Next Article in Journal
External Validation of Mortality Scores among High-Risk COVID-19 Patients: A Romanian Retrospective Study in the First Pandemic Year
Next Article in Special Issue
Surgical Pharmacy for Optimizing Medication Therapy Management Services within Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS®) Programs
Previous Article in Journal
Forecasting Postoperative Delirium in Older Adult Patients with Fast-and-Frugal Decision Trees
Previous Article in Special Issue
Acute Poisoning Readmissions to an Emergency Department of a Tertiary Hospital: Evaluation through an Active Toxicovigilance Program
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Perspective

Positive Patient Postoperative Outcomes with Pharmacotherapy: A Narrative Review including Perioperative-Specialty Pharmacist Interviews

1
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Mercer University School of Medicine, Columbus, GA 31902, USA
2
Department of Medical Science, Sobi Pharma, Waltham, MA 02451, USA
3
Department of Pharmacy Services, Crystal Clinic Orthopedic Center, Akron, OH 44312, USA
4
Department of Pharmacy Services, Mayo Clinic–Rochester, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
5
Department of Pharmacy Services, University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA
6
Department of Pharmacy Services, OhioHealth/Grant Medical Center, Columbus, OH 43215, USA
7
Department of Pharmacy Practice, Creighton University School of Pharmacy and Health Professions, Omaha, NE 68178, USA
8
Department of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA
9
Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, UCI Health, Orange, CA 92868, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(19), 5628; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195628
Submission received: 24 August 2022 / Revised: 15 September 2022 / Accepted: 21 September 2022 / Published: 24 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Collection Practice and Research in Clinical Pharmacology)

Abstract

:
The influence of pharmacotherapy regimens on surgical patient outcomes is increasingly appreciated in the era of enhanced recovery protocols and institutional focus on reducing postoperative complications. Specifics related to medication selection, dosing, frequency of administration, and duration of therapy are evolving to optimize pharmacotherapeutic regimens for many enhanced recovery protocolized elements. This review provides a summary of recent pharmacotherapeutic strategies, including those configured within electronic health record (EHR) applications and functionalities, that are associated with the minimization of the frequency and severity of postoperative complications (POCs), shortened hospital length of stay (LOS), reduced readmission rates, and cost or revenue impacts. Further, it will highlight preventive pharmacotherapy regimens that are correlated with improved patient preparation, especially those related to surgical site infection (SSI), venous thromboembolism (VTE), nausea and vomiting (PONV), postoperative ileus (POI), and emergence delirium (PoD) as well as less commonly encountered POCs such as acute kidney injury (AKI) and atrial fibrillation (AF). The importance of interprofessional collaboration in all periprocedural phases, focusing on medication management through shared responsibilities for drug therapy outcomes, will be emphasized. Finally, examples of collaborative care through shared mental models of drug stewardship and non-medical practice agreements to improve operative throughput, reduce operative stress, and increase patient satisfaction are illustrated.

1. Introduction

Enhanced postoperative recovery programs are evidence-based, multimodal, multidisciplinary approaches to the care of a surgical patient that involves a perioperative team aimed at reducing operative stress responses by increasing patient resilience, preventing and minimizing postoperative complications, and decreasing hospitalization [1,2]. The pharmacotherapy embedded into enhanced recovery programs and protocols (ERPs) has only recently received attention in the scientific and professional literature [3,4,5,6,7,8]. Often conducted outside of ERAS® Society sites and protocols, many reports are retrospective and single-center in nature, and earlier reports evaluated programmatic compliance with consensus-generated guidelines and recommendations from various perioperative groups. Specifics related to medication selection, dosing, frequency of administration, and duration of therapy are evolving in a meaningful way to guide specific pharmacotherapeutic regimens towards agents of first choice for many enhanced recovery protocolized elements. This narrative review provides a summary of recent pharmacotherapeutic strategies, including those configured within electronic health record (EHR) applications and functionalities, that are associated with the minimization of the frequency and severity of postoperative complications (POCs), shortened hospital length of stay (LOS), reduced re-admission rates, and positive cost or revenue impacts. Further, it will highlight preventive pharmacotherapy regimens associated with improved patient preparation, especially those related to surgical site infection (SSI), venous thromboembolism (VTE), nausea and vomiting (PONV), postoperative ileus (POI), and delirium (PoD). The importance of interprofessional collaboration in all periprocedural phases, especially for medication management through shared responsibilities for drug therapy outcomes, will be emphasized. Finally, examples of collaborative care through shared mental models of drug stewardship programs and non-medical practice agreements to improve operative throughput, reduce operative stress, and increase patient satisfaction are illustrated in interviews with specialty perioperative clinical pharmacists.

2. Methods

A narrative review was undertaken following a PubMed and Google Scholar search for any English language report published in the last 10 years using the following primary search terms, separately and in combination: clinical decision support systems; clinical pharmacology; collaborative practice; complications; Enhanced Recovery After Surgery; patient outcomes; perioperative care; pharmacotherapy; pharmacist; prophylaxis; and risk assessment. Secondarily, individual medication names and ‘perioperative’ were also searched. Once identified, a snowball procedure was undertaken to identify and evaluate literature citations missed in PubMed and Google Scholar searches. The general research question was: what is the evidence for achievement of positive, postoperative patient outcomes with the use of pharmacotherapy and related functionalities?
Pharmacists interviewed were identified from the membership list serves of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy Perioperative Care and Critical Care Practice and Research Networks as well as those identified from a Google Scholar search for publication history and/or literature citations within perioperative care (see Supplementary Materials File S1. Each advanced practice or clinical pharmacist was interviewed through Zoom (San Jose, CA, USA, Version: 5.11.4 (7185)). The Zoom interviews were transcribed verbatim through its automated functionality, edited by RHP for sentence structure, timelines, and clarity, then returned to each interviewee for final editing. Interview questions are found in Table 1.

3. Results and Discussion

Three major themes were identified in the literature review and pharmacist interviews, including: (1) protocol development using computerized and manual care or order sets; (2) preventive measures associated with positive postoperative outcomes; and (3) interprofessional teamwork and collaborative practices among perioperative care members for achieving optimal pharmacotherapies.

3.1. Electronic Health Records (EHR) Systems and Perioperative Pharmacotherapy

One of the most significant challenges during ERP implementation is addressing the variability in drug regimens used within an organization throughout the perioperative period, that is, in pre-, intra-, and postoperative phases. An appreciation of the influence of pharmacotherapy on a patient’s recovery from surgery is beginning to emerge as measures to systematically follow care pathways via protocolized order sets and evaluate postoperative complication risks are more frequently applied in individual patient cases. Whether on paper or configured in EHR systems, these protocols often are operationalized as preprinted or preformatted care or order sets that attempt to guide pharmacotherapy decision-making toward evidence-based regimens and selections. While many inpatient institutions worldwide continue to use paper order sheets for the transmission of medical orders to various departments, preprinted order sets compared to handwritten orders have been shown to reduce errors and patient morbidity. In a study of hand-written compared to preprinted standard care sets, over 80% of cases utilizing handwritten orders had at least one omission error compared to 38% in the group that used preprinted sets. Further subgroup analyses demonstrated that errors in mechanical VTE prophylaxis and SSI prophylaxis orders were significantly reduced in the preprinted group compared to the handwritten group [9]. Some reports have described the establishment of a specialty-specific, mandatory, computerized clinical decision support (CDS) module for VTE risk stratification and prevention. Application of so-called “hard-stop” or “forced-function” rules has been shown to improve best practice VTE prophylaxis from 51.1% to 97.8%, a 2-fold improvement attained through multidisciplinary teamwork [10]. After implementation of an evidence-based, specialty-specific “smart order set”, risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis prescriptions increased significantly from 65.6% to 90.1%, and orders for any form of VTE prophylaxis increased from 76.4% to 95.6%. The rate of radiographically documented symptomatic VTE within 90 days of hospital discharge declined from 2.5% to 0.7%. Preventable harm from VTE was completely eliminated with no difference in major bleeding or all-cause mortality [11]. Computer-based order intervention significantly improved the proportion of surgeries with timely discontinuation of antibiotics from 38.8% to 55.7% [12].
The development of order sets that serve to operationalize and standardize enhanced recovery elements at pre-, intra- and postoperative phases has been described in a recent report [13]. In addition to the use of CDS risk assessments, among their recommendations for safer surgery include: (1) clear identification of the patient’s ERAS status in the EHR, particularly on the patient’s electronic chart header and the computer screen banner on summary/overview page; (2) creation and use of an ERAS column on perioperative status board; (3) adoption of a daily order set progression with separate pre-op, intra-op, postop phase sets; and (4) incorporation of a safe surgery checklist. Table 2 shows an example of a preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis order set for colorectal procedures. Many preoperative risk assessments have been integrated into EHR computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems as a part of an initial work-up. Table 3 illustrates the scope and variety of CDS systems for predicting and preventing POCs that can be integrated into CPOE systems or used as stand-alone tools.

