General Surgery

Nonopioid therapy is the preferred approach for managing chronic pain outside of active cancer, palliative, and end-of-life care, according to a new guideline released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The 12 recommendations included in the guideline center around this principle and two others: using the lowest possible effective dosage when opioids are used, and exercising caution and monitoring patients closely when prescribing opioids.

Specifically, the guideline states that “clinicians should consider opioid therapy only if expected benefits for both pain and function are anticipated to outweigh risks to the patient,” and that “treatment should be combined with nonpharmacologic and nonopioid therapy, as appropriate.”

The guideline also addresses steps to take before starting or continuing opioid therapy, and drug selection, dosage, duration, follow-up, and discontinuation. Recommendations for assessing risk and addressing harms of opioid use are also included.

The CDC developed the guideline as part of the U.S. government’s urgent response to the epidemic of overdose deaths, which has been fueled by a quadrupling of the prescribing and sales of opioids since 1999, according to a CDC press statement. The guideline’s purpose is to help prevent opioid misuse and overdose.

“The CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain, United States, 2016 will help primary care providers ensure the safest and most effective treatment for their patients,” according to the statement. The CDC’s director, Dr. Tom Frieden, noted that “overprescribing opioids – largely for chronic pain – is a key driver of America’s drug-overdose epidemic.”

In a CDC teleconference marking the release of the guideline, Dr. Frieden said it has become increasingly clear that opioids “carry substantial risks but only uncertain benefits, especially compared with other treatments for chronic pain.

“Beginning treatment with an opioid is a momentous decision, and it should only be done with full understanding by both the clinician and the patient of the substantial risks and uncertain benefits involved,” Dr. Frieden said. He added that he knows of no other medication “that’s routinely used for a nonfatal condition [and] that kills patients so frequently.

“With more than 250 million prescriptions written each year, it’s so important that doctors understand that any one of those prescriptions could potentially end a patient’s life,” he cautioned.

A 2015 study showed that 1 of every 550 patients treated with opioids for noncancer pain – and 1 of 32 who received the highest doses (more than 200 morphine milligram equivalents per day) – died within 2.5 years of the first prescription.

Dr. Frieden noted that opioids do have a place when the potential benefits outweigh the potential harms. “But for most patients – the vast majority of patients – the risks will outweigh the benefits,” he said.

The opioid epidemic is one of the most pressing public health issues in the United States today, said Sylvia M. Burwell, secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services. A year ago, she announced an HHS initiative to reduce prescription opioid and heroin-related drug overdose, death, and dependence.

“Last year, more Americans died from drug overdoses than car crashes,” Ms. Burwell said during the teleconference, noting that families across the nation and from all walks of life have been affected.

Combating the opioid epidemic is a national priority, she said, and the CDC guideline will help in that effort.

“We believe this guideline will help health care professionals provide safer and more effective care for patients dealing with chronic pain, and we also believe it will help these providers drive down the rates of opioid use disorder, overdose, and ... death,” she said.

The American Medical Association greeted the guideline with cautious support.

“While we are largely supportive of the guidelines, we remain concerned about the evidence base informing some of the recommendations,” noted Dr. Patrice A. Harris, chair-elect of the AMA board and chair of the AMA Task Force to Reduce Opioid Abuse, in a statement.

The AMA also cited potential conflicts between the guideline and product labeling and state laws, as well as obstacles such as insurance coverage limits on nonpharmacologic treatments.

“If these guidelines help reduce the deaths resulting from opioids, they will prove to be valuable,” Dr. Harris said in the statement. “If they produce unintended consequences, we will need to mitigate them.”

Of note, the guideline stresses the right of patients with chronic pain to receive safe and effective pain management, and focuses on giving primary care providers – who account for about half of all opioid prescriptions – a road map for providing such pain management by increasing the use of effective nonopioid and nonpharmacologic therapies.

It was developed through a “rigorous scientific process using the best available scientific evidence, consulting with experts, and listening to comments from the public and partner organizations,” according to the CDC statement. The organization “is dedicated to working with partners to improve the evidence base and will refine the recommendations as new research becomes available.

”In conjunction with the release of the guideline, the CDC has provided a checklist for prescribing opioids for chronic pain, and a website with additional tools for implementing the recommendations within the guideline.

The CDC's opioid recommendations

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s new opioid prescription guideline includes 12 recommendations. Here they are, modified slightly for style:

1. Nonpharmacologic therapy and nonopioid pharmacologic therapy are preferred for chronic pain. Providers should only consider adding opioid therapy if expected benefits for both pain and function are anticipated to outweigh risks.

2. Before starting opioid therapy for chronic pain, providers should establish treatment goals with all patients, including realistic goals for pain and function. Providers should not initiate opioid therapy without consideration of how therapy will be discontinued if unsuccessful. Providers should continue opioid therapy only if there is clinically meaningful improvement in pain and function.

3. Before starting and periodically during opioid therapy, providers should discuss with patients known risks and realistic benefits of opioid therapy, and patient and provider responsibilities for managing therapy.

4. When starting opioid therapy for chronic pain, providers should prescribe immediate-release opioids instead of extended-release/long-acting opioids.

5. When opioids are started, providers should prescribe the lowest effective dosage. Providers should use caution when prescribing opioids at any dosage, should implement additional precautions when increasing dosage to 50 or more morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day, and generally should avoid increasing dosage to 90 or more MME per day.

6. When opioids are used for acute pain, providers should prescribe the lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids. Three or fewer days often will be sufficient.

7. Providers should evaluate the benefits and harms with patients within 1-4 weeks of starting opioid therapy for chronic pain or of dose escalation. They should reevaluate continued therapy’s benefits and harms every 3 months or more frequently. If continued therapy’s benefits do not outweigh harms, providers should work with patients to reduce dosages or discontinue opioids.

8. During therapy, providers should evaluate risk factors for opioid-related harm. Providers should incorporate into the management plan strategies to mitigate risk, including considering offering naloxone when factors that increase risk for opioid overdose – such as history of overdose, history of substance use disorder, or higher opioid dosage (50 MME or more) – are present.

9. Providers should review the patient’s history of controlled substance prescriptions using state prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) data to determine whether the patient is receiving high opioid dosages or dangerous combinations that put him or her at high risk for overdose. Providers should review PDMP data when starting opioid therapy for chronic pain and periodically during opioid therapy for chronic pain, ranging from every prescription to every 3 months.

10. When prescribing opioids for chronic pain, providers should use urine drug testing before starting opioid therapy and consider urine drug testing at least annually to assess for prescribed medications, as well as other controlled prescription drugs and illicit drugs.

11. Providers should avoid concurrent prescriptions of opioid pain medication and benzodiazepines whenever possible.

12. Providers should offer or arrange evidence-based treatment (usually medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine or methadone in combination with behavioral therapies) for patients with opioid use disorder.

M. Alexander Otto contributed to this article.

[email protected]

Nonopioid therapy is the preferred approach for managing chronic pain outside of active cancer, palliative, and end-of-life care, according to a new guideline released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The 12 recommendations included in the guideline center around this principle and two others: using the lowest possible effective dosage when opioids are used, and exercising caution and monitoring patients closely when prescribing opioids.

Specifically, the guideline states that “clinicians should consider opioid therapy only if expected benefits for both pain and function are anticipated to outweigh risks to the patient,” and that “treatment should be combined with nonpharmacologic and nonopioid therapy, as appropriate.”

The guideline also addresses steps to take before starting or continuing opioid therapy, and drug selection, dosage, duration, follow-up, and discontinuation. Recommendations for assessing risk and addressing harms of opioid use are also included.

The CDC developed the guideline as part of the U.S. government’s urgent response to the epidemic of overdose deaths, which has been fueled by a quadrupling of the prescribing and sales of opioids since 1999, according to a CDC press statement. The guideline’s purpose is to help prevent opioid misuse and overdose.

“The CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain, United States, 2016 will help primary care providers ensure the safest and most effective treatment for their patients,” according to the statement. The CDC’s director, Dr. Tom Frieden, noted that “overprescribing opioids – largely for chronic pain – is a key driver of America’s drug-overdose epidemic.”

In a CDC teleconference marking the release of the guideline, Dr. Frieden said it has become increasingly clear that opioids “carry substantial risks but only uncertain benefits, especially compared with other treatments for chronic pain.

“Beginning treatment with an opioid is a momentous decision, and it should only be done with full understanding by both the clinician and the patient of the substantial risks and uncertain benefits involved,” Dr. Frieden said. He added that he knows of no other medication “that’s routinely used for a nonfatal condition [and] that kills patients so frequently.

“With more than 250 million prescriptions written each year, it’s so important that doctors understand that any one of those prescriptions could potentially end a patient’s life,” he cautioned.

A 2015 study showed that 1 of every 550 patients treated with opioids for noncancer pain – and 1 of 32 who received the highest doses (more than 200 morphine milligram equivalents per day) – died within 2.5 years of the first prescription.

Dr. Frieden noted that opioids do have a place when the potential benefits outweigh the potential harms. “But for most patients – the vast majority of patients – the risks will outweigh the benefits,” he said.

The opioid epidemic is one of the most pressing public health issues in the United States today, said Sylvia M. Burwell, secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services. A year ago, she announced an HHS initiative to reduce prescription opioid and heroin-related drug overdose, death, and dependence.

“Last year, more Americans died from drug overdoses than car crashes,” Ms. Burwell said during the teleconference, noting that families across the nation and from all walks of life have been affected.

