General Surgery

Guidance from professional societies on how to handle the risk for pulmonary aspiration during general anesthesia or deep sedation for patients taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) continues to evolve, as does the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) labeling for the drugs. The changes can be challenging to keep up with, and endocrinologists seem to be making their own decisions based on clinical experience and their interpretations of the potential impact and value of the emerging information.

The latest FDA label change warns about the risk for pulmonary aspiration but notes “insufficient” data to inform recommendations to mitigate the risk in vulnerable patients. Yet, the latest multi-society guidance, led by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and based on consensus, not evidence, has nuanced advice for managing patients at risk.

Does the FDA’s label change make a difference regarding the multi-society guidance, which was published earlier? “The answer is no,” Girish Joshi, MD, vice chair, ASA Committee on Practice Parameters, told this news organization. “The concern of increased pulmonary aspiration in patients who are on GLP-1 receptor agonists has been known, and that concern still exists. So, we started with not an assumption but the premise that patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists are at a higher risk of aspiration during sedation, analgesia, and/or general anesthesia. The FDA basically confirms what we say in the guidance.”

Joshi, professor in the Anesthesiology and Pain Management Department at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, aimed to make the guidance, which was published simultaneously in several society journals, more implementable with a letter to the editor of Anesthesiology. The key, he said, is to identify patients at higher risk for aspiration; all others would follow treatment as usual.

The letter highlights three overarching recommendations and then expands upon them: Standardized preoperative assessment for risk for delayed gastric emptying (yes/no); selective preoperative care plan based on delayed gastric emptying assessment and shared decision-making; and on the day of the procedure, reassess for delayed gastric emptying and mitigate risk if there is clinical concern.

But it seems as though, for now, endocrinologists are managing these patients as they see fit, within the parameters of any institutional guidance requirements. Here is what they said about their practice:

Amy E. Rothberg, MD, DABOM, director of the Weight Management Program & Rewind at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, said, “I think it makes sense to inform our patients of the labeling and rare but potential adverse effects if they intend to undergo anesthesia for a scheduled procedure/surgery. There is never no risk of aspiration during anesthesia.”

“I find it a bit curious that ASA implies that those who experience GI side effects are more likely than those who do not to have this potential risk. I doubt there is evidence that those without GI side effects are necessarily ‘safer’ and a study to determine that is unlikely to take be conducted.”

“My institution does require a 1-week pause on GLP-1s for those undergoing anesthesia for surgery,” she added. “That’s not evidence-based either, but probably reduces the risk of aspiration during anesthesia — but I don’t know what the actual denominator is for aspiration in those who continued vs those who took a pause from GLP-1s. Pausing does certainly (anecdotally) increase the traffic of communications between physicians and their patients about what to do in the interval.”

Anne Peters, MD, a professor of clinical medicine and a clinical scholar at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said, “The FDA label change is a warning that really doesn’t say exactly who on GLP-1 RAs is at highest risk or what to do, and if any intervention has been shown to help. The ASA recommendations seem much more nuanced and practical, including point-of-care gastric ultrasound to see if there is retained food/fluid prior to surgery.”

“In my practice, I individualize what I say, depending on the person and the circumstance,” she said. “Mostly, I have people hold one dose before planned surgery, so they have been 10 days at least without a dose. But if worried about gastrointestinal symptoms or gastroparesis, I have them do a clear liquid diet for 24 hours presurgery. Or at least avoid heavy fat meals the day before.”

“There is a risk of aspiration with anything that slows gastric emptying — maybe even in patients with gastroparesis at baseline due to physiologic, not pharmacological, reasons — and anesthesiologists should be aware of the need to assess patients individually.”

Michael A. Weintraub, MD, of NYU Langone Health Diabetes & Endocrine Associates in New York City, observed, “The risk of a pulmonary aspiration event with GLP-1 medication is quite rare, but not zero. On the other hand, stopping the GLP-1 can cause hyperglycemia or rebound weight gain. Furthermore, it can become complicated to restart GLP1 dosing, particularly given the existing medication shortages.”

“In most cases, stopping a weekly GLP-1 medication 1 week prior to the procedure minimizes the risks of pulmonary aspiration and prevents any worsening hyperglycemia or weight gain,” he said. However, taking the drug 7 days prior to the procedure is optimal. “That way, they would be due for the next dose on the day of the procedure, and taking it the day following procedure minimizes disruption in their once-weekly regimen.”

Malini Gupta, MD, director of G2Endo Endocrinology & Metabolism, Memphis, Tennessee, advised that physicians weigh the risk of stopping the medication (which can cause a glycemic spike) vs risk for aspiration.

“In my opinion, all patients should follow a strict liquid diet or NPO status prior to a surgery to further decrease the risk of aspiration,” she said. “I generally hold the GLP-1 RA for a week before a surgery. If additional glycemic control is necessary, I will add to or adjust one of the patient’s other diabetes medications.”

Jaime Almandoz, MD, associate professor of medicine and medical director of the Weight Wellness Program in Dallas, said, “As endocrinologists, we typically rely on our anesthesia colleagues for guidance on perioperative management. In light of emerging guidelines for holding GLP-1 medications, we also recommend patients adopt a liquid diet 24 hours prior to surgery, along with the fasting protocol.”

“For those managing diabetes with GLP-1 therapies, it is crucial to establish a blood sugar management plan while off these medications, especially during fasting or postoperative periods, which can be further influenced by many factors, including nausea, pain medications, and antibiotics after the procedure.”

Joshi added that at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, “we do a huge number of cases using the same information. We identify patients who are at risk, and then we tell our proceduralists and our surgeons if they’re in the escalating phase of the dosing or if they have GI symptoms; don’t even schedule them as an elective case; wait till the escalation phase is over and then schedule them.”

“That way,” he said, “it becomes logistically easy to manage because the recommendation from the group is that patients who are at higher risk should receive a 24-hour liquid diet — the same as colonoscopy. But sometimes it can be challenging to do so.”

Joshi has received honoraria for consultation from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Haisco-USA Pharmaceuticals. Gupta is on the speakers bureau for Amgen (Tepezza) and IBSA (Tirosint) and is a creative consultant for AbbVie. Almandoz serves on advisory boards for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim. The other experts declared no relevant relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Guidance from professional societies on how to handle the risk for pulmonary aspiration during general anesthesia or deep sedation for patients taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) continues to evolve, as does the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) labeling for the drugs. The changes can be challenging to keep up with, and endocrinologists seem to be making their own decisions based on clinical experience and their interpretations of the potential impact and value of the emerging information.

The latest FDA label change warns about the risk for pulmonary aspiration but notes “insufficient” data to inform recommendations to mitigate the risk in vulnerable patients. Yet, the latest multi-society guidance, led by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and based on consensus, not evidence, has nuanced advice for managing patients at risk.

Does the FDA’s label change make a difference regarding the multi-society guidance, which was published earlier? “The answer is no,” Girish Joshi, MD, vice chair, ASA Committee on Practice Parameters, told this news organization. “The concern of increased pulmonary aspiration in patients who are on GLP-1 receptor agonists has been known, and that concern still exists. So, we started with not an assumption but the premise that patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists are at a higher risk of aspiration during sedation, analgesia, and/or general anesthesia. The FDA basically confirms what we say in the guidance.”

Joshi, professor in the Anesthesiology and Pain Management Department at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, aimed to make the guidance, which was published simultaneously in several society journals, more implementable with a letter to the editor of Anesthesiology. The key, he said, is to identify patients at higher risk for aspiration; all others would follow treatment as usual.

The letter highlights three overarching recommendations and then expands upon them: Standardized preoperative assessment for risk for delayed gastric emptying (yes/no); selective preoperative care plan based on delayed gastric emptying assessment and shared decision-making; and on the day of the procedure, reassess for delayed gastric emptying and mitigate risk if there is clinical concern.

But it seems as though, for now, endocrinologists are managing these patients as they see fit, within the parameters of any institutional guidance requirements. Here is what they said about their practice:

Amy E. Rothberg, MD, DABOM, director of the Weight Management Program & Rewind at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, said, “I think it makes sense to inform our patients of the labeling and rare but potential adverse effects if they intend to undergo anesthesia for a scheduled procedure/surgery. There is never no risk of aspiration during anesthesia.”

“I find it a bit curious that ASA implies that those who experience GI side effects are more likely than those who do not to have this potential risk. I doubt there is evidence that those without GI side effects are necessarily ‘safer’ and a study to determine that is unlikely to take be conducted.”

“My institution does require a 1-week pause on GLP-1s for those undergoing anesthesia for surgery,” she added. “That’s not evidence-based either, but probably reduces the risk of aspiration during anesthesia — but I don’t know what the actual denominator is for aspiration in those who continued vs those who took a pause from GLP-1s. Pausing does certainly (anecdotally) increase the traffic of communications between physicians and their patients about what to do in the interval.”

Anne Peters, MD, a professor of clinical medicine and a clinical scholar at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said, “The FDA label change is a warning that really doesn’t say exactly who on GLP-1 RAs is at highest risk or what to do, and if any intervention has been shown to help. The ASA recommendations seem much more nuanced and practical, including point-of-care gastric ultrasound to see if there is retained food/fluid prior to surgery.”

“In my practice, I individualize what I say, depending on the person and the circumstance,” she said. “Mostly, I have people hold one dose before planned surgery, so they have been 10 days at least without a dose. But if worried about gastrointestinal symptoms or gastroparesis, I have them do a clear liquid diet for 24 hours presurgery. Or at least avoid heavy fat meals the day before.”

“There is a risk of aspiration with anything that slows gastric emptying — maybe even in patients with gastroparesis at baseline due to physiologic, not pharmacological, reasons — and anesthesiologists should be aware of the need to assess patients individually.”

Michael A. Weintraub, MD, of NYU Langone Health Diabetes & Endocrine Associates in New York City, observed, “The risk of a pulmonary aspiration event with GLP-1 medication is quite rare, but not zero. On the other hand, stopping the GLP-1 can cause hyperglycemia or rebound weight gain. Furthermore, it can become complicated to restart GLP1 dosing, particularly given the existing medication shortages.”

“In most cases, stopping a weekly GLP-1 medication 1 week prior to the procedure minimizes the risks of pulmonary aspiration and prevents any worsening hyperglycemia or weight gain,” he said. However, taking the drug 7 days prior to the procedure is optimal. “That way, they would be due for the next dose on the day of the procedure, and taking it the day following procedure minimizes disruption in their once-weekly regimen.”

Malini Gupta, MD, director of G2Endo Endocrinology & Metabolism, Memphis, Tennessee, advised that physicians weigh the risk of stopping the medication (which can cause a glycemic spike) vs risk for aspiration.

“In my opinion, all patients should follow a strict liquid diet or NPO status prior to a surgery to further decrease the risk of aspiration,” she said. “I generally hold the GLP-1 RA for a week before a surgery. If additional glycemic control is necessary, I will add to or adjust one of the patient’s other diabetes medications.”

Jaime Almandoz, MD, associate professor of medicine and medical director of the Weight Wellness Program in Dallas, said, “As endocrinologists, we typically rely on our anesthesia colleagues for guidance on perioperative management. In light of emerging guidelines for holding GLP-1 medications, we also recommend patients adopt a liquid diet 24 hours prior to surgery, along with the fasting protocol.”

“For those managing diabetes with GLP-1 therapies, it is crucial to establish a blood sugar management plan while off these medications, especially during fasting or postoperative periods, which can be further influenced by many factors, including nausea, pain medications, and antibiotics after the procedure.”

Joshi added that at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, “we do a huge number of cases using the same information. We identify patients who are at risk, and then we tell our proceduralists and our surgeons if they’re in the escalating phase of the dosing or if they have GI symptoms; don’t even schedule them as an elective case; wait till the escalation phase is over and then schedule them.”

“That way,” he said, “it becomes logistically easy to manage because the recommendation from the group is that patients who are at higher risk should receive a 24-hour liquid diet — the same as colonoscopy. But sometimes it can be challenging to do so.”