3.2. Preventive Measures and Methods Associated with Positive Postoperative Outcomes

One of the most effective ways to minimize surgical risk from medications is to identify, resolve, and prevent drug therapy problems (DTPs) [15,16,17]. The purpose of identifying, preventing, and/or resolving DTPs is to understand a patient’s drug-related needs and to help them achieve their treatment goals and realize the best possible outcomes from drug therapy [18]. Risk factors associated with the incidence of DTPs have included polypharmacy (≥5 scheduled medications daily), drug allergies, BMI > 25 kg/m2, and creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min [19]. In addition, recent, current, or chronic use of any of the following medications and substances increases the likelihood of an adverse outcome in any patient during the perioperative period, including corticosteroids, opioids, insulin, anticoagulants, proton pump inhibitors, cancer chemotherapy, immunomodulators, ethanol, tobacco, and illicit substances [20]. Institutions have implemented DTP-related process and practice changes at key times in the admission process, that is, six to eight weeks preoperatively (prehospital) to detect and manage anemia, hyperglycemia, and smoking [21], in the preadmission clinic [22,23,24], on admission during medication reconciliation [25,26,27,28], throughout hospital stay [29,30], and at discharge [31,32]. In addition, theater and ward-based activities to rationalize drug therapy [33,34] include identifying and avoiding or minimizing the use of potentially inappropriate medications for at-risk patient populations: (1) the American Geriatric Society’s (AGS) Beers list for older adults [35]; and (2) the KIDs list for children created by the Pediatric Pharmacy Association (PPA) [36]. Table 4 outlines the medications and classes on the AGS Beers and PPA KIDs lists that should be avoided in perioperative care patients due to delirium-producing, falls-risk, reduced renal elimination, or coagulation adverse effects.
Within ERPs, prevention of POCs is paramount to patient outcomes [37,38,39,40]. Commonly targeted POCs have included SSI, VTE, PONV, POI, and PoD. For example, prevention of SSI with standardized intravenous and oral antibiotics; VTE through combinations of pharmacologic agents and non-pharmacologic devices; PONV and POI through goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT), early feeding, opioid reduction, and peripherally acting µ receptor antagonist (PAMORA) use; and acute kidney injury (AKI) with GDFT and by judicious use and dosing of NSAIDs have become recognized best practices to minimize these complications, improve throughput, and facilitate earlier hospital discharge [41].
Several medications have been developed to address common scenarios in perioperative care that often delay hospital discharge. However, many enhanced recovery reports describing the benefits of high cost medications, such as parenteral acetaminophen and NSAIDs like parenteral meloxicam, and alvimopan, topical liposomal bupivacaine (alone and combined with meloxicam), sugammadex, and dexmedetomidine are limited because the overall costs of the intervention are not included, and cost savings associated with avoidance of negative outcomes are not monetized in the analyses. Moreover, not all of these agents are available in every country nor on the drug formulary of every hospital. Furthermore, none of the above agents are listed in the 2021 World Health Organization model list of essential drugs, and access is very likely to be non-existent in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs) [42,43]. ERP concentration centers on maintenance of or return to normal gastrointestinal functioning through early oral intake and route switching, including nutrients and medications. A summary of those medications mentioned in the above paragraph follows.
On balance, acetaminophen is best used orally on a scheduled basis and within a multi-modal pain management regimen that includes intrathecal hydromorphone, a scheduled oral NSAID, and adjuvant preoperative gabapentinoid with intraoperative IV magnesium, dexmedetomidine, and/or lidocaine infusions [44]. However, large randomized trials are needed before IV lidocaine becomes standard of practice [45]. The increased cost of IV acetaminophen is not offset by any additional benefit in pain management, LOS, or readmission [46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57]. With concomitant opioid treatment, alvimopan use may be associated with shorter times to tolerance of a soft diet, return of gastrointestinal function, and decreased LOS. However, no randomized clinical or cost-effectiveness trials have validated these findings in ERAS® patients [58,59,60,61], and other safer, less costly agents exist, such as naloxegol and naldemedine [62,63]. Nevertheless, a 5-month retrospective pilot study to reduce alvimopan use after GI function recovery successfully eliminated over two-thirds of postoperative doses through pharmacist recommendation to discontinue [64]. Dexmedetomidine (now available as a multi-source generic) has been shown to facilitate extubation for earlier PACU discharge [65,66] and mitigate postpartum depression [67], but, when combined with ketamine as a continuous infusion, may not yield lower opioid consumption or pain scores [68]. Sugammadex may shorten time to extubation and may accelerate bowel function recovery and shorter postoperative LOS as compared to reversal of neuromuscular blockade with neostigmine and glycopyrrolate [69,70]. For use as a local anesthetic by wound infiltration, liposomal bupivacaine (LB) may reduce opioid use and hospital LOS as well as promote earlier oral diet [71,72,73], but this effect may be procedure-specific [74]. Currently, while evidence exists for the use of IV ketorolac, a non-selective cyclooxygenase (COX) enzyme inhibitor, as a safe and effective component of multimodal analgesia [75,76], data are emerging to support the use of IV and topically applied meloxicam in postoperative medication management based on its longer half-life and cyclooxygenase-2 only inhibition [77,78]. Additionally, use of metamizole (dipyrone) as a unique analgesic with a mechanism mediated through non-COX enzymatic inhibition of prostaglandin E2 formation, is widely employed in Europe for postoperative pain [79,80,81]. Limited evidence from a recent Cochrane review of its oral use as a single dose in acute postoperative pain demonstrated efficacy but without any comparators [82]. While unavailable in Canada, United States, Australia, Japan and the Middle East and not included on the WHO List of Essential Drugs, metamizole can be considered as an evolving short-term nonopioid analgesic in other parts of the world. While intrathecal opioid administration may be gaining in popularity over epidural and IV administration (TIVA) in visceral procedures, it remains controversial and may be associated with increased hospital costs due to prolonged stay in intensive care [83,84,85,86,87,88].
Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) with laxatives for bowel cleaning and antibiotics for gut sterilization as part of an SSI regimen may not improve overall patient outcomes in colorectal surgery (i.e., lower SSI rate and LOS), and may precipitate postoperative fluid (up to 2 L preoperative loss) and electrolyte imbalances [89,90]. Its value in non-colorectal procedures is limited. However, laparoscopic procedures and those requiring intraoperative colonoscopy to localize a lesion that cannot otherwise be identified may be facilitated using MBP [91].
It has been estimated that between 15 and 20% of surgical patients have undiagnosed diabetes or impaired fasting glucose which does not necessarily affect postoperative outcomes [92,93] unless the plasma glucose level was ≥250 mg/dL, which was associated with higher 30-day morbidity/mortality [94]. Glucose management in patients with and without diabetes could be impacted by oral carbohydrate and dexamethasone administration. In patients without diabetes, positive patient effects for both mothers (lower insulin level and HOMA-IR) and neonates (higher blood glucose) have been observed. Preoperative carbohydrate loading may improve insulin resistance and reduce PONV and hospital LOS [95,96]. In general, single-dose dexamethasone up to 10 mg raises blood glucose with similar preoperative to maximal intraoperative glucose concentration of 63 ± 69 mg/dL in diabetics and to 72 ± 45 mg/dL in nondiabetics [97,98,99,100,101]. Preoperative hyperglycemia is associated with increased SSI risk, among others, especially in the elderly [102,103].
Another programmatic systems approach to medication management endeavors to create a shared mental model using drug stewardship as a platform of organizational change [104,105,106,107]. While most stewardship programs have concentrated on rational antimicrobial use [108], recent developments have focused attention on medication classes that are frequently used in perioperative care and are high-risk for the patient, including opioids [109,110,111,112,113], anticoagulants [114,115,116,117,118,119,120], anemia management [121,122,123,124,125], and glycemic control with insulin [126,127], among others [4]. Table 5 summarizes recommendations for preventing VTE, SSI, PONV, POI, and PoD [128]. Cefazolin is the only injectable first-generation cephalosporin available in most countries and should be specified by name in ERPs; other injectable first generation cephalosporins, cephalothin and cephapirin, are no longer available for use. Available injectable second-generation cephalosporins include cefuroxime, cefoxitin, and cefotetan; cefamandole has been discontinued.
In the near future, pharmacogenomic testing results (from either blood or saliva) can provide guidance on how to optimize pharmacotherapy for each patient based on an individual’s unique genetic profile. Genetics-guided pharmacotherapy and its impact on clinical outcomes needs to be thoroughly studied for better understanding and managing drug administration in ERAS settings [129]. For example, pharmacogenomic testing to detect CYP3A5 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) is used to guide tacrolimus dosing in solid organ transplantation. Evidence exists for the CYP2D6 SNP related to codeine and tramadol ultrarapid metabolism and life-threatening cardiovascular and respiratory depression as well as CYP2C9 testing for celecoxib and warfarin to prevent bleeding [130]. Carriers of the OPRM A118G allele may have higher postoperative opioid requirements [131,132].
In general, the use of pharmacotherapy throughout the perioperative process is highly variable in regimen selection, dosing, frequency, and duration. As illustrated in Supplementary Materials Table S1, variation in one relatively simple regimen, VTE prophylaxis specificity, from one excellent meta-analysis of hepatic resections leads to differences in VTE occurrences [140]. Efforts to reduce this process variation, both at the same institution and among institutions, are underway at many facilities and organizations to optimize the contribution of pharmacotherapy to patient outcomes.

3.3. Interprofessional Collaboration and Teamwork among Perioperative Disciplines

For other common surgical complications, protocols for mitigating each complication have been developed and implemented through interdisciplinary collaboration often through creation of care bundles [1,2,3,4,141,142]. One recent review noted that multidisciplinary surgical care often leads to better patient outcomes and improved provider knowledge as well as directly leading to cost savings, irrespective of surgical specialty, modality, or intervention [143]. As noted earlier, VTE prophylaxis standards have been embedded into order sets and monitoring plans [144], and surgery discharge plans have been designed and adopted [145]. A postoperative atrial fibrillation pathway has been developed, implemented, and successfully sustained that identifies and correct the underlying arrhythmic cause, as well as choosing a strategy for rate or rhythm control and determining thrombotic risk [146]. Prevention of PONV has been addressed through multidisciplinary patient-centered initiatives by implementing multi-modal strategies that capitalize on timely administration of agents with different mechanisms of action [147,148]. Three excellent examples of interprofessional collaboration and shared mental modeling for perioperative medication management applicable in ERPs include the online UK Handbook of Perioperative Medicines [149], a manual on decision making in perioperative care [150], and a handbook covering enhanced recovery optimization [151]. Standards of practice for pharmacy services in perioperative medicine as well as inpatient quality measures for clinical pharmacist practice have been derived recently [4,152,153,154].
Navigating toward successful collaborative care practices is often dependent on the hospital or health system’s jurisdiction, policies and procedures regarding the level of collaboration, such as institution-wide, service-specific, procedural, and individual practitioner scopes of practice, and local credentialing and privileging history and mechanisms. Thus, the division of labor for perioperative drug therapy management in the United States is often dispersed among licensed independent providers (surgeons and anesthesiologists), mid-level providers (nurse practitioners and physician assistants), and advanced practice or clinical pharmacists. In some state jurisdictions, clinical pharmacists are considered healthcare providers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has published an evidentiary document for establishing, implementing, and sustaining collaborative care best practices and comprehensive drug therapy management through formal CPAs [155]. The American Society of Health-system Pharmacists (ASHP) has provided a link to state-specific CPAs [156]. Table 6 summarizes the “practice pearls” unique to the pharmacotherapy of each surgical specialty area.
Pharmacists attached to various surgical services have provided consultation to anesthesiologists at the service and individual patient levels regarding local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) and enhanced recovery analgesic/anesthetic pathways (in light of the recent move toward increased local anesthetic use to reduce opioid exposure) as well as evolving surgical techniques. Collaboration with surgeons has often focused on risk assessments and treatment recommendations for preoperative and pharmacokinetic-based antimicrobial optimization [157], VTE and PONV prophylaxis [144,147], postoperative pain management, POI mitigation, and electrolyte replacement and nutrition support, including glycemic control [158]. In one 20-month pre-/post-study in which clinical pharmacists were directly involved, pre-implementation colonic SSIs were reduced from 10% to 2%, VTE rate decreased from 0.6% to 0%, and postoperative readmission rate decreased from 4.8% to 1.3% [111].
In conclusion, best practices in perioperative-related pharmacotherapies are emerging as complementary interventions via use of protocolized order sets to improve patient resilience to common POCs. Further, employment of risk assessments in the preoperative phase assists in identifying potentially problem-prone scenarios. Identification, prevention, and resolution of drug therapy problems, including medications to avoid in certain patient subgroups, combined with organized drug stewardship programs for opioids, antibiotics, and anticoagulants, among others, forms the basis of pharmaceutical care in the perioperative setting. Numerous examples exist to illustrate how interprofessional teamwork and collaborative practice structures and standards facilitate interventions improve patient outcomes [159,160,161,162,163,164]. In Supplementary Materials File S1, perioperative-specialty pharmacist practice examples with literature citations that improve patient outcomes through comprehensive medication management and identify both facilitators and barriers through drug stewardship programs are described [165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222].

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm11195628/s1, File S1: Practice Examples Illustrating Collaborative Care and Drug Stewardship for Improved Medication Management and Patient Outcomes and Table S1: Supplemental table: Thromboprophylaxis Strategies and Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism in Hepatic Resections (Adapted from [140]).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.H.P.II; writing—original draft preparation, R.H.P.II; writing—review and editing, R.H.P.II, H.M.B., D.C., R.M.C., W.E.D., S.J.H., J.K.L., A.P., T.M.S. and S.-F.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the contributions of April N. Smith to the bariatric pharmacist interview. The authors thank the leadership of the Perioperative Care and Critical Care Practice and Research Networks of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy for access to their membership directories to distribute invitations for perioperative pharmacist interviews.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. As a medical science liaison with Sobi Pharma, HMB declares no conflicts of interest associated with any products manufactured by Sobi Pharma.