Combating the opioid epidemic is a national priority, she said, and the CDC guideline will help in that effort.

“We believe this guideline will help health care professionals provide safer and more effective care for patients dealing with chronic pain, and we also believe it will help these providers drive down the rates of opioid use disorder, overdose, and ... death,” she said.

The American Medical Association greeted the guideline with cautious support.

“While we are largely supportive of the guidelines, we remain concerned about the evidence base informing some of the recommendations,” noted Dr. Patrice A. Harris, chair-elect of the AMA board and chair of the AMA Task Force to Reduce Opioid Abuse, in a statement.

The AMA also cited potential conflicts between the guideline and product labeling and state laws, as well as obstacles such as insurance coverage limits on nonpharmacologic treatments.

“If these guidelines help reduce the deaths resulting from opioids, they will prove to be valuable,” Dr. Harris said in the statement. “If they produce unintended consequences, we will need to mitigate them.”

Of note, the guideline stresses the right of patients with chronic pain to receive safe and effective pain management, and focuses on giving primary care providers – who account for about half of all opioid prescriptions – a road map for providing such pain management by increasing the use of effective nonopioid and nonpharmacologic therapies.

It was developed through a “rigorous scientific process using the best available scientific evidence, consulting with experts, and listening to comments from the public and partner organizations,” according to the CDC statement. The organization “is dedicated to working with partners to improve the evidence base and will refine the recommendations as new research becomes available.

”In conjunction with the release of the guideline, the CDC has provided a checklist for prescribing opioids for chronic pain, and a website with additional tools for implementing the recommendations within the guideline.

The CDC's opioid recommendations

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s new opioid prescription guideline includes 12 recommendations. Here they are, modified slightly for style:

1. Nonpharmacologic therapy and nonopioid pharmacologic therapy are preferred for chronic pain. Providers should only consider adding opioid therapy if expected benefits for both pain and function are anticipated to outweigh risks.

2. Before starting opioid therapy for chronic pain, providers should establish treatment goals with all patients, including realistic goals for pain and function. Providers should not initiate opioid therapy without consideration of how therapy will be discontinued if unsuccessful. Providers should continue opioid therapy only if there is clinically meaningful improvement in pain and function.

3. Before starting and periodically during opioid therapy, providers should discuss with patients known risks and realistic benefits of opioid therapy, and patient and provider responsibilities for managing therapy.

4. When starting opioid therapy for chronic pain, providers should prescribe immediate-release opioids instead of extended-release/long-acting opioids.

5. When opioids are started, providers should prescribe the lowest effective dosage. Providers should use caution when prescribing opioids at any dosage, should implement additional precautions when increasing dosage to 50 or more morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day, and generally should avoid increasing dosage to 90 or more MME per day.

6. When opioids are used for acute pain, providers should prescribe the lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids. Three or fewer days often will be sufficient.

7. Providers should evaluate the benefits and harms with patients within 1-4 weeks of starting opioid therapy for chronic pain or of dose escalation. They should reevaluate continued therapy’s benefits and harms every 3 months or more frequently. If continued therapy’s benefits do not outweigh harms, providers should work with patients to reduce dosages or discontinue opioids.

8. During therapy, providers should evaluate risk factors for opioid-related harm. Providers should incorporate into the management plan strategies to mitigate risk, including considering offering naloxone when factors that increase risk for opioid overdose – such as history of overdose, history of substance use disorder, or higher opioid dosage (50 MME or more) – are present.

9. Providers should review the patient’s history of controlled substance prescriptions using state prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) data to determine whether the patient is receiving high opioid dosages or dangerous combinations that put him or her at high risk for overdose. Providers should review PDMP data when starting opioid therapy for chronic pain and periodically during opioid therapy for chronic pain, ranging from every prescription to every 3 months.

10. When prescribing opioids for chronic pain, providers should use urine drug testing before starting opioid therapy and consider urine drug testing at least annually to assess for prescribed medications, as well as other controlled prescription drugs and illicit drugs.

11. Providers should avoid concurrent prescriptions of opioid pain medication and benzodiazepines whenever possible.

12. Providers should offer or arrange evidence-based treatment (usually medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine or methadone in combination with behavioral therapies) for patients with opioid use disorder.

M. Alexander Otto contributed to this article.

[email protected]

Nonopioid therapy is the preferred approach for managing chronic pain outside of active cancer, palliative, and end-of-life care, according to a new guideline released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The 12 recommendations included in the guideline center around this principle and two others: using the lowest possible effective dosage when opioids are used, and exercising caution and monitoring patients closely when prescribing opioids.

Specifically, the guideline states that “clinicians should consider opioid therapy only if expected benefits for both pain and function are anticipated to outweigh risks to the patient,” and that “treatment should be combined with nonpharmacologic and nonopioid therapy, as appropriate.”

The guideline also addresses steps to take before starting or continuing opioid therapy, and drug selection, dosage, duration, follow-up, and discontinuation. Recommendations for assessing risk and addressing harms of opioid use are also included.

The CDC developed the guideline as part of the U.S. government’s urgent response to the epidemic of overdose deaths, which has been fueled by a quadrupling of the prescribing and sales of opioids since 1999, according to a CDC press statement. The guideline’s purpose is to help prevent opioid misuse and overdose.

“The CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain, United States, 2016 will help primary care providers ensure the safest and most effective treatment for their patients,” according to the statement. The CDC’s director, Dr. Tom Frieden, noted that “overprescribing opioids – largely for chronic pain – is a key driver of America’s drug-overdose epidemic.”

In a CDC teleconference marking the release of the guideline, Dr. Frieden said it has become increasingly clear that opioids “carry substantial risks but only uncertain benefits, especially compared with other treatments for chronic pain.

“Beginning treatment with an opioid is a momentous decision, and it should only be done with full understanding by both the clinician and the patient of the substantial risks and uncertain benefits involved,” Dr. Frieden said. He added that he knows of no other medication “that’s routinely used for a nonfatal condition [and] that kills patients so frequently.

“With more than 250 million prescriptions written each year, it’s so important that doctors understand that any one of those prescriptions could potentially end a patient’s life,” he cautioned.

A 2015 study showed that 1 of every 550 patients treated with opioids for noncancer pain – and 1 of 32 who received the highest doses (more than 200 morphine milligram equivalents per day) – died within 2.5 years of the first prescription.

Dr. Frieden noted that opioids do have a place when the potential benefits outweigh the potential harms. “But for most patients – the vast majority of patients – the risks will outweigh the benefits,” he said.

The opioid epidemic is one of the most pressing public health issues in the United States today, said Sylvia M. Burwell, secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services. A year ago, she announced an HHS initiative to reduce prescription opioid and heroin-related drug overdose, death, and dependence.

“Last year, more Americans died from drug overdoses than car crashes,” Ms. Burwell said during the teleconference, noting that families across the nation and from all walks of life have been affected.

Combating the opioid epidemic is a national priority, she said, and the CDC guideline will help in that effort.

“We believe this guideline will help health care professionals provide safer and more effective care for patients dealing with chronic pain, and we also believe it will help these providers drive down the rates of opioid use disorder, overdose, and ... death,” she said.

The American Medical Association greeted the guideline with cautious support.

“While we are largely supportive of the guidelines, we remain concerned about the evidence base informing some of the recommendations,” noted Dr. Patrice A. Harris, chair-elect of the AMA board and chair of the AMA Task Force to Reduce Opioid Abuse, in a statement.

The AMA also cited potential conflicts between the guideline and product labeling and state laws, as well as obstacles such as insurance coverage limits on nonpharmacologic treatments.

“If these guidelines help reduce the deaths resulting from opioids, they will prove to be valuable,” Dr. Harris said in the statement. “If they produce unintended consequences, we will need to mitigate them.”

Of note, the guideline stresses the right of patients with chronic pain to receive safe and effective pain management, and focuses on giving primary care providers – who account for about half of all opioid prescriptions – a road map for providing such pain management by increasing the use of effective nonopioid and nonpharmacologic therapies.

It was developed through a “rigorous scientific process using the best available scientific evidence, consulting with experts, and listening to comments from the public and partner organizations,” according to the CDC statement. The organization “is dedicated to working with partners to improve the evidence base and will refine the recommendations as new research becomes available.

”In conjunction with the release of the guideline, the CDC has provided a checklist for prescribing opioids for chronic pain, and a website with additional tools for implementing the recommendations within the guideline.

The CDC's opioid recommendations

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s new opioid prescription guideline includes 12 recommendations. Here they are, modified slightly for style:

1. Nonpharmacologic therapy and nonopioid pharmacologic therapy are preferred for chronic pain. Providers should only consider adding opioid therapy if expected benefits for both pain and function are anticipated to outweigh risks.

2. Before starting opioid therapy for chronic pain, providers should establish treatment goals with all patients, including realistic goals for pain and function. Providers should not initiate opioid therapy without consideration of how therapy will be discontinued if unsuccessful. Providers should continue opioid therapy only if there is clinically meaningful improvement in pain and function.

3. Before starting and periodically during opioid therapy, providers should discuss with patients known risks and realistic benefits of opioid therapy, and patient and provider responsibilities for managing therapy.

4. When starting opioid therapy for chronic pain, providers should prescribe immediate-release opioids instead of extended-release/long-acting opioids.

5. When opioids are started, providers should prescribe the lowest effective dosage. Providers should use caution when prescribing opioids at any dosage, should implement additional precautions when increasing dosage to 50 or more morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day, and generally should avoid increasing dosage to 90 or more MME per day.