Joshi has received honoraria for consultation from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Haisco-USA Pharmaceuticals. Gupta is on the speakers bureau for Amgen (Tepezza) and IBSA (Tirosint) and is a creative consultant for AbbVie. Almandoz serves on advisory boards for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim. The other experts declared no relevant relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Guidance from professional societies on how to handle the risk for pulmonary aspiration during general anesthesia or deep sedation for patients taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) continues to evolve, as does the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) labeling for the drugs. The changes can be challenging to keep up with, and endocrinologists seem to be making their own decisions based on clinical experience and their interpretations of the potential impact and value of the emerging information.

The latest FDA label change warns about the risk for pulmonary aspiration but notes “insufficient” data to inform recommendations to mitigate the risk in vulnerable patients. Yet, the latest multi-society guidance, led by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and based on consensus, not evidence, has nuanced advice for managing patients at risk.

Does the FDA’s label change make a difference regarding the multi-society guidance, which was published earlier? “The answer is no,” Girish Joshi, MD, vice chair, ASA Committee on Practice Parameters, told this news organization. “The concern of increased pulmonary aspiration in patients who are on GLP-1 receptor agonists has been known, and that concern still exists. So, we started with not an assumption but the premise that patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists are at a higher risk of aspiration during sedation, analgesia, and/or general anesthesia. The FDA basically confirms what we say in the guidance.”

Joshi, professor in the Anesthesiology and Pain Management Department at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, aimed to make the guidance, which was published simultaneously in several society journals, more implementable with a letter to the editor of Anesthesiology. The key, he said, is to identify patients at higher risk for aspiration; all others would follow treatment as usual.

The letter highlights three overarching recommendations and then expands upon them: Standardized preoperative assessment for risk for delayed gastric emptying (yes/no); selective preoperative care plan based on delayed gastric emptying assessment and shared decision-making; and on the day of the procedure, reassess for delayed gastric emptying and mitigate risk if there is clinical concern.

But it seems as though, for now, endocrinologists are managing these patients as they see fit, within the parameters of any institutional guidance requirements. Here is what they said about their practice:

Amy E. Rothberg, MD, DABOM, director of the Weight Management Program & Rewind at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, said, “I think it makes sense to inform our patients of the labeling and rare but potential adverse effects if they intend to undergo anesthesia for a scheduled procedure/surgery. There is never no risk of aspiration during anesthesia.”

“I find it a bit curious that ASA implies that those who experience GI side effects are more likely than those who do not to have this potential risk. I doubt there is evidence that those without GI side effects are necessarily ‘safer’ and a study to determine that is unlikely to take be conducted.”

“My institution does require a 1-week pause on GLP-1s for those undergoing anesthesia for surgery,” she added. “That’s not evidence-based either, but probably reduces the risk of aspiration during anesthesia — but I don’t know what the actual denominator is for aspiration in those who continued vs those who took a pause from GLP-1s. Pausing does certainly (anecdotally) increase the traffic of communications between physicians and their patients about what to do in the interval.”

Anne Peters, MD, a professor of clinical medicine and a clinical scholar at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said, “The FDA label change is a warning that really doesn’t say exactly who on GLP-1 RAs is at highest risk or what to do, and if any intervention has been shown to help. The ASA recommendations seem much more nuanced and practical, including point-of-care gastric ultrasound to see if there is retained food/fluid prior to surgery.”

“In my practice, I individualize what I say, depending on the person and the circumstance,” she said. “Mostly, I have people hold one dose before planned surgery, so they have been 10 days at least without a dose. But if worried about gastrointestinal symptoms or gastroparesis, I have them do a clear liquid diet for 24 hours presurgery. Or at least avoid heavy fat meals the day before.”

“There is a risk of aspiration with anything that slows gastric emptying — maybe even in patients with gastroparesis at baseline due to physiologic, not pharmacological, reasons — and anesthesiologists should be aware of the need to assess patients individually.”

Michael A. Weintraub, MD, of NYU Langone Health Diabetes & Endocrine Associates in New York City, observed, “The risk of a pulmonary aspiration event with GLP-1 medication is quite rare, but not zero. On the other hand, stopping the GLP-1 can cause hyperglycemia or rebound weight gain. Furthermore, it can become complicated to restart GLP1 dosing, particularly given the existing medication shortages.”

“In most cases, stopping a weekly GLP-1 medication 1 week prior to the procedure minimizes the risks of pulmonary aspiration and prevents any worsening hyperglycemia or weight gain,” he said. However, taking the drug 7 days prior to the procedure is optimal. “That way, they would be due for the next dose on the day of the procedure, and taking it the day following procedure minimizes disruption in their once-weekly regimen.”

Malini Gupta, MD, director of G2Endo Endocrinology & Metabolism, Memphis, Tennessee, advised that physicians weigh the risk of stopping the medication (which can cause a glycemic spike) vs risk for aspiration.

“In my opinion, all patients should follow a strict liquid diet or NPO status prior to a surgery to further decrease the risk of aspiration,” she said. “I generally hold the GLP-1 RA for a week before a surgery. If additional glycemic control is necessary, I will add to or adjust one of the patient’s other diabetes medications.”

Jaime Almandoz, MD, associate professor of medicine and medical director of the Weight Wellness Program in Dallas, said, “As endocrinologists, we typically rely on our anesthesia colleagues for guidance on perioperative management. In light of emerging guidelines for holding GLP-1 medications, we also recommend patients adopt a liquid diet 24 hours prior to surgery, along with the fasting protocol.”

“For those managing diabetes with GLP-1 therapies, it is crucial to establish a blood sugar management plan while off these medications, especially during fasting or postoperative periods, which can be further influenced by many factors, including nausea, pain medications, and antibiotics after the procedure.”

Joshi added that at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, “we do a huge number of cases using the same information. We identify patients who are at risk, and then we tell our proceduralists and our surgeons if they’re in the escalating phase of the dosing or if they have GI symptoms; don’t even schedule them as an elective case; wait till the escalation phase is over and then schedule them.”

“That way,” he said, “it becomes logistically easy to manage because the recommendation from the group is that patients who are at higher risk should receive a 24-hour liquid diet — the same as colonoscopy. But sometimes it can be challenging to do so.”

Joshi has received honoraria for consultation from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Haisco-USA Pharmaceuticals. Gupta is on the speakers bureau for Amgen (Tepezza) and IBSA (Tirosint) and is a creative consultant for AbbVie. Almandoz serves on advisory boards for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim. The other experts declared no relevant relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Receiving radiotherapy after prostatectomy does negatively affect long-term health-related quality of life, including sexual function, urinary incontinence, and urinary irritation, but the timing of radiation after prostatectomy — within a year or over a year from surgery — does not appear to significantly affect patients’ quality of life over the long term, a recent analysis finds.

METHODOLOGY:

• Delaying radiotherapy after prostatectomy can help avoid overtreatment and mitigate genitourinary and erectile toxic effects. However, few studies have compared long-term patient-reported health-related quality-of-life outcomes on the basis of the timing of postprostatectomy radiotherapy.
• Researchers evaluated 1203 men (median age, 60.5 years; 92% were White and 6.8% were Black) with localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy from the PROST-QA (2003-2006) and RP2 Consortium (2010-2013). Among these patients, 1082 underwent surgery only, 57 received early radiotherapy (within 12 months of surgery), and 64 underwent late radiotherapy (12 months or more after surgery).
• Patients who received early radiotherapy were more likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy than those who underwent late radiotherapy (40.4% vs 12.5%; P < .001).
• Primary outcome was health-related quality of life measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite at baseline, 2, 6, and 12 months, and annually after that. Health-related quality-of-life measures included sexual function, urinary incontinence, urinary irritation and/or obstruction, and bowel or rectal function.
• The median follow-up duration was 85.6 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Postprostatectomy radiotherapy was associated with a significantly greater decline in health-related quality of life across all domains, including sexual function and urinary incontinence.
• Patients who received early radiation initially experienced worse urinary incontinence and sexual health, compared with patients in the late group, but the early group also had higher-risk disease and were more likely to receive concurrent androgen deprivation therapy.
• In the long term, the early radiotherapy group experienced more pronounced recovery of sexual function, urinary irritation, and urinary incontinence than the late radiotherapy group.
• Ultimately, patients in the early radiotherapy group had similar, potentially better, long-term health-related quality-of-life domain scores than those in the late group over the long term. For instance, the likelihood of being pad free increased for patients treated early with radiation, while it decreased for those treated late. In patients who received early radiation, the rate of freedom from pad use increased from 39% before radiation to 67% at the sixth follow-up visit after radiation, while it decreased from 73% to 48% in those who received late radiation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Long-term patient-reported sexual, incontinence, and urinary irritative outcomes did not significantly differ between early vs late postprostatectomy [radiotherapy],” the authors said. In fact, “men receiving early [radiation] experienced greater recovery of these toxicity domains and achieved similar, and possibly better, domain scores as those receiving late [radiation] at long-term follow-up.” Overall, “these results may help guide treatment counseling and support consideration of early [radiotherapy] after prostatectomy for men at particularly high risk of recurrence and metastasis.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sagar A. Patel, MD, MSc, Emory University in Atlanta, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The early and late postprostatectomy radiotherapy groups were relatively small and underpowered to detect statistically significant differences between groups. The study has a nonrandomized design, which may introduce unaccounted for imbalances among the different groups. The study did not directly compare health-related quality of life between patients receiving adjuvant vs salvage radiotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from National Institutes of Health grants and the Paul Calabresi Career Development Award for Clinical Oncology. Several authors reported receiving personal fees, grants, and having other ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Receiving radiotherapy after prostatectomy does negatively affect long-term health-related quality of life, including sexual function, urinary incontinence, and urinary irritation, but the timing of radiation after prostatectomy — within a year or over a year from surgery — does not appear to significantly affect patients’ quality of life over the long term, a recent analysis finds.

METHODOLOGY:

• Delaying radiotherapy after prostatectomy can help avoid overtreatment and mitigate genitourinary and erectile toxic effects. However, few studies have compared long-term patient-reported health-related quality-of-life outcomes on the basis of the timing of postprostatectomy radiotherapy.
• Researchers evaluated 1203 men (median age, 60.5 years; 92% were White and 6.8% were Black) with localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy from the PROST-QA (2003-2006) and RP2 Consortium (2010-2013). Among these patients, 1082 underwent surgery only, 57 received early radiotherapy (within 12 months of surgery), and 64 underwent late radiotherapy (12 months or more after surgery).
• Patients who received early radiotherapy were more likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy than those who underwent late radiotherapy (40.4% vs 12.5%; P < .001).
• Primary outcome was health-related quality of life measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite at baseline, 2, 6, and 12 months, and annually after that. Health-related quality-of-life measures included sexual function, urinary incontinence, urinary irritation and/or obstruction, and bowel or rectal function.
• The median follow-up duration was 85.6 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Postprostatectomy radiotherapy was associated with a significantly greater decline in health-related quality of life across all domains, including sexual function and urinary incontinence.
• Patients who received early radiation initially experienced worse urinary incontinence and sexual health, compared with patients in the late group, but the early group also had higher-risk disease and were more likely to receive concurrent androgen deprivation therapy.
• In the long term, the early radiotherapy group experienced more pronounced recovery of sexual function, urinary irritation, and urinary incontinence than the late radiotherapy group.
• Ultimately, patients in the early radiotherapy group had similar, potentially better, long-term health-related quality-of-life domain scores than those in the late group over the long term. For instance, the likelihood of being pad free increased for patients treated early with radiation, while it decreased for those treated late. In patients who received early radiation, the rate of freedom from pad use increased from 39% before radiation to 67% at the sixth follow-up visit after radiation, while it decreased from 73% to 48% in those who received late radiation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Long-term patient-reported sexual, incontinence, and urinary irritative outcomes did not significantly differ between early vs late postprostatectomy [radiotherapy],” the authors said. In fact, “men receiving early [radiation] experienced greater recovery of these toxicity domains and achieved similar, and possibly better, domain scores as those receiving late [radiation] at long-term follow-up.” Overall, “these results may help guide treatment counseling and support consideration of early [radiotherapy] after prostatectomy for men at particularly high risk of recurrence and metastasis.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sagar A. Patel, MD, MSc, Emory University in Atlanta, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The early and late postprostatectomy radiotherapy groups were relatively small and underpowered to detect statistically significant differences between groups. The study has a nonrandomized design, which may introduce unaccounted for imbalances among the different groups. The study did not directly compare health-related quality of life between patients receiving adjuvant vs salvage radiotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from National Institutes of Health grants and the Paul Calabresi Career Development Award for Clinical Oncology. Several authors reported receiving personal fees, grants, and having other ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Receiving radiotherapy after prostatectomy does negatively affect long-term health-related quality of life, including sexual function, urinary incontinence, and urinary irritation, but the timing of radiation after prostatectomy — within a year or over a year from surgery — does not appear to significantly affect patients’ quality of life over the long term, a recent analysis finds.

