costly and devastating health problems. On the front lines of this battle are primary care providers who face the challenge of delivering effective obesity counseling in a limited time frame.

See related article

Zambrano and Burguera highlight the 2011 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reimbursement program for obesity counseling using intensive behavioral therapy.² The program supports and provides incentives in the form of time and reimbursement to primary care providers to discuss obesity with patients. But fewer than 1% of Medicare beneficiaries use the program.

While doctors often cite lack of time as a barrier to effectively counseling patients on weight, no clear evidence suggests that more time beyond the usual “5 minutes” of counseling is effective. The real issue is how a patient is counseled, not how long.

Physicians commonly resort to the simple message of “eat less and move more,” and tell patients that they “should” lose weight (as if patients with obesity don’t already know they should lose weight), which clearly is not helpful. Recently, a patient told me her primary care physician came into the examination room and told her that she needs to lose 15 to 20 pounds. “We can do it,” he said, clapped his hands, and left. This message is no more effective than telling a person with depression to “cheer up.”

WEIGHT BIAS

Zambrano and Burguera succinctly outline a targeted approach to reimbursable obesity counseling. But another obstacle to effective counseling that needs to be addressed is weight bias. Weight bias refers to negative attitudes and beliefs toward people with obesity and is common among healthcare professionals. Doctors too often believe people with obesity are lazy, eat too much, and lack the willpower to maintain a healthy diet. As a result, doctors may spend less time, have less discussion, and fail to consider effective treatment options for patients with obesity.

Weight loss is difficult for the patient and for the physician. Many still believe that people with obesity can ameliorate their condition simply by eating less. Rather than label the lack of weight loss or weight regain as a failure of the patient with obesity, we should consider this a poor response to the treatment. When chemotherapy is not effective or when someone requires insulin for their diabetes, do we blame the patient? There is a double standard for obesity, and it highlights a lack of understanding of obesity and weight bias. These historic beliefs are at odds with growing evidence indicating the pathogenesis of obesity involves a far more complex process, consisting of genetic, developmental, and environmental factors.³

LANGUAGE MATTERS

Obesity is not a lifestyle choice but rather a dysfunction of a highly regulated system. We need to help patients navigate the process of trying to lose weight in a nonjudgmental way, understanding that language matters. We should pay attention to our comments, recognizing that pejorative words (eg, morbid, fat) may contribute to patient shame and impair the effectiveness of behavioral change counseling. We need to self-identify negative assumptions and stereotypes and empathize with our patients. Learning about our own implicit bias through an online test (eg, Project Implicit⁴) and using “person-first” language (eg, “patient with obesity” instead of “obese patient”) are simple steps we can take to support our patients.⁵

REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS, EFFECTIVE OPTIONS

Setting expectations is crucial in the shared decision-making process. We need to be optimistic that a 5% to 10% loss of body weight can significantly improve many chronic diseases, but realistic that not everyone will respond the same way. Establishing 3- to 6-month end points is an appropriate way to gauge treatment response and pursue different treatment options in those who do not respond.

Antiobesity drugs may be effective combined with lifestyle interventions and may be considered in patients who have not responded to behavioral modification. Once thought to be a barbaric operation that should be reserved as a last resort, bariatric surgery remains the most effective treatment for obesity, resulting in a 20% to 35% body weight loss after 1 year. And a recent study showed sustained weight loss and effective remission and prevention of type 2 diabetes.⁶

To believe that all forms of obesity are the same and thus should have one treatment option is narrow-minded. We do not treat all cancers the same, nor do we treat all diabetes the same. Obesity is no different.

Effective obesity counseling in the limited time frame of an office visit is essential, but we also need to change the way we approach patients with obesity. We should pay attention to how we treat our patients with excess weight and empathize with their condition as we do with every other patient. We should be willing to treat obesity as the disease that it is and look beyond the scale. In the end, 20 minutes may not solve the problem, but it can begin the process.

The question posed in the 1-Minute Consult by Zambrano and Burguera¹ in this issue of Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine forces us to evaluate the current management of one of our nation’s most costly and devastating health problems. On the front lines of this battle are primary care providers who face the challenge of delivering effective obesity counseling in a limited time frame.