6. When opioids are used for acute pain, providers should prescribe the lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids. Three or fewer days often will be sufficient.

7. Providers should evaluate the benefits and harms with patients within 1-4 weeks of starting opioid therapy for chronic pain or of dose escalation. They should reevaluate continued therapy’s benefits and harms every 3 months or more frequently. If continued therapy’s benefits do not outweigh harms, providers should work with patients to reduce dosages or discontinue opioids.

8. During therapy, providers should evaluate risk factors for opioid-related harm. Providers should incorporate into the management plan strategies to mitigate risk, including considering offering naloxone when factors that increase risk for opioid overdose – such as history of overdose, history of substance use disorder, or higher opioid dosage (50 MME or more) – are present.

9. Providers should review the patient’s history of controlled substance prescriptions using state prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) data to determine whether the patient is receiving high opioid dosages or dangerous combinations that put him or her at high risk for overdose. Providers should review PDMP data when starting opioid therapy for chronic pain and periodically during opioid therapy for chronic pain, ranging from every prescription to every 3 months.

10. When prescribing opioids for chronic pain, providers should use urine drug testing before starting opioid therapy and consider urine drug testing at least annually to assess for prescribed medications, as well as other controlled prescription drugs and illicit drugs.

11. Providers should avoid concurrent prescriptions of opioid pain medication and benzodiazepines whenever possible.

12. Providers should offer or arrange evidence-based treatment (usually medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine or methadone in combination with behavioral therapies) for patients with opioid use disorder.

M. Alexander Otto contributed to this article.

[email protected]

Immunizing surgical patients against seasonal influenza before they are discharged from the hospital appears safe and is a sound strategy for expanding vaccine coverage, especially among people at high risk, according to a report published online March 14 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

All health care contacts, including hospitalizations, are considered excellent opportunities for influenza vaccination, and current recommendations advise that eligible inpatients receive the immunization before discharge. However, surgical patients don’t often get the flu vaccine before they leave the hospital, likely because of concerns that potential adverse effects like fever and myalgia could be falsely attributed to surgical complications. This would lead to unnecessary patient evaluations and could interfere with postsurgical care, said Sara Y. Tartof, Ph.D., and her associates in the department of research and evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena.

©CAP53/iStockphoto.com

“Although this concern is understandable, few clinical data support it,” they noted.

“To provide clinical evidence that would either substantiate or refute” these concerns about perioperative flu vaccination, the investigators analyzed data in the electronic health records for 81,647 surgeries. All the study participants were deemed eligible for flu vaccination. They were socioeconomically and ethnically diverse, ranged in age from 6 months to 106 years, and underwent surgery at 14 hospitals during three consecutive flu seasons. Operations included general, cardiac, eye, dermatologic, ENT, neurologic, ob.gyn., oral/maxillofacial, orthopedic, plastic, podiatric, urologic, and vascular procedures.

Patients received a flu vaccine in 6,420 hospital stays for surgery – only 15% of 42,777 eligible hospitalizations – usually on the day of discharge. (The remaining 38,870 patients either had been vaccinated before hospital admission or were vaccinated more than a week after discharge and were not included in further analyses.)

Compared with eligible patients who didn’t receive a flu vaccine during hospitalization for surgery, those who did showed no increased risk for subsequent inpatient visits, ED visits, or clinical work-ups for infection. Patients who received the flu vaccine before discharge showed a minimally increased risk for outpatient visits during the week following hospitalization, but this was considered unlikely “to translate into substantial clinical impact,” especially when balanced against the benefit of immunization, Dr. Tartof and her associates said (Ann Intern Med. 2016 Mar 14. doi: 10.7326/M15-1667).

Giving the flu vaccine during a surgical hospitalization “is an opportunity to protect a high-risk population,” because surgery patients tend to be of an age, and to have comorbid conditions, that raise their risk for flu complications. In addition, previous research has reported that 39%-46% of adults hospitalized for influenza-related disease in a given year had been hospitalized during the preceding autumn, indicating that recent hospitalization also raises the risk for flu complications, the investigators said.

“Our data support the rationale for increasing vaccination rates among surgical inpatients,” they said.

This study was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through the Vaccine Safety Datalink program. Dr. Tartof reported receiving grants from Merck outside of this work; two of her associates reported receiving grants from Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline outside of this work.

Immunizing surgical patients against seasonal influenza before they are discharged from the hospital appears safe and is a sound strategy for expanding vaccine coverage, especially among people at high risk, according to a report published online March 14 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

All health care contacts, including hospitalizations, are considered excellent opportunities for influenza vaccination, and current recommendations advise that eligible inpatients receive the immunization before discharge. However, surgical patients don’t often get the flu vaccine before they leave the hospital, likely because of concerns that potential adverse effects like fever and myalgia could be falsely attributed to surgical complications. This would lead to unnecessary patient evaluations and could interfere with postsurgical care, said Sara Y. Tartof, Ph.D., and her associates in the department of research and evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena.

©CAP53/iStockphoto.com

“Although this concern is understandable, few clinical data support it,” they noted.

“To provide clinical evidence that would either substantiate or refute” these concerns about perioperative flu vaccination, the investigators analyzed data in the electronic health records for 81,647 surgeries. All the study participants were deemed eligible for flu vaccination. They were socioeconomically and ethnically diverse, ranged in age from 6 months to 106 years, and underwent surgery at 14 hospitals during three consecutive flu seasons. Operations included general, cardiac, eye, dermatologic, ENT, neurologic, ob.gyn., oral/maxillofacial, orthopedic, plastic, podiatric, urologic, and vascular procedures.

Patients received a flu vaccine in 6,420 hospital stays for surgery – only 15% of 42,777 eligible hospitalizations – usually on the day of discharge. (The remaining 38,870 patients either had been vaccinated before hospital admission or were vaccinated more than a week after discharge and were not included in further analyses.)

Compared with eligible patients who didn’t receive a flu vaccine during hospitalization for surgery, those who did showed no increased risk for subsequent inpatient visits, ED visits, or clinical work-ups for infection. Patients who received the flu vaccine before discharge showed a minimally increased risk for outpatient visits during the week following hospitalization, but this was considered unlikely “to translate into substantial clinical impact,” especially when balanced against the benefit of immunization, Dr. Tartof and her associates said (Ann Intern Med. 2016 Mar 14. doi: 10.7326/M15-1667).

Giving the flu vaccine during a surgical hospitalization “is an opportunity to protect a high-risk population,” because surgery patients tend to be of an age, and to have comorbid conditions, that raise their risk for flu complications. In addition, previous research has reported that 39%-46% of adults hospitalized for influenza-related disease in a given year had been hospitalized during the preceding autumn, indicating that recent hospitalization also raises the risk for flu complications, the investigators said.

“Our data support the rationale for increasing vaccination rates among surgical inpatients,” they said.

This study was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through the Vaccine Safety Datalink program. Dr. Tartof reported receiving grants from Merck outside of this work; two of her associates reported receiving grants from Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline outside of this work.

Immunizing surgical patients against seasonal influenza before they are discharged from the hospital appears safe and is a sound strategy for expanding vaccine coverage, especially among people at high risk, according to a report published online March 14 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

All health care contacts, including hospitalizations, are considered excellent opportunities for influenza vaccination, and current recommendations advise that eligible inpatients receive the immunization before discharge. However, surgical patients don’t often get the flu vaccine before they leave the hospital, likely because of concerns that potential adverse effects like fever and myalgia could be falsely attributed to surgical complications. This would lead to unnecessary patient evaluations and could interfere with postsurgical care, said Sara Y. Tartof, Ph.D., and her associates in the department of research and evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena.

©CAP53/iStockphoto.com

“Although this concern is understandable, few clinical data support it,” they noted.

“To provide clinical evidence that would either substantiate or refute” these concerns about perioperative flu vaccination, the investigators analyzed data in the electronic health records for 81,647 surgeries. All the study participants were deemed eligible for flu vaccination. They were socioeconomically and ethnically diverse, ranged in age from 6 months to 106 years, and underwent surgery at 14 hospitals during three consecutive flu seasons. Operations included general, cardiac, eye, dermatologic, ENT, neurologic, ob.gyn., oral/maxillofacial, orthopedic, plastic, podiatric, urologic, and vascular procedures.

Patients received a flu vaccine in 6,420 hospital stays for surgery – only 15% of 42,777 eligible hospitalizations – usually on the day of discharge. (The remaining 38,870 patients either had been vaccinated before hospital admission or were vaccinated more than a week after discharge and were not included in further analyses.)

Compared with eligible patients who didn’t receive a flu vaccine during hospitalization for surgery, those who did showed no increased risk for subsequent inpatient visits, ED visits, or clinical work-ups for infection. Patients who received the flu vaccine before discharge showed a minimally increased risk for outpatient visits during the week following hospitalization, but this was considered unlikely “to translate into substantial clinical impact,” especially when balanced against the benefit of immunization, Dr. Tartof and her associates said (Ann Intern Med. 2016 Mar 14. doi: 10.7326/M15-1667).

Giving the flu vaccine during a surgical hospitalization “is an opportunity to protect a high-risk population,” because surgery patients tend to be of an age, and to have comorbid conditions, that raise their risk for flu complications. In addition, previous research has reported that 39%-46% of adults hospitalized for influenza-related disease in a given year had been hospitalized during the preceding autumn, indicating that recent hospitalization also raises the risk for flu complications, the investigators said.