METHODOLOGY:

• Delaying radiotherapy after prostatectomy can help avoid overtreatment and mitigate genitourinary and erectile toxic effects. However, few studies have compared long-term patient-reported health-related quality-of-life outcomes on the basis of the timing of postprostatectomy radiotherapy.
• Researchers evaluated 1203 men (median age, 60.5 years; 92% were White and 6.8% were Black) with localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy from the PROST-QA (2003-2006) and RP2 Consortium (2010-2013). Among these patients, 1082 underwent surgery only, 57 received early radiotherapy (within 12 months of surgery), and 64 underwent late radiotherapy (12 months or more after surgery).
• Patients who received early radiotherapy were more likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy than those who underwent late radiotherapy (40.4% vs 12.5%; P < .001).
• Primary outcome was health-related quality of life measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite at baseline, 2, 6, and 12 months, and annually after that. Health-related quality-of-life measures included sexual function, urinary incontinence, urinary irritation and/or obstruction, and bowel or rectal function.
• The median follow-up duration was 85.6 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Postprostatectomy radiotherapy was associated with a significantly greater decline in health-related quality of life across all domains, including sexual function and urinary incontinence.
• Patients who received early radiation initially experienced worse urinary incontinence and sexual health, compared with patients in the late group, but the early group also had higher-risk disease and were more likely to receive concurrent androgen deprivation therapy.
• In the long term, the early radiotherapy group experienced more pronounced recovery of sexual function, urinary irritation, and urinary incontinence than the late radiotherapy group.
• Ultimately, patients in the early radiotherapy group had similar, potentially better, long-term health-related quality-of-life domain scores than those in the late group over the long term. For instance, the likelihood of being pad free increased for patients treated early with radiation, while it decreased for those treated late. In patients who received early radiation, the rate of freedom from pad use increased from 39% before radiation to 67% at the sixth follow-up visit after radiation, while it decreased from 73% to 48% in those who received late radiation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Long-term patient-reported sexual, incontinence, and urinary irritative outcomes did not significantly differ between early vs late postprostatectomy [radiotherapy],” the authors said. In fact, “men receiving early [radiation] experienced greater recovery of these toxicity domains and achieved similar, and possibly better, domain scores as those receiving late [radiation] at long-term follow-up.” Overall, “these results may help guide treatment counseling and support consideration of early [radiotherapy] after prostatectomy for men at particularly high risk of recurrence and metastasis.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sagar A. Patel, MD, MSc, Emory University in Atlanta, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The early and late postprostatectomy radiotherapy groups were relatively small and underpowered to detect statistically significant differences between groups. The study has a nonrandomized design, which may introduce unaccounted for imbalances among the different groups. The study did not directly compare health-related quality of life between patients receiving adjuvant vs salvage radiotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from National Institutes of Health grants and the Paul Calabresi Career Development Award for Clinical Oncology. Several authors reported receiving personal fees, grants, and having other ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The majority of patients may safely take glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) before elective surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopies, according to updated guidance from five medical societies.

The new guidance, contrasting with earlier recommendations, says these incrementally used agents can be taken up until the day of surgery, but patients are advised to follow a liquid diet for 24 hours before the procedure. The decision to proceed with endoscopy and other procedures should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and interdisciplinary care teams in conjunction with minimization of the aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying, the guidance stresses.

The five endorsing organizations are the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), American Gastroenterological Association, International Society of Perioperative Care of Patients with Obesity, and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. The societies emphasize that the statement is intended as guidance only and is not an evidence-based formal guideline.

GLP-1 RAs are known to delay gastric emptying, raising concerns about regurgitation, aspiration, and airway compromise during anesthesia. Rare serious adverse events have also been observed, prompting the ASA in 2023 to recommend holding these agents for 1 week for the injectable form and 1 day for the oral form before all procedures requiring anesthesia. 

University of Michigan

That abundance of caution, however, had negative impacts of its own. “This guidance has led to cancellations and postponements of many endoscopic and surgical procedures or required patients to undergo general anesthesia who may otherwise have had their procedures performed under moderate sedation,” said guidance coauthor Allison R. Schulman, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine and surgery and chief of endoscopy at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “Nearly all institutions have been forced to revise preprocedural protocols, despite a lack of high-level evidence to suggest that these adjustments are necessary.”

“Studies have yielded mixed results as to whether patients on GLP-1s are at increased risk of these events, and the limited data available are inconsistent,” Schulman said. “As a result, there are inconsistencies in the recommendations from various societies leading to growing uncertainty with proceduralists on how to provide safe, effective, and timely procedural care to patients taking GLP-1 RAs.”

The new joint-society guidance may alleviate some of the uncertainty. Among the recommendations:

• Continuing GLP-1 RAs in the perioperative period should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and all care teams balancing the metabolic need for the GLP-1 RA with individual patient risk.
• Certain variables may increase the risk for delayed gastric emptying and aspiration with the periprocedural use of GLP-1 RAs: escalation phase — This phase vs the maintenance phase is associated with a higher risk for delayed gastric emptying; higher dose — the higher the dose, the greater the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) side effects; weekly dosing — GI side effects are more common with weekly vs daily formulations; presence of GI symptoms — nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, and constipation may suggest delayed gastric emptying; and medical problems beyond GLP-1 RA indications with GI effects — assess for such conditions as bowel dysmotility, gastroparesis, and Parkinson’s disease.
• Risk factors should be assessed in advance to allow sufficient time to adjust preoperative care, including diet modification and medication bridging if GLP-1 RA cessation is deemed advisable.
• If retained gastric contents are a concern on the day of a procedure, point-of-care gastric ultrasound could be used to assess aspiration risk, resources permitting.
• The aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying should be minimized by preoperative diet modification and/or altering the anesthesia plan to consider rapid sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation. A 24-hour preoperative liquid diet, as before colonoscopy and bariatric surgery, can be utilized when delayed gastric emptying is a concern.
• When concern about retained gastric contents exists on procedure day, providers should engage patients in a shared decision-making model and consider the benefits and risks of rapid-sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation to minimize aspiration risk vs procedure cancellation.

“Safe continuation of surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopy, and prevention of procedure cancellation, for patients on GLP-1 RAs can be prioritized following the recommendations above, as would occur for other patient populations with gastroparesis,” the guidance panel wrote.

Digestive Health Center of Huntington

Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, David B. Purow, MD, managing director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwell Health/Huntington Hospital in Huntington, New York, said the recommendations will encourage clinicians to be more discerning about actual risk in individual cases rather than follow the previous blanket recommendation to stop these agents before procedures requiring sedation. 

While GLP-1 RAs were prescribed for the relatively small number of patients with diabetes, he said, the risk was not apparent but became clearer with the widespread use of these agents for weight loss — often unregulated and undisclosed to care providers.

“The pendulum shifted too far the other way, and now it’s shifted back,” he said in an interview. “The new guidance is great because now we can be more thoughtful about managing individual patients.” He cited, for instance, the recommendations on the greater risk in patients in the dose escalation phase or on higher doses, and the risk-reducing measure of a liquid diet for 24 hours before surgery.

His center is already using point-of-care ultrasound and recently had a case in which a patient who forgot and took his GLP-1 RA before a scheduled procedure was found on ultrasound to have a full stomach. “In some cases, these drugs can cause an almost gastroparesis level of delayed emptying,” Purow said.

Purow thinks this early guidance will probably progress to firm guidelines within a year. Schulman is more cautious. “Our understanding of this complex topic is increasing rapidly, and ongoing clinical research will ultimately lead to evidence-based guidelines in this changing landscape,” she said.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Schulman is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, Microtech, and Fractyl. Purow had no competing interests to declare.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The majority of patients may safely take glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) before elective surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopies, according to updated guidance from five medical societies.

The new guidance, contrasting with earlier recommendations, says these incrementally used agents can be taken up until the day of surgery, but patients are advised to follow a liquid diet for 24 hours before the procedure. The decision to proceed with endoscopy and other procedures should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and interdisciplinary care teams in conjunction with minimization of the aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying, the guidance stresses.

The five endorsing organizations are the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), American Gastroenterological Association, International Society of Perioperative Care of Patients with Obesity, and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. The societies emphasize that the statement is intended as guidance only and is not an evidence-based formal guideline.

GLP-1 RAs are known to delay gastric emptying, raising concerns about regurgitation, aspiration, and airway compromise during anesthesia. Rare serious adverse events have also been observed, prompting the ASA in 2023 to recommend holding these agents for 1 week for the injectable form and 1 day for the oral form before all procedures requiring anesthesia. 

University of Michigan

That abundance of caution, however, had negative impacts of its own. “This guidance has led to cancellations and postponements of many endoscopic and surgical procedures or required patients to undergo general anesthesia who may otherwise have had their procedures performed under moderate sedation,” said guidance coauthor Allison R. Schulman, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine and surgery and chief of endoscopy at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “Nearly all institutions have been forced to revise preprocedural protocols, despite a lack of high-level evidence to suggest that these adjustments are necessary.”

“Studies have yielded mixed results as to whether patients on GLP-1s are at increased risk of these events, and the limited data available are inconsistent,” Schulman said. “As a result, there are inconsistencies in the recommendations from various societies leading to growing uncertainty with proceduralists on how to provide safe, effective, and timely procedural care to patients taking GLP-1 RAs.”

The new joint-society guidance may alleviate some of the uncertainty. Among the recommendations:

• Continuing GLP-1 RAs in the perioperative period should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and all care teams balancing the metabolic need for the GLP-1 RA with individual patient risk.
• Certain variables may increase the risk for delayed gastric emptying and aspiration with the periprocedural use of GLP-1 RAs: escalation phase — This phase vs the maintenance phase is associated with a higher risk for delayed gastric emptying; higher dose — the higher the dose, the greater the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) side effects; weekly dosing — GI side effects are more common with weekly vs daily formulations; presence of GI symptoms — nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, and constipation may suggest delayed gastric emptying; and medical problems beyond GLP-1 RA indications with GI effects — assess for such conditions as bowel dysmotility, gastroparesis, and Parkinson’s disease.
• Risk factors should be assessed in advance to allow sufficient time to adjust preoperative care, including diet modification and medication bridging if GLP-1 RA cessation is deemed advisable.
• If retained gastric contents are a concern on the day of a procedure, point-of-care gastric ultrasound could be used to assess aspiration risk, resources permitting.
• The aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying should be minimized by preoperative diet modification and/or altering the anesthesia plan to consider rapid sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation. A 24-hour preoperative liquid diet, as before colonoscopy and bariatric surgery, can be utilized when delayed gastric emptying is a concern.
• When concern about retained gastric contents exists on procedure day, providers should engage patients in a shared decision-making model and consider the benefits and risks of rapid-sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation to minimize aspiration risk vs procedure cancellation.