See related article

Zambrano and Burguera highlight the 2011 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reimbursement program for obesity counseling using intensive behavioral therapy.² The program supports and provides incentives in the form of time and reimbursement to primary care providers to discuss obesity with patients. But fewer than 1% of Medicare beneficiaries use the program.

While doctors often cite lack of time as a barrier to effectively counseling patients on weight, no clear evidence suggests that more time beyond the usual “5 minutes” of counseling is effective. The real issue is how a patient is counseled, not how long.

Physicians commonly resort to the simple message of “eat less and move more,” and tell patients that they “should” lose weight (as if patients with obesity don’t already know they should lose weight), which clearly is not helpful. Recently, a patient told me her primary care physician came into the examination room and told her that she needs to lose 15 to 20 pounds. “We can do it,” he said, clapped his hands, and left. This message is no more effective than telling a person with depression to “cheer up.”

WEIGHT BIAS

Zambrano and Burguera succinctly outline a targeted approach to reimbursable obesity counseling. But another obstacle to effective counseling that needs to be addressed is weight bias. Weight bias refers to negative attitudes and beliefs toward people with obesity and is common among healthcare professionals. Doctors too often believe people with obesity are lazy, eat too much, and lack the willpower to maintain a healthy diet. As a result, doctors may spend less time, have less discussion, and fail to consider effective treatment options for patients with obesity.

Weight loss is difficult for the patient and for the physician. Many still believe that people with obesity can ameliorate their condition simply by eating less. Rather than label the lack of weight loss or weight regain as a failure of the patient with obesity, we should consider this a poor response to the treatment. When chemotherapy is not effective or when someone requires insulin for their diabetes, do we blame the patient? There is a double standard for obesity, and it highlights a lack of understanding of obesity and weight bias. These historic beliefs are at odds with growing evidence indicating the pathogenesis of obesity involves a far more complex process, consisting of genetic, developmental, and environmental factors.³

LANGUAGE MATTERS

Obesity is not a lifestyle choice but rather a dysfunction of a highly regulated system. We need to help patients navigate the process of trying to lose weight in a nonjudgmental way, understanding that language matters. We should pay attention to our comments, recognizing that pejorative words (eg, morbid, fat) may contribute to patient shame and impair the effectiveness of behavioral change counseling. We need to self-identify negative assumptions and stereotypes and empathize with our patients. Learning about our own implicit bias through an online test (eg, Project Implicit⁴) and using “person-first” language (eg, “patient with obesity” instead of “obese patient”) are simple steps we can take to support our patients.⁵

REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS, EFFECTIVE OPTIONS

Setting expectations is crucial in the shared decision-making process. We need to be optimistic that a 5% to 10% loss of body weight can significantly improve many chronic diseases, but realistic that not everyone will respond the same way. Establishing 3- to 6-month end points is an appropriate way to gauge treatment response and pursue different treatment options in those who do not respond.

Antiobesity drugs may be effective combined with lifestyle interventions and may be considered in patients who have not responded to behavioral modification. Once thought to be a barbaric operation that should be reserved as a last resort, bariatric surgery remains the most effective treatment for obesity, resulting in a 20% to 35% body weight loss after 1 year. And a recent study showed sustained weight loss and effective remission and prevention of type 2 diabetes.⁶

To believe that all forms of obesity are the same and thus should have one treatment option is narrow-minded. We do not treat all cancers the same, nor do we treat all diabetes the same. Obesity is no different.

Effective obesity counseling in the limited time frame of an office visit is essential, but we also need to change the way we approach patients with obesity. We should pay attention to how we treat our patients with excess weight and empathize with their condition as we do with every other patient. We should be willing to treat obesity as the disease that it is and look beyond the scale. In the end, 20 minutes may not solve the problem, but it can begin the process.

The question posed in the 1-Minute Consult by Zambrano and Burguera¹ in this issue of Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine forces us to evaluate the current management of one of our nation’s most costly and devastating health problems. On the front lines of this battle are primary care providers who face the challenge of delivering effective obesity counseling in a limited time frame.

See related article

Zambrano and Burguera highlight the 2011 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reimbursement program for obesity counseling using intensive behavioral therapy.² The program supports and provides incentives in the form of time and reimbursement to primary care providers to discuss obesity with patients. But fewer than 1% of Medicare beneficiaries use the program.

