Explore the vast range of titles available.

This review presents a comprehensive guide for optimizing medication management in older adults with depression within an outpatient setting. Medication optimization involves tailoring the antidepressant strategy to the individual, ensuring the administration of appropriate medications at optimal dosages. In the case of older adults, this process necessitates not only adjusting or changing antidepressants but also addressing the concurrent use of inappropriate medications, many of which have cognitive side effects. This review outlines various strategies for medication optimization in late-life depression: (1) Utilizing the full dose range of a medication to maximize therapeutic benefits and strive for remission. (2) Transitioning to alternative classes (such as a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor [SNRI], bupropion, or mirtazapine) when first-line treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs] proves inadequate. (3) Exploring augmentation strategies like aripiprazole for treatment-resistant depression. (4) Implementing measurement-based care to help adjust treatment. (5) Sustaining an effective antidepressant strategy for at least 1 year following depression remission, with longer durations for recurrent episodes or severe presentations. (6) Safely discontinuing anticholinergic medications and benzodiazepines by employing a tapering method when necessary, coupled with counseling about the benefits of stopping them. Additionally, this article explores favorable medications for depression, as well as alternatives for managing anxiety, insomnia, allergy, overactive bladder, psychosis, and muscle spasm in order to avoid potent anticholinergics and benzodiazepines.

Background The decision about which type of general anesthetic to administer is typically made by the clinical team without patient engagement. This study examined patients’ preferences, experiences, attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and perceived social norms about anesthesia and about engaging in the decision regarding general anesthetic choice with their clinician. Methods We conducted a survey in the United States, sent to a panel of surgical patients through Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) from March 2022 through May 2022. Questions were developed based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and validated measures were used when available. A patient partner who had experienced both intravenous and inhaled anesthesia contributed to the development and refinement of the questions. Results A total of 806 patients who received general anesthesia for an elective procedure in the last five years completed the survey. 43% of respondents preferred a patient-led decision making role and 28% preferred to share decision making with their clinical team, yet only 7.8% reported being engaged in full shared decision making about the anesthesia they received. Intraoperative awareness, pain, nausea, vomiting and quickly returning to work and usual household activities were important to respondents. Waking up in the middle of surgery was the most commonly reported concern, despite this experience being reported only 8% of the time. Most patients (65%) who searched for information about general anesthesia noted that it took a lot of effort to find the information, and 53% agreed to feeling frustrated during the search. Conclusions Most patients prefer a patient-led or shared decision making process when it comes to their anesthetic care and want to be engaged in the decision. However, only a small percentage of patients reported being fully engaged in the decision. Further studies should inform future shared decision-making tools, informed consent materials, educational materials and framing of anesthetic choices for patients so that they are able to make a choice regarding the anesthetic they receive.

IntroductionPreoperative anxiety and depression symptoms among older surgical patients are associated with poor postoperative outcomes, yet evidence-based interventions for anxiety and depression have not been applied within this setting. We present a protocol for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in three surgical cohorts: cardiac, oncological and orthopaedic, investigating whether a perioperative mental health intervention, with psychological and pharmacological components, reduces perioperative symptoms of depression and anxiety in older surgical patients.Methods and analysisAdults ≥60 years undergoing cardiac, orthopaedic or oncological surgery will be enrolled in one of three-linked type 1 hybrid effectiveness/implementation RCTs that will be conducted in tandem with similar methods. In each trial, 100 participants will be randomised to a remotely delivered perioperative behavioural treatment incorporating principles of behavioural activation, compassion and care coordination, and medication optimisation, or enhanced usual care with mental health-related resources for this population. The primary outcome is change in depression and anxiety symptoms assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire-Anxiety Depression Scale from baseline to 3 months post surgery. Other outcomes include quality of life, delirium, length of stay, falls, rehospitalisation, pain and implementation outcomes, including study and intervention reach, acceptability, feasibility and appropriateness, and patient experience with the intervention.Ethics and disseminationThe trials have received ethics approval from the Washington University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board. Informed consent is required for participation in the trials. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, presented at clinical research conferences and disseminated via the Center for Perioperative Mental Health website.Trial registration numbersNCT05575128, NCT05685511, NCT05697835, pre-results.