“Safe continuation of surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopy, and prevention of procedure cancellation, for patients on GLP-1 RAs can be prioritized following the recommendations above, as would occur for other patient populations with gastroparesis,” the guidance panel wrote.

Digestive Health Center of Huntington

Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, David B. Purow, MD, managing director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwell Health/Huntington Hospital in Huntington, New York, said the recommendations will encourage clinicians to be more discerning about actual risk in individual cases rather than follow the previous blanket recommendation to stop these agents before procedures requiring sedation. 

While GLP-1 RAs were prescribed for the relatively small number of patients with diabetes, he said, the risk was not apparent but became clearer with the widespread use of these agents for weight loss — often unregulated and undisclosed to care providers.

“The pendulum shifted too far the other way, and now it’s shifted back,” he said in an interview. “The new guidance is great because now we can be more thoughtful about managing individual patients.” He cited, for instance, the recommendations on the greater risk in patients in the dose escalation phase or on higher doses, and the risk-reducing measure of a liquid diet for 24 hours before surgery.

His center is already using point-of-care ultrasound and recently had a case in which a patient who forgot and took his GLP-1 RA before a scheduled procedure was found on ultrasound to have a full stomach. “In some cases, these drugs can cause an almost gastroparesis level of delayed emptying,” Purow said.

Purow thinks this early guidance will probably progress to firm guidelines within a year. Schulman is more cautious. “Our understanding of this complex topic is increasing rapidly, and ongoing clinical research will ultimately lead to evidence-based guidelines in this changing landscape,” she said.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Schulman is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, Microtech, and Fractyl. Purow had no competing interests to declare.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The majority of patients may safely take glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) before elective surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopies, according to updated guidance from five medical societies.

The new guidance, contrasting with earlier recommendations, says these incrementally used agents can be taken up until the day of surgery, but patients are advised to follow a liquid diet for 24 hours before the procedure. The decision to proceed with endoscopy and other procedures should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and interdisciplinary care teams in conjunction with minimization of the aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying, the guidance stresses.

The five endorsing organizations are the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), American Gastroenterological Association, International Society of Perioperative Care of Patients with Obesity, and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. The societies emphasize that the statement is intended as guidance only and is not an evidence-based formal guideline.

GLP-1 RAs are known to delay gastric emptying, raising concerns about regurgitation, aspiration, and airway compromise during anesthesia. Rare serious adverse events have also been observed, prompting the ASA in 2023 to recommend holding these agents for 1 week for the injectable form and 1 day for the oral form before all procedures requiring anesthesia. 

University of Michigan

That abundance of caution, however, had negative impacts of its own. “This guidance has led to cancellations and postponements of many endoscopic and surgical procedures or required patients to undergo general anesthesia who may otherwise have had their procedures performed under moderate sedation,” said guidance coauthor Allison R. Schulman, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine and surgery and chief of endoscopy at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “Nearly all institutions have been forced to revise preprocedural protocols, despite a lack of high-level evidence to suggest that these adjustments are necessary.”

“Studies have yielded mixed results as to whether patients on GLP-1s are at increased risk of these events, and the limited data available are inconsistent,” Schulman said. “As a result, there are inconsistencies in the recommendations from various societies leading to growing uncertainty with proceduralists on how to provide safe, effective, and timely procedural care to patients taking GLP-1 RAs.”

The new joint-society guidance may alleviate some of the uncertainty. Among the recommendations:

• Continuing GLP-1 RAs in the perioperative period should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and all care teams balancing the metabolic need for the GLP-1 RA with individual patient risk.
• Certain variables may increase the risk for delayed gastric emptying and aspiration with the periprocedural use of GLP-1 RAs: escalation phase — This phase vs the maintenance phase is associated with a higher risk for delayed gastric emptying; higher dose — the higher the dose, the greater the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) side effects; weekly dosing — GI side effects are more common with weekly vs daily formulations; presence of GI symptoms — nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, and constipation may suggest delayed gastric emptying; and medical problems beyond GLP-1 RA indications with GI effects — assess for such conditions as bowel dysmotility, gastroparesis, and Parkinson’s disease.
• Risk factors should be assessed in advance to allow sufficient time to adjust preoperative care, including diet modification and medication bridging if GLP-1 RA cessation is deemed advisable.
• If retained gastric contents are a concern on the day of a procedure, point-of-care gastric ultrasound could be used to assess aspiration risk, resources permitting.
• The aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying should be minimized by preoperative diet modification and/or altering the anesthesia plan to consider rapid sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation. A 24-hour preoperative liquid diet, as before colonoscopy and bariatric surgery, can be utilized when delayed gastric emptying is a concern.
• When concern about retained gastric contents exists on procedure day, providers should engage patients in a shared decision-making model and consider the benefits and risks of rapid-sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation to minimize aspiration risk vs procedure cancellation.

“Safe continuation of surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopy, and prevention of procedure cancellation, for patients on GLP-1 RAs can be prioritized following the recommendations above, as would occur for other patient populations with gastroparesis,” the guidance panel wrote.

Digestive Health Center of Huntington

Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, David B. Purow, MD, managing director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwell Health/Huntington Hospital in Huntington, New York, said the recommendations will encourage clinicians to be more discerning about actual risk in individual cases rather than follow the previous blanket recommendation to stop these agents before procedures requiring sedation. 

While GLP-1 RAs were prescribed for the relatively small number of patients with diabetes, he said, the risk was not apparent but became clearer with the widespread use of these agents for weight loss — often unregulated and undisclosed to care providers.

“The pendulum shifted too far the other way, and now it’s shifted back,” he said in an interview. “The new guidance is great because now we can be more thoughtful about managing individual patients.” He cited, for instance, the recommendations on the greater risk in patients in the dose escalation phase or on higher doses, and the risk-reducing measure of a liquid diet for 24 hours before surgery.

His center is already using point-of-care ultrasound and recently had a case in which a patient who forgot and took his GLP-1 RA before a scheduled procedure was found on ultrasound to have a full stomach. “In some cases, these drugs can cause an almost gastroparesis level of delayed emptying,” Purow said.

Purow thinks this early guidance will probably progress to firm guidelines within a year. Schulman is more cautious. “Our understanding of this complex topic is increasing rapidly, and ongoing clinical research will ultimately lead to evidence-based guidelines in this changing landscape,” she said.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Schulman is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, Microtech, and Fractyl. Purow had no competing interests to declare.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — New research challenges the traditional practice of continuing vasoconstrictor therapy for 5 days after endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) for acute variceal bleeding, finding that a shorter course of 1-3 days may suffice, without raising the risk for rebleeding, if the initial ligation successfully controls bleeding.

“This approach would allow earlier discharge from the hospital and reduce the risk of adverse events, all without sacrificing treatment efficacy or compromising patient safety,” Sushrut Ingawale, MD, MBBS, Quinnipiac University School of Medicine, North Haven, and St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Bridgeport, both in Connecticut, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

Ingawale called for a “re-evaluation of existing protocols, emphasizing the potential to update current protocols to reflect shorter, more personalized” duration of vasoconstrictor therapy in these patients.

Rush University Medical Center

Commenting on this research, Nancy Reau, MD, AGAF, of Rush University in Chicago, Illinois, said: “We should always question the standard of care.”

“Vasoconstrictors for 5 days is the standard of care, but this could lead to prolonged hospitalization in patients who are otherwise doing well after endoscopic intervention. Recognizing that a shorter course of vasoconstrictor treatment may have equal outcome is very important though it may not be appropriate for all patients, especially those at high risk for rebleeding,” said Reau.
 

Outdated Guidelines?

In his presentation, Ingawale noted that current guidelines that recommend continuing vasoconstrictors, like octreotide or terlipressin, for at least 3-5 days after EVL for acute variceal bleeding are based primarily on old studies in which sclerotherapy was the primary hemostatic method.

The study team assessed comparative outcomes based on the duration of vasoconstrictors after EVL for acute variceal bleeding in a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials.

The studies had a total of 816 patients who were grouped based on the duration vasoconstrictor therapy: 24 hours or less (group 1), 24-72 hours (group 2), and 72-120 hours (group 3).

There was no significant difference in the risk for rebleeding in group 1 (risk ratio [RR], 1.36; 95% CI, 0.48-3.52) and group 2 (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.42-4.54) vs group 3.

“This finding was even consistent when we compared individual durations” of 0, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours vs 120 hours, Ingawale said.

There was also no statistically significant difference in the 5-day mortality risk between group 1 (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.09-2.52) and group 2 (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.15-6.43) or the 30-day mortality risk between group 1 (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.51-2.51) and group 2 (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.36-2.52) vs group 3.
 

Rapidly Evolving Area

“Our network meta-analysis did not show any benefit of continuing vasoconstrictors after EVL,” the researchers wrote in their conference abstract. Despite historical precedent, shorter durations may be adequate, “potentially enabling earlier hospital discharge without compromising patient outcomes.”

Ingawale suggested future research should look to identify the subset of patients at a risk for failure to control bleeding who might benefit from the continuation of vasoconstrictors.

“Management of complications of portal hypertension are rapidly evolving and this study will add to the data that drives our guidelines. Seeing this data in a peer reviewed publication will add the necessary validity to impact a change in the treatment paradigm,” Reau said.

The study had no specific funding. Ingawale had no relevant financial relationships. Reau disclosed various relationships with AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — New research challenges the traditional practice of continuing vasoconstrictor therapy for 5 days after endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) for acute variceal bleeding, finding that a shorter course of 1-3 days may suffice, without raising the risk for rebleeding, if the initial ligation successfully controls bleeding.

“This approach would allow earlier discharge from the hospital and reduce the risk of adverse events, all without sacrificing treatment efficacy or compromising patient safety,” Sushrut Ingawale, MD, MBBS, Quinnipiac University School of Medicine, North Haven, and St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Bridgeport, both in Connecticut, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

Ingawale called for a “re-evaluation of existing protocols, emphasizing the potential to update current protocols to reflect shorter, more personalized” duration of vasoconstrictor therapy in these patients.

Rush University Medical Center

Commenting on this research, Nancy Reau, MD, AGAF, of Rush University in Chicago, Illinois, said: “We should always question the standard of care.”

“Vasoconstrictors for 5 days is the standard of care, but this could lead to prolonged hospitalization in patients who are otherwise doing well after endoscopic intervention. Recognizing that a shorter course of vasoconstrictor treatment may have equal outcome is very important though it may not be appropriate for all patients, especially those at high risk for rebleeding,” said Reau.
 

Outdated Guidelines?

In his presentation, Ingawale noted that current guidelines that recommend continuing vasoconstrictors, like octreotide or terlipressin, for at least 3-5 days after EVL for acute variceal bleeding are based primarily on old studies in which sclerotherapy was the primary hemostatic method.

The study team assessed comparative outcomes based on the duration of vasoconstrictors after EVL for acute variceal bleeding in a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials.

The studies had a total of 816 patients who were grouped based on the duration vasoconstrictor therapy: 24 hours or less (group 1), 24-72 hours (group 2), and 72-120 hours (group 3).

There was no significant difference in the risk for rebleeding in group 1 (risk ratio [RR], 1.36; 95% CI, 0.48-3.52) and group 2 (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.42-4.54) vs group 3.

“This finding was even consistent when we compared individual durations” of 0, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours vs 120 hours, Ingawale said.

There was also no statistically significant difference in the 5-day mortality risk between group 1 (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.09-2.52) and group 2 (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.15-6.43) or the 30-day mortality risk between group 1 (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.51-2.51) and group 2 (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.36-2.52) vs group 3.
 

Rapidly Evolving Area

“Our network meta-analysis did not show any benefit of continuing vasoconstrictors after EVL,” the researchers wrote in their conference abstract. Despite historical precedent, shorter durations may be adequate, “potentially enabling earlier hospital discharge without compromising patient outcomes.”