“Our data support the rationale for increasing vaccination rates among surgical inpatients,” they said.

This study was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through the Vaccine Safety Datalink program. Dr. Tartof reported receiving grants from Merck outside of this work; two of her associates reported receiving grants from Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline outside of this work.

MONTREAL – Patients who stayed on antiplatelet therapy close to – or even up until – major surgery fared just as well as those who stopped their medication earlier in a retrospective, single-center study.

The study found no difference in blood product administration, adverse perioperative events, or all-cause 30-day mortality regardless of whether patients stopped clopidogrel (Plavix) the recommended 5 days before surgery.

“We believe that continuing clopidogrel in elective and emergent surgical situations appears to be safe, and may challenge the current recommendations,” said presenter Dr. David Strosberg.

Kari Oakes/Frontline Medical News

The study addressed a thorny question for surgeons, Dr. Strosberg said. “As surgeons, we face a dilemma: Do we take the risk of thrombotic complications in stopping the antiplatelet drugs, or do we take the risk of increased surgical bleeding with continuing therapy?”

The package insert for clopidogrel advises discontinuation 5 days prior to surgery. However, manufacturer labeling also states that discontinuation of clopidogrel can lead to adverse cardiac events, said Dr. Strosberg, a general surgery resident at Ohio State University in Columbus.

The aim of the study, presented at the annual meeting of the Central Surgical Association, was to ascertain whether continuing antiplatelet therapy increased the rate of adverse surgical outcomes in those undergoing major emergent or elective surgery.

Dr. Strosberg and his colleagues retrospectively reviewed the record of patients over a 4-year period at a single institution and included those undergoing major general, thoracic, or vascular surgery who were taking clopidogrel at the time of presentation.

Data collected included patient characteristics, including demographic data and comorbidities, as well as transfusion requirements and perioperative events.

A total of 200 patients who had 205 qualifying procedures and were taking clopidogrel were included in the study. Of these, 116 patients (Group A) had their clopidogrel held for at least 5 days preoperatively. The remaining 89 patients (Group B) had their clopidogrel held for less than 5 days, or not at all.

Patient demographics were similar between the two groups. Patients in Group A were more likely to have emergency surgery, to have peripheral stents placed, to have COPD or peripheral vascular disease, to have a malignancy, and to have received aspirin within five days of surgery (P less than .01 for all).

Blood product administration rates and volumes did not differ significantly between the two groups, and there was no difference between the groups in the incidence of myocardial infarctions, cerebrovascular events, or acute visceral or lower extremity ischemia.

Three patients in each group died within 30 days of the procedure, a nonsignificant difference. However, in the group that had clopidogrel held, three patients had perioperative myocardial infarctions, and two of these patients died. In discussing the study, Dr. Michael Dalsing said, “I think a lot of us would accept bleeding more over myocardial infarction.”

A subgroup analysis of the group who had clopidogrel held for fewer than 5 days compared outcomes for emergent vs. non-emergent surgery. The emergent surgery subgroup had a significantly higher rate of preoperative platelet transfusions, although numbers overall were small (2/17, 11.8%, vs. 0/72; P = .03).

Dr. Strosberg noted study limitations that included the retrospective, single-center nature of the study, and the fact that one variable, estimated blood loss, is notoriously subjective and inaccurate.

Dr. Dalsing, chief of vascular surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said that he “was surprised that not even one patient went back for postoperative bleeding in this high-risk group of patients,” and raised the question of potential selection bias. Dr. Strosberg replied that comorbidities were ascertained by the physician at the time of surgery planning; since no differences were seen between study groups, investigators didn’t go back and parse out details about comorbid conditions.

In discussion following the presentation, surgeons spoke to the real-world challenges of performing surgery on a patient with antiplatelet therapy on board.

“Overall, I think your data support kind of a bias I have. Since I’m a vascular surgeon, we almost always operate on clopidogrel, and I don’t know if our bleeding risk is worse or better. But it’s something we almost have to do to keep our grafts going,” Dr. Dalsing said.

Dr. Peter Henke, professor of vascular surgery at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said, “I’d be a little bit cautious with this. If you’ve ever done a big aortic procedure on someone on Plavix, I’ve seen them lose up to a couple of liters of blood just with oozing.”

“Those of us who do open aortic surgery know that very few things bleed like the back wall of an aortic anastomosis of a patient on Plavix,” echoed Dr. Peter Rossi, associate professor of vascular surgery at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

The study authors reported no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

MONTREAL – Patients who stayed on antiplatelet therapy close to – or even up until – major surgery fared just as well as those who stopped their medication earlier in a retrospective, single-center study.

The study found no difference in blood product administration, adverse perioperative events, or all-cause 30-day mortality regardless of whether patients stopped clopidogrel (Plavix) the recommended 5 days before surgery.

“We believe that continuing clopidogrel in elective and emergent surgical situations appears to be safe, and may challenge the current recommendations,” said presenter Dr. David Strosberg.

Kari Oakes/Frontline Medical News

The study addressed a thorny question for surgeons, Dr. Strosberg said. “As surgeons, we face a dilemma: Do we take the risk of thrombotic complications in stopping the antiplatelet drugs, or do we take the risk of increased surgical bleeding with continuing therapy?”

The package insert for clopidogrel advises discontinuation 5 days prior to surgery. However, manufacturer labeling also states that discontinuation of clopidogrel can lead to adverse cardiac events, said Dr. Strosberg, a general surgery resident at Ohio State University in Columbus.

The aim of the study, presented at the annual meeting of the Central Surgical Association, was to ascertain whether continuing antiplatelet therapy increased the rate of adverse surgical outcomes in those undergoing major emergent or elective surgery.

Dr. Strosberg and his colleagues retrospectively reviewed the record of patients over a 4-year period at a single institution and included those undergoing major general, thoracic, or vascular surgery who were taking clopidogrel at the time of presentation.

Data collected included patient characteristics, including demographic data and comorbidities, as well as transfusion requirements and perioperative events.

A total of 200 patients who had 205 qualifying procedures and were taking clopidogrel were included in the study. Of these, 116 patients (Group A) had their clopidogrel held for at least 5 days preoperatively. The remaining 89 patients (Group B) had their clopidogrel held for less than 5 days, or not at all.

Patient demographics were similar between the two groups. Patients in Group A were more likely to have emergency surgery, to have peripheral stents placed, to have COPD or peripheral vascular disease, to have a malignancy, and to have received aspirin within five days of surgery (P less than .01 for all).

Blood product administration rates and volumes did not differ significantly between the two groups, and there was no difference between the groups in the incidence of myocardial infarctions, cerebrovascular events, or acute visceral or lower extremity ischemia.

Three patients in each group died within 30 days of the procedure, a nonsignificant difference. However, in the group that had clopidogrel held, three patients had perioperative myocardial infarctions, and two of these patients died. In discussing the study, Dr. Michael Dalsing said, “I think a lot of us would accept bleeding more over myocardial infarction.”

A subgroup analysis of the group who had clopidogrel held for fewer than 5 days compared outcomes for emergent vs. non-emergent surgery. The emergent surgery subgroup had a significantly higher rate of preoperative platelet transfusions, although numbers overall were small (2/17, 11.8%, vs. 0/72; P = .03).

Dr. Strosberg noted study limitations that included the retrospective, single-center nature of the study, and the fact that one variable, estimated blood loss, is notoriously subjective and inaccurate.

Dr. Dalsing, chief of vascular surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said that he “was surprised that not even one patient went back for postoperative bleeding in this high-risk group of patients,” and raised the question of potential selection bias. Dr. Strosberg replied that comorbidities were ascertained by the physician at the time of surgery planning; since no differences were seen between study groups, investigators didn’t go back and parse out details about comorbid conditions.

In discussion following the presentation, surgeons spoke to the real-world challenges of performing surgery on a patient with antiplatelet therapy on board.

“Overall, I think your data support kind of a bias I have. Since I’m a vascular surgeon, we almost always operate on clopidogrel, and I don’t know if our bleeding risk is worse or better. But it’s something we almost have to do to keep our grafts going,” Dr. Dalsing said.

Dr. Peter Henke, professor of vascular surgery at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said, “I’d be a little bit cautious with this. If you’ve ever done a big aortic procedure on someone on Plavix, I’ve seen them lose up to a couple of liters of blood just with oozing.”

“Those of us who do open aortic surgery know that very few things bleed like the back wall of an aortic anastomosis of a patient on Plavix,” echoed Dr. Peter Rossi, associate professor of vascular surgery at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

The study authors reported no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

MONTREAL – Patients who stayed on antiplatelet therapy close to – or even up until – major surgery fared just as well as those who stopped their medication earlier in a retrospective, single-center study.

The study found no difference in blood product administration, adverse perioperative events, or all-cause 30-day mortality regardless of whether patients stopped clopidogrel (Plavix) the recommended 5 days before surgery.

“We believe that continuing clopidogrel in elective and emergent surgical situations appears to be safe, and may challenge the current recommendations,” said presenter Dr. David Strosberg.

Kari Oakes/Frontline Medical News

The study addressed a thorny question for surgeons, Dr. Strosberg said. “As surgeons, we face a dilemma: Do we take the risk of thrombotic complications in stopping the antiplatelet drugs, or do we take the risk of increased surgical bleeding with continuing therapy?”

The package insert for clopidogrel advises discontinuation 5 days prior to surgery. However, manufacturer labeling also states that discontinuation of clopidogrel can lead to adverse cardiac events, said Dr. Strosberg, a general surgery resident at Ohio State University in Columbus.