The primary objective was to evaluate agreement between researchers' and family members' postoperative delirium assessment. The secondary objective was to assess the incidence of positive FAM-CAM after hospital discharge up to 30-days postoperatively. This was a pre-specified sub-study of two multicenter randomized controlled trials that evaluated interventions to prevent postoperative delirium in older adults undergoing major elective surgery. In the hospital, delirium was ascertained using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) long-form or the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU), and structured chart review. Family members completed a Family Confusion Assessment Method (FAM-CAM) concurrent with researchers' assessments in the afternoons on postoperative days 1–3. At the time of hospital discharge, a booklet of FAM-CAM surveys was provided to complete daily until postoperative day 30. Agreement between researcher-rated CAM/CAM-ICU and family-rated FAM-CAM was analyzed using Generalized Linear Mixed Model with repeated measures, and Bland-Altman analysis. Inter-rater reliability for each instrument was modeled using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Overall agreement beyond chance between researcher's assessment and the FAM-CAM was evaluated using repeated measure Cohen's Kappa and sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predicted values. Post-discharge FAM-CAM data were summarized descriptively. A total of 817 patients had 1349 concurrent delirium assessments. Postoperative delirium incidence by researchers' assessment was 18.8 % and detection of delirium symptoms by FAM-CAM was 22.4 %. Analysis comparing delirium assessments showed there is an observed agreement beyond chance of 79.7 % with a kappa of 0.33 between the assessments by Generalized Linear Mixed Modeling with repeated measures, treating patients and raters as random effects, with FAM-CAM being more likely to report a positive delirium outcome. Assessment by features showed similar results. Both methods had an excellent degree of internal validity (CAM/CAM-ICU intraclass correlation =0.938, FAM-CAM intraclass correlation = 0.985). Repeated measures Cohen's kappa indicated good overall agreement (kappa = 0.72 [95 % confidence interval, 0.63 to 0.81]). Of the 330 booklets, 133 (40.3 %) were returned. A total of 18 patients exhibited symptoms indicative of delirium based on the FAM-CAM assessment between hospital discharge and 30 days postoperatively. Out of these, 9 (50 %) had also been diagnosed with postoperative delirium during their hospitalization. This study demonstrated that family member completed FAM-CAM had acceptable agreement with researchers' delirium assessments. Postoperative delirium symptoms were detected more frequently by family-administered FAM-CAM compared to delirium incidence identified by researcher assessments. Family members identified that some patients experienced delirium symptoms after hospital discharge. •The FAM-CAM is a useful tool to detect delirium symptoms postoperatively in the hospital and after hospital discharge.•Some surgical patients may show delirium symptoms after discharge, despite no delirium identified during hospitalization.•Family members can help detect delirium symptoms after hospital discharge when other methods are less practical.

IntroductionThe perioperative period is high risk for older adults. Depression and anxiety are common perioperative problems, frequently coexisting with cognitive impairment. Older patients with these conditions are more likely than younger patients to experience postoperative delirium, long hospital stays, poor quality of life and rehospitalisation. These experiences can, in turn, exacerbate anxiety and depressive symptoms. Despite these risks, little is known about how to treat perioperative anxiety and depression among older adults.Methods and analysisWe designed a feasibility study of a perioperative mental health intervention bundle to improve perioperative mental health, specifically depression and anxiety. The overarching goals of this study are twofold: first, to adapt and refine an intervention bundle comprised of behavioural activation and medication optimisation to meet the needs of older adults within three surgical patient populations (ie, orthopaedic, oncological and cardiac); and second, to test the feasibility of study procedures and intervention bundle implementation. Quantitative data on clinical outcomes such as depression, anxiety, quality of life, delirium, falls, length of stay, hospitalisation and pain will be collected and tabulated for descriptive purposes. A hybrid inductive–deductive thematic approach will be employed to analyse qualitative feedback from key stakeholders.Ethics and disseminationThe study received approval from the Washington University Institutional Review Board. Results of this study will be presented in peer-reviewed journals, at professional conferences, and to our perioperative mental health advisory board.Trial registration numberNCT05110690.

IntroductionMillions of patients receive general anaesthesia for surgery annually. Crucial gaps in evidence exist regarding which technique, propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) or inhaled volatile anaesthesia (INVA), yields superior patient experience, safety and outcomes. The aim of this pilot study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a large comparative effectiveness trial assessing patient experiences and outcomes after receiving propofol TIVA or INVA.Methods and analysisThis protocol was cocreated by a diverse team, including patient partners with personal experience of TIVA or INVA. The design is a 300-patient, two-centre, randomised, feasibility pilot trial. Patients 18 years of age or older, undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery requiring general anaesthesia with a tracheal tube or laryngeal mask airway will be eligible. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to propofol TIVA or INVA, stratified by centre and procedural complexity. The feasibility endpoints include: (1) proportion of patients approached who agree to participate; (2) proportion of patients who receive their assigned randomised treatment; (3) completeness of outcomes data collection and (4) feasibility of data management procedures. Proportions and 95% CIs will be calculated to assess whether prespecified thresholds are met for the feasibility parameters. If the lower bounds of the 95% CI are above the thresholds of 10% for the proportion of patients agreeing to participate among those approached and 80% for compliance with treatment allocation for each randomised treatment group, this will suggest that our planned pragmatic 12 500-patient comparative effectiveness trial can likely be conducted successfully. Other feasibility outcomes and adverse events will be described.Ethics and disseminationThis study is approved by the ethics board at Washington University (IRB# 202205053), serving as the single Institutional Review Board for both participating sites. Recruitment began in September 2022. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications, internet-based educational materials and mass media.Trial registration numberNCT05346588.