Ingawale suggested future research should look to identify the subset of patients at a risk for failure to control bleeding who might benefit from the continuation of vasoconstrictors.

“Management of complications of portal hypertension are rapidly evolving and this study will add to the data that drives our guidelines. Seeing this data in a peer reviewed publication will add the necessary validity to impact a change in the treatment paradigm,” Reau said.

The study had no specific funding. Ingawale had no relevant financial relationships. Reau disclosed various relationships with AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — New research challenges the traditional practice of continuing vasoconstrictor therapy for 5 days after endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) for acute variceal bleeding, finding that a shorter course of 1-3 days may suffice, without raising the risk for rebleeding, if the initial ligation successfully controls bleeding.

“This approach would allow earlier discharge from the hospital and reduce the risk of adverse events, all without sacrificing treatment efficacy or compromising patient safety,” Sushrut Ingawale, MD, MBBS, Quinnipiac University School of Medicine, North Haven, and St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Bridgeport, both in Connecticut, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

Ingawale called for a “re-evaluation of existing protocols, emphasizing the potential to update current protocols to reflect shorter, more personalized” duration of vasoconstrictor therapy in these patients.

Rush University Medical Center

Commenting on this research, Nancy Reau, MD, AGAF, of Rush University in Chicago, Illinois, said: “We should always question the standard of care.”

“Vasoconstrictors for 5 days is the standard of care, but this could lead to prolonged hospitalization in patients who are otherwise doing well after endoscopic intervention. Recognizing that a shorter course of vasoconstrictor treatment may have equal outcome is very important though it may not be appropriate for all patients, especially those at high risk for rebleeding,” said Reau.
 

Outdated Guidelines?

In his presentation, Ingawale noted that current guidelines that recommend continuing vasoconstrictors, like octreotide or terlipressin, for at least 3-5 days after EVL for acute variceal bleeding are based primarily on old studies in which sclerotherapy was the primary hemostatic method.

The study team assessed comparative outcomes based on the duration of vasoconstrictors after EVL for acute variceal bleeding in a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials.

The studies had a total of 816 patients who were grouped based on the duration vasoconstrictor therapy: 24 hours or less (group 1), 24-72 hours (group 2), and 72-120 hours (group 3).

There was no significant difference in the risk for rebleeding in group 1 (risk ratio [RR], 1.36; 95% CI, 0.48-3.52) and group 2 (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.42-4.54) vs group 3.

“This finding was even consistent when we compared individual durations” of 0, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours vs 120 hours, Ingawale said.

There was also no statistically significant difference in the 5-day mortality risk between group 1 (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.09-2.52) and group 2 (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.15-6.43) or the 30-day mortality risk between group 1 (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.51-2.51) and group 2 (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.36-2.52) vs group 3.
 

Rapidly Evolving Area

“Our network meta-analysis did not show any benefit of continuing vasoconstrictors after EVL,” the researchers wrote in their conference abstract. Despite historical precedent, shorter durations may be adequate, “potentially enabling earlier hospital discharge without compromising patient outcomes.”

Ingawale suggested future research should look to identify the subset of patients at a risk for failure to control bleeding who might benefit from the continuation of vasoconstrictors.

“Management of complications of portal hypertension are rapidly evolving and this study will add to the data that drives our guidelines. Seeing this data in a peer reviewed publication will add the necessary validity to impact a change in the treatment paradigm,” Reau said.

The study had no specific funding. Ingawale had no relevant financial relationships. Reau disclosed various relationships with AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association provides advice on the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems in hospital settings, based in part on data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The statement, Consensus Considerations and Good Practice Points for Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Hospital Settings, was published on October 25, 2024, in Diabetes Care.

“This is something that requires close collaboration with many groups in the hospital ... There needs to be really good guidance within the hospital as to when it can be used, in which patients, and what checks and balances need to be in place,” statement lead author Julie L.V. Shaw, PhD, Laboratory Director at Renfrew Victoria Hospital and St. Francis Memorial Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.

CGM use in the outpatient setting continues to grow, among people with type 2 as well as type 1 diabetes. The devices are worn on the body for up to 15 days via a subcutaneously-inserted sensor that detects glucose in interstitial fluid every 1-15 minutes. The readings generally track with blood glucose levels, although discrepancies can occur and may be even more relevant in hospital settings.

About 1 in 4 hospitalized patients have diabetes and/or hyperglycemia. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada temporarily authorized the use of CGM systems in hospitals to supplement point-of-care glucose testing, as an emergency measure to reduce healthcare worker exposure and preserve personal protective equipment. That FDA authorization expired on November 7, 2023, and currently hospital CGM use in the United States is technically off-label, although it is often allowed for patients who already use CGM systems.

The new statement summarizes clinical study data and also addresses the potential benefits of CGM systems for inpatients, existing guidance, analytical and clinical evaluation of CGM performance, safety factors, staff training, clinical workflow, and hospital policies. Also covered are issues around quality assurance, integration of CGM data into electronic health records, cost considerations, and barriers to implementation.

The “good practice points for consideration” in the document are as follows:

• If healthcare professionals want to use CGM systems beyond their intended use, eg, to replace or reduce point-of-care glucose measurements, analytical and clinical performance should be assessed.
• The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) 2nd Edition of POCT05 — Performance Metrics for Continuous Interstitial Glucose Monitoring provides helpful guidance.
• Potential interferences that preclude patients from being eligible for CGM should be noted, and staff must be aware that CGM can’t be used for clinical decision-making in these patients.
• A CGM system and/or inpatient glycemia management committee should oversee the development and implementation of hospital-approved policies and procedures for CGM use in the hospital. This committee should have representatives from nursing leadership, physician leadership (e.g., endocrinologists, internal medicine specialists, hospitalists), laboratory, information services, hospital administration, pharmacy, and risk management/legal.
• Policies for patient-owned and hospital-owned CGM devices should be developed, and staff should be trained in their use.

“During the pandemic, there was a lot of research on CGM use in the hospital setting, so we could look at how it works and was it safe. I think we have some good data to show where it can be used,” said Shaw, who also heads the Division of Biochemistry at the Ottawa Hospital. She added, “There’s quite a bit we still don’t know, but I think with some guidance in place about when not to use it, there are certainly patient populations who could benefit from it in the hospital setting.” 

Shaw had no disclosures. Another author is general manager and medical director of the Institute for Diabetes Technology (IfDT), which carries out clinical studies, eg, with medical devices for diabetes therapy, on its own initiative and on behalf of various companies. Another author is an IfDT employee. Other authors have received speakers’ honoraria or consulting fees in the last 3 years from Abbott, Berlin-Chemie, BOYDSense, Dexcom, Lilly Deutschland, Novo Nordisk, Perfood, PharmaSens, Roche, Sinocare, Terumo, and Ypsomed.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association provides advice on the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems in hospital settings, based in part on data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The statement, Consensus Considerations and Good Practice Points for Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Hospital Settings, was published on October 25, 2024, in Diabetes Care.

“This is something that requires close collaboration with many groups in the hospital ... There needs to be really good guidance within the hospital as to when it can be used, in which patients, and what checks and balances need to be in place,” statement lead author Julie L.V. Shaw, PhD, Laboratory Director at Renfrew Victoria Hospital and St. Francis Memorial Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.

CGM use in the outpatient setting continues to grow, among people with type 2 as well as type 1 diabetes. The devices are worn on the body for up to 15 days via a subcutaneously-inserted sensor that detects glucose in interstitial fluid every 1-15 minutes. The readings generally track with blood glucose levels, although discrepancies can occur and may be even more relevant in hospital settings.

About 1 in 4 hospitalized patients have diabetes and/or hyperglycemia. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada temporarily authorized the use of CGM systems in hospitals to supplement point-of-care glucose testing, as an emergency measure to reduce healthcare worker exposure and preserve personal protective equipment. That FDA authorization expired on November 7, 2023, and currently hospital CGM use in the United States is technically off-label, although it is often allowed for patients who already use CGM systems.

The new statement summarizes clinical study data and also addresses the potential benefits of CGM systems for inpatients, existing guidance, analytical and clinical evaluation of CGM performance, safety factors, staff training, clinical workflow, and hospital policies. Also covered are issues around quality assurance, integration of CGM data into electronic health records, cost considerations, and barriers to implementation.

The “good practice points for consideration” in the document are as follows:

• If healthcare professionals want to use CGM systems beyond their intended use, eg, to replace or reduce point-of-care glucose measurements, analytical and clinical performance should be assessed.
• The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) 2nd Edition of POCT05 — Performance Metrics for Continuous Interstitial Glucose Monitoring provides helpful guidance.
• Potential interferences that preclude patients from being eligible for CGM should be noted, and staff must be aware that CGM can’t be used for clinical decision-making in these patients.
• A CGM system and/or inpatient glycemia management committee should oversee the development and implementation of hospital-approved policies and procedures for CGM use in the hospital. This committee should have representatives from nursing leadership, physician leadership (e.g., endocrinologists, internal medicine specialists, hospitalists), laboratory, information services, hospital administration, pharmacy, and risk management/legal.
• Policies for patient-owned and hospital-owned CGM devices should be developed, and staff should be trained in their use.

“During the pandemic, there was a lot of research on CGM use in the hospital setting, so we could look at how it works and was it safe. I think we have some good data to show where it can be used,” said Shaw, who also heads the Division of Biochemistry at the Ottawa Hospital. She added, “There’s quite a bit we still don’t know, but I think with some guidance in place about when not to use it, there are certainly patient populations who could benefit from it in the hospital setting.” 

Shaw had no disclosures. Another author is general manager and medical director of the Institute for Diabetes Technology (IfDT), which carries out clinical studies, eg, with medical devices for diabetes therapy, on its own initiative and on behalf of various companies. Another author is an IfDT employee. Other authors have received speakers’ honoraria or consulting fees in the last 3 years from Abbott, Berlin-Chemie, BOYDSense, Dexcom, Lilly Deutschland, Novo Nordisk, Perfood, PharmaSens, Roche, Sinocare, Terumo, and Ypsomed.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association provides advice on the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems in hospital settings, based in part on data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The statement, Consensus Considerations and Good Practice Points for Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Hospital Settings, was published on October 25, 2024, in Diabetes Care.

“This is something that requires close collaboration with many groups in the hospital ... There needs to be really good guidance within the hospital as to when it can be used, in which patients, and what checks and balances need to be in place,” statement lead author Julie L.V. Shaw, PhD, Laboratory Director at Renfrew Victoria Hospital and St. Francis Memorial Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.

CGM use in the outpatient setting continues to grow, among people with type 2 as well as type 1 diabetes. The devices are worn on the body for up to 15 days via a subcutaneously-inserted sensor that detects glucose in interstitial fluid every 1-15 minutes. The readings generally track with blood glucose levels, although discrepancies can occur and may be even more relevant in hospital settings.

About 1 in 4 hospitalized patients have diabetes and/or hyperglycemia. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada temporarily authorized the use of CGM systems in hospitals to supplement point-of-care glucose testing, as an emergency measure to reduce healthcare worker exposure and preserve personal protective equipment. That FDA authorization expired on November 7, 2023, and currently hospital CGM use in the United States is technically off-label, although it is often allowed for patients who already use CGM systems.

The new statement summarizes clinical study data and also addresses the potential benefits of CGM systems for inpatients, existing guidance, analytical and clinical evaluation of CGM performance, safety factors, staff training, clinical workflow, and hospital policies. Also covered are issues around quality assurance, integration of CGM data into electronic health records, cost considerations, and barriers to implementation.