The aim of the study, presented at the annual meeting of the Central Surgical Association, was to ascertain whether continuing antiplatelet therapy increased the rate of adverse surgical outcomes in those undergoing major emergent or elective surgery.

Dr. Strosberg and his colleagues retrospectively reviewed the record of patients over a 4-year period at a single institution and included those undergoing major general, thoracic, or vascular surgery who were taking clopidogrel at the time of presentation.

Data collected included patient characteristics, including demographic data and comorbidities, as well as transfusion requirements and perioperative events.

A total of 200 patients who had 205 qualifying procedures and were taking clopidogrel were included in the study. Of these, 116 patients (Group A) had their clopidogrel held for at least 5 days preoperatively. The remaining 89 patients (Group B) had their clopidogrel held for less than 5 days, or not at all.

Patient demographics were similar between the two groups. Patients in Group A were more likely to have emergency surgery, to have peripheral stents placed, to have COPD or peripheral vascular disease, to have a malignancy, and to have received aspirin within five days of surgery (P less than .01 for all).

Blood product administration rates and volumes did not differ significantly between the two groups, and there was no difference between the groups in the incidence of myocardial infarctions, cerebrovascular events, or acute visceral or lower extremity ischemia.

Three patients in each group died within 30 days of the procedure, a nonsignificant difference. However, in the group that had clopidogrel held, three patients had perioperative myocardial infarctions, and two of these patients died. In discussing the study, Dr. Michael Dalsing said, “I think a lot of us would accept bleeding more over myocardial infarction.”

A subgroup analysis of the group who had clopidogrel held for fewer than 5 days compared outcomes for emergent vs. non-emergent surgery. The emergent surgery subgroup had a significantly higher rate of preoperative platelet transfusions, although numbers overall were small (2/17, 11.8%, vs. 0/72; P = .03).

Dr. Strosberg noted study limitations that included the retrospective, single-center nature of the study, and the fact that one variable, estimated blood loss, is notoriously subjective and inaccurate.

Dr. Dalsing, chief of vascular surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said that he “was surprised that not even one patient went back for postoperative bleeding in this high-risk group of patients,” and raised the question of potential selection bias. Dr. Strosberg replied that comorbidities were ascertained by the physician at the time of surgery planning; since no differences were seen between study groups, investigators didn’t go back and parse out details about comorbid conditions.

In discussion following the presentation, surgeons spoke to the real-world challenges of performing surgery on a patient with antiplatelet therapy on board.

“Overall, I think your data support kind of a bias I have. Since I’m a vascular surgeon, we almost always operate on clopidogrel, and I don’t know if our bleeding risk is worse or better. But it’s something we almost have to do to keep our grafts going,” Dr. Dalsing said.

Dr. Peter Henke, professor of vascular surgery at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said, “I’d be a little bit cautious with this. If you’ve ever done a big aortic procedure on someone on Plavix, I’ve seen them lose up to a couple of liters of blood just with oozing.”

“Those of us who do open aortic surgery know that very few things bleed like the back wall of an aortic anastomosis of a patient on Plavix,” echoed Dr. Peter Rossi, associate professor of vascular surgery at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

The study authors reported no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

Surgery volunteerism has been on the rise for several decades. The American College of Surgeons is increasing its role in organizing and facilitating these programs via Operation Giving Back (OGB). And many ACS members are prominent participants in this endeavor.

A leader in global surgery is Michael L. Bentz, M.D., FAAP, FACS, professor of surgery, pediatrics, and neurosurgery, and chairman of the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. Dr. Bentz has led international missions in many countries of the world over nearly 20 years and has helped a team develop a long-term program of clinical care and training in Nicaragua. We talked with him about his experiences.

Q: You have been involved in international surgical missions for many years. Can you tell us something about your early projects?

I was first exposed to international work at the University of Pittsburgh. My mentor J. William Futrell, M.D., FACS, was a veteran of over 30 international surgical trips. I went on the first trip with him to Vietnam in the 1997 and have been going ever since. For that initial trip, we worked with a nonprofit organization called Interplast. I went with a large group of 20 people from the University that included plastic surgery attendings, plastic surgery residents, pediatric attendings, pediatric residents, and nursing and anesthesia staff.

In those days, many trips were based predominantly on clinical care – adult care and pediatric care. Teams would do a certain number of operations and then go home. We did cleft lip repairs, cleft palate repairs, burn reconstruction, congenital hand deformity surgery, and tumor management.

That would result in good outcomes for those who actually had a procedure done. But in any place I have ever worked overseas – Vietnam, China, Russia, Nicaragua – the need is overwhelming. The need far outstripped what surgical missions can provide in isolated, single trips back and forth.

Q: The years have brought changes to these missions. What are the most significant changes over the years in how these missions are conducted?

The scope and direction of global health is moving toward sustainable, long-term, and longitudinal education. In those earlier trips where there was an emphasis on doing as many operations as possible, people meant well – we meant well! But the real impact comes with the longitudinal education investment.

I have never been anywhere around the world where there weren’t interested, very capable, excellent surgeons committed to taking care of their patients who only need some support and facilitation.

If you compare the cases we are able to do on a trip with our partners with the cases they are able to do independently, it’s a logarithmic curve – they are far more productive than we could ever be on any number of trips. There is a multiplier effect that allows many more patients to be taken care of.

Q: Your institution has a long-term relationship with a hospital in Nicaragua. How does this work and what is the role of your team in the program?

The University of Wisconsin Division of Plastic Surgery and the Eduplast Foundation has a team of about 10 that goes to Nicaragua twice a year. Most importantly, we support a residency program in there. We move residents through a 3-year modular program much like programs in the U.S. and then examine them. We facilitate this educational process with trips there and we bring them to our institution in the U.S.

Over the past 10 years, we have been doing a weekly live webcast of our Plastic Surgery Grand Rounds which is received on several continents. This creates a very valuable bidirectional, and even tridirectional conversation. This webcast is simple, incredibly inexpensive, and has provided hundreds of hours of education over the years in addition to the on-site work we do.

There can be a language barrier in some cases, but we broadcast in English, with occasional translation support. In addition to Nicaragua, our webcast has been received in institutions in Thailand, China, Ecuador and across the United States. We keep records of cases performed. Our plastic surgery residents can get credit for the cases they do under faculty supervision at our international sites if we meet specific criteria set by our Resident Review Committee.

It is important to note that we take care of the patients in our partner institutions in Nicaragua exactly as we would care for patients in our institution in Wisconsin. There is no “practicing” as all operations are done by surgeons appropriately credentialed and trained for the task.

Q: Do you find that there is a cultural gap that you must bridge in working with colleagues and patients in Nicaragua?

Our program has an orientation session for team participants in advance of each trip, where we talk about the mechanics of the trip – safety, medical issues. We also talk about cultural considerations of each site. It is very important that the residents embed in the culture in which we are working. They also need to know the cultural norms of how to communicate with patients, parents, and children. Some of it is simply good manners – acting like your mother taught you!

The team can reside in a local hotel, but often stays in the homes of local hosts, and this can be a beautiful opportunity to learn about local norms and communication.

Q: What is your favorite part of these missions?

I have so many favorite parts! I like caring for people who otherwise might not receive medical care. This is “giving back” and I think all of the participants would agree that we come home feeling like we received much more than we gave. These experiences remind you of why you went to medical school. It is an opportunity to provide something in return for all the investment that has been made in us for our education. In working with colleagues from other countries, I learn as much as I teach. I come back a better surgeon.

The benefits to residents from our institution are many. They learn how to operate in a resource-limited setting, and they return with a greater appreciation for the equipment and supplies we have available at our institution in Madison. The cultural competence and awareness they also learn is an invaluable life skill.

I want to stress that the friendships with our fellow surgeons are what makes this work. We achieve a degree of continuity and even watch our pediatric patients grow up over the years because of our long-term relationship with the hospital in León and our dedicated colleagues there. This is a truly a partnership among friends.

Q: Do you have some advice for a surgeon interested in participating in an international program?

For those surgeons who were not exposed to these programs during residency, finding a mentor or mentoring organization is the way to begin. A beginner should consider making the first couple of trips with someone who knows the ropes in terms of understanding cultural competency, practical issues of safety, and relevant clinical issues. Almost every surgery discipline has an organization with the capability of identifying volunteer surgery groups in their specialty. ACS’ Operation Giving Back is a particularly important resource for helping Fellows find the right international program.

If you would like to learn more about global surgery programs, contact Operation Giving Back at [email protected]. Or if you would like to share your experiences as an international surgical volunteer, please email this publication at [email protected].

Surgery volunteerism has been on the rise for several decades. The American College of Surgeons is increasing its role in organizing and facilitating these programs via Operation Giving Back (OGB). And many ACS members are prominent participants in this endeavor.

A leader in global surgery is Michael L. Bentz, M.D., FAAP, FACS, professor of surgery, pediatrics, and neurosurgery, and chairman of the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. Dr. Bentz has led international missions in many countries of the world over nearly 20 years and has helped a team develop a long-term program of clinical care and training in Nicaragua. We talked with him about his experiences.

Q: You have been involved in international surgical missions for many years. Can you tell us something about your early projects?

I was first exposed to international work at the University of Pittsburgh. My mentor J. William Futrell, M.D., FACS, was a veteran of over 30 international surgical trips. I went on the first trip with him to Vietnam in the 1997 and have been going ever since. For that initial trip, we worked with a nonprofit organization called Interplast. I went with a large group of 20 people from the University that included plastic surgery attendings, plastic surgery residents, pediatric attendings, pediatric residents, and nursing and anesthesia staff.

In those days, many trips were based predominantly on clinical care – adult care and pediatric care. Teams would do a certain number of operations and then go home. We did cleft lip repairs, cleft palate repairs, burn reconstruction, congenital hand deformity surgery, and tumor management.

That would result in good outcomes for those who actually had a procedure done. But in any place I have ever worked overseas – Vietnam, China, Russia, Nicaragua – the need is overwhelming. The need far outstripped what surgical missions can provide in isolated, single trips back and forth.

Q: The years have brought changes to these missions. What are the most significant changes over the years in how these missions are conducted?

The scope and direction of global health is moving toward sustainable, long-term, and longitudinal education. In those earlier trips where there was an emphasis on doing as many operations as possible, people meant well – we meant well! But the real impact comes with the longitudinal education investment.

I have never been anywhere around the world where there weren’t interested, very capable, excellent surgeons committed to taking care of their patients who only need some support and facilitation.

If you compare the cases we are able to do on a trip with our partners with the cases they are able to do independently, it’s a logarithmic curve – they are far more productive than we could ever be on any number of trips. There is a multiplier effect that allows many more patients to be taken care of.

Q: Your institution has a long-term relationship with a hospital in Nicaragua. How does this work and what is the role of your team in the program?

The University of Wisconsin Division of Plastic Surgery and the Eduplast Foundation has a team of about 10 that goes to Nicaragua twice a year. Most importantly, we support a residency program in there. We move residents through a 3-year modular program much like programs in the U.S. and then examine them. We facilitate this educational process with trips there and we bring them to our institution in the U.S.

Over the past 10 years, we have been doing a weekly live webcast of our Plastic Surgery Grand Rounds which is received on several continents. This creates a very valuable bidirectional, and even tridirectional conversation. This webcast is simple, incredibly inexpensive, and has provided hundreds of hours of education over the years in addition to the on-site work we do.

There can be a language barrier in some cases, but we broadcast in English, with occasional translation support. In addition to Nicaragua, our webcast has been received in institutions in Thailand, China, Ecuador and across the United States. We keep records of cases performed. Our plastic surgery residents can get credit for the cases they do under faculty supervision at our international sites if we meet specific criteria set by our Resident Review Committee.

It is important to note that we take care of the patients in our partner institutions in Nicaragua exactly as we would care for patients in our institution in Wisconsin. There is no “practicing” as all operations are done by surgeons appropriately credentialed and trained for the task.

Q: Do you find that there is a cultural gap that you must bridge in working with colleagues and patients in Nicaragua?

Our program has an orientation session for team participants in advance of each trip, where we talk about the mechanics of the trip – safety, medical issues. We also talk about cultural considerations of each site. It is very important that the residents embed in the culture in which we are working. They also need to know the cultural norms of how to communicate with patients, parents, and children. Some of it is simply good manners – acting like your mother taught you!

The team can reside in a local hotel, but often stays in the homes of local hosts, and this can be a beautiful opportunity to learn about local norms and communication.

Q: What is your favorite part of these missions?

I have so many favorite parts! I like caring for people who otherwise might not receive medical care. This is “giving back” and I think all of the participants would agree that we come home feeling like we received much more than we gave. These experiences remind you of why you went to medical school. It is an opportunity to provide something in return for all the investment that has been made in us for our education. In working with colleagues from other countries, I learn as much as I teach. I come back a better surgeon.

The benefits to residents from our institution are many. They learn how to operate in a resource-limited setting, and they return with a greater appreciation for the equipment and supplies we have available at our institution in Madison. The cultural competence and awareness they also learn is an invaluable life skill.

I want to stress that the friendships with our fellow surgeons are what makes this work. We achieve a degree of continuity and even watch our pediatric patients grow up over the years because of our long-term relationship with the hospital in León and our dedicated colleagues there. This is a truly a partnership among friends.

Q: Do you have some advice for a surgeon interested in participating in an international program?

For those surgeons who were not exposed to these programs during residency, finding a mentor or mentoring organization is the way to begin. A beginner should consider making the first couple of trips with someone who knows the ropes in terms of understanding cultural competency, practical issues of safety, and relevant clinical issues. Almost every surgery discipline has an organization with the capability of identifying volunteer surgery groups in their specialty. ACS’ Operation Giving Back is a particularly important resource for helping Fellows find the right international program.

If you would like to learn more about global surgery programs, contact Operation Giving Back at [email protected]. Or if you would like to share your experiences as an international surgical volunteer, please email this publication at [email protected].

Surgery volunteerism has been on the rise for several decades. The American College of Surgeons is increasing its role in organizing and facilitating these programs via Operation Giving Back (OGB). And many ACS members are prominent participants in this endeavor.

A leader in global surgery is Michael L. Bentz, M.D., FAAP, FACS, professor of surgery, pediatrics, and neurosurgery, and chairman of the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. Dr. Bentz has led international missions in many countries of the world over nearly 20 years and has helped a team develop a long-term program of clinical care and training in Nicaragua. We talked with him about his experiences.

Q: You have been involved in international surgical missions for many years. Can you tell us something about your early projects?

I was first exposed to international work at the University of Pittsburgh. My mentor J. William Futrell, M.D., FACS, was a veteran of over 30 international surgical trips. I went on the first trip with him to Vietnam in the 1997 and have been going ever since. For that initial trip, we worked with a nonprofit organization called Interplast. I went with a large group of 20 people from the University that included plastic surgery attendings, plastic surgery residents, pediatric attendings, pediatric residents, and nursing and anesthesia staff.

In those days, many trips were based predominantly on clinical care – adult care and pediatric care. Teams would do a certain number of operations and then go home. We did cleft lip repairs, cleft palate repairs, burn reconstruction, congenital hand deformity surgery, and tumor management.

That would result in good outcomes for those who actually had a procedure done. But in any place I have ever worked overseas – Vietnam, China, Russia, Nicaragua – the need is overwhelming. The need far outstripped what surgical missions can provide in isolated, single trips back and forth.

Q: The years have brought changes to these missions. What are the most significant changes over the years in how these missions are conducted?

The scope and direction of global health is moving toward sustainable, long-term, and longitudinal education. In those earlier trips where there was an emphasis on doing as many operations as possible, people meant well – we meant well! But the real impact comes with the longitudinal education investment.

I have never been anywhere around the world where there weren’t interested, very capable, excellent surgeons committed to taking care of their patients who only need some support and facilitation.

If you compare the cases we are able to do on a trip with our partners with the cases they are able to do independently, it’s a logarithmic curve – they are far more productive than we could ever be on any number of trips. There is a multiplier effect that allows many more patients to be taken care of.

Q: Your institution has a long-term relationship with a hospital in Nicaragua. How does this work and what is the role of your team in the program?

The University of Wisconsin Division of Plastic Surgery and the Eduplast Foundation has a team of about 10 that goes to Nicaragua twice a year. Most importantly, we support a residency program in there. We move residents through a 3-year modular program much like programs in the U.S. and then examine them. We facilitate this educational process with trips there and we bring them to our institution in the U.S.

Over the past 10 years, we have been doing a weekly live webcast of our Plastic Surgery Grand Rounds which is received on several continents. This creates a very valuable bidirectional, and even tridirectional conversation. This webcast is simple, incredibly inexpensive, and has provided hundreds of hours of education over the years in addition to the on-site work we do.

There can be a language barrier in some cases, but we broadcast in English, with occasional translation support. In addition to Nicaragua, our webcast has been received in institutions in Thailand, China, Ecuador and across the United States. We keep records of cases performed. Our plastic surgery residents can get credit for the cases they do under faculty supervision at our international sites if we meet specific criteria set by our Resident Review Committee.

It is important to note that we take care of the patients in our partner institutions in Nicaragua exactly as we would care for patients in our institution in Wisconsin. There is no “practicing” as all operations are done by surgeons appropriately credentialed and trained for the task.

Q: Do you find that there is a cultural gap that you must bridge in working with colleagues and patients in Nicaragua?

Our program has an orientation session for team participants in advance of each trip, where we talk about the mechanics of the trip – safety, medical issues. We also talk about cultural considerations of each site. It is very important that the residents embed in the culture in which we are working. They also need to know the cultural norms of how to communicate with patients, parents, and children. Some of it is simply good manners – acting like your mother taught you!

The team can reside in a local hotel, but often stays in the homes of local hosts, and this can be a beautiful opportunity to learn about local norms and communication.

Q: What is your favorite part of these missions?

I have so many favorite parts! I like caring for people who otherwise might not receive medical care. This is “giving back” and I think all of the participants would agree that we come home feeling like we received much more than we gave. These experiences remind you of why you went to medical school. It is an opportunity to provide something in return for all the investment that has been made in us for our education. In working with colleagues from other countries, I learn as much as I teach. I come back a better surgeon.

The benefits to residents from our institution are many. They learn how to operate in a resource-limited setting, and they return with a greater appreciation for the equipment and supplies we have available at our institution in Madison. The cultural competence and awareness they also learn is an invaluable life skill.

I want to stress that the friendships with our fellow surgeons are what makes this work. We achieve a degree of continuity and even watch our pediatric patients grow up over the years because of our long-term relationship with the hospital in León and our dedicated colleagues there. This is a truly a partnership among friends.

Q: Do you have some advice for a surgeon interested in participating in an international program?

For those surgeons who were not exposed to these programs during residency, finding a mentor or mentoring organization is the way to begin. A beginner should consider making the first couple of trips with someone who knows the ropes in terms of understanding cultural competency, practical issues of safety, and relevant clinical issues. Almost every surgery discipline has an organization with the capability of identifying volunteer surgery groups in their specialty. ACS’ Operation Giving Back is a particularly important resource for helping Fellows find the right international program.

If you would like to learn more about global surgery programs, contact Operation Giving Back at [email protected]. Or if you would like to share your experiences as an international surgical volunteer, please email this publication at [email protected].

One in every seven infections in acute care hospitals related to catheters and surgeries was caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria. In long-term acute care hospitals, that number increased to one in four.

Those are key findings from a study published March 3 in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that is the first to combine national data on antibiotic-resistant (AR) bacteria threats with progress on health care–associated infections (HAIs).

“Antibiotic resistance threatens to return us to a time when a simple infection could kill,” CDC Director Thomas Frieden said during a March 3 telebriefing. “The more people who get infected with resistant bacteria, the more people who suffer complications, the more who, tragically, may die from preventable infections. On any given day about one in 25 hospitalized patients has at least one health care–associated infection that they didn’t come in with. No one should get sick when they’re trying to get well.”

For the study, researchers led by Dr. Clifford McDonald of the CDC’s Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, collected data on specific infections that were reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network in 2014 by approximately 4,000 short-term acute care hospitals, 501 long-term acute care hospitals, and 1,135 inpatient rehabilitation facilities in all 50 states (MMWR. 2016 Mar 3. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6509e1er). Next, they determined the proportions of AR pathogens and HAIs caused by any of six resistant bacteria highlighted by the CDC in 2013 as urgent or serious threats: CRE (carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae), MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae (extended-spectrum beta-lactamases), VRE (vancomycin-resistant enterococci), multidrug-resistant pseudomonas, and multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter.

The researchers found that, compared with historical data from 5-8 years earlier, central line–associated bloodstream infections decreased by 50% and surgical site infections (SSIs) by 17% in 2014.

© CDC

“There is encouraging news here,” Dr. Frieden said. “Doctors, nurses, hospitals, health care systems and other partners have made progress preventing some health care–associated infections.” However, the study found that one in six remaining central line-associated bloodstream infections were caused by urgent or serious antibiotic-resistant bacteria, while one in seven remaining surgical site infections were caused by urgent or serious antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

While catheter-associated urinary tract infections appear unchanged from baseline, there have been recent decreases, according to the study. In addition, C. difficile infections in hospitals decreased 8% between 2011 and 2014.

Dr. McDonald and his associates determined that in 2014, one in seven infections in acute care hospitals related to catheters and surgeries was caused by one of the six antibiotic-resistance threat bacteria, “which is deeply concerning,” Dr. Frieden said. That number increased to one in four infections in long-term acute care hospitals, a proportion that he characterized as “chilling.”

The CDC recommends three strategies that doctors, nurses, and other health care providers should take with every patient, to prevent HAIs and stop the spread of antibiotic resistance:

• Prevent the spread of bacteria between patients. Dr. Peter Pronovost, who participated in the telebriefing, said that he and his associates at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore “do this by practicing good hand hygiene techniques by wearing sterile equipment when inserting lines.”

• Prevent surgery-related infections and/or placement of a catheter. “Check catheters frequently and remove them when you no longer need them,” advised Dr. Pronovost, director of the Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality at Johns Hopkins. “Ask if you actually need them before you even place them.”

• Improve antibiotic use through stewardship. This means using “the right antibiotics for the right duration,” Dr. Pronovost said. “Antibiotics could be lifesaving and are necessary for critically ill patients, especially those with septic shock. But these antibiotics need to be adjusted based on lab results and new information about the organisms that are causing these infections. Forty-eight hours after antibiotics are initiated, take a ‘time out.’ Perform a brief but focused assessment to determine if antibiotic therapy is still needed, or if it should be refined. A common mistake we make is to continue vancomycin when there is no presence of MRSA. We often tell our staff at Johns Hopkins, ‘if it doesn’t grow, let it go.’ ”

Dr. Frieden concluded his remarks by noting that physicians and other clinicians on the front lines “need support of their facility leadership,” to prevent HAIs. “Health care facilities, CEOs, and administrators are a major part of the solution. It’s important that they make a priority of infection prevention, sepsis prevention, and antibiotic stewardship. Know your facility’s data and target prevention efforts to ensure improvements in patient safety.”

[email protected]

One in every seven infections in acute care hospitals related to catheters and surgeries was caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria. In long-term acute care hospitals, that number increased to one in four.

Those are key findings from a study published March 3 in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that is the first to combine national data on antibiotic-resistant (AR) bacteria threats with progress on health care–associated infections (HAIs).

“Antibiotic resistance threatens to return us to a time when a simple infection could kill,” CDC Director Thomas Frieden said during a March 3 telebriefing. “The more people who get infected with resistant bacteria, the more people who suffer complications, the more who, tragically, may die from preventable infections. On any given day about one in 25 hospitalized patients has at least one health care–associated infection that they didn’t come in with. No one should get sick when they’re trying to get well.”

For the study, researchers led by Dr. Clifford McDonald of the CDC’s Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, collected data on specific infections that were reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network in 2014 by approximately 4,000 short-term acute care hospitals, 501 long-term acute care hospitals, and 1,135 inpatient rehabilitation facilities in all 50 states (MMWR. 2016 Mar 3. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6509e1er). Next, they determined the proportions of AR pathogens and HAIs caused by any of six resistant bacteria highlighted by the CDC in 2013 as urgent or serious threats: CRE (carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae), MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae (extended-spectrum beta-lactamases), VRE (vancomycin-resistant enterococci), multidrug-resistant pseudomonas, and multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter.

The researchers found that, compared with historical data from 5-8 years earlier, central line–associated bloodstream infections decreased by 50% and surgical site infections (SSIs) by 17% in 2014.

© CDC

“There is encouraging news here,” Dr. Frieden said. “Doctors, nurses, hospitals, health care systems and other partners have made progress preventing some health care–associated infections.” However, the study found that one in six remaining central line-associated bloodstream infections were caused by urgent or serious antibiotic-resistant bacteria, while one in seven remaining surgical site infections were caused by urgent or serious antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

While catheter-associated urinary tract infections appear unchanged from baseline, there have been recent decreases, according to the study. In addition, C. difficile infections in hospitals decreased 8% between 2011 and 2014.

Dr. McDonald and his associates determined that in 2014, one in seven infections in acute care hospitals related to catheters and surgeries was caused by one of the six antibiotic-resistance threat bacteria, “which is deeply concerning,” Dr. Frieden said. That number increased to one in four infections in long-term acute care hospitals, a proportion that he characterized as “chilling.”

The CDC recommends three strategies that doctors, nurses, and other health care providers should take with every patient, to prevent HAIs and stop the spread of antibiotic resistance:

• Prevent the spread of bacteria between patients. Dr. Peter Pronovost, who participated in the telebriefing, said that he and his associates at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore “do this by practicing good hand hygiene techniques by wearing sterile equipment when inserting lines.”

• Prevent surgery-related infections and/or placement of a catheter. “Check catheters frequently and remove them when you no longer need them,” advised Dr. Pronovost, director of the Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality at Johns Hopkins. “Ask if you actually need them before you even place them.”

• Improve antibiotic use through stewardship. This means using “the right antibiotics for the right duration,” Dr. Pronovost said. “Antibiotics could be lifesaving and are necessary for critically ill patients, especially those with septic shock. But these antibiotics need to be adjusted based on lab results and new information about the organisms that are causing these infections. Forty-eight hours after antibiotics are initiated, take a ‘time out.’ Perform a brief but focused assessment to determine if antibiotic therapy is still needed, or if it should be refined. A common mistake we make is to continue vancomycin when there is no presence of MRSA. We often tell our staff at Johns Hopkins, ‘if it doesn’t grow, let it go.’ ”

Dr. Frieden concluded his remarks by noting that physicians and other clinicians on the front lines “need support of their facility leadership,” to prevent HAIs. “Health care facilities, CEOs, and administrators are a major part of the solution. It’s important that they make a priority of infection prevention, sepsis prevention, and antibiotic stewardship. Know your facility’s data and target prevention efforts to ensure improvements in patient safety.”

[email protected]

One in every seven infections in acute care hospitals related to catheters and surgeries was caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria. In long-term acute care hospitals, that number increased to one in four.

Those are key findings from a study published March 3 in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that is the first to combine national data on antibiotic-resistant (AR) bacteria threats with progress on health care–associated infections (HAIs).

“Antibiotic resistance threatens to return us to a time when a simple infection could kill,” CDC Director Thomas Frieden said during a March 3 telebriefing. “The more people who get infected with resistant bacteria, the more people who suffer complications, the more who, tragically, may die from preventable infections. On any given day about one in 25 hospitalized patients has at least one health care–associated infection that they didn’t come in with. No one should get sick when they’re trying to get well.”

For the study, researchers led by Dr. Clifford McDonald of the CDC’s Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, collected data on specific infections that were reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network in 2014 by approximately 4,000 short-term acute care hospitals, 501 long-term acute care hospitals, and 1,135 inpatient rehabilitation facilities in all 50 states (MMWR. 2016 Mar 3. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6509e1er). Next, they determined the proportions of AR pathogens and HAIs caused by any of six resistant bacteria highlighted by the CDC in 2013 as urgent or serious threats: CRE (carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae), MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae (extended-spectrum beta-lactamases), VRE (vancomycin-resistant enterococci), multidrug-resistant pseudomonas, and multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter.