References

  1. Kehlet, H. Enhanced postoperative recovery: Good from afar, but far from good? Anaesthesia 2020, 75, e54–e61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ljungqvist, O.; Scott, M.; Fearon, K.C. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: A Review. JAMA Surg. 2017, 152, 292–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Lovely, J.K.; Hyland, S.J.; Smith, A.N.; Nelson, G.; Ljungqvist, O.; Parrish, R.H., 2nd. Clinical pharmacist perspectives for optimizing pharmacotherapy within Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) programs. Int. J. Surg. 2019, 63, 58–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Patel, G.; Hyland, S.J.; Birrer, K.L.; Wolfe, R.C.; Lovely, J.K.; Smith, A.N.; Dixon, R.L.; Johnson, E.G.; Gaviola, M.L.; Giancarelli, A.; et al. Perioperative clinical pharmacy practice: Responsibilities and scope within the surgical care continuum. J. Am. Coll. Clin. Pharm. 2019, 3, 501–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Johnson, E.; Parrish, R.H., 2nd; Nelson, G.; Elias, K.; Kramer, B.; Gaviola, M. Expanding pharmacotherapy data collection, analysis, and implementation in ERAS® Programs: The methodology of an exploratory feasibility study. Healthcare 2020, 8, 252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kaye, A.D.; Renschler, J.; Cramer, K.; Klein, K.; Granier, A.; Hart, B.; Kassem, H.; Urits, I.; Cornett, E.; Viswanath, O. The role of clinical pharmacology in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols: A comprehensive review. Anaesthesiol. Intensive Ther. 2020, 52, 154–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Parrish, R.H., 2nd; Findley, R.; Elias, K.M.; Kramer, B.; Johnson, E.G.; Gramlich, L.; Nelson, G.S. Pharmacotherapeutic prophylaxis and post-operative outcomes within an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) program: A randomized retrospective cohort study. Ann. Med. Surg. 2021, 73, 103178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rollins, K.E.; Lobo, D.N.; Joshi, G.P. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: Current status and future progress. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Anaesthesiol. 2021, 35, 479–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ansari, S.; Fung, K.; MacNeil, S.D.; Nichols, A.C.; Yoo, J.; Sowerby, L.J. The use of standardized order sets to improve adherence to evidence-based postoperative management in major head and neck surgery. Eur. Ann. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Dis. 2018, 135, S107–S111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ejaz, A.; Spolverato, G.; Kim, Y.; Lucas, D.L.; Lau, B.; Weiss, M.; Johnston, F.M.; Kheng, M.; Hirose, K.; Wolfgang, C.L.; et al. Defining incidence and risk factors of venous thromboembolism after hepatectomy. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2014, 18, 1116–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zeidan, A.M.; Streiff, M.B.; Lau, B.D.; Ahmed, S.R.; Kraus, P.S.; Hobson, D.B.; Carolan, H.; Lambrianidi, C.; Horn, P.B.; Shermock, K.M.; et al. Impact of a venous thromboembolism prophylaxis “smart order set”: Improved compliance, fewer events. Am. J. Hematol. 2013, 88, 545–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Haynes, K.; Linkin, D.R.; Fishman, N.O.; Bilker, W.B.; Strom, B.L.; Pifer, E.A.; Hennessy, S. Effectiveness of an information technology intervention to improve prophylactic antibacterial use in the postoperative period. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2011, 18, 164–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Shea-Budgell, M.; Schrag, C.; Dumestre, D.; Astanehe, A.; Temple-Oberle, C. Order sets for Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob. Open 2017, 5, e1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Alberta Health Services, ERAS Colorectal Surgery, Adult—Inpatient Pre-Op Order Set, Form # 21054Bond. 2018. Available online: https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/frm-21054-bond.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2022).
  15. Bos, J.M.; van den Bemt, P.M.; Kievit, W.; Pot, J.L.; Nagtegaal, J.E.; Wieringa, A.; van der Westerlaken, M.M.; van der Wilt, G.J.; de Smetm, P.A.; Kramers, C. A multifaceted intervention to reduce drug-related complications in surgical patients. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2017, 83, 664–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Tefera, G.M.; Zeleke, A.Z.; Jima, Y.M.; Kebede, T.M. Drug therapy problems and the role of clinical pharmacist in surgery ward: Prospective observational and interventional study. Drug Healthc. Patient Saf. 2020, 12, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wilson, J.W.; Oyen, L.J.; Ou, N.N.; McMahon, M.M.; Thompson, R.L.; Manahan, J.M.; Graner, K.K.; Lovely, J.K.; Estes, L.L. Hospital rules-based system: The next generation of medical informatics for patient safety. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 2005, 62, 499–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cipolle, R.J.; Strand, L.M.; Morley, P.C. (Eds.) Drug Therapy Problems. In Pharmaceutical Care Practice: The Patient-Centered Approach to Medication Management Services, 3rd ed.; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2012; Chapter 5; Available online: https://accesspharmacy.mhmedical.com/content.aspx?bookid=491&sectionid=39674898 (accessed on 26 April 2022).
  19. Garin, N.; Sole, N.; Lucas, B.; Matas, L.; Moras, D.; Rodrigo-Troyano, A.; Gras-Martin, L.; Fonts, N. Drug related problems in clinical practice: A cross-sectional study on their prevalence, risk factors and associated pharmaceutical interventions. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Poudel, A.; Ballokova, A.; Hubbard, R.E.; Gray, L.C.; Mitchell, C.A.; Nissen, L.M.; Scott, I.A. Algorithm of medication review in frail older people: Focus on minimizing the use of high-risk medications. Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 2016, 16, 1002–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Greenberg, J.A.; Zwiep, T.M.; Sadek, J.; Malcolm, J.C.; Mullen, K.A.; McIsaac, D.I.; Musselman, R.P.; Moloo, H. Clinical practice guideline: Evidence, recommendations and algorithm for the preoperative optimization of anemia, hyperglycemia and smoking. Can. J. Surg. 2021, 64, E491–E509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kwan, Y.; Fernandes, O.A.; Nagge, J.J.; Wong, G.G.; Huh, J.H.; Hurn, D.A.; Pond, G.R.; Bajcar, J.M. Pharmacist medication assessments in a surgical preadmission clinic. Arch. Intern. Med. 2007, 167, 1034–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hale, A.R.; Coombes, I.D.; Stokes, J.; McDougall, D.; Whitfield, K.; Maycock, E.; Nissen, L. Perioperative medication management: Expanding the role of the preadmission clinic pharmacist in a single centre, randomised controlled trial of collaborative prescribing. BMJ Open 2013, 3, e003027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Garwood-Gowers, P. A comparison between a Doctor-Pharmacist Collaborative Model and the Usual Medical Model for Perioperative Prescribing of Medications in an Anesthetic-Led Pre-Admission Clinic. Master’s Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 2020. Unpublished. [Google Scholar]
  25. Gjerde, A.M.; Aa, E.; Sund, J.K.; Stenumgard, P.; Johnsen, L.G. Medication reconciliation of patients with hip fracture by clinical pharmacists. Eur. J. Hosp. Pharm. 2016, 23, 166–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Zheng, X.; Xiao, L.; Li, Y.; Qiu, F.; Huang, W.; Li, X. Improving safety and efficacy with pharmacist medication reconciliation in orthopedic joint surgery within an enhanced recovery after surgery program. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2022, 22, 448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Khalil, V.; deClifford, J.M.; Lam, S.; Subramaniam, A. Implementation and evaluation of a collaborative clinical pharmacist’s medications reconciliation and charting service for admitted medical inpatients in a metropolitan hospital. J. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 2016, 41, 662–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mekonnen, A.B.; McLachlan, A.J.; Brien, J.A. Effectiveness of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation programmes on clinical outcomes at hospital transitions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e010003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Marotti, S.B.; Kerridge, R.K.; Grimer, M.D. A randomised controlled trial of pharmacist medication histories and supplementary prescribing on medication errors in postoperative medications. Anaesth. Intensive Care 2011, 39, 1064–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nguyen, A.D.; Lam, A.; Banakh, I.; Lam, S.; Crofts, T. Improved medication management with introduction of a perioperative and prescribing pharmacist service. J. Pharm. Pract. 2020, 33, 299–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fernandes, B.D.; Almeida, P.H.R.; Foppa, A.A.; Sousa, C.T.; Ayres, L.R.; Chemello, C. Pharmacist-led medication reconciliation at patient discharge: A scoping review. Res. Social Adm. Pharm. 2020, 16, 605–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Phatak, A.; Prusi, R.; Ward, B.; Hansen, L.O.; Williams, M.V.; Vetter, E.; Chapman, N.; Postelnick, M. Impact of pharmacist involvement in the transitional care of high-risk patients through medication reconciliation, medication education, and post-discharge call-backs (IPITCH Study). J. Hosp. Med. 2016, 11, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bansal, N.; Morris, J. Pharmacist involvement to improve patient outcomes in lower gastrointestinal surgery: A prospective before and after study. Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 2019, 41, 1220–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bansal, N.; Tai, W.; Chen, L.C. Implementation of an innovative surgical pharmacy service to improve patient outcomes-Twelve-month outcomes of the Enhanced Surgical Medicines Optimization Service. J. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 2019, 44, 904–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. American Geriatrics Society 2015 Beers Criteria Update Expert Panel. American Geriatrics Society 2015 updated beers criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2015, 63, 2227–2246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Meyers, R.S.; Thackray, J.; Matson, K.L.; McPherson, C.; Lubsch, L.; Hellinga, R.C.; Hoff, D.S. Key Potentially Inappropriate Drugs in pediatrics: The KIDs List. J. Pediatr. Pharmacol. Ther. 2020, 25, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Steele, S.R.; Brady, J.T.; Cao, Z.; Baumer, D.L.; Robinson, S.B.; Yang, H.K.; Delaney, C.P. Evaluation of healthcare use and clinical outcomes of alvimopan in patients undergoing bowel resection: A propensity score-matched analysis. Dis. Colon Rectum. 2018, 61, 1418–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Grass, F.; Lovely, J.K.; Crippa, J.; Mathis, K.L.; Hübner, M.; Larson, D.W. Early acute kidney injury within an established enhanced recovery pathway: Uncommon and transitory. World J. Surg. 2019, 43, 1207–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Schreier, D.J.; Lovely, J.K. Optimizing clinical monitoring tools to enhance patient review by pharmacists. Appl. Clin. Inform. 2021, 12, 621–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Lovely, J.K.; Larson, D.W. Enhanced recovery: A decade of experience and future prospects at the Mayo Clinic. Healthcare 2021, 9, 549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Roberts, D.J.; Smith, S.A.; Tan, Z.; Dixon, E.; Datta, I.; Devrome, A.; Hemmelgarn, B.R.; Tonelli, M.; Pannu, N.; James, M.T. Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor/Receptor Blocker, Diuretic, or Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug Use After Major Surgery and Acute Kidney Injury: A Case-Control Study. J. Surg. Res. 2021, 263, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. World Health Organization. Model List of Essential Medicines—22nd List. 2021. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-MHP-HPS-EML-2021.02 (accessed on 17 June 2022).