The “good practice points for consideration” in the document are as follows:

• If healthcare professionals want to use CGM systems beyond their intended use, eg, to replace or reduce point-of-care glucose measurements, analytical and clinical performance should be assessed.
• The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) 2nd Edition of POCT05 — Performance Metrics for Continuous Interstitial Glucose Monitoring provides helpful guidance.
• Potential interferences that preclude patients from being eligible for CGM should be noted, and staff must be aware that CGM can’t be used for clinical decision-making in these patients.
• A CGM system and/or inpatient glycemia management committee should oversee the development and implementation of hospital-approved policies and procedures for CGM use in the hospital. This committee should have representatives from nursing leadership, physician leadership (e.g., endocrinologists, internal medicine specialists, hospitalists), laboratory, information services, hospital administration, pharmacy, and risk management/legal.
• Policies for patient-owned and hospital-owned CGM devices should be developed, and staff should be trained in their use.

“During the pandemic, there was a lot of research on CGM use in the hospital setting, so we could look at how it works and was it safe. I think we have some good data to show where it can be used,” said Shaw, who also heads the Division of Biochemistry at the Ottawa Hospital. She added, “There’s quite a bit we still don’t know, but I think with some guidance in place about when not to use it, there are certainly patient populations who could benefit from it in the hospital setting.” 

Shaw had no disclosures. Another author is general manager and medical director of the Institute for Diabetes Technology (IfDT), which carries out clinical studies, eg, with medical devices for diabetes therapy, on its own initiative and on behalf of various companies. Another author is an IfDT employee. Other authors have received speakers’ honoraria or consulting fees in the last 3 years from Abbott, Berlin-Chemie, BOYDSense, Dexcom, Lilly Deutschland, Novo Nordisk, Perfood, PharmaSens, Roche, Sinocare, Terumo, and Ypsomed.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy significantly improves survival outcomes over adjuvant sequential chemoradiotherapy (ASCRT) in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, confirmed the first randomized trial to directly compare the two approaches.

Yaoyao Zhu, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Shanghai, China, presented the new research at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer on September 10.

Based on the findings, neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NCCRT) followed by surgical resection “should be regarded as the standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the Chinese population,” Dr. Zhu said.
 

Different Approaches in ESCC

Dr. Zhu began her presentation by underscoring that in Western countries, NCCRT followed by surgery has been the standard treatment for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer since the publication of the CROSS trial in 2012, which compared neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery with surgery alone.

This demonstrated that preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved survival by 34% in patients with potentially curable esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer, while adverse event rates were deemed “acceptable.”

In contrast, in most centers in China, clinicians opt for performing surgery followed by ASCRT.

Dr. Zhu pointed out that as previous randomized controlled trials have used surgery alone as the comparator arm, it has not been shown definitively that NCCRT plus surgery is superior to surgery followed by ASCRT.

The researchers, therefore, conducted the NEOTERIC trial, which enrolled patients with clinically resectable, locally advanced ESCC, defined as clinical stage T1-2N1M0 or T3-4N0-1M0.

They were randomized to one of two arms. The NCCRT arm involved 6 weeks of carboplatin plus paclitaxel chemotherapy alongside radiotherapy delivered as 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions. After an interval of 4-6 weeks, the patients underwent surgery, followed by an optional two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 4-6 weeks later.

In the ASCRT arm, patients underwent surgery straightaway, waited for 4-6 weeks, then had two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 3 weeks apart, followed by the same radiotherapy regimen as in the first arm. About 2-4 weeks later, patients could then undergo another two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel.
 

More Than Doubling of Survival Outcomes

One hundred patients were assigned to NCCRT and 104 to ASCRT. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of their baseline characteristics.

The vast majority of patients were men, just over two thirds were smokers, and the median age was around 60 years. The median tumor length was approximately 5 cm, and around half of tumors were located in the middle third of the esophagus.

Median disease-free survival was markedly longer with NCCRT, at 51.0 months vs 14.0 months in the ASCRT arm (P = .01). Similarly, median overall survival was far longer with neoadjuvant therapy, at 79.0 months, vs 38.0 months when waiting until after surgery to provide chemoradiotherapy (P = .025).

There were no significant differences in postsurgical complications between the two arms, and no significant differences in rates of grade 3-4 hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities. There were also no chemoradiotherapy-related deaths.

The most common toxicities across the two study arms were esophagitis, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia.

Overall, the rates of recurrence were significantly lower with NCCRT than with ASCRT (58.0% vs 66.3%; P = .020). This included significant reductions in both locoregional (P = .012) and distant recurrence (P = .009).

Jaffer A. Ajani, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, underlined that the experimental arm of the trial, with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, “has been the standard of care in the United States for a long time, particularly for squamous carcinoma.”

However, he said in an interview that it is not a standard of care in China and clinicians continue with adjuvant therapy. This is despite a recent study conducted in Hong Kong that concluded that patients should not be given any treatment after surgery “because they do worse” than those given neoadjuvant therapy, he continued.

While Dr. Ajani noted that the current analysis is underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, it remains “an important study for Chinese patients.

“Hopefully, it will be well advertised in China, and all the providers switch [to NCCRT]. This could push them to abandon what in the West was considered harmful.”

Dr. Ajani explained the reason neoadjuvant therapy performs better than adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is it “may be mopping up some of the micro metastatic disease, which is difficult to do after surgery,” especially as many patients cannot tolerate postoperative treatment.

“It may be that the majority of patients don’t even get [adjuvant therapy], and those who get it don’t seem to benefit.”

Vishwanath Sathyanarayanan, MD, PhD, Senior Consultant, Professor and Academic Advisor, Department of Medical Oncology, Apollo Cancer Centers, Bangalore, India, agreed that the study reinforces that “NCCRT continues to remain the standard of care in locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.”

Consequently, there are “no implications for clinical practice” for providers in the West from these study results, “particularly as NCCRT significantly improves outcomes vs ASCRT with a similar toxicity profile,” he said in an interview.

No funding was declared. Dr. Zhu declared no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy significantly improves survival outcomes over adjuvant sequential chemoradiotherapy (ASCRT) in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, confirmed the first randomized trial to directly compare the two approaches.

Yaoyao Zhu, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Shanghai, China, presented the new research at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer on September 10.

Based on the findings, neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NCCRT) followed by surgical resection “should be regarded as the standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the Chinese population,” Dr. Zhu said.
 

Different Approaches in ESCC

Dr. Zhu began her presentation by underscoring that in Western countries, NCCRT followed by surgery has been the standard treatment for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer since the publication of the CROSS trial in 2012, which compared neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery with surgery alone.

This demonstrated that preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved survival by 34% in patients with potentially curable esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer, while adverse event rates were deemed “acceptable.”

In contrast, in most centers in China, clinicians opt for performing surgery followed by ASCRT.

Dr. Zhu pointed out that as previous randomized controlled trials have used surgery alone as the comparator arm, it has not been shown definitively that NCCRT plus surgery is superior to surgery followed by ASCRT.

The researchers, therefore, conducted the NEOTERIC trial, which enrolled patients with clinically resectable, locally advanced ESCC, defined as clinical stage T1-2N1M0 or T3-4N0-1M0.

They were randomized to one of two arms. The NCCRT arm involved 6 weeks of carboplatin plus paclitaxel chemotherapy alongside radiotherapy delivered as 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions. After an interval of 4-6 weeks, the patients underwent surgery, followed by an optional two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 4-6 weeks later.

In the ASCRT arm, patients underwent surgery straightaway, waited for 4-6 weeks, then had two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 3 weeks apart, followed by the same radiotherapy regimen as in the first arm. About 2-4 weeks later, patients could then undergo another two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel.
 

More Than Doubling of Survival Outcomes

One hundred patients were assigned to NCCRT and 104 to ASCRT. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of their baseline characteristics.

The vast majority of patients were men, just over two thirds were smokers, and the median age was around 60 years. The median tumor length was approximately 5 cm, and around half of tumors were located in the middle third of the esophagus.

Median disease-free survival was markedly longer with NCCRT, at 51.0 months vs 14.0 months in the ASCRT arm (P = .01). Similarly, median overall survival was far longer with neoadjuvant therapy, at 79.0 months, vs 38.0 months when waiting until after surgery to provide chemoradiotherapy (P = .025).

There were no significant differences in postsurgical complications between the two arms, and no significant differences in rates of grade 3-4 hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities. There were also no chemoradiotherapy-related deaths.

The most common toxicities across the two study arms were esophagitis, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia.

Overall, the rates of recurrence were significantly lower with NCCRT than with ASCRT (58.0% vs 66.3%; P = .020). This included significant reductions in both locoregional (P = .012) and distant recurrence (P = .009).

Jaffer A. Ajani, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, underlined that the experimental arm of the trial, with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, “has been the standard of care in the United States for a long time, particularly for squamous carcinoma.”

However, he said in an interview that it is not a standard of care in China and clinicians continue with adjuvant therapy. This is despite a recent study conducted in Hong Kong that concluded that patients should not be given any treatment after surgery “because they do worse” than those given neoadjuvant therapy, he continued.

While Dr. Ajani noted that the current analysis is underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, it remains “an important study for Chinese patients.

“Hopefully, it will be well advertised in China, and all the providers switch [to NCCRT]. This could push them to abandon what in the West was considered harmful.”

Dr. Ajani explained the reason neoadjuvant therapy performs better than adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is it “may be mopping up some of the micro metastatic disease, which is difficult to do after surgery,” especially as many patients cannot tolerate postoperative treatment.

“It may be that the majority of patients don’t even get [adjuvant therapy], and those who get it don’t seem to benefit.”

Vishwanath Sathyanarayanan, MD, PhD, Senior Consultant, Professor and Academic Advisor, Department of Medical Oncology, Apollo Cancer Centers, Bangalore, India, agreed that the study reinforces that “NCCRT continues to remain the standard of care in locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.”

Consequently, there are “no implications for clinical practice” for providers in the West from these study results, “particularly as NCCRT significantly improves outcomes vs ASCRT with a similar toxicity profile,” he said in an interview.

No funding was declared. Dr. Zhu declared no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy significantly improves survival outcomes over adjuvant sequential chemoradiotherapy (ASCRT) in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, confirmed the first randomized trial to directly compare the two approaches.

Yaoyao Zhu, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Shanghai, China, presented the new research at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer on September 10.

Based on the findings, neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NCCRT) followed by surgical resection “should be regarded as the standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the Chinese population,” Dr. Zhu said.
 

Different Approaches in ESCC

Dr. Zhu began her presentation by underscoring that in Western countries, NCCRT followed by surgery has been the standard treatment for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer since the publication of the CROSS trial in 2012, which compared neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery with surgery alone.

This demonstrated that preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved survival by 34% in patients with potentially curable esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer, while adverse event rates were deemed “acceptable.”

In contrast, in most centers in China, clinicians opt for performing surgery followed by ASCRT.

Dr. Zhu pointed out that as previous randomized controlled trials have used surgery alone as the comparator arm, it has not been shown definitively that NCCRT plus surgery is superior to surgery followed by ASCRT.

The researchers, therefore, conducted the NEOTERIC trial, which enrolled patients with clinically resectable, locally advanced ESCC, defined as clinical stage T1-2N1M0 or T3-4N0-1M0.

They were randomized to one of two arms. The NCCRT arm involved 6 weeks of carboplatin plus paclitaxel chemotherapy alongside radiotherapy delivered as 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions. After an interval of 4-6 weeks, the patients underwent surgery, followed by an optional two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 4-6 weeks later.

In the ASCRT arm, patients underwent surgery straightaway, waited for 4-6 weeks, then had two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 3 weeks apart, followed by the same radiotherapy regimen as in the first arm. About 2-4 weeks later, patients could then undergo another two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel.
 

More Than Doubling of Survival Outcomes

One hundred patients were assigned to NCCRT and 104 to ASCRT. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of their baseline characteristics.

The vast majority of patients were men, just over two thirds were smokers, and the median age was around 60 years. The median tumor length was approximately 5 cm, and around half of tumors were located in the middle third of the esophagus.

Median disease-free survival was markedly longer with NCCRT, at 51.0 months vs 14.0 months in the ASCRT arm (P = .01). Similarly, median overall survival was far longer with neoadjuvant therapy, at 79.0 months, vs 38.0 months when waiting until after surgery to provide chemoradiotherapy (P = .025).

