32
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Epidemiology and association with outcomes of polypharmacy in patients undergoing surgery: retrospective, population-based cohort study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of preoperative polypharmacy and the incidence of postoperative polypharmacy/hyper-polypharmacy in surgical patients and their association with adverse outcomes.

          Methods

          This was a retrospective, population-based cohort study among patients older than or equal to 18 years undergoing surgery at a university hospital between 2005 and 2018. Patients were categorized based on the number of medications: non-polypharmacy (fewer than 5); polypharmacy (5–9); and hyper-polypharmacy (greater than or equal to 10). The 30-day mortality, prolonged hospitalization (greater than or equal to 10 days), and incidence of readmission were compared between medication-use categories.

          Results

          Among 55 997 patients, the prevalence of preoperative polypharmacy was 32.3 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 33.5 to 34.3) and the prevalence of hyper-polypharmacy was 25.5 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 25.2 to 25.9). Thirty-day mortality was higher for patients exposed to preoperative hyper-polypharmacy (2.3 per cent) and preoperative polypharmacy (0.8 per cent) compared with those exposed to non-polypharmacy (0.6 per cent) ( P < 0.001). The hazards ratio (HR) of long-term mortality was higher for patients exposed to hyper-polypharmacy (HR 1.32 (95 per cent c.i. 1.25 to 1.40)) and polypharmacy (HR 1.07 (95 per cent c.i. 1.01 to 1.14)) after adjustment for patient and procedural variables. The incidence of longer hospitalization (greater than or equal to 10 days) was higher for hyper-polypharmacy (11.3 per cent) and polypharmacy (6.3 per cent) compared with non-polypharmacy (4.1 per cent) ( P < 0.001). The 30-day incidence of readmission was higher for patients exposed to hyper-polypharmacy (10.2 per cent) compared with polypharmacy (6.1 per cent) and non-polypharmacy (4.8 per cent) ( P < 0.001). Among patients not exposed to polypharmacy, the incidence of new postoperative polypharmacy/hyper-polypharmacy was 33.4 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 32.8 to 34.1), and, for patients exposed to preoperative polypharmacy, the incidence of postoperative hyper-polypharmacy was 16.3 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 16.0 to 16.7).

          Conclusion

          Preoperative polypharmacy and new postoperative polypharmacy/hyper-polypharmacy are common and associated with adverse outcomes. This highlights the need for increased emphasis on optimizing medication usage throughout the perioperative interval.

          Registration number

          NCT04805151 ( http://clinicaltrials.gov).

          Abstract

          Preoperative polypharmacy (5–9 medications) or hyper-polypharmacy (greater than or equal to 10 medications) was common (58 per cent) and had an association with adverse outcomes, highlighting the importance of medication optimization.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          What is polypharmacy? A systematic review of definitions

          Background Multimorbidity and the associated use of multiple medicines (polypharmacy), is common in the older population. Despite this, there is no consensus definition for polypharmacy. A systematic review was conducted to identify and summarise polypharmacy definitions in existing literature. Methods The reporting of this systematic review conforms to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE and Cochrane were systematically searched, as well as grey literature, to identify articles which defined the term polypharmacy (without any limits on the types of definitions) and were in English, published between 1st January 2000 and 30th May 2016. Definitions were categorised as i. numerical only (using the number of medications to define polypharmacy), ii. numerical with an associated duration of therapy or healthcare setting (such as during hospital stay) or iii. Descriptive (