BACKGROUND:Disparities in postoperative nausea and vomiting and its prophylaxis may exist based on race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. The objective was to evaluate whether patients from racial and ethnic minority groups and patients from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds received less appropriate postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis and experienced higher rates of postoperative and postdischarge nausea and vomiting. METHODS:This retrospective cohort study included 23,333 adults who underwent major surgeries (total knee arthroplasty, cholecystectomy, hysterectomy, and prostatectomy) from 2017 to 2022 in a single, multistate hospital system. Outcomes included prophylactic antiemetic administration according to consensus guidelines, as well as the occurrence of postoperative and postdischarge nausea and vomiting, with predictors being patient race and ethnicity, payor type, and community-level socioeconomic status. RESULTS:About 45% (n = 10,407) of patients received guideline-recommended postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis. Regression models showed statistically significant differences in appropriate postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis by race and ethnicity, as well as community-level socioeconomic status, with Black (odds ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.92) and Hispanic (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.96) patients having lower odds of receiving appropriate antiemetic prophylaxis compared to non-Hispanic White patients. Approximately 11% of patients (n = 2,522) experienced postoperative nausea and vomiting in the postanesthesia care unit, and about 19.5% of patients (n = 4,540) experienced postdischarge nausea and vomiting. No significant differences in postoperative nausea and vomiting were observed in the postanesthesia care unit among different groups; however, Black, Hispanic, other races and ethnicities, and patients with Medicaid had higher odds of postdischarge nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSIONS:The study identified differences in appropriate postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis by race and ethnicity, as well as community-level socioeconomic status. There were no differences in postoperative nausea and vomiting by the predictors, but there were higher odds of postdischarge nausea and vomiting by race and ethnicity and payor. This study underscores the importance of data stratification in quality measures to identify disparities in perioperative care; it can lead to changes in perioperative anesthetic management. Further research should explore these associations in a broader cohort and address potential confounding sources.

Background Disparities in healthcare based on race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) remain a public health crisis, especially in perioperative anesthetic management. This study applies a health equity lens to intraoperative pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods This retrospective cohort study included 1404 adult patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) between 2017 and 2022 at a single, multi-site, academic healthcare system. The primary outcomes were PONV as well as moderate-to-severe post-operative pain. Secondary outcomes were administration of prophylactic antiemetics, compliance with guideline-recommended antiemetic prophylaxis, and opioid morphine milligram equivalents (MME) administered intraoperatively. Independent variables included patient race and ethnicity, healthcare payor type, and community-level SES (using Area Deprivation Index [ADI]). Multivariable logistic regression models that controlled for relevant covariates were utilized. Results The findings showed no significant disparities in experiencing PONV, post-operative pain, or receiving high opioid MME based on race, ethnicity, payor type, and ADI. There were also no differences in the receipt of antiemetics nor compliance with guideline-recommended antiemetic prophylaxis. Conclusions Our study did not find racial, ethnic, or SES disparities in intraoperative anesthetic pain management, postoperative pain, nor PONV management. Applying a health equity lens to quality outcomes during the perioperative period is necessary to ensure equitable care among diverse populations.

OBJECTIVES:To retrospectively assess the incidence and severity of perioperative protamine reactions in adult patients with documented history of fish allergy. DESIGN:Retrospective observational study. SETTING:Large academic tertiary referral center. PARTICIPANTS:Adults with fish allergies undergoing surgeries involving protamine, between January 1, 2008, and March 1, 2018. INTERVENTIONS:Perioperative protamine administration in patients with documented fish allergy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Perioperative protamine and anaphylactic reactions were reviewed. A diagnosis of anaphylaxis or protamine reaction was based on clinical suspicion, perioperative events, and postoperative evaluations. Among 214 patients, 2 cases (<1%) of anaphylaxis or protamine reactions occurred. Cardiac procedures were most common (67%). The median intraoperative heparin dosage was 46,000 IU, and the median protamine dosage was 310 mg. Nearly all patients (99%) were admitted to the intensive care unit postoperatively, with a median hospital stay of 6.5 days (interquartile range, 5.2-14.6 days). There were 3 deaths (1%) within 30 days, and 15 (7%) within 1 year. CONCLUSIONS:The study findings suggest that in patients with a history of fish allergy, cross-reactivity with protamine is unlikely, as anaphylaxis and/or protamine reactions were rare in this patient population in the perioperative environment. Based on these findings, this study does not recommend avoiding protamine solely based on a history of fish allergy when heparin reversal is required during surgery.

BACKGROUND:This study examined the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES), race, and ethnicity and clinical outcomes following deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) at a high-volume transplant center. METHODS:This retrospective cohort study used regression models and survival analyses to examine the relationship between individual- and community-level SES, race, and ethnicity and DDKT outcomes (i.e., delayed graft function, graft failure, mortality) adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS:The analytic sample included 3366 patients; 40.7% (n = 1370) were female, the mean age was 54.7 (SD = 13.3) years, 49.3% were non-Hispanic White, and the median follow-up time was 39.5 months (IQR = 24.2-68.1). Patients living in the most disadvantaged communities (using the US Census data) had a higher likelihood of delayed graft function (adjusted relative risk [RR] = 1.12, p = 0.042) and a higher hazard of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32, p = 0.025) compared to patients living in the least disadvantaged communities. Patients without a high school diploma had a higher risk of delayed graft function compared to patients with an associate degree or more (RR = 1.37, p < 0.001). Patients with public insurance coverage had a higher risk of delayed graft function (RR = 1.24, p < 0.001) and a higher hazard of mortality (HR = 1.37, p < 0.001) and graft failure (HR = 1.71, p < 0.001) compared to patients without public insurance. There were no differences in graft failure or mortality by race and ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS:SES was not consistently associated with outcomes following DDKT; however, many of the predictors were associated with delayed graft function. With a large and diverse sample size, these findings further the heterogeneity of the present renal transplant research suggesting the need for further investigation to guide implementation of innovative strategies and interventions.