While doctors often cite lack of time as a barrier to effectively counseling patients on weight, no clear evidence suggests that more time beyond the usual “5 minutes” of counseling is effective. The real issue is how a patient is counseled, not how long.

Physicians commonly resort to the simple message of “eat less and move more,” and tell patients that they “should” lose weight (as if patients with obesity don’t already know they should lose weight), which clearly is not helpful. Recently, a patient told me her primary care physician came into the examination room and told her that she needs to lose 15 to 20 pounds. “We can do it,” he said, clapped his hands, and left. This message is no more effective than telling a person with depression to “cheer up.”

WEIGHT BIAS

Zambrano and Burguera succinctly outline a targeted approach to reimbursable obesity counseling. But another obstacle to effective counseling that needs to be addressed is weight bias. Weight bias refers to negative attitudes and beliefs toward people with obesity and is common among healthcare professionals. Doctors too often believe people with obesity are lazy, eat too much, and lack the willpower to maintain a healthy diet. As a result, doctors may spend less time, have less discussion, and fail to consider effective treatment options for patients with obesity.

Weight loss is difficult for the patient and for the physician. Many still believe that people with obesity can ameliorate their condition simply by eating less. Rather than label the lack of weight loss or weight regain as a failure of the patient with obesity, we should consider this a poor response to the treatment. When chemotherapy is not effective or when someone requires insulin for their diabetes, do we blame the patient? There is a double standard for obesity, and it highlights a lack of understanding of obesity and weight bias. These historic beliefs are at odds with growing evidence indicating the pathogenesis of obesity involves a far more complex process, consisting of genetic, developmental, and environmental factors.³

LANGUAGE MATTERS

Obesity is not a lifestyle choice but rather a dysfunction of a highly regulated system. We need to help patients navigate the process of trying to lose weight in a nonjudgmental way, understanding that language matters. We should pay attention to our comments, recognizing that pejorative words (eg, morbid, fat) may contribute to patient shame and impair the effectiveness of behavioral change counseling. We need to self-identify negative assumptions and stereotypes and empathize with our patients. Learning about our own implicit bias through an online test (eg, Project Implicit⁴) and using “person-first” language (eg, “patient with obesity” instead of “obese patient”) are simple steps we can take to support our patients.⁵

REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS, EFFECTIVE OPTIONS

Setting expectations is crucial in the shared decision-making process. We need to be optimistic that a 5% to 10% loss of body weight can significantly improve many chronic diseases, but realistic that not everyone will respond the same way. Establishing 3- to 6-month end points is an appropriate way to gauge treatment response and pursue different treatment options in those who do not respond.

Antiobesity drugs may be effective combined with lifestyle interventions and may be considered in patients who have not responded to behavioral modification. Once thought to be a barbaric operation that should be reserved as a last resort, bariatric surgery remains the most effective treatment for obesity, resulting in a 20% to 35% body weight loss after 1 year. And a recent study showed sustained weight loss and effective remission and prevention of type 2 diabetes.⁶

To believe that all forms of obesity are the same and thus should have one treatment option is narrow-minded. We do not treat all cancers the same, nor do we treat all diabetes the same. Obesity is no different.

Effective obesity counseling in the limited time frame of an office visit is essential, but we also need to change the way we approach patients with obesity. We should pay attention to how we treat our patients with excess weight and empathize with their condition as we do with every other patient. We should be willing to treat obesity as the disease that it is and look beyond the scale. In the end, 20 minutes may not solve the problem, but it can begin the process.

Clinical experience and observational studies made us aware that African American patients responded differently to some treatments than the white male patients in the clinical trials. This awareness led to some interesting biologic hypotheses and, over the past 13 years, has led to trials focused on the treatment of heart failure and hypertension in African Americans. But a full biologic understanding of the apparent racial differences in clinical response to specific therapies has for the most part remained elusive.