Background: Postoperative depressive symptoms are associated with pain, readmissions, death, and other undesirable outcomes. Ketamine produces rapid but transient antidepressant effects in the perioperative setting. Longer infusions confer lasting antidepressant activity in patients with treatment-resistant depression, but it is unknown whether a similar approach may produce a lasting antidepressant effect after surgery. This protocol describes a pilot study that will assess the feasibility of conducting a larger scale randomized clinical trial addressing this knowledge gap. Methods: This single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial involves the enrollment of 32 patients aged 18 years or older with a history of depression scheduled for surgery with planned intensive care unit admission. On the first day following surgery and extubation, participants will be randomized to an intravenous eight-hour infusion of either ketamine (0.5 mg kg -1 over 10 minutes followed by a continuous rate of 0.3 mg kg -1 h -1) or an equal volume of normal saline. Depressive symptoms will be quantified using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale preoperatively and serially up to 14 days after the infusion. To detect ketamine-induced changes on overnight sleep architecture, a wireless headband will be used to record electroencephalograms preoperatively, during the study infusion, and after infusion. The primary feasibility endpoints will include the fraction of patients approached who enroll, the fraction of randomized patients who complete the study infusion, and the fraction of randomized patients who complete outcome data collection. Conclusions: This pilot study will evaluate the feasibility of a future large comparative effectiveness trial of ketamine to reduce depressive symptoms in postsurgical patients. Registration: K-PASS is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05233566; registered February 10, 2022.

Background:More than 300 million patients undergo surgical procedures requiring anesthesia worldwide annually. There are 2 standard-of-care general anesthesia administration options: inhaled volatile anesthesia (INVA) and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). There is limited evidence comparing these methods and their impact on patient experiences and outcomes. Patients often seek this information from sources such as the internet. However, the majority of websites on anesthesia-related topics are not comprehensive, updated, and fully accurate. The quality and availability of web-based patient information about INVA and TIVA have not been sufficiently examined.Objective:This study aimed to (1) assess information on the internet about INVA and TIVA for availability, readability, accuracy, and quality and (2) identify high-quality websites that can be recommended to patients to assist in their anesthesia information-seeking and decision-making.Methods:Web-based searches were conducted using Google from April 2022 to November 2022. Websites were coded using a coding instrument developed based on the International Patient Decision Aids Standards criteria and adapted to be appropriate for assessing websites describing INVA and TIVA. Readability was calculated with the Flesch-Kincaid (F-K) grade level and the simple measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) readability formula.Results:A total of 67 websites containing 201 individual web pages were included for coding and analysis. Most of the websites provided a basic definition of general anesthesia (unconsciousness, n=57, 85%; analgesia, n=47, 70%). Around half of the websites described common side effects of general anesthesia, while fewer described the rare but serious adverse events, such as intraoperative awareness (n=31, 46%), allergic reactions or anaphylaxis (n=29, 43%), and malignant hyperthermia (n=18, 27%). Of the 67 websites, the median F-K grade level was 11.3 (IQR 9.5-12.8) and the median SMOG score was 13.5 (IQR 12.2-14.4), both far above the American Medical Association (AMA) recommended reading level of sixth grade. A total of 51 (76%) websites distinguished INVA versus TIVA as general anesthesia options. A total of 12 of the 51 (24%) websites explicitly stated that there is a decision to be considered about receiving INVA versus TIVA for general anesthesia. Only 10 (20%) websites made any direct comparisons between INVA and TIVA, discussing their positive and negative features. A total of 12 (24%) websites addressed the concept of shared decision-making in planning anesthesia care, but none specifically asked patients to think about which features of INVA and TIVA matter the most to them.Conclusions:While the majority of websites described INVA and TIVA, few provided comparisons. There is a need for high-quality patient education and decision support about the choice of INVA versus TIVA to provide accurate and more comprehensive information in a format conducive to patient understanding.

Background: More than four million people die each year in the month following surgery, and many more experience complications such as acute kidney injury. Some of these outcomes may be prevented through early identification of at-risk patients and through intraoperative risk mitigation. Telemedicine has revolutionized the way at-risk patients are identified in critical care, but intraoperative telemedicine services are not widely used in anesthesiology. Clinicians in telemedicine settings may assist with risk stratification and brainstorm risk mitigation strategies while clinicians in the operating room are busy performing other patient care tasks. Machine learning tools may help clinicians in telemedicine settings leverage the abundant electronic health data available in the perioperative period. The primary hypothesis for this study is that anesthesiology clinicians can predict postoperative complications more accurately with machine learning assistance than without machine learning assistance. Methods: This investigation is a sub-study nested within the TECTONICS randomized clinical trial (NCT03923699). As part of TECTONICS, study team members who are anesthesiology clinicians working in a telemedicine setting are currently reviewing ongoing surgical cases and documenting how likely they feel the patient is to experience 30-day in-hospital death or acute kidney injury. For patients who are included in this sub-study, these case reviews will be randomized to be performed with access to a display showing machine learning predictions for the postoperative complications or without access to the display. The accuracy of the predictions will be compared across these two groups. Conclusion: Successful completion of this study will help define the role of machine learning not only for intraoperative telemedicine, but for other risk assessment tasks before, during, and after surgery. Registration: ORACLE is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05042804; registered September 13, 2021.