  43. Vledder, M.; Friedman, J.; Sjöblom, M.; Brown, T.; Yadav, P. Improving supply chain for essential drugs in low-income countries: Results from a large scale randomized experiment in Zambia. Health Syst. Reform. 2019, 5, 158–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bae, S.; Alboog, A.; Esquivel, K.S.; Abbasi, A.; Zhou, J.; Chui, J. Efficacy of perioperative pharmacological and regional pain interventions in adult spine surgery: A network meta-analysis and systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Br. J. Anaesth. 2022, 128, 98–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Masic, D.; Liang, E.; Long, C.; Sterk, E.J.; Barbas, B.; Rech, M.A. Intravenous Lidocaine for Acute Pain: A Systematic Review. Pharmacotherapy 2018, 38, 1250–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Aryaie, A.H.; Lalezari, S.; Sergent, W.K.; Puckett, Y.; Juergens, C.; Ratermann, C.; Ogg, C. Decreased opioid consumption and enhance recovery with the addition of IV acetaminophen in colorectal patients: A prospective, multi-institutional, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study (DOCIVA study). Surg. Endosc. 2018, 32, 3432–3438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Ohkura, Y.; Shindoh, J.; Ueno, M.; Iizuka, T.; Haruta, S.; Udagawa, H. A new postoperative pain management (intravenous acetaminophen: Acelio®) leads to enhanced recovery after esophagectomy: A propensity score-matched analysis. Surg. Today 2018, 48, 502–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Vincent, W.R., 3rd; Huiras, P.; Empfield, J.; Horbowicz, K.J.; Lewis, K.; McAneny, D.; Twitchell, D. Controlling postoperative use of IV acetaminophen at an academic medical center. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 2018, 75, 548–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hedderson, M.; Lee, D.; Hunt, E.; Lee, K.; Xu, F.; Mustille, A.; Galin, J.; Campbell, C.; Quesenberry, C.; Reyes, V.; et al. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery to change process measures and reduce opioid use after Cesarean delivery: A quality improvement initiative. Obstet. Gynecol. 2019, 134, 511–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Marcotte, J.H.; Patel, K.M.; Gaughan, J.P.; Dy, J.; Kwiatt, M.E.; McClane, S.J.; Desai, R.G. Oral versus IV acetaminophen within an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery protocol in colorectal surgery. Pain Physician. 2020, 23, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Iguidbashian, J.P.; Chang, P.H.; Iguidbashian, J.; Lines, J.; Maxwell, B.G. Enhanced recovery and early extubation after pediatric cardiac surgery using single-dose intravenous methadone. Ann. Card. Anaesth. 2020, 23, 70–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Schoenbrunner, A.R.; Janis, J.E. Pain management in plastic surgery. Clin. Plast. Surg. 2020, 47, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cain, K.E.; Iniesta, M.D.; Fellman, B.M.; Suki, T.S.; Siverand, A.; Corzo, C.; Lasala, J.D.; Cata, J.P.; Mena, G.E.; Meyer, L.A.; et al. Effect of preoperative intravenous vs oral acetaminophen on postoperative opioid consumption in an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program in patients undergoing open gynecologic oncology surgery. Gynecol. Oncol. 2021, 160, 464–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Marchand, G.J.; Azadi, A.; Sainz, K.; Masoud, A.; Anderson, S.; Ruther, S.; Ware, K.; Hopewell, S.; Brazil, G.; King, A.; et al. The efficacy of acetaminophen for total laparoscopic hysterectomy. JSLS J. Soc. Laparoendosc. Surg. 2021, 25, e2020.00104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. MacGregor, C.A.; Neerhof, M.; Sperling, M.J.; Alspach, D.; Plunkett, B.A.; Choi, A.; Blumenthal, R. Post-Cesarean opioid use after implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol. Am. J. Perinatol. 2021, 38, 637–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Mattson, J.; Thayer, M.; Mott, S.L.; Lyons, Y.A.; Hardy-Fairbanks, A.; Hill, E.K. Multimodal perioperative pain protocol for gynecologic laparotomy is associated with reduced hospital length of stay. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2021, 47, 1082–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Mujukian, A.; Truong, A.; Tran, H.; Shane, R.; Fleshner, P.; Zaghiyan, K. A standardized multimodal analgesia protocol reduces perioperative opioid use in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2020, 24, 2286–2294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kelley, S.R.; Wolff, B.G.; Lovely, J.K.; Larson, D.W. Fast-track pathway for minimally invasive colorectal surgery with and without alvimopan (Entereg)™: Which is more cost-effective? Am. Surg. 2013, 79, 630–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Adam, M.A.; Lee, L.M.; Kim, J.; Shenoi, M.; Mallipeddi, M.; Aziz, H.; Stinnett, S.; Sun, Z.; Mantyh, C.R.; Thacker, J.K. Alvimopan provides additional improvement in outcomes and cost savings in enhanced recovery colorectal surgery. Ann. Surg. 2016, 264, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hamel, J.F.; Sabbagh, C.; Alves, A.; Regimbeau, J.M.; Vignaud, T.; Venara, A. Comparison of treatment to improve gastrointestinal functions after colorectal surgery within enhanced recovery programmes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 7423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Touchette, D.R.; Yang, Y.; Tiryaki, F.; Galanter, W.L. Economic analysis of alvimopan for prevention and management of postoperative ileus. Pharmacotherapy 2012, 32, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Goodstein, T.; Launer, B.; White, S.; Lyon, M.; George, N.; DeRonde, K.; Burke, M.; O’Donnell, C.; Lyda, C.; Kiser, T.H.; et al. A Retrospective Study of Patients Undergoing Radical Cystectomy and Receiving Peri-Operative Naloxegol or Alvimopan: Comparison of Length of Stay. J. Surg. 2018, 6, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Nee, J.; Zakari, M.; Sugarman, M.A.; Whelan, J.; Hirsch, W.; Sultan, S.; Ballou, S.; Iturrino, J.; Lembo, A. Efficacy of Treatments for Opioid-Induced Constipation: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2018, 16, 1569–1584.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Shtoyko, A.N.; Cwikla, G.M.; Feldman, E.A.; Darkom, W.; Miller, C.D.; Seabury, R.W. Trust your gut: Effect of a pharmacist-driven pilot project to decrease alvimopan use past gastrointestinal recovery in postsurgical patients. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 2021, 78, zxab221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kaye, A.D.; Chernobylsky, D.J.; Thakur, P.; Siddaiah, H.; Kaye, R.J.; Eng, L.K.; Harbell, M.W.; Lajaunie, J.; Cornett, E.M. Dexmedetomidine in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols for postoperative pain. Curr. Pain Headache Rep. 2020, 24, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. MacLaren, R.; Krisl, J.C.; Cochrane, R.E.; Muellerm, S.W. A case-based approach to the practical application of dexmedetomidine in critically ill adults. Pharmacotherapy 2013, 33, 165–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Yu, H.Y.; Wang, S.Y.; Quan, C.X.; Fang, C.; Luo, S.C.; Li, D.Y.; Zhen, S.S.; Ma, J.H.; Duan, K.M. Dexmedetomidine alleviates postpartum depressive symptoms following Cesarean section in Chinese women: A randomized placebo-controlled study. Pharmacotherapy 2019, 39, 994–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Mena, G.E.; Zorrilla-Vaca, A.; Vaporciyan, A.; Mehran, R.; Lasala, J.D.; Williams, W.; Patel, C.; Woodward, T.; Kruse, B.; Joshi, G.; et al. Intraoperative dexmedetomidine and ketamine infusions in an Enhanced Recovery after Thoracic Surgery program: A propensity score matched analysis. J. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Anesth. 2022, 36, 1064–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Gu, X.; Gao, R.; Li, P.; Jiao, D.; Song, T.; Li, T.; Gu, L. Sugammadex enhances recovery after abdominal surgery in cancer patients: A real-world, observational study. Ann. Palliat. Med. 2021, 10, 12566–12574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Park, E.S.; Lim, B.G.; Lee, W.J.; Lee, I.O. Sugammadex facilitates early recovery after surgery even in the absence of neuromuscular monitoring in patients undergoing laryngeal microsurgery: A single-center retrospective study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2016, 16, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Fields, A.C.; Weiner, S.G.; Maldonado, L.J.; Cavallaro, P.M.; Melnitchouk, N.; Goldberg, J.; Stopfkuchen-Evans, M.F.; Baker, O.; Bordeianou, L.G.; Bleday, R. Implementation of liposomal bupivacaine transversus abdominis plane blocks into the colorectal Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol: A natural experiment. Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 2020, 35, 133–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Chu, C.E.; Law, L.; Zuniga, K.; Lin, T.K.; Tsourounis, C.; Rodriguez-Monguio, R.; Lazar, A.; Washington, S.L., 3rd; Cooperberg, M.R.; Greene, K.L.; et al. Liposomal bupivacaine decreases postoperative length of stay and opioid use in patients undergoing radical cystectomy. Urology 2021, 149, 168–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kalogera, E.; Bakkum-Gamez, J.N.; Weaver, A.L.; Moriarty, J.P.; Borah, B.J.; Langstraat, C.L.; Jankowski, C.J.; Lovely, J.K.; Cliby, W.A.; Dowdy, S.C. Abdominal incision injection of liposomal bupivacaine and opioid use after laparotomy for gynecologic malignancies. Obstet. Gynecol. 2016, 128, 1009–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hyland, S.J.; Deliberato, D.G.; Fada, R.A.; Romanelli, M.J.; Collins, C.L.; Wasielewski, R.C. Liposomal Bupivacaine Versus Standard Periarticular Injection in Total Knee Arthroplasty with Regional Anesthesia: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, 488–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Wick, E.C.; Grant, M.C.; Wu, C.L. Postoperative multimodal analgesia pain management with nonopioid analgesics and techniques: A review. JAMA Surg. 2017, 152, 691–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Campsen, J.; Call, T.; Allen, C.M.; Presson, A.P.; Martinez, E.; Rofaiel, G.; Kim, R.D. Prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial comparing an ERAS pathway with ketorolac and pregabalin versus standard of care plus placebo during live donor nephrectomy for kidney transplant. Am. J. Transplant. 2019, 19, 1777–1781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Silinsky, J.D.; Marcet, J.E.; Anupindi, V.R.; Karkare, S.U.; Shah, D.R.; Mack, R.J.; McCallum, S.W.; Du, W.; Freyer, A.; Black, L.K. Preoperative intravenous meloxicam for moderate-to-severe pain in the immediate post-operative period: A Phase IIIb randomized clinical trial in 55 patients undergoing primary open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery with bowel resection and/or anastomosis. Pain Manag. 2021, 11, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Cornett, E.M.; Turpin, M.A.C.; Busby, M.; Pham, A.D.; Kallurkar, A.; Brondeel, K.C.; Schoonover, J.; Arulkumar, S.; Kaye, A.D. HTX-011 (bupivacaine and meloxicam) for the prevention of postoperative pain: Clinical considerations. Pain Manag. 2021, 11, 347–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Cascorbi, I. The Uncertainties of Metamizole Use. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2021, 109, 1373–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Lutz, M. Metamizole (Dipyrone) and the Liver: A Review of the Literature. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2019, 59, 1433–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Konijnenbelt-Peters, J.; van der Heijden, C.; Ekhart, C.; Bos, J.; Bruhn, J.; Kramers, C. Metamizole (Dipyrone) as an Alternative Agent in Postoperative Analgesia in Patients with Contraindications for Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs. Pain Pract. 2017, 17, 402–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hearn, L.; Derry, S.; Moore, R.A. Single dose dipyrone (metamizole) for acute postoperative pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016, 4, CD011421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Koning, M.V.; Teunissen, A.J.W.; van der Harst, E.; Ruijgrok, E.J.; Stolker, R.J. Intrathecal morphine for laparoscopic segmental colonic resection as part of an enhanced recovery protocol: A randomized controlled trial. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2018, 43, 166–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Gajarawala, S.; Wells, A.; Watkins, E.; Rust, B.; Archambault, M. Intrathecal hydromorphone as an analgesia option for gynecology patients. JAAPA. 2020, 33, 33–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Wagemans, M.F.; Scholten, W.K.; Hollmann, M.W.; Kuipers, A.H. Epidural anesthesia is no longer the standard of care in abdominal surgery with ERAS. What are the alternatives? Minerva Anestesiol. 2020, 86, 1079–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Tang, J.; Churilov, L.; Tan, C.O.; Hu, R.; Pearce, B.; Cosic, L.; Christophi, C.; Weinberg, L. Intrathecal morphine is associated with reduction in postoperative opioid requirements and improvement in postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing open liver resection. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020, 20, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Merchea, A.; Lovely, J.K.; Jacob, A.K.; Colibaseanu, D.T.; Kelley, S.R.; Mathis, K.L.; Spears, G.M.; Huebner, M.; Larson, D.W. Efficacy and outcomes of intrathecal analgesia as part of an enhanced recovery pathway in colon and rectal surgical patients. Surg. Res. Pract. 2018, 2018, 8174579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Liu, A.Y.; Vanniyasingam, T.; Tidy, A.; Yao, W.; Shin, D.; Serrano, P.E.; Nair, S. Postoperative pain after intrathecal analgesia in laparoscopic liver resection: A retrospective chart review. Minerva Anestesiol. 2021, 87, 856–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Rollins, K.E.; Javanmard-Emamghissi, H.; Lobo, D.N. Impact of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: A meta-analysis. World J. Gastroenterol. 2018, 24, 519–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Koskenvuo, L.; Lehtonen, T.; Koskensalo, S.; Rasilainen, S.; Klintrup, K.; Ehrlich, A.; Pinta, T.; Scheinin, T.; Sallinen, V. Mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation versus no bowel preparation in right and left colectomy: Subgroup analysis of MOBILE trial. BJS Open 2021, 5, zrab011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Arnold, A.; Aitchison, L.P.; Abbott, J. Preoperative mechanical bowel preparation for abdominal, laparoscopic, and vaginal surgery: A systematic review. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2015, 22, 737–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Teo, L.M.; Lim, W.Y.; Ke, Y.; Sia, I.K.L.; Gui, C.H.; Abdullah, H.R. A prospective observational prevalence study of elevated HbA1c among elective surgical patients. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 19067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Teo, W.W.; Ti, L.K.; Lean, L.L.; Seet, E.; Paramasivan, A.; Liu, W.; Wang, J.; Chua, V.; Liew, L.Q. The neglected perioperative population of undiagnosed diabetics—A retrospective cohort study. BMC Surg. 2020, 20, 188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Shah, N.J.; Leis, A.; Kheterpal, S.; Englesbe, M.J.; Kumar, S.S. Association of intraoperative hyperglycemia and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: A multicenter retrospective study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020, 20, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Awad, S.; Varadhan, K.K.; Ljungqvist, O.; Lobo, D.N. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials on preoperative oral carbohydrate treatment in elective surgery. Clin. Nutr. 2013, 32, 34–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Rajan, S.; Rahman, A.A.; Kumar, L. Preoperative oral carbohydrate loading: Effects on intraoperative blood glucose levels, post-operative nausea and vomiting, and intensive care unit stay. J. Anaesthesiol. Clin. Pharmacol. 2021, 37, 622–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Pasternak, J.J.; McGregor, D.G.; Lanier, W.L. Effect of single-dose dexamethasone on blood glucose concentration in patients undergoing craniotomy. J. Neurosurg. Anesthesiol. 2004, 16, 122–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Abdelmalak, B.B.; Bonilla, A.M.; Yang, D.; Chowdary, H.T.; Gottlieb, A.; Lyden, S.P.; Sessler, D.I. The hyperglycemic response to major noncardiac surgery and the added effect of steroid administration in patients with and without diabetes. Anesth. Analg. 2013, 116, 1116–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Low, Y.; White, W.D.; Habib, A.S. Postoperative hyperglycemia after 4- vs. 8-10-mg dexamethasone for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in patients with type II diabetes mellitus: A retrospective database analysis. J. Clin. Anesth. 2015, 27, 589–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Duggan, E.; Chen, Y. Glycemic management in the operating room: Screening, monitoring, oral hypoglycemics, and insulin therapy. Curr. Diab. Rep. 2019, 19, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. He, Y.; Liu, C.; Han, Y.; Huang, Y.; Zhou, J.; Xie, Q. The impact of oral carbohydrate-rich supplement taken two hours before caesarean delivery on maternal and neonatal perioperative outcomes: A randomized clinical trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2021, 21, 682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Karimian, N.; Niculiseanu, P.; Amar-Zifkin, A.; Carli, F.; Feldman, L.S. Association of elevated pre-operative hemoglobin A1c and post-operative complications in non-diabetic patients: A systematic review. World J. Surg. 2018, 42, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Blankush, J.M.; Leitman, I.M.; Soleiman, A.; Tran, T. Association between elevated pre-operative glycosylated hemoglobin and post-operative infections after non-emergent surgery. Ann. Med. Surg. 2016, 10, 77–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Holtrop, J.S.; Scherer, L.D.; Matlock, D.D.; Glasgow, R.E.; Green, L.A. The importance of mental models in implementation science. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 680316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Herrmann, L.E.; Jarvis, L.; Bhansali, P.; Zaveri, P. Promoting interdisciplinary shared mental models. Clin. Teach. 2019, 16, 114–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Manges, K.A.; Wallace, A.S.; Groves, P.S.; Schapira, M.M.; Burke, R.E. Ready to Go Home? Assessment of shared mental models of the patient and discharging team regarding readiness for hospital discharge. J. Hosp. Med. 2021, 16, 326–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Edgar, L.; Jones, M.D., Jr.; Harsy, B.; Passiment, M.; Hauer, K.E. Better decision-making: Shared mental models and the clinical competency committee. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 2021, 13 (Suppl. S2), 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Antibiotic Prescribing and Use. Core Elements of Antibiotic Stewardship. 2022. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/core-elements/index.html (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  109. Gazelka, H.M.; Clements, C.M.; Cunningham, J.L.; Geyer, H.L.; Lovely, J.K.; Olson, C.L.; Philpot, L.M.; Porter, S.B.; Witt, T.J.; Zavaleta, K.W.; et al. An institutional approach to managing the opioid crisis. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2020, 95, 968–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Coon, S.A.; Hill, L.G.; Hutchison, R.W.; Arnold, L.M.; Jarrett, J.B.; Ottney, A.; Oung, A.B.; Painter, N.A.; Smith, M.; Stranges, P.M.; et al. Mobilizing pharmacists to address the opioid crisis: A joint opinion of the ambulatory care and adult medicine practice and research networks of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy. J. Am. Coll. Clin. Pharm. 2020, 3, 1493–1513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Hyland, S.J.; Kramer, B.J.; Fada, R.A.; Lucki, M.M. Clinical pharmacist service associated with improved outcomes and cost savings in total joint arthroplasty. J. Arthroplasty 2020, 35, 2307–2317.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Hyland, S.J.; Brockhaus, K.K.; Vincent, W.R., 3rd; Spence, N.Z.; Lucki, M.M.; Howkins, M.J.; Cleary, R.K. Perioperative pain management and opioid stewardship: A practical guide. Healthcare 2021, 9, 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Patel, K.; Stranges, P.M.; Bobko, A.; Yan, C.H.; Thambi, M. Changes in postoperative inpatient and outpatient opioid utilization after pharmacist-led order set standardization and education for total knee and hip replacement at an academic medical center. J. Am. Coll. Clin. Pharm. 2022, 5, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Dobesh, P.P.; Trujillo, T.C.; Finks, S.W. Role of the pharmacist in achieving performance measures to improve the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism. Pharmacotherapy 2013, 33, 650–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Padron, M.; Miyares, M.A. Development of an anticoagulation stewardship program at a large tertiary care academic institution. J. Pharm. Pract. 2015, 28, 93–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Reardon, D.P.; Atay, J.K.; Ashley, S.W.; Churchill, W.W.; Berliner, N.; Connors, J.M. Implementation of a hemostatic and antithrombotic stewardship program. J. Thromb. Thrombolysis 2015, 40, 379–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Wychowski, M.K.; Ruscio, C.I.; Kouides, P.A.; Sham, R.L. The scope and value of an anticoagulation stewardship program at a community teaching hospital. J. Thromb. Thrombolysis 2017, 43, 380–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Dreijer, A.R.; Diepstraten, J.; Leebeek, F.W.G.; Kruip, M.J.H.A.; van den Bemt, P.M.L.A. The effect of hospital-based antithrombotic stewardship on adherence to anticoagulant guidelines. Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 2019, 41, 691–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Dreijer, A.R.; Kruip, M.J.H.A.; Diepstraten, J.; Polinder, S.; Brouwer, R.; Mol, P.G.M.; Croles, F.N.; Kragten, E.; Leebeek, F.W.G.; van den Bemt, P.M.L.A. Effect of antithrombotic stewardship on the efficacy and safety of antithrombotic therapy during and after hospitalization. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0235048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Dane, K.E.; Naik, R.P.; Streiff, M.B.; Yui, J.; Shanbhag, S.; Nesbit, T.W.; Lindsley, J. Hemostatic and antithrombotic stewardship programs: A toolkit for program implementation. J. Am. Coll. Clin. Pharm. 2022, 5, 622–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Jin, L.; Kapadia, T.Y.; Von Gehr, A.; Rosas, E.; Bird, J.B.; Ramaswamy, D.; Patel, D. Feasibility of a preoperative anemia protocol in a large integrated health care system. Perm. J. 2019, 23, 17–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Lin, Y. Preoperative anemia-screening clinics. Hematol. Am. Soc. Hematol. Educ. Program. 2019, 2019, 570–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. O’Brien, S.H.; Badawy, S.M.; Rotz, S.J.; Shah, M.D.; Makarski, J.; Bercovitz, R.S.; Hogan, M.S.; Luchtman-Jones, L.; Panepinto, J.A.; Priola, G.M.; et al. The ASH-ASPHO Choosing Wisely Campaign: 5 hematologic tests and treatments to question. Pediatr. Blood Cancer. 2021, 68, e28967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Brownlee, T.; Dersch-Mills, D.; Cummings, G.; Fischer, T.; Shkrobot, R.; Slobodan, J.; Wichart, J. Patient factors associated with prescribing of iron for IV administration: A descriptive study. Can. J. Hosp. Pharm. 2021, 74, 50–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Trentino, K.M.; Mace, H.S.; Symons, K.; Sanfilippo, F.M.; Leahy, M.F.; Farmer, S.L.; Hofmann, A.; Watts, R.D.; Wallace, M.H.; Murray, K. Screening and treating pre-operative anaemia and suboptimal iron stores in elective colorectal surgery: A cost effectiveness analysis. Anaesthesia 2021, 76, 357–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Hakeshaft, A.J.; Scanlon, K.; Eslick, G.D.; Azmir, A.; Cox, M.R. Post-operative glycaemic control using an insulin infusion is associated with reduced surgical site infections in colorectal surgery. World J. Surg. 2020, 44, 3491–3500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Preiser, J.C.; Provenzano, B.; Mongkolpun, W.; Halenarova, K.; Cnop, M. Perioperative Management of Oral Glucose-lowering Drugs in the Patient with Type 2 Diabetes. Anesthesiology 2020, 133, 430–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Jin, Z.; Hu, J.; Ma, D. Postoperative delirium: Perioperative assessment, risk reduction, and management. Br. J. Anaesth. 2020, 125, 492–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Awad, H.; Ahmed, A.; Urman, R.D.; Stoicea, N.; Bergese, S.D. Potential role of pharmacogenomics testing in the setting of enhanced recovery pathways after surgery. Pharmgenomics Pers. Med. 2019, 12, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Caudle, K.E.; Gammal, R.S.; Karnes, J.H.; Afanasjeva, J.; Anderson, K.C.; Barreto, E.F.; Beavers, C.; Bhat, S.; Birrer, K.L.; Chahine, E.B.; et al. PRN OPINION PAPER: Application of precision medicine across pharmacy specialty areas. J. Am. Coll. Clin. Pharm. 2019, 2, 288–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Hwang, I.C.; Park, J.Y.; Myung, S.K.; Ahn, H.Y.; Fukuda, K.; Liao, Q. OPRM1 A118G gene variant and postoperative opioid requirement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Anesthesiology 2014, 121, 825–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Chen, Q.; Chen, E.; Qian, X. A narrative review on perioperative pain management strategies in Enhanced Recovery Pathways: The past, present and future. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 2568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Segon, Y.S.; Summey, R.D.; Slawski, B.; Kaatz, S. Surgical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: Clinical practice update. Hosp. Pract. 2020, 48, 248–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Horlocker, T.T.; Vandermeuelen, E.; Kopp, S.L.; Gogarten, W.; Leffert, L.R.; Benzon, H.T. Regional Anesthesia in the Patient Receiving Antithrombotic or Thrombolytic Therapy: American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Evidence-Based Guidelines (Fourth Edition). Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2018, 43, 263–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Bratzler, D.W.; Dellinger, E.P.; Olsen, K.M.; Perl, T.M.; Auwaerter, P.G.; Bolon, M.K.; Fish, D.N.; Napolitano, L.M.; Sawyer, R.G.; Slain, D.; et al. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP); Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA); Surgical Infection Society (SIS); Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Surg Infect. 2013, 14, 73–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Pop-Vicas, A.E.; Abad, C.; Baubie, K.; Osman, F.; Heise, C.; Safdar, N. Colorectal bundles for surgical site infection prevention: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2020, 41, 805–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Gan, T.J.; Belani, K.G.; Bergese, S.; Chung, F.; Diemunsch, P.; Habib, A.S.; Jin, Z.; Kovac, A.L.; Meyer, T.A.; Urman, R.D.; et al. Fourth Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting. Anesth Analg. 2020, 131, 411–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Rao, V.L.; Micic, D.; Davis, A.M. Medical Management of Opioid-Induced Constipation. JAMA 2019, 322, 2241–2242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on Postoperative Delirium in Older Adults. American Geriatrics Society abstracted clinical practice guideline for postoperative delirium in older adults. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2015, 63, 142–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Baltatzis, M.; Low, R.; Stathakis, P.; Sheen, A.; Siriwardena, A.K.; Jamdar, S. Efficacy and safety of pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis following liver resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB 2017, 19, 289–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Donovan, A.L.; Aldrich, J.M.; Gross, A.K.; Barchas, D.M.; Thornton, K.C.; Schell-Chaple, H.M.; Gropper, M.A.; Lipshutz, A.K.M.; University of California, San Francisco Critical Care Innovations Group. Interprofessional care and teamwork in the ICU. Crit. Care Med. 2018, 46, 980–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Sillero Sillero, A.; Buil, N. Enhancing interprofessional collaboration in perioperative setting from the qualitative perspectives of physicians and nurses. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Davis, M.J.; Luu, B.C.; Raj, S.; Abu-Ghname, A.; Buchanan, E.P. Multidisciplinary care in surgery: Are team-based interventions cost-effective? Surgeon 2021, 19, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Morgenthaler, T.I.; Lovely, J.K.; Cima, R.R.; Berardinelli, C.F.; Fedraw, L.A.; Wallerich, T.J.; Hinrichs, D.J.; Varkey, P. Using a framework for spread of best practices to implement successful venous thromboembolism prophylaxis throughout a large hospital system. Am. J. Med. Qual. 2012, 27, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. McKenna, N.P.; Shariq, O.A.; Bews, K.A.; Mathis, K.L.; Lightner, A.L. Venous thromboembolism in inflammatory bowel disease: Is it the disease, the operation, or both? Dis. Colon Rectum. 2018, 61, e138. [Google Scholar]
  146. Danelich, I.M.; Lose, J.M.; Wright, S.S.; Asirvatham, S.J.; Ballinger, B.A.; Larson, D.W.; Lovely, J.K. Practical management of postoperative atrial fibrillation after noncardiac surgery. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2014, 219, 831–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Wang, R.; Dong, X.; Zhang, X.; Gan, S.; Kong, L.; Lu, X.; Rao, Y. Pharmacist-driven multidisciplinary initiative continuously improves postoperative nausea and vomiting in female patients undergoing abdominal surgery. J. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 2020, 45, 959–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Nagase, S.; Imaura, M.; Nishimura, M.; Takeda, K.; Takahashi, M.; Taniguchi, H.; Sato, T.; Kanno, H. Usefulness of criteria for intraoperative management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. J. Pharm. Health Care Sci. 2022, 8, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. United Kingdom Clinical Pharmacy Association. Handbook of Perioperative Medicines. Medicines Monographs. Available online: https://www.ukcpa-periophandbook.co.uk/ (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  150. Cohn, S.L. (Ed.) Decision Making in Perioperative Medicine—Clinical Pearls; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  151. Ljungqvist, O.; Francis, N.K.; Urman, R.D. (Eds.) Enhanced Recovery after Surgery: A Complete Guide to Optimizing Outcomes; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Bickham, P.; Golembiewski, J.; Meyer, T.; Murray, C.G.; Wagner, D. ASHP guidelines on perioperative pharmacy services. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 2019, 76, 903–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Bui, T.; Fitzpatrick, B.; Forrester, T.; Gu, G.; Hill, C.; Mulqueen, C.; Penno, J.; Yu, A.; Munro, C.; Mellor, Y. Standard of practice in surgery and perioperative medicine for pharmacy services. J. Pharm. Pract. Res. 2022, 52, 139–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Acquisto, N.M.; Beavers, C.J.; Bolesta, S.; Buckley, M.S.; Dobbins, K.F.; Finch, C.K.; Hayes, S.M.; Holdren, D.B.; Johnson, S.T.; Kane-Gill, S.L.; et al. Development and application of quality measures of clinical pharmacist services provided in inpatient/acute care settings. J. Am. Coll. Clin. Pharm. 2021, 4, 1601–1617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Pharmacy: Collaborative Practice Agreements to Enable Collaborative Druth Therapy Management. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/pubs/docs/Best_Practice_Guide_CDTM_508.pdf (accessed on 23 August 2022).
  156. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. ASHP Connect, Uploading Your State Collaborative Practice Agreements. Available online: https://connect.ashp.org/blogs/kong-wong/2018/03/14/uploading-your-state-collaborative-practice-agreem?ssopc=1 (accessed on 23 August 2022).
  157. Hyland, S.J.; Kusumi, R.K.; Lopez, L.F.; Kramer, B.J.; Fada, R.A.; Mohan, V.S.; Rodgers, J.K.L.; Lucki, M.M. Antimicrobial Stewardship in Total Joint Arthroplasty: Outcomes of a Collaborative Program Implementation. J. Amer. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2022, 10, 5435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Donihi, A.C.; Moorman, J.M.; Abla, A.; Hanania, R.; Carneal, D.; MacMaster, H.W. Pharmacists’ role in glycemic management in the inpatient setting: An opinion of the endocrine and metabolism practice and research network of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy. J. Am. Coll. Clin. Pharm. 2019, 2, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Vetter, T.R. Managing a perioperative medicine program. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Anaesthesiol. 2022, 35, 283–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Lovely, J.K.; Larson, D.W.; Quast, J.M. A clinical practice agreement between pharmacists and surgeons streamlines medication management. Jt. Comm. J. Qual. Patient Saf. 2014, 40, 296–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Larson, D.W.; Lovely, J.K.; Welsh, J.; Annaberdyev, S.; Corning Coffey, C.; Murray, B.; Rose, D.; Prabhakar, L.; Torgenson, M.; Dankbar, E.; et al. A collaborative for implementation of an evidence-based clinical pathway for enhanced recovery in colon and rectal surgery in an affiliated network of healthcare organizations. Jt. Comm. J. Qual. Patient Saf. 2018, 44, 204–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. Ravichandran, B.R.; Gillespie, M.W.; Sparkes, T.M.; Williams, C.; Bartlett, S.T.; Haririan, A.; Masters, B.M. Collaborative practice agreement in solid organ transplantation. Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 2018, 40, 474–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Rodriguez, K.E.; Chelewski, R.J.; Peter, M.E.; Zuckerman, A.D.; Choi, L.; DeClercq, J.; Langone, A. Integrating pharmacists into a kidney transplant clinic: Developing and implementing a collaborative pharmacy practice agreement. J. Am. Pharm. Assoc. 2022, 62, 349–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Jorgenson, M.R.; Descourouez, J.L.; Brady, B.L.; Chandran, M.M.; Do, V.; Kim, M.; Laub, M.R.; Lichvar, A.; Park, J.M.; Szczepanik, A.; et al. A call for transplant stewardship: The need for expanded evidence-based evaluation of induction and biologic-based cost-saving strategies in kidney transplantation and beyond. Clin. Transplant. 2021, 35, e14372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Smith, A.N.; Henriksen, B.; Cohen, A. Pharmacokinetic considerations in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass patients. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 2011, 68, 2241–2247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Smith, A.N. Opioid prescribing patterns at discharge for surgical patients. Int. Anesthesiol. Clin. 2020, 58, 50–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Cohen, A.R.; Smith, A.N.; Henriksen, B.S. Postoperative opioid requirements following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in patients receiving continuous bupivacaine through a pump system: A retrospective review. Hosp. Pharm. 2013, 48, 479–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Howard, M.L.; Steuber, T.D.; Nisly, S.A. Glycemic Management in the Bariatric Surgery Population: A Review of the Literature. Pharmacotherapy 2018, 38, 663–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Dager, W.E. Achieving optimal antiarrhythmic therapy in advanced cardiac life support. Crit. Care Med. 2006, 34, 1825–1826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Dager, W.E. Developing a management plan for oral anticoagulant reversal. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 2013, 70, S21–S31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  171. Kulig, C.E.; Roberts, A.J.; Rowe, A.S.; Kim, H.; Dager, W.E. INR Response to Low-Dose Vitamin K in Warfarin Patients. Ann. Pharmacother. 2021, 55, 1223–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. Dager, W.E. Considerations for drug dosing post coronary artery bypass graft surgery [ed]. Ann. Pharmacother. 2008, 42, 421–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Dager, W.E. Warfarin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after elective hip or knee arthroplasty: Exploring the evidence, guidelines, and challenges remaining. Ann. Pharmacother. 2012, 46, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Nishijima, D.K.; Dager, W.E.; Schrot, R.J.; Holmes, J.F. The Efficacy of Factor VIIa in Emergency Department Patients with Warfarin Use and Traumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage. Acad. Emerg. Med. 2010, 17, 244–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Heintz, B.H.; Matzke, G.R.; Dager, W.E. Antimicrobial dosing concepts and recommendations for critically ill adult patients receiving continuous renal replacement therapy or intermittent hemodialysis. Pharmacotherapy 2009, 29, 562–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Hoff, B.M.; Maker, J.H.; Dager, W.E.; Heintz, B.H. Antibiotic Dosing for Critically Ill Adult Patients Receiving Intermittent Hemodialysis, Prolonged Intermittent Renal Replacement Therapy, and Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy: An Update. Ann. Pharmacother. 2020, 54, 43–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Dager, W.E.; Gulseth, M.P. Implementing anticoagulation management by pharmacists in the inpatient setting. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 2007, 64, 1071–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Nutescu, E.A.; Spinler, S.A.; Wittkowsky, A.; Dager, W.E. Low-molecular-weight heparins in renal impairment and obesity: Available evidence and clinical practice recommendations across medical and surgical settings. Ann. Pharmacother. 