Contributing to this understanding gap was that we historically did not fully appreciate the differences according to race (and likely sex) in the clinical progression of diseases such as hypertension, heart failure, and, as discussed in this issue of the Journal by Dr. Joseph V. Nally, Jr., chronic kidney disease. African Americans with congestive heart failure seem to fare worse than their white counterparts with the same disease. Given the strong link between heart failure and chronic kidney disease and the crosstalk between the heart and kidneys, it is no surprise that African Americans with chronic kidney disease progress to end-stage renal disease at a higher rate than whites. Yet, as Dr. Nally points out, once on dialysis, African Americans live longer—an intriguing observation that came from analysis of large databases devoted to the study of patients with chronic kidney disease.

As a patient’s self-defined racial identity may not be biologically accurate, using molecular genetic techniques to delve more deeply into the characteristics of patients in these chronic kidney disease registries is starting to yield fascinating results—and even more questions. Links between APOL1 gene polymorphisms and the occurrence of renal disease and the survival of transplanted kidneys is assuredly just the start of a journey of genomic discovery and understanding.

Readers will note the short editor’s note at the start of Dr. Nally’s article, indicating that it was based on a Medicine Grand Rounds lecture at Cleveland Clinic, the 14th annual Lawrence “Chris” Crain Memorial Lecture. In 1997, Chris became the first African American chief resident in internal medicine at Cleveland Clinic, and I had the pleasure of interacting with him while he was in that role. Chris was a natural leader. He was soft-spoken, curious, and passionate about delivering and understanding the basics of high-quality clinical care.

After his residency, with Byron Hoogwerf as the internal medicine program director, Chris trained with Joe Nally as his program director in nephrology, and further developed his interest in renal and cardiovascular disease in African Americans. He moved to Atlanta, where he died far too prematurely in July 2003. That year, in conjunction with Chris’s mother, wife, extended family, and other faculty, Drs. Hoogwerf and Nally established the Lawrence “Chris” Crain Memorial Lectureship, devoted to Chris’s passion of furthering our understanding and our ability to deliver optimal care to African American patients with cardiovascular and renal disease.

I am pleased to share this lecture with you.

Clinical experience and observational studies made us aware that African American patients responded differently to some treatments than the white male patients in the clinical trials. This awareness led to some interesting biologic hypotheses and, over the past 13 years, has led to trials focused on the treatment of heart failure and hypertension in African Americans. But a full biologic understanding of the apparent racial differences in clinical response to specific therapies has for the most part remained elusive.

Contributing to this understanding gap was that we historically did not fully appreciate the differences according to race (and likely sex) in the clinical progression of diseases such as hypertension, heart failure, and, as discussed in this issue of the Journal by Dr. Joseph V. Nally, Jr., chronic kidney disease. African Americans with congestive heart failure seem to fare worse than their white counterparts with the same disease. Given the strong link between heart failure and chronic kidney disease and the crosstalk between the heart and kidneys, it is no surprise that African Americans with chronic kidney disease progress to end-stage renal disease at a higher rate than whites. Yet, as Dr. Nally points out, once on dialysis, African Americans live longer—an intriguing observation that came from analysis of large databases devoted to the study of patients with chronic kidney disease.

As a patient’s self-defined racial identity may not be biologically accurate, using molecular genetic techniques to delve more deeply into the characteristics of patients in these chronic kidney disease registries is starting to yield fascinating results—and even more questions. Links between APOL1 gene polymorphisms and the occurrence of renal disease and the survival of transplanted kidneys is assuredly just the start of a journey of genomic discovery and understanding.

Readers will note the short editor’s note at the start of Dr. Nally’s article, indicating that it was based on a Medicine Grand Rounds lecture at Cleveland Clinic, the 14th annual Lawrence “Chris” Crain Memorial Lecture. In 1997, Chris became the first African American chief resident in internal medicine at Cleveland Clinic, and I had the pleasure of interacting with him while he was in that role. Chris was a natural leader. He was soft-spoken, curious, and passionate about delivering and understanding the basics of high-quality clinical care.

After his residency, with Byron Hoogwerf as the internal medicine program director, Chris trained with Joe Nally as his program director in nephrology, and further developed his interest in renal and cardiovascular disease in African Americans. He moved to Atlanta, where he died far too prematurely in July 2003. That year, in conjunction with Chris’s mother, wife, extended family, and other faculty, Drs. Hoogwerf and Nally established the Lawrence “Chris” Crain Memorial Lectureship, devoted to Chris’s passion of furthering our understanding and our ability to deliver optimal care to African American patients with cardiovascular and renal disease.

I am pleased to share this lecture with you.

Clinical experience and observational studies made us aware that African American patients responded differently to some treatments than the white male patients in the clinical trials. This awareness led to some interesting biologic hypotheses and, over the past 13 years, has led to trials focused on the treatment of heart failure and hypertension in African Americans. But a full biologic understanding of the apparent racial differences in clinical response to specific therapies has for the most part remained elusive.

Contributing to this understanding gap was that we historically did not fully appreciate the differences according to race (and likely sex) in the clinical progression of diseases such as hypertension, heart failure, and, as discussed in this issue of the Journal by Dr. Joseph V. Nally, Jr., chronic kidney disease. African Americans with congestive heart failure seem to fare worse than their white counterparts with the same disease. Given the strong link between heart failure and chronic kidney disease and the crosstalk between the heart and kidneys, it is no surprise that African Americans with chronic kidney disease progress to end-stage renal disease at a higher rate than whites. Yet, as Dr. Nally points out, once on dialysis, African Americans live longer—an intriguing observation that came from analysis of large databases devoted to the study of patients with chronic kidney disease.

As a patient’s self-defined racial identity may not be biologically accurate, using molecular genetic techniques to delve more deeply into the characteristics of patients in these chronic kidney disease registries is starting to yield fascinating results—and even more questions. Links between APOL1 gene polymorphisms and the occurrence of renal disease and the survival of transplanted kidneys is assuredly just the start of a journey of genomic discovery and understanding.

Readers will note the short editor’s note at the start of Dr. Nally’s article, indicating that it was based on a Medicine Grand Rounds lecture at Cleveland Clinic, the 14th annual Lawrence “Chris” Crain Memorial Lecture. In 1997, Chris became the first African American chief resident in internal medicine at Cleveland Clinic, and I had the pleasure of interacting with him while he was in that role. Chris was a natural leader. He was soft-spoken, curious, and passionate about delivering and understanding the basics of high-quality clinical care.

After his residency, with Byron Hoogwerf as the internal medicine program director, Chris trained with Joe Nally as his program director in nephrology, and further developed his interest in renal and cardiovascular disease in African Americans. He moved to Atlanta, where he died far too prematurely in July 2003. That year, in conjunction with Chris’s mother, wife, extended family, and other faculty, Drs. Hoogwerf and Nally established the Lawrence “Chris” Crain Memorial Lectureship, devoted to Chris’s passion of furthering our understanding and our ability to deliver optimal care to African American patients with cardiovascular and renal disease.

I am pleased to share this lecture with you.

A woman in her 30s presented with an itchy skin-colored rash over her left scapular region that had first appeared 8 years earlier. It had started as itchy skin-colored papules that coalesced to a patch and later became hyperpigmented because of repeated scratching.

She had undergone total thyroidectomy for medullary thyroid carcinoma 1 year ago, and the rash had been diagnosed at that time as lichen planus. She was referred to us by her physician for histopathologic confirmation of the lesions. She denied any history of episodic headache or palpitation.

Her urine normetanephrine excretion was elevated at 1,425 μg/day (reference range 148–560), and her metanephrine excretion was also high at 2,024 μg/day (reference range 44–261).

At a 3-month follow-up visit, the woman’s skin lesions had improved with twice-a-day application of mometasone 0.1% cream; she was lost to follow-up after that visit.

MULTIPLE ENDOCRINE NEOPLASIA

Our patient’s scapular lesions and first-degree family history of MEN type 2A confirmed the diagnosis of the newly recognized variant, MEN type 2A-related cutaneous lichen amyloidosis, in which the characteristic pigmented scapular rash typically predates the first diagnosis of neoplasia.¹ The dermal amyloidosis is caused by deposition of keratinlike peptides rather than calcitoninlike peptides.²

A recent systematic review on MEN type 2A with cutaneous lichen amyloidosis showed a female preponderance and a high penetrance of cutaneous lichen amyloidosis, which was the second most frequent manifestation of the syndrome, preceded only by medullary thyroid carcinoma.¹

As in our patient’s case, scapular rash and a history of medullary thyroid carcinoma should prompt an investigation for MEN type 2A. These patients should be closely followed for underlying MEN type 2A-related neoplasms.

The mucosal neuromas and skin lipomas seen in MEN type 1 and MEN type 2B are absent in MEN type 2A.³ Cutaneous lichen amyloidosis is the only dermatologic marker for MEN type 2A. Owing to a similar genetic background, cutaneous lichen amyloidosis is also associated with familial medullary thyroid carcinoma, another rare variant of MEN type 2A.⁴

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS

Notalgia paresthetica is a unilateral chronic neuropathic pruritus on the back, mostly located between the shoulders and corresponding to the second and the sixth thoracic nerves. It is mostly attributed to compression of spinal nerves by an abnormality of the thoracic spine.⁵ In our patient, this was ruled out by the radiologic evaluation.

Before MEN type 2A with cutaneous lichen amyloidosis was recognized as a variant of MEN type 2A, lesions suggestive of notalgia paresthetica were reported with MEN type 2A.³ The classic infrascapular location, history of painful neck muscle spasms, touch hyperesthesia of the lesions, and absence of amyloid deposits on histopathologic study help to differentiate notalgia paresthetica from cutaneous lichen amyloidosis. However, later phases of notalgia paresthetica may show amyloid deposits on histopathologic study, while detection of a scant amount of amyloid is difficult in the early stages of cutaneous lichen amyloidosis.

TAKE-HOME POINT

Cutaneous lichen amyloidosis is usually seen on the extensor surfaces of the extremities. It is considered benign, caused by filamentous degeneration of keratinocytes from repeated scratching. But cutaneous lichen amyloidosis at an early age in the scapular area of women warrants a detailed family history for endocrine neoplasia, blood pressure monitoring, thyroid palpation, and blood testing for serum calcium, calcitonin, and parathyroid hormone.

A woman in her 30s presented with an itchy skin-colored rash over her left scapular region that had first appeared 8 years earlier. It had started as itchy skin-colored papules that coalesced to a patch and later became hyperpigmented because of repeated scratching.

She had undergone total thyroidectomy for medullary thyroid carcinoma 1 year ago, and the rash had been diagnosed at that time as lichen planus. She was referred to us by her physician for histopathologic confirmation of the lesions. She denied any history of episodic headache or palpitation.

Her urine normetanephrine excretion was elevated at 1,425 μg/day (reference range 148–560), and her metanephrine excretion was also high at 2,024 μg/day (reference range 44–261).

At a 3-month follow-up visit, the woman’s skin lesions had improved with twice-a-day application of mometasone 0.1% cream; she was lost to follow-up after that visit.

MULTIPLE ENDOCRINE NEOPLASIA

Our patient’s scapular lesions and first-degree family history of MEN type 2A confirmed the diagnosis of the newly recognized variant, MEN type 2A-related cutaneous lichen amyloidosis, in which the characteristic pigmented scapular rash typically predates the first diagnosis of neoplasia.¹ The dermal amyloidosis is caused by deposition of keratinlike peptides rather than calcitoninlike peptides.²

A recent systematic review on MEN type 2A with cutaneous lichen amyloidosis showed a female preponderance and a high penetrance of cutaneous lichen amyloidosis, which was the second most frequent manifestation of the syndrome, preceded only by medullary thyroid carcinoma.¹

As in our patient’s case, scapular rash and a history of medullary thyroid carcinoma should prompt an investigation for MEN type 2A. These patients should be closely followed for underlying MEN type 2A-related neoplasms.

The mucosal neuromas and skin lipomas seen in MEN type 1 and MEN type 2B are absent in MEN type 2A.³ Cutaneous lichen amyloidosis is the only dermatologic marker for MEN type 2A. Owing to a similar genetic background, cutaneous lichen amyloidosis is also associated with familial medullary thyroid carcinoma, another rare variant of MEN type 2A.⁴

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS

Notalgia paresthetica is a unilateral chronic neuropathic pruritus on the back, mostly located between the shoulders and corresponding to the second and the sixth thoracic nerves. It is mostly attributed to compression of spinal nerves by an abnormality of the thoracic spine.⁵ In our patient, this was ruled out by the radiologic evaluation.

Before MEN type 2A with cutaneous lichen amyloidosis was recognized as a variant of MEN type 2A, lesions suggestive of notalgia paresthetica were reported with MEN type 2A.³ The classic infrascapular location, history of painful neck muscle spasms, touch hyperesthesia of the lesions, and absence of amyloid deposits on histopathologic study help to differentiate notalgia paresthetica from cutaneous lichen amyloidosis. However, later phases of notalgia paresthetica may show amyloid deposits on histopathologic study, while detection of a scant amount of amyloid is difficult in the early stages of cutaneous lichen amyloidosis.

TAKE-HOME POINT

Cutaneous lichen amyloidosis is usually seen on the extensor surfaces of the extremities. It is considered benign, caused by filamentous degeneration of keratinocytes from repeated scratching. But cutaneous lichen amyloidosis at an early age in the scapular area of women warrants a detailed family history for endocrine neoplasia, blood pressure monitoring, thyroid palpation, and blood testing for serum calcium, calcitonin, and parathyroid hormone.

A woman in her 30s presented with an itchy skin-colored rash over her left scapular region that had first appeared 8 years earlier. It had started as itchy skin-colored papules that coalesced to a patch and later became hyperpigmented because of repeated scratching.

She had undergone total thyroidectomy for medullary thyroid carcinoma 1 year ago, and the rash had been diagnosed at that time as lichen planus. She was referred to us by her physician for histopathologic confirmation of the lesions. She denied any history of episodic headache or palpitation.

Her urine normetanephrine excretion was elevated at 1,425 μg/day (reference range 148–560), and her metanephrine excretion was also high at 2,024 μg/day (reference range 44–261).

At a 3-month follow-up visit, the woman’s skin lesions had improved with twice-a-day application of mometasone 0.1% cream; she was lost to follow-up after that visit.

MULTIPLE ENDOCRINE NEOPLASIA

Our patient’s scapular lesions and first-degree family history of MEN type 2A confirmed the diagnosis of the newly recognized variant, MEN type 2A-related cutaneous lichen amyloidosis, in which the characteristic pigmented scapular rash typically predates the first diagnosis of neoplasia.¹ The dermal amyloidosis is caused by deposition of keratinlike peptides rather than calcitoninlike peptides.²

A recent systematic review on MEN type 2A with cutaneous lichen amyloidosis showed a female preponderance and a high penetrance of cutaneous lichen amyloidosis, which was the second most frequent manifestation of the syndrome, preceded only by medullary thyroid carcinoma.¹

As in our patient’s case, scapular rash and a history of medullary thyroid carcinoma should prompt an investigation for MEN type 2A. These patients should be closely followed for underlying MEN type 2A-related neoplasms.

The mucosal neuromas and skin lipomas seen in MEN type 1 and MEN type 2B are absent in MEN type 2A.³ Cutaneous lichen amyloidosis is the only dermatologic marker for MEN type 2A. Owing to a similar genetic background, cutaneous lichen amyloidosis is also associated with familial medullary thyroid carcinoma, another rare variant of MEN type 2A.⁴

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS

Notalgia paresthetica is a unilateral chronic neuropathic pruritus on the back, mostly located between the shoulders and corresponding to the second and the sixth thoracic nerves. It is mostly attributed to compression of spinal nerves by an abnormality of the thoracic spine.⁵ In our patient, this was ruled out by the radiologic evaluation.

Before MEN type 2A with cutaneous lichen amyloidosis was recognized as a variant of MEN type 2A, lesions suggestive of notalgia paresthetica were reported with MEN type 2A.³ The classic infrascapular location, history of painful neck muscle spasms, touch hyperesthesia of the lesions, and absence of amyloid deposits on histopathologic study help to differentiate notalgia paresthetica from cutaneous lichen amyloidosis. However, later phases of notalgia paresthetica may show amyloid deposits on histopathologic study, while detection of a scant amount of amyloid is difficult in the early stages of cutaneous lichen amyloidosis.

TAKE-HOME POINT

Cutaneous lichen amyloidosis is usually seen on the extensor surfaces of the extremities. It is considered benign, caused by filamentous degeneration of keratinocytes from repeated scratching. But cutaneous lichen amyloidosis at an early age in the scapular area of women warrants a detailed family history for endocrine neoplasia, blood pressure monitoring, thyroid palpation, and blood testing for serum calcium, calcitonin, and parathyroid hormone.