The researchers found that, compared with historical data from 5-8 years earlier, central line–associated bloodstream infections decreased by 50% and surgical site infections (SSIs) by 17% in 2014.

© CDC

“There is encouraging news here,” Dr. Frieden said. “Doctors, nurses, hospitals, health care systems and other partners have made progress preventing some health care–associated infections.” However, the study found that one in six remaining central line-associated bloodstream infections were caused by urgent or serious antibiotic-resistant bacteria, while one in seven remaining surgical site infections were caused by urgent or serious antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

While catheter-associated urinary tract infections appear unchanged from baseline, there have been recent decreases, according to the study. In addition, C. difficile infections in hospitals decreased 8% between 2011 and 2014.

Dr. McDonald and his associates determined that in 2014, one in seven infections in acute care hospitals related to catheters and surgeries was caused by one of the six antibiotic-resistance threat bacteria, “which is deeply concerning,” Dr. Frieden said. That number increased to one in four infections in long-term acute care hospitals, a proportion that he characterized as “chilling.”

The CDC recommends three strategies that doctors, nurses, and other health care providers should take with every patient, to prevent HAIs and stop the spread of antibiotic resistance:

• Prevent the spread of bacteria between patients. Dr. Peter Pronovost, who participated in the telebriefing, said that he and his associates at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore “do this by practicing good hand hygiene techniques by wearing sterile equipment when inserting lines.”

• Prevent surgery-related infections and/or placement of a catheter. “Check catheters frequently and remove them when you no longer need them,” advised Dr. Pronovost, director of the Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality at Johns Hopkins. “Ask if you actually need them before you even place them.”

• Improve antibiotic use through stewardship. This means using “the right antibiotics for the right duration,” Dr. Pronovost said. “Antibiotics could be lifesaving and are necessary for critically ill patients, especially those with septic shock. But these antibiotics need to be adjusted based on lab results and new information about the organisms that are causing these infections. Forty-eight hours after antibiotics are initiated, take a ‘time out.’ Perform a brief but focused assessment to determine if antibiotic therapy is still needed, or if it should be refined. A common mistake we make is to continue vancomycin when there is no presence of MRSA. We often tell our staff at Johns Hopkins, ‘if it doesn’t grow, let it go.’ ”

Dr. Frieden concluded his remarks by noting that physicians and other clinicians on the front lines “need support of their facility leadership,” to prevent HAIs. “Health care facilities, CEOs, and administrators are a major part of the solution. It’s important that they make a priority of infection prevention, sepsis prevention, and antibiotic stewardship. Know your facility’s data and target prevention efforts to ensure improvements in patient safety.”

[email protected]

A fair number of my patients have had or are undergoing bariatric surgery. Disconcertingly, a not insignificant number of them are regaining the weight after surgery. Weight regain will occur in 20% of patients undergoing bariatric surgery after initial weight loss.

When this occurs, not only do we have a patient with an altered gut putting them at risk for nutritional deficiencies if we are not fastidious in our follow-up, but they are discouraged and overweight again.

Add this to the concern that bariatric surgery has been associated with an increase in suicides (2.33-3.63 per 1000 patient-years), and we may have some cause for alarm.

So, what predicts success – and can we facilitate it?

Several factors have been shown to predict successful weight loss after bariatric surgery. An “active coping style” (that is, planning vs. denial) and adherence to follow-up after bariatric surgery have both been shown to be associated with a higher percentage of excess weight loss. Interestingly, psychological burden and motivation have not been associated with weight loss.

In a recent article, Lori Liebl, Ph.D., and her colleagues conducted a qualitative study of the experiences of adults who successfully maintained weight loss after bariatric surgery (J Clin Nurs. 2016 Feb 23. doi: 10.1111/jocn.13129). Success was defined as 50% or more of the excessive weight loss 24 months after bariatric surgery.

The voice of the successful bariatric patient is an interesting and important one. Several themes were identified: 1) taking life back (“I did it for myself”); 2) a new lease on life (“There are things I can do now that I am not exhausted”); 3) the importance of social support; 4) avoiding the negative (terminating unhealthy relationships in which “food is love”); 5) the void (food addiction and sense of loss); 6) fighting food demons; 7) finding the happy weight; and 8) a ripple effect (that is, if you don’t eat it, the rest of family doesn’t, either).

I was left wondering how I can best help my patients using this information.

First, I think the themes can mature our empathy for the struggles that these patients face, and perhaps help us combat bias. Second, I think this knowledge can inform early discussions around what sorts of things need to be lined up for after the procedure, such as social support.

Finally, I think the themes can be universalized and help us counsel patients who may be struggling with weight, but who are otherwise not candidates for bariatric surgery.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Mayo Clinic. The opinions expressed in this article should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician. Dr. Ebbert has no relevant financial disclosures about this article.

A fair number of my patients have had or are undergoing bariatric surgery. Disconcertingly, a not insignificant number of them are regaining the weight after surgery. Weight regain will occur in 20% of patients undergoing bariatric surgery after initial weight loss.

When this occurs, not only do we have a patient with an altered gut putting them at risk for nutritional deficiencies if we are not fastidious in our follow-up, but they are discouraged and overweight again.

Add this to the concern that bariatric surgery has been associated with an increase in suicides (2.33-3.63 per 1000 patient-years), and we may have some cause for alarm.

So, what predicts success – and can we facilitate it?

Several factors have been shown to predict successful weight loss after bariatric surgery. An “active coping style” (that is, planning vs. denial) and adherence to follow-up after bariatric surgery have both been shown to be associated with a higher percentage of excess weight loss. Interestingly, psychological burden and motivation have not been associated with weight loss.

In a recent article, Lori Liebl, Ph.D., and her colleagues conducted a qualitative study of the experiences of adults who successfully maintained weight loss after bariatric surgery (J Clin Nurs. 2016 Feb 23. doi: 10.1111/jocn.13129). Success was defined as 50% or more of the excessive weight loss 24 months after bariatric surgery.

The voice of the successful bariatric patient is an interesting and important one. Several themes were identified: 1) taking life back (“I did it for myself”); 2) a new lease on life (“There are things I can do now that I am not exhausted”); 3) the importance of social support; 4) avoiding the negative (terminating unhealthy relationships in which “food is love”); 5) the void (food addiction and sense of loss); 6) fighting food demons; 7) finding the happy weight; and 8) a ripple effect (that is, if you don’t eat it, the rest of family doesn’t, either).

I was left wondering how I can best help my patients using this information.

First, I think the themes can mature our empathy for the struggles that these patients face, and perhaps help us combat bias. Second, I think this knowledge can inform early discussions around what sorts of things need to be lined up for after the procedure, such as social support.

Finally, I think the themes can be universalized and help us counsel patients who may be struggling with weight, but who are otherwise not candidates for bariatric surgery.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Mayo Clinic. The opinions expressed in this article should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician. Dr. Ebbert has no relevant financial disclosures about this article.

A fair number of my patients have had or are undergoing bariatric surgery. Disconcertingly, a not insignificant number of them are regaining the weight after surgery. Weight regain will occur in 20% of patients undergoing bariatric surgery after initial weight loss.

When this occurs, not only do we have a patient with an altered gut putting them at risk for nutritional deficiencies if we are not fastidious in our follow-up, but they are discouraged and overweight again.

Add this to the concern that bariatric surgery has been associated with an increase in suicides (2.33-3.63 per 1000 patient-years), and we may have some cause for alarm.

So, what predicts success – and can we facilitate it?

Several factors have been shown to predict successful weight loss after bariatric surgery. An “active coping style” (that is, planning vs. denial) and adherence to follow-up after bariatric surgery have both been shown to be associated with a higher percentage of excess weight loss. Interestingly, psychological burden and motivation have not been associated with weight loss.

In a recent article, Lori Liebl, Ph.D., and her colleagues conducted a qualitative study of the experiences of adults who successfully maintained weight loss after bariatric surgery (J Clin Nurs. 2016 Feb 23. doi: 10.1111/jocn.13129). Success was defined as 50% or more of the excessive weight loss 24 months after bariatric surgery.

The voice of the successful bariatric patient is an interesting and important one. Several themes were identified: 1) taking life back (“I did it for myself”); 2) a new lease on life (“There are things I can do now that I am not exhausted”); 3) the importance of social support; 4) avoiding the negative (terminating unhealthy relationships in which “food is love”); 5) the void (food addiction and sense of loss); 6) fighting food demons; 7) finding the happy weight; and 8) a ripple effect (that is, if you don’t eat it, the rest of family doesn’t, either).

I was left wondering how I can best help my patients using this information.

First, I think the themes can mature our empathy for the struggles that these patients face, and perhaps help us combat bias. Second, I think this knowledge can inform early discussions around what sorts of things need to be lined up for after the procedure, such as social support.

Finally, I think the themes can be universalized and help us counsel patients who may be struggling with weight, but who are otherwise not candidates for bariatric surgery.

Dr. Ebbert is professor of medicine, a general internist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a diplomate of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Mayo Clinic. The opinions expressed in this article should not be used to diagnose or treat any medical condition nor should they be used as a substitute for medical advice from a qualified, board-certified practicing clinician. Dr. Ebbert has no relevant financial disclosures about this article.