2009, 43, 1064–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Dager, W.E.; Sanoski, C.A.; Wiggins, B.S.; Tisdale, J.E. Pharmacotherapy Considerations in Advanced Cardiac Life Support. Pharmacotherapy 2006, 26, 1703–1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Dager, W.E.; White, R.H. Treatment of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Ann. Pharmacother. 2002, 36, 489–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Dager, W.E.; White, R.H. Pharmacotherapy of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 2003, 4, 919–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  182. Dager, W.E.; Gosselin, R.C.; Owings, J. T: Argatroban therapy for antithrombin deficiency and mesenteric thrombosis: A case report and review of the literature. Pharmacotherapy 2004, 24, 659–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Dager, W.E.; Regalia, R.; Williamson, D.; Gosselin, R.C.; Tharrett, R.S.; White, R.H.; Albertson, T.E. Reversal of elevated International Normalized Ratios and Bleeding with low-dose Recombinant Activated Factor VIIa in patients receiving warfarin. Pharmacotherapy 2006, 26, 1091–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Dager, W.E. Aminoglycosides in Extended Duration Daily (EDD) Hemodialysis: Pharmacokinetic Observations. Ann. Pharmacother. 2006, 40, 783–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Steele, A.P.; Lee, J.A.; Dager, W.E. Incomplete dabigatran reversal with idarucizumab. Clin. Toxicol. 2018, 56, 216–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Nagle, E.L.; Tsu, L.V.; Dager, W.E. Bivalirudin for anticoagulation during hypothermic cardiopulmonary bypass and recombinant factor VIIa for iatrogenic coagulopathy. Ann. Pharmacother. 2011, 45, e47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Nagle, E.L.; Dager, W.E.; Duby, J.J.; Roberts, A.J.; Kenny, L.E.; Murthy, M.S.; Pretzlaff, R.K. Bivalirudin in pediatric patients maintained on extracorporeal life support. Pediatr. Crit. Care Med. 2013, 14, e182–e188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Walker, E.A.; Roberts, A.J.; Louie, E.L.; Dager, W.E. Bivalirudin Dosing Requirements in Adult Patients on Extracorporeal Life Support with or without Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy. ASAIO J. 2019, 65, 134–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Kulig, C.E.; Schomer, K.J.; Black, H.B.; Dager, W.E. Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time Versus Anti-Factor Xa Monitoring of Heparin Anticoagulation in Adult Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Patients. ASAIO J. 2021, 67, 411–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Pon, T.K.; Dager, W.E.; Roberts, A.J.; White, R.H. Subcutaneous enoxaparin for therapeutic anticoagulation in hemodialysis patients. Thromb. Res. 2014, 133, 1023–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Walker, E.A.; Dager, W.E. Bridging with Tirofiban during Oral Antiplatelet Interruption: A Single-Center Case Series Analysis Including Patients on Hemodialysis. Pharmacotherapy 2017, 37, 888–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  192. Dager, W.E. Filtering out important considerations with developing drug dosing regimens in extended duration dialysis (EDD). Crit. Care Med. 2006, 34, 240–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  193. Dager, W.E. What are the important drug use errors in dialysis patients? Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic principles. Semin. Dial. 2010, 23, 466–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. Dager, W.E.; King, J.H. Aminoglycosides in intermittent hemodialysis: Pharmacokinetics with individual dosing. Ann. Pharmacother. 2006, 40, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Dager, W.E.; Roberts, A.J.; Nishijima, D.K. Effect of low and moderate dose FEIBA to reverse major bleeding in patients on direct oral anticoagulants. Thromb. Res. 2019, 173, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Dager, W.E. Using prothrombin complex concentrates to rapidly reverse oral anticoagulant effects. Ann. Pharmacother. 2011, 45, 1016–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Dager, W.E.; Gosselin, R.C.; Roberts, A.J. Reversing dabigatran in life-threatening bleeding occurring during cardiac ablation with factor eight inhibitor bypassing activity. Crit. Care Med. 2013, 41, e42–e46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Van Cott, E.M.; Roberts, A.J.; Dager, W.E. Laboratory Monitoring of Parenteral Direct Thrombin Inhibitors. Semin. Thromb. Hemost. 2017, 43, 270–276. [Google Scholar]
  199. Douketis, J.D.; Spyropoulos, A.C.; Murad, M.H.; Arcelus, J.I.; Dager, W.E.; Dunn, A.S.; Fargo, R.A.; Levy, J.H.; Samama, C.M.; Shah, S.H.; et al. Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy: An American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline. Chest 2022, S0012-3692, 01359-9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Dager, W.E.; Inciardi, J.F.; Howe, T.L. Estimating phenytoin concentrations by the Sheiner-Tozer method in adults with pronounced hypoalbuminemia. Ann. Pharmacother. 1995, 29, 667–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Dager, W.E. Phenytoin assay errors in uremia. Ann. Pharmacother. 2002, 36, 939–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  202. Marcath, L.A.; Finley, C.M.; Wong, S.F.; Hertz, D.L. Drug-drug interactions in subjects enrolled in SWOG trials of oral chemotherapy. BMC Cancer. 2021, 21, 324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. Marcath, L.A.; Coe, T.D.; Shakeel, F.; Reynolds, E.; Bayuk, M.; Haas, S.; Redman, B.G.; Wong, S.F.; Hertz, D.L. Improvement Initiative to Develop and Implement a Tool for Detecting Drug-Drug Interactions During Oncology Clinical Trial Enrollment Eligibility Screening. J. Patient Saf. 2021, 17, e28–e34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  204. Wong, S.F.; Jakowatz, J.G.; Taheri, R. Management of hypertriglyceridemia in patients receiving interferon for malignant melanoma. Ann. Pharmacother. 2004, 38, 1655–1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Wong, S.F.; Bounthavong, M.; Nguyen, C.P.; Chen, T. Outcome Assessments and Cost Avoidance of an Oral Chemotherapy Management Clinic. J. Natl. Compr. Canc. Netw. 2016, 14, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Wong, S.F.; Bounthavong, M.; Nguyen, C.; Bechtoldt, K.; Hernandez, E. Implementation and preliminary outcomes of a comprehensive oral chemotherapy management clinic. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 2014, 71, 960–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. McIntyre, C.M.; Monk, H.M. Medication absorption considerations in patients with postpyloric enteral feeding tubes. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 2014, 71, 549–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Wade, K.C.; Monk, H.M. New antifungal and antiviral dosing. Clin. Perinatol. 2015, 42, 177–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Gannon, A.W.; Monk, H.M.; Levine, M.A. Cinacalcet monotherapy in neonatal severe hyperparathyroidism: A case study and review. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2014, 99, 7–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Lawrence, K.M.; Hedrick, H.L.; Monk, H.M.; Herkert, L.; Waqar, L.N.; Hanna, B.D.; Peranteau, W.H.; Rintoul, N.E.; Hopper, R.K. Treprostinil Improves Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension Associated with Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia. J. Pediatr. 2018, 200, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Rustico, S.E.; Kelly, A.; Monk, H.M.; Calabria, A.C. Calcitriol treatment in metabolic bone disease of prematurity with elevated parathyroid hormone: A preliminary study. J. Clin. Transl. Endocrinol. 2014, 2, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  212. Jensen, E.A.; White, A.M.; Liu, P.; Yee, K.; Waber, B.; Monk, H.M.; Zhang, H. Determinants of Severe Metabolic Bone Disease in Very Low-Birth-Weight Infants with Severe Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia Admitted to a Tertiary Referral Center. Am. J. Perinatol. 2016, 33, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  213. Abend, N.S.; Monk, H.M.; Licht, D.J.; Dlugos, D.J. Intravenous levetiracetam in critically ill children with status epilepticus or acute repetitive seizures. Pediatr. Crit. Care Med. 2009, 10, 505–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. George, S.; Weber, D.R.; Kaplan, P.; Hummel, K.; Monk, H.M.; Levine, M.A. Short-Term Safety of Zoledronic Acid in Young Patients With Bone Disorders: An Extensive Institutional Experience. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2015, 100, 4163–4171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Bamat, N.A.; Kirpalani, H.; Feudtner, C.; Jensen, E.A.; Laughon, M.M.; Zhang, H.; Monk, H.M.; Passarella, M.; Lorch, S.A. Medication use in infants with severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia admitted to United States children’s hospitals. J. Perinatol. 2019, 39, 1291–1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Monk, H.M.; Motsney, A.J.; Wade, K.C. Safety of rotavirus vaccine in the NICU. Pediatrics. 2014, 133, e1555–e1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  217. Sparkes, T.; Lemonovich, T.; AST Infectious Diseases Community of Practice. Interactions between anti-infective agents and immunosuppressants-Guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice. Clin. Transplant. 2019, 33, e13510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Campara, M.; Lourenco, L.M.; Melaragno, J.I.; Kaiser, T.E. Implications for body weight extremes in solid organ transplantation. Pharmacotherapy 2021, 41, 44–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Yakubu, I.; Ravichandran, B.; Sparkes, T.; Barth, R.N.; Haririan, A.; Masters, B. Comparison of Alemtuzumab Versus Basiliximab Induction Therapy in Elderly Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Single-Center Experience. J. Pharm. Pract. 2021, 34, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Hollis, I.B.; Reed, B.N.; Moranville, M.P. Medication management of cardiac allograft vasculopathy after heart transplantation. Pharmacotherapy 2015, 35, 489–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Doligalski, C.T.; Anger, L.B.; Dick, T.; Feist, A.; Harris, M.; Masters, B.; Pilch, N.; Quan, D.; Sparkes, T.; Suarez, T.; et al. Considerations and approaches to expansion of solid organ transplant pharmacist services. J. Am. Coll. Clin. Pharm. 2021, 4, 1445–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Ravichandran, B.R.; Sparkes, T.M.; Masters, B.M.; Thomas, B.; Demehin, M.; Bromberg, J.S.; Haririan, A. Survival benefit of renal transplantation in octogenarians. Clin. Transplant. 2020, 34, e14074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Questions about Collaborative Care Practices Used for Perioperative Advanced Practice or Clinical Pharmacist Interviews (see Supplementary Materials File S1).
Table 1. Questions about Collaborative Care Practices Used for Perioperative Advanced Practice or Clinical Pharmacist Interviews (see Supplementary Materials File S1).
  • How did perioperative collaborative care practices begin at your institution? Where did it start?
  • How did it diffuse to other areas or service lines?
  • At what point was clinical pharmacy incorporated into the collaborative care model?
  • What’s your collaborative care practice story?
  • How have drug stewardship programs evolved at your institution? What medication classes are included?
  • In what physical areas, surgical service lines, or clinical functions does clinical pharmacy have responsibility and accountability for medication management for perioperative patients?
    PAC, OR, PACU, ward, etc.; ortho, general, thoracic, bariatric, etc.; type of non-medical prescribing—institutional protocol-based, individual CPAs, independent, supplemental, etc.
  • What methods were effective in sustaining collaborative care?
  • Pertaining to enhanced recovery, what metrics or measurements are used to assess practice effectiveness?
  • Are there any specific metrics related to pharmacotherapy or medication management?
Table 2. Preoperative Antibiotic SSI Prophylaxis Order Set for ERAS® Elective Small Bowel and Colorectal Procedures. (Note: “look-alike, sound-alike” medication names with TALLMAN letters to reduce medication error [14]).
Table 2. Preoperative Antibiotic SSI Prophylaxis Order Set for ERAS® Elective Small Bowel and Colorectal Procedures. (Note: “look-alike, sound-alike” medication names with TALLMAN letters to reduce medication error [14]).
ERAS Colorectal Surgery, Adult—Inpatient Pre-Op Order Set
Antibiotic Prophylaxis
Antibiotics should be given within 60 min prior to incision.
For Elective Small Intestine, Non-obstructed procedures:
Choose ONE option:
Option 1   □ ceFAZolin 2 g IV once pre-operatively
If patient has ceFAZolin allergy or severe non-IgE mediated reaction to any β-lactam:
Option 2   □ gentamicin (1.5 mg/kg) _________ mg IV once pre-operatively
AND     □ clindamycin 600 mg IV once pre-operatively
For Elective Colorectal and Anal procedures:
Choose ONE option:
Option 1   □ ceFAZolin 2 g IV once pre-operatively
AND     □ metroNIDAZOLE 500 mg IV once pre-operatively
If patient has ceFAZolin allergy or severe non-IgE mediated reaction to any β-lactam:
Option 2   □ gentamicin (1.5 mg/kg) _________ mg IV once pre-operatively
AND     □ clindamycin 600 mg IV once pre-operatively
If patient has ceFAZolin allergy or severe non-IgE mediated reaction to any β-lactam:
Option 3   □ gentamicin (1.5 mg/kg) _________ mg IV once pre-operatively
AND     □ metroNIDAZOLE 500 mg IV once pre-operatively
Table 3. Examples of Risk Assessment Tools Available for CPOE Systems as Clinical Decision Support (CDS).
Table 3. Examples of Risk Assessment Tools Available for CPOE Systems as Clinical Decision Support (CDS).
Operative ComplicationRisk Assessment ToolWebsite
General surgical risk of complicationAmerican College of Surgeons NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculatorhttps://riskcalculator.facs.org/RiskCalculator/ (accessed on 30 May 2022)
General preoperative patient healthAmerican Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification Systemhttps://www.mdcalc.com/asa-physical-status-asa-classification#evidence (accessed on 30 May 2022)
Ethanol withdrawalClinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol scale—revised (CIWA-Ar)https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/multimedia/clinical-calculator/ciwa-ar-clinical-institute-withdrawal-assessment-for-alcohol-scale (accessed on 30 May 2022)
Venous thromboembolism (VTE)Caprini Score for Venous Thromboembolism (2005)https://www.mdcalc.com/caprini-score-venous-thromboembolism-2005 (accessed on 30 May 2022)
Surgical site infection (SSI)SSI Risk Indexhttp://www.ohri.ca/SSI_risk_index/Default.aspx (accessed on 30 May 2022)
Nausea and vomiting (PONV)Apfel Score for Postoperative Nausea and Vomitinghttps://www.mdcalc.com/apfel-score-postoperative-nausea-vomiting (accessed on 30 May 2022)
Acute kidney injury (AKI)RIFLE Criteria for Acute Kidney Injuryhttps://www.mdcalc.com/rifle-criteria-acute-kidney-injury-aki (accessed on 30 May 2022)
Postoperative ileus (POI)Charlson Comorbidity Indexhttps://www.mdcalc.com/charlson-comorbidity-index-cci (accessed on 30 May 2022)
Postoperative hyperglycemiaAmerican Diabetes Association risk calculatorhttps://www.mdcalc.com/american-diabetes-association-ada-risk-calculator (accessed on 30 May 2022)
Postoperative delirium (PoD)4 A’s Test for Delirium Screeninghttps://www.mdcalc.com/4-test-4at-delirium-assessment (accessed on 30 May 2022)
Table 4. AGS Beers and KIDs Listed Medications and Classes with Greater Risk to Benefit.
Table 4. AGS Beers and KIDs Listed Medications and Classes with Greater Risk to Benefit.
AGS Beers ListPPA KIDs List
Medications with high anticholinergic burden: first generation histamine-1 antagonists, antispasmodics, tricyclic antidepressants, and most antipsychotics in patients with Parkinson disease complicated by psychosis, although quetiapine, clozapine, and pimavanserin may be used with cautionCodeine and tramadol in children unless pharmacogenetic testing is used
Rivaroxaban and dabigatran in older adults because of a higher bleeding risk than warfarin and other direct oral anticoagulantsMeperidine in neonates and caution in children due to risk for respiratory depression due to active metabolite
Tramadol due to risk of hyponatremia from syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretionMidazolam in very low birth weight neonates
Opioids with benzodiazepines or gabapentinoids (gabapentin, pregabalin) because the combinations increase the risk of severe respiratory depressionCeftriaxone with caution in neonates due to formation of kernicterus
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (indomethacin, celecoxib, ketorolac, naproxen, etc.)Mineral oil in neonates and infants due to lipid pneumonia
Non-benzodiazepine hypnotics (zolpidem, zopiclone, eszopiclone) due to hangover effects and falls riskOpium tincture and paregoric in neonates and children due to respiratory depression, gasping syndrome, seizures, CNS depression, and hypoglycemia
Certain cardiovascular medications: amiodarone, spironolactone, calcium channel blockersSodium phosphate solution, rectal (enema) in infants due to electrolyte abnormalities, acute kidney injury, arrhythmia, and death
Meperidine due to risk for delirium and neurotoxicityPropofol in doses greater than 4 mg/kg/h for more than 48 h due to propofol-related infusion syndrome; higher rate in children than adults because higher relative doses of propofol are needed, especially in status epilepticus
Estrogens and testosterone due to cardiovascular or carcinogenic issuesDopamine antagonists used as anti-emetics due to acute dystonia (dyskinesia); increased risk of respiratory depression, extravasation, and death with INTRAVENOUS use: prochlorperazine, haloperidol, metoclopramide, promethazine, and trimethobenzamide
Table 5. Summary of Pharmacotherapy Recommendations for Preventing Common POCs.
Table 5. Summary of Pharmacotherapy Recommendations for Preventing Common POCs.
Postoperative ComplicationRecommendations (Note: Alternatives Are Needed in an Era of Drug Shortages)
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) [133,134]
  • Any appropriately dosed and timed LMWH (>12 h after neuraxial anesthesia)
    LMWHs—better outcomes than w/unfractionated heparin
    BID LMWH associated w/incr. risk of spinal hematoma
  • Avoid rivaroxaban and dabigatran in the elderly due to increased bleed risk compared to warfarin
  • Continue for 28 d in cancer patients/risk stratify TJA patients for appropriate agent selection (LMWH, DOAC, ASA) and duration
Surgical site infection (SSI) (one pre-op dose; discontinue within 24 h) [135,136]
  • Intravenous antibiotics are part of a bundled approach to SSI prevention that includes normothermia maintenance, perioperative glucose control, appropriate hair removal, oral antibiotic bowel preparation (laparoscopic procedures), preoperative bathing w/ chlorhexidine, standardized postoperative dressing removal/wound care, and wound closure protocol including glove w/or w/o gown change/separate instrument tray. Oral antibiotic gut sterilization has little value outside of laparoscopic bowel and rectal procedures.
  • Clean (high-risk)/clean-contaminated procedure (SSI risk—1–8%)
    Adults—cefazolin 2 g IV to start ≤120 min prior to incision (alternative—cefuroxime 1.5 g IV)—broadened time window especially helpful when using vancomycin (15 mg/kg) if MRSA colonized
    Children—cefazolin (or cefuroxime) 50 mg/kg IV
  • Contaminated procedure (SSI risk—20–25%)
    Adults—cefazolin w/metronidazole 500 mg IVPB (except w/recent EtOH consumption due to “disulfiram” reaction—increased PONV)
    Children—cefazolin w/metronidazole 7.5 mg/kg IV
    Alternatives—cefoxitin OR cefotetan 2 g IV OR ertapenem 1 g IV (all cover anaerobes)
  • All cephalosporins and ertapenem can be given IV push diluted with 20 mL over 3–5 min; metronidazole 5 mg/mL IVPB over 20–60 min
  • Allergy to cephalosporins
    Adults—gentamicin 1.5 mg/kg IVPB w/metronidazole IVPB 500 mg OR clindamycin 600–900 mg IVPB—infusion needs to begin at least 60 min pre-operatively
    Children—gentamicin w/metronidazole as above OR clindamycin 10 mg/kg IVPB
Nausea and vomiting (PONV) [137]
  • Preoperative complex carbohydrate loading
  • PONV prophylaxis—multimodal approach
    Preoperative
    aprepitant 1–3 h prior for ≥2 risk factors
    Muscarinic antagonists (scopolamine patch)
    Order to leave on skin behind ear for 72 h
    Intraoperative
    dexamethasone 8–10 mg IV (half-life 36–54 h)
    Postoperative (around the clock for 48 h postop)
    5HT3I (ondansetron, granisetron, polonosetron)
    Dopamine (D2) antagonists (metoclopramide, droperidol, prochlorperazine); metoclopramide (prokinetic) may aid gut peristalsis
    Histamine-1 antagonists (diphenhydramine, dimenhydrinate, trimethobenzamide)
Ileus (POI) [138]
  • bisacodyl 5–10 mg orally twice daily beginning POD-1
  • magnesium hydroxide (MOM) 30 mL—separate administration time from bisacodyl due to bisacodyl’s enteric coating
  • PAMORAs for opioid-containing regimens—no CNS penetration
    May improve postop GI recovery/reduce LOS
    alvimopan 12 mg oral if taking opioids
    ≤15 doses only due to increased risk of MI; stop upon passing flatus
    Safer PAMORAs w/evidence of effectiveness in preventing POI for opioid-induced constipation in chronic pain
    naloxegol 12.5–25 mg oral
    naldemedine 0.2 mg oral
Delirium (PoD) [139]
  • Avoid prolonged (>6 h) fluid fasting w/goal-directed fluid therapy
  • Offer water and/or clear liquids until 1–2 h preoperatively Comprehensive geriatric assessment, including pharmacotherapy
  • Use of multimodal opioid-sparing analgesia—acetaminophen and COX-2 NSAIDs (i.e., celecoxib, meloxicam); account for current opioid exposure, i.e., chronic pain
  • Consider use of intraoperative IV dexmedetomidine and ketamine
  • Avoid intraoperative benzodiazepines and gabapentinoids
Table 6. Pharmacotherapy “practice pearls” for each specialty area.
Table 6. Pharmacotherapy “practice pearls” for each specialty area.
Surgical Specialty AreaPractice Pearls
General perioperative
  • Begin collaborative care for medication management with one surgical team or service
    Branch out to pre-admission, PACU, ward, and discharge phases
  • Focus on programmatic antimicrobial, anticoagulant, and opioid stewardship
  • Participate in order/care set/protocol development
  • Develop multidisciplinary pathways to mitigate AKI, delirium, and atrial fibrillation
  • Measure outcomes in terms of POC, LOS, and readmission reductions
  • Estimate cost reduction impacts and/or revenue optimization
  • Develop drug shortage mitigation plans for perioperative pharmacotherapy
Bariatrics
  • Concentrate on postoperative dose formulation management
  • Use COX-2 inhibitors (celecoxib, meloxicam) for pain to avoid anastomotic leaks
Cardiothoracic
  • Be mindful of any hardware insertion that makes the patient prone to bleeding
  • Modify medication doses based on constant assessment of renal function
Colorectal
  • Develop multidisciplinary NSAID use criteria to minimize AKI
  • Be vigilant to change medication routes to oral to promote gut function return
Gynecological oncology
  • Provide supportive care for PONV and pain management
  • Develop collaborative care for initiation and monitoring of oral chemotherapy
Orthopedics
  • Lead rehabilitation medication education
  • Develop both institution-based and individual CPAs
Pediatrics
  • Actively question the need for venous access to prevent CLABSIs in neonates
  • Develop interdisciplinary medication weaning procedures for opioids/benzodiazepines
Solid organ transplant
  • Focus on medication management/optimization for immunosuppressive regimens
  • Prepare living donor medication management plans ahead of the transplant
Vascular
  • Develop interdisciplinary blood pressure augmentation protocols and MAP goals
  • Be vigilant for and manage AKI due to lower limb ischemia during aneurism repairs
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Parrish, R.H., II; Bodenstab, H.M.; Carneal, D.; Cassity, R.M.; Dager, W.E.; Hyland, S.J.; Lovely, J.K.; Pollock, A.; Sparkes, T.M.; Wong, S.-F. Positive Patient Postoperative Outcomes with Pharmacotherapy: A Narrative Review including Perioperative-Specialty Pharmacist Interviews. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 5628. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195628

AMA Style

Parrish RH II, Bodenstab HM, Carneal D, Cassity RM, Dager WE, Hyland SJ, Lovely JK, Pollock A, Sparkes TM, Wong S-F. Positive Patient Postoperative Outcomes with Pharmacotherapy: A Narrative Review including Perioperative-Specialty Pharmacist Interviews. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(19):5628. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195628

Chicago/Turabian Style

Parrish, Richard H., II, Heather Monk Bodenstab, Dustin Carneal, Ryan M. Cassity, William E. Dager, Sara J. Hyland, Jenna K. Lovely, Alyssa Pollock, Tracy M. Sparkes, and Siu-Fun Wong. 2022. "Positive Patient Postoperative Outcomes with Pharmacotherapy: A Narrative Review including Perioperative-Specialty Pharmacist Interviews" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 19: 5628. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195628

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop