Influence of psychiatric comorbidity on surgical mortality

Center for Research in the Implementation of Innovative Strategies in Practice, Iowa City VA Medical Center, IA 52246-2208, USA.
Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill.: 1960) (Impact Factor: 4.93). 10/2010; 145(10):947-53. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2010.190
Source: PubMed


To examine the potential effect of 5 existing psychiatric comorbidities on postsurgical mortality.
Retrospective cohort.
Intensive care units of all Veterans Health Administration hospitals designated as providing acute care.
We studied 35 539 surgical patients admitted to intensive care units from October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2006.
Psychiatric comorbidity (depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, bipolar disease, and schizophrenia) was identified using outpatient encounters in the 12 months preceding the index admission. End points included in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Generalized estimating equations accounted for hospital clustering and adjusted mortality for demographics, type of surgery, medical comorbidity, and disease severity.
We identified 8922 patients (25.1%) with an existing psychiatric comorbidity on admission. Unadjusted 30-day mortality rates were similar among patients with and without psychiatric comorbidity (3.8% vs 4.0%, P = .56). After adjustment, 30-day mortality was higher for patients with psychiatric comorbidity (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.37; P = .003). In individual analyses, patients with depression and anxiety had higher odds of 30-day mortality (P = .01 and P = .02, respectively) but the odds were similar for the other conditions.
Existing psychiatric comorbidity was associated with a modest increased risk of death among postsurgical patients. Estimates of the increased risk across the individual conditions were highest for anxiety and depression. The higher mortality may reflect higher unmeasured severity or unique management issues in patients with psychiatric comorbidity.

8 Reads
  • Source

    Anxiety and Related Disorders, 08/2011; , ISBN: 978-953-307-254-8
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Breast cancer represents about one-third of all cancer diagnoses and accounts for about 15% of cancer deaths in women. Many of these patients experience depression, anxiety, sleep disturbances and cognitive dysfunction. This may adversely affect quality of life and also contribute to morbidity and mortality. Melatonin is a regulatory circadian hormone having, among others, a hypnotic and an antidepressive effect. It has very low toxicity and very few adverse effects compared with the more commonly used antidepressants and hypnotics. Methods and analysis The objective of this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial is to investigate whether treatment with oral melatonin has a prophylactic or ameliorating effect on depressive symptoms, anxiety, sleep disturbances and cognitive dysfunction in women with breast cancer. Furthermore, the authors will examine whether a specific clock-gene, PER3, is correlated with an increased risk of depressive symptoms, sleep disturbances or cognitive dysfunction. The MELODY trial is a prospective double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in which the authors intend to include 260 patients. The primary outcome is depressive symptoms measured by the Major Depression Inventory. The secondary outcomes are anxiety measured by a Visual Analogue Scale, total sleep time, sleep efficiency, sleep latency and periods awake measured by actigraphy and changes in cognitive function measured by a neuropsychological test battery. Tertiary outcomes are fatigue, pain, well-being and sleep quality/quantity measured by Visual Analogue Scale and sleep diary and sleepiness measured by the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale. The PER3 genotype is also to be determined in blood samples.
    BMJ Open 01/2012; 2(1):e000647. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000647 · 2.27 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) is a frequent problem complicating bariatric surgery. However, the potential risk factors, risk stratification, and outcomes of SSIs in this patient population remain poorly defined. The aim of this prospective case-control study was to characterize better the risk factors and to improve risk stratification for SSIs following bariatric surgery. METHODS: Patients studied had SSI following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery (RYGBS) between November 2006 and March 2009 at Harper University Hospital and were each matched with 3 controls based on type of operative procedure, surgeon, and year of surgery. Thirty-day outcomes included mortality, hospital readmissions, outpatient procedures, and emergency room visits. A scoring system (BULCS score) was compared with the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance system risk index using logistic regression. RESULTS: In multivariate analysis, duration of surgery (odds ratio [OR], 3.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.62-6.74), diagnosis of bipolar disorder (OR, 3.341; 95% CI: 1.0-12.27), use of prophylactic antibiotics other than cefazolin (OR, 4.2; 95% CI: 1.47-11.69), and sleep apnea (OR, 1.8; 95% CI: 1.05-2.97) were significantly associated with SSI. Patients with SSI were more likely to have return emergency visits (OR, 4.96; 95% CI: 2.9-8.48), readmission (OR, 6.53; 95% CI: 3.44-12.42), and outpatient procedures following surgery (OR, 4.75; 95% CI: 1.32-17.14) than were controls without SSI. The BULCS score was a stronger predictor of SSI than the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance system (C-statistic, -0.62 vs 0.55, respectively). CONCLUSION: SSI following bariatric surgery was associated with receipt of antibiotic prophylaxis other than cefazolin and comorbid conditions including sleep apnea and bipolar disorder. The BULCS score performed favorably as a predictor and risk adjuster for SSI following bariatric surgery. SSI was associated with increased health care resource utilization.
    American journal of infection control 02/2012; 40(9). DOI:10.1016/j.ajic.2011.10.015 · 2.21 Impact Factor
Show more