There were no significant differences in postsurgical complications between the two arms, and no significant differences in rates of grade 3-4 hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities. There were also no chemoradiotherapy-related deaths.

The most common toxicities across the two study arms were esophagitis, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia.

Overall, the rates of recurrence were significantly lower with NCCRT than with ASCRT (58.0% vs 66.3%; P = .020). This included significant reductions in both locoregional (P = .012) and distant recurrence (P = .009).

Jaffer A. Ajani, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, underlined that the experimental arm of the trial, with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, “has been the standard of care in the United States for a long time, particularly for squamous carcinoma.”

However, he said in an interview that it is not a standard of care in China and clinicians continue with adjuvant therapy. This is despite a recent study conducted in Hong Kong that concluded that patients should not be given any treatment after surgery “because they do worse” than those given neoadjuvant therapy, he continued.

While Dr. Ajani noted that the current analysis is underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, it remains “an important study for Chinese patients.

“Hopefully, it will be well advertised in China, and all the providers switch [to NCCRT]. This could push them to abandon what in the West was considered harmful.”

Dr. Ajani explained the reason neoadjuvant therapy performs better than adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is it “may be mopping up some of the micro metastatic disease, which is difficult to do after surgery,” especially as many patients cannot tolerate postoperative treatment.

“It may be that the majority of patients don’t even get [adjuvant therapy], and those who get it don’t seem to benefit.”

Vishwanath Sathyanarayanan, MD, PhD, Senior Consultant, Professor and Academic Advisor, Department of Medical Oncology, Apollo Cancer Centers, Bangalore, India, agreed that the study reinforces that “NCCRT continues to remain the standard of care in locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.”

Consequently, there are “no implications for clinical practice” for providers in the West from these study results, “particularly as NCCRT significantly improves outcomes vs ASCRT with a similar toxicity profile,” he said in an interview.

No funding was declared. Dr. Zhu declared no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A joint American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) task force has updated quality indicators considered “fundamental” to all gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures — most of which have a performance target > 98%, implying they should be achieved in nearly every case. 

The task force’s work was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“The purpose of this paper is to delineate all of the steps that the endoscopist should be thinking about before they perform any endoscopy,” task force member Nicholas Shaheen, MD, MPH, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. 

“Some of these are straightforward — for instance, did we get informed consent? Others are more nuanced — did we appropriately plan for sedation for the procedure, or did we give the right antibiotics before the procedure to prevent an infectious complication after?

“While the vast majority of endoscopists do these measures with every procedure, especially in unusual circumstances or when the procedure is an emergency, they can be overlooked. Having these quality indicators listed in one place should minimize these omissions,” Dr. Shaheen said.
 

Four Priority Indicators

The update represents the third iteration of the ACG/ASGE quality indicators on GI endoscopic procedures, the most recent of which was published nearly a decade ago.

As in preceding versions, the task force “prioritized indicators that have wide-ranging clinical implications and have been validated in clinical studies.” There are 19 in total, divided into three time periods: Preprocedure (8), intraprocedure (4), and postprocedure (7).

While all 19 indicators are intended to serve as a framework for continual quality improvement efforts among endoscopists and units, the task force recognized a subset of 4 they identified as being a particular priority:

• Frequency with which endoscopy is performed for an indication that is included in a published standard list of appropriate indications and the indication is documented (performance target > 95%) 
• Frequency with which prophylactic antibiotics are administered for appropriate indications (performance target > 98%) 
• Frequency with which a plan for the management of antithrombotic therapy is formulated and documented before the procedure (performance target = 95%) 
• Frequency with which adverse events are documented (performance target > 98%) 

Room for Improvement 

There remains a lack of compliance with some of these indicators, the task force said. 

“Procedures are still performed for questionable indications, adverse events are not always captured and documented, and communication between the endoscopist and patient and/or involved clinicians is sometimes lacking.

“For these reasons, strict attention to the quality indicators in this document and an active plan for improvement in areas of measured deficiency should be a central pillar of the successful practice of endoscopy,” they wrote. 

The task force advised that quality improvement efforts initially focus on the four priority indicators and then progress to include other indicators once it is determined that endoscopists are performing above recommended thresholds, either at baseline or after corrective interventions.

Reached for comment, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview that these updated recommendations are “important and commonsense standard procedures that should be followed for all procedures.”

“We recognize endoscopic evaluation plays an important role in the assessment of GI illnesses, but there are also both risks and costs to this as a diagnostic and therapeutic intervention. Thus, it is important to make sure these standards are met, to optimize the outcomes of our patients,” said Dr. Ananthakrishnan, who was not involved in this work.

In a separate statement, the American Gastroenterological Association affirmed that is committed to supporting gastroenterologists in providing high-quality care via improved patients outcomes, increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness. AGA encouraged GIs to visit gastro.org/quality to learn more and find quality measures on topics including Barrett’s esophagus, inflammatory bowel disease, acute pancreatitis, and gastric intestinal metaplasia.

This work had no financial support. Dr. Shaheen and Dr. Ananthakrishnan disclosed having no relevant competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A joint American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) task force has updated quality indicators considered “fundamental” to all gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures — most of which have a performance target > 98%, implying they should be achieved in nearly every case. 

The task force’s work was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“The purpose of this paper is to delineate all of the steps that the endoscopist should be thinking about before they perform any endoscopy,” task force member Nicholas Shaheen, MD, MPH, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. 

“Some of these are straightforward — for instance, did we get informed consent? Others are more nuanced — did we appropriately plan for sedation for the procedure, or did we give the right antibiotics before the procedure to prevent an infectious complication after?

“While the vast majority of endoscopists do these measures with every procedure, especially in unusual circumstances or when the procedure is an emergency, they can be overlooked. Having these quality indicators listed in one place should minimize these omissions,” Dr. Shaheen said.
 

Four Priority Indicators

The update represents the third iteration of the ACG/ASGE quality indicators on GI endoscopic procedures, the most recent of which was published nearly a decade ago.

As in preceding versions, the task force “prioritized indicators that have wide-ranging clinical implications and have been validated in clinical studies.” There are 19 in total, divided into three time periods: Preprocedure (8), intraprocedure (4), and postprocedure (7).

While all 19 indicators are intended to serve as a framework for continual quality improvement efforts among endoscopists and units, the task force recognized a subset of 4 they identified as being a particular priority:

• Frequency with which endoscopy is performed for an indication that is included in a published standard list of appropriate indications and the indication is documented (performance target > 95%) 
• Frequency with which prophylactic antibiotics are administered for appropriate indications (performance target > 98%) 
• Frequency with which a plan for the management of antithrombotic therapy is formulated and documented before the procedure (performance target = 95%) 
• Frequency with which adverse events are documented (performance target > 98%) 

Room for Improvement 

There remains a lack of compliance with some of these indicators, the task force said. 

“Procedures are still performed for questionable indications, adverse events are not always captured and documented, and communication between the endoscopist and patient and/or involved clinicians is sometimes lacking.

“For these reasons, strict attention to the quality indicators in this document and an active plan for improvement in areas of measured deficiency should be a central pillar of the successful practice of endoscopy,” they wrote. 

The task force advised that quality improvement efforts initially focus on the four priority indicators and then progress to include other indicators once it is determined that endoscopists are performing above recommended thresholds, either at baseline or after corrective interventions.

Reached for comment, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview that these updated recommendations are “important and commonsense standard procedures that should be followed for all procedures.”

“We recognize endoscopic evaluation plays an important role in the assessment of GI illnesses, but there are also both risks and costs to this as a diagnostic and therapeutic intervention. Thus, it is important to make sure these standards are met, to optimize the outcomes of our patients,” said Dr. Ananthakrishnan, who was not involved in this work.

In a separate statement, the American Gastroenterological Association affirmed that is committed to supporting gastroenterologists in providing high-quality care via improved patients outcomes, increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness. AGA encouraged GIs to visit gastro.org/quality to learn more and find quality measures on topics including Barrett’s esophagus, inflammatory bowel disease, acute pancreatitis, and gastric intestinal metaplasia.

This work had no financial support. Dr. Shaheen and Dr. Ananthakrishnan disclosed having no relevant competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A joint American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) task force has updated quality indicators considered “fundamental” to all gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures — most of which have a performance target > 98%, implying they should be achieved in nearly every case. 

The task force’s work was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“The purpose of this paper is to delineate all of the steps that the endoscopist should be thinking about before they perform any endoscopy,” task force member Nicholas Shaheen, MD, MPH, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. 

“Some of these are straightforward — for instance, did we get informed consent? Others are more nuanced — did we appropriately plan for sedation for the procedure, or did we give the right antibiotics before the procedure to prevent an infectious complication after?

“While the vast majority of endoscopists do these measures with every procedure, especially in unusual circumstances or when the procedure is an emergency, they can be overlooked. Having these quality indicators listed in one place should minimize these omissions,” Dr. Shaheen said.
 

Four Priority Indicators

The update represents the third iteration of the ACG/ASGE quality indicators on GI endoscopic procedures, the most recent of which was published nearly a decade ago.

As in preceding versions, the task force “prioritized indicators that have wide-ranging clinical implications and have been validated in clinical studies.” There are 19 in total, divided into three time periods: Preprocedure (8), intraprocedure (4), and postprocedure (7).

While all 19 indicators are intended to serve as a framework for continual quality improvement efforts among endoscopists and units, the task force recognized a subset of 4 they identified as being a particular priority:

• Frequency with which endoscopy is performed for an indication that is included in a published standard list of appropriate indications and the indication is documented (performance target > 95%) 
• Frequency with which prophylactic antibiotics are administered for appropriate indications (performance target > 98%) 
• Frequency with which a plan for the management of antithrombotic therapy is formulated and documented before the procedure (performance target = 95%) 
• Frequency with which adverse events are documented (performance target > 98%) 

Room for Improvement 

There remains a lack of compliance with some of these indicators, the task force said. 

“Procedures are still performed for questionable indications, adverse events are not always captured and documented, and communication between the endoscopist and patient and/or involved clinicians is sometimes lacking.

“For these reasons, strict attention to the quality indicators in this document and an active plan for improvement in areas of measured deficiency should be a central pillar of the successful practice of endoscopy,” they wrote. 

The task force advised that quality improvement efforts initially focus on the four priority indicators and then progress to include other indicators once it is determined that endoscopists are performing above recommended thresholds, either at baseline or after corrective interventions.

Reached for comment, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview that these updated recommendations are “important and commonsense standard procedures that should be followed for all procedures.”

“We recognize endoscopic evaluation plays an important role in the assessment of GI illnesses, but there are also both risks and costs to this as a diagnostic and therapeutic intervention. Thus, it is important to make sure these standards are met, to optimize the outcomes of our patients,” said Dr. Ananthakrishnan, who was not involved in this work.

In a separate statement, the American Gastroenterological Association affirmed that is committed to supporting gastroenterologists in providing high-quality care via improved patients outcomes, increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness. AGA encouraged GIs to visit gastro.org/quality to learn more and find quality measures on topics including Barrett’s esophagus, inflammatory bowel disease, acute pancreatitis, and gastric intestinal metaplasia.

This work had no financial support. Dr. Shaheen and Dr. Ananthakrishnan disclosed having no relevant competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Cannabis users aged 65 years or older undergoing general anesthesia for surgery required higher doses of inhalational anesthetics than nonusers. However, the clinical relevance of this difference remains unclear.

METHODOLOGY:

• To assess if cannabis use leads to higher doses of inhalational anesthesia during surgery, the researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing the average intraoperative minimum alveolar concentrations of volatile anesthetics (isoflurane and sevoflurane) between older adults who used cannabis products and those who did not.
• The researchers reviewed electronic health records of 22,476 patients aged 65 years or older who underwent surgery at the University of Florida Health System between 2018 and 2020.
• Overall, 268 patients who reported using cannabis within 60 days of surgery (median age, 69 years; 35% women) were matched to 1072 nonusers.
• The median duration of anesthesia was 175 minutes.
• The primary outcome was the intraoperative time-weighted average of isoflurane or sevoflurane minimum alveolar concentration equivalents.

TAKEAWAY:

• Cannabis users had significantly higher average minimum alveolar concentrations of isoflurane or sevoflurane than nonusers (mean, 0.58 vs 0.54; mean difference, 0.04; P = .021).
• The findings were confirmed in a sensitivity analysis that revealed higher mean average minimum alveolar concentrations of anesthesia in cannabis users than in nonusers (0.57 vs 0.53; P = .029).
• Although the 0.04 difference in minimum alveolar concentration between cannabis users and nonusers was statistically significant, its clinical importance is unclear.

IN PRACTICE:

“While recent guidelines underscore the importance of universal screening for cannabinoids before surgery, caution is paramount to prevent clinical bias leading to the administration of unnecessary higher doses of inhalational anesthesia, especially as robust evidence supporting such practices remains lacking,” the authors of the study wrote.
 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Ruba Sajdeya, MD, PhD, of the Department of Epidemiology at the University of Florida, Gainesville, and was published online in August 2024 in Anesthesiology.

LIMITATIONS: 

This study lacked access to prescription or dispensed medications, including opioids, which may have introduced residual confounding. Potential underdocumentation of cannabis use in medical records could have led to exposure misclassification. The causality between cannabis usage and increased anesthetic dosing could not be established due to the observational nature of this study. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, and in part by the University of Florida Clinical and Translational Science Institute. Some authors declared receiving research support, consulting fees, and honoraria and having other ties with pharmaceutical companies and various other sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Cannabis users aged 65 years or older undergoing general anesthesia for surgery required higher doses of inhalational anesthetics than nonusers. However, the clinical relevance of this difference remains unclear.

METHODOLOGY:

• To assess if cannabis use leads to higher doses of inhalational anesthesia during surgery, the researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing the average intraoperative minimum alveolar concentrations of volatile anesthetics (isoflurane and sevoflurane) between older adults who used cannabis products and those who did not.
• The researchers reviewed electronic health records of 22,476 patients aged 65 years or older who underwent surgery at the University of Florida Health System between 2018 and 2020.
• Overall, 268 patients who reported using cannabis within 60 days of surgery (median age, 69 years; 35% women) were matched to 1072 nonusers.
• The median duration of anesthesia was 175 minutes.
• The primary outcome was the intraoperative time-weighted average of isoflurane or sevoflurane minimum alveolar concentration equivalents.

TAKEAWAY:

• Cannabis users had significantly higher average minimum alveolar concentrations of isoflurane or sevoflurane than nonusers (mean, 0.58 vs 0.54; mean difference, 0.04; P = .021).
• The findings were confirmed in a sensitivity analysis that revealed higher mean average minimum alveolar concentrations of anesthesia in cannabis users than in nonusers (0.57 vs 0.53; P = .029).
• Although the 0.04 difference in minimum alveolar concentration between cannabis users and nonusers was statistically significant, its clinical importance is unclear.

IN PRACTICE:

“While recent guidelines underscore the importance of universal screening for cannabinoids before surgery, caution is paramount to prevent clinical bias leading to the administration of unnecessary higher doses of inhalational anesthesia, especially as robust evidence supporting such practices remains lacking,” the authors of the study wrote.
 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Ruba Sajdeya, MD, PhD, of the Department of Epidemiology at the University of Florida, Gainesville, and was published online in August 2024 in Anesthesiology.

LIMITATIONS: 

This study lacked access to prescription or dispensed medications, including opioids, which may have introduced residual confounding. Potential underdocumentation of cannabis use in medical records could have led to exposure misclassification. The causality between cannabis usage and increased anesthetic dosing could not be established due to the observational nature of this study. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, and in part by the University of Florida Clinical and Translational Science Institute. Some authors declared receiving research support, consulting fees, and honoraria and having other ties with pharmaceutical companies and various other sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Cannabis users aged 65 years or older undergoing general anesthesia for surgery required higher doses of inhalational anesthetics than nonusers. However, the clinical relevance of this difference remains unclear.

METHODOLOGY:

• To assess if cannabis use leads to higher doses of inhalational anesthesia during surgery, the researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing the average intraoperative minimum alveolar concentrations of volatile anesthetics (isoflurane and sevoflurane) between older adults who used cannabis products and those who did not.
• The researchers reviewed electronic health records of 22,476 patients aged 65 years or older who underwent surgery at the University of Florida Health System between 2018 and 2020.
• Overall, 268 patients who reported using cannabis within 60 days of surgery (median age, 69 years; 35% women) were matched to 1072 nonusers.
• The median duration of anesthesia was 175 minutes.
• The primary outcome was the intraoperative time-weighted average of isoflurane or sevoflurane minimum alveolar concentration equivalents.

TAKEAWAY:

• Cannabis users had significantly higher average minimum alveolar concentrations of isoflurane or sevoflurane than nonusers (mean, 0.58 vs 0.54; mean difference, 0.04; P = .021).
• The findings were confirmed in a sensitivity analysis that revealed higher mean average minimum alveolar concentrations of anesthesia in cannabis users than in nonusers (0.57 vs 0.53; P = .029).
• Although the 0.04 difference in minimum alveolar concentration between cannabis users and nonusers was statistically significant, its clinical importance is unclear.

IN PRACTICE:

“While recent guidelines underscore the importance of universal screening for cannabinoids before surgery, caution is paramount to prevent clinical bias leading to the administration of unnecessary higher doses of inhalational anesthesia, especially as robust evidence supporting such practices remains lacking,” the authors of the study wrote.
 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Ruba Sajdeya, MD, PhD, of the Department of Epidemiology at the University of Florida, Gainesville, and was published online in August 2024 in Anesthesiology.

LIMITATIONS: 

This study lacked access to prescription or dispensed medications, including opioids, which may have introduced residual confounding. Potential underdocumentation of cannabis use in medical records could have led to exposure misclassification. The causality between cannabis usage and increased anesthetic dosing could not be established due to the observational nature of this study. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, and in part by the University of Florida Clinical and Translational Science Institute. Some authors declared receiving research support, consulting fees, and honoraria and having other ties with pharmaceutical companies and various other sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis who were operated on within 1 day of admission were less likely to die in the hospital compared with those who were treated with nonsurgical management or who had a delayed surgery.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 24,320 older adults (median age, 72 years; 50.9% women; 75.6% White) with uncomplicated appendicitis over a 2-year period starting in 2016; of these, 7290 patients were frail.
• Patients received nonsurgical treatment, immediate appendectomy within 1 day of admission, or delayed surgery after more than 1 day of admission.
• The clinical outcomes included infectious complications using a composite, cardiopulmonary complications, in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and total hospital costs.
• Frailty of patients was assessed using a claims-based index producing a score ranging from 0 to 1 on the basis of 93 variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with frailty had higher rates of infections (1.3% vs 0.4%), cardiopulmonary complications (24.1% vs 6.3%), overall complications (57.1% vs 28.8%), in-hospital deaths (3.9% vs 0.3%), longer hospital stays (6 vs 4 days), and higher hospital costs ($67,000 vs $42,000) than those without frailty (P < .001).
• Patients with frailty who had immediate surgery had lower risk for death than those who received nonsurgical treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.89; P = .004) and delayed surgery (OR, 3.80; P = .001).
• In patients without frailty, immediate surgery was linked to a higher risk for hospital complications than nonsurgical treatment (OR, 0.77; P = .009), but it was linked to a lower risk than delayed appendectomy (OR, 2.05; P < .001).
• Black patients were less likely to receive immediate appendectomy compared with White patients (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that treatment of older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis may benefit from risk stratification based on patient frailty status,” the authors wrote. “Routine frailty assessments should be incorporated in the care of older adult patients to guide discussions for shared decision-making,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Matthew Ashbrook, MD, MPH, of the Department of Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Modification of the frailty index and reliance on discharge diagnosis could have resulted in misclassification bias. The timing of presentation of symptoms was not assessed. Also, lack of long-term data prevented tracking of readmissions and related complications.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis who were operated on within 1 day of admission were less likely to die in the hospital compared with those who were treated with nonsurgical management or who had a delayed surgery.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 24,320 older adults (median age, 72 years; 50.9% women; 75.6% White) with uncomplicated appendicitis over a 2-year period starting in 2016; of these, 7290 patients were frail.
• Patients received nonsurgical treatment, immediate appendectomy within 1 day of admission, or delayed surgery after more than 1 day of admission.
• The clinical outcomes included infectious complications using a composite, cardiopulmonary complications, in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and total hospital costs.
• Frailty of patients was assessed using a claims-based index producing a score ranging from 0 to 1 on the basis of 93 variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with frailty had higher rates of infections (1.3% vs 0.4%), cardiopulmonary complications (24.1% vs 6.3%), overall complications (57.1% vs 28.8%), in-hospital deaths (3.9% vs 0.3%), longer hospital stays (6 vs 4 days), and higher hospital costs ($67,000 vs $42,000) than those without frailty (P < .001).
• Patients with frailty who had immediate surgery had lower risk for death than those who received nonsurgical treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.89; P = .004) and delayed surgery (OR, 3.80; P = .001).
• In patients without frailty, immediate surgery was linked to a higher risk for hospital complications than nonsurgical treatment (OR, 0.77; P = .009), but it was linked to a lower risk than delayed appendectomy (OR, 2.05; P < .001).
• Black patients were less likely to receive immediate appendectomy compared with White patients (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that treatment of older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis may benefit from risk stratification based on patient frailty status,” the authors wrote. “Routine frailty assessments should be incorporated in the care of older adult patients to guide discussions for shared decision-making,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Matthew Ashbrook, MD, MPH, of the Department of Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Modification of the frailty index and reliance on discharge diagnosis could have resulted in misclassification bias. The timing of presentation of symptoms was not assessed. Also, lack of long-term data prevented tracking of readmissions and related complications.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis who were operated on within 1 day of admission were less likely to die in the hospital compared with those who were treated with nonsurgical management or who had a delayed surgery.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 24,320 older adults (median age, 72 years; 50.9% women; 75.6% White) with uncomplicated appendicitis over a 2-year period starting in 2016; of these, 7290 patients were frail.
• Patients received nonsurgical treatment, immediate appendectomy within 1 day of admission, or delayed surgery after more than 1 day of admission.
• The clinical outcomes included infectious complications using a composite, cardiopulmonary complications, in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and total hospital costs.
• Frailty of patients was assessed using a claims-based index producing a score ranging from 0 to 1 on the basis of 93 variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with frailty had higher rates of infections (1.3% vs 0.4%), cardiopulmonary complications (24.1% vs 6.3%), overall complications (57.1% vs 28.8%), in-hospital deaths (3.9% vs 0.3%), longer hospital stays (6 vs 4 days), and higher hospital costs ($67,000 vs $42,000) than those without frailty (P < .001).
• Patients with frailty who had immediate surgery had lower risk for death than those who received nonsurgical treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.89; P = .004) and delayed surgery (OR, 3.80; P = .001).
• In patients without frailty, immediate surgery was linked to a higher risk for hospital complications than nonsurgical treatment (OR, 0.77; P = .009), but it was linked to a lower risk than delayed appendectomy (OR, 2.05; P < .001).
• Black patients were less likely to receive immediate appendectomy compared with White patients (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that treatment of older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis may benefit from risk stratification based on patient frailty status,” the authors wrote. “Routine frailty assessments should be incorporated in the care of older adult patients to guide discussions for shared decision-making,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Matthew Ashbrook, MD, MPH, of the Department of Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Modification of the frailty index and reliance on discharge diagnosis could have resulted in misclassification bias. The timing of presentation of symptoms was not assessed. Also, lack of long-term data prevented tracking of readmissions and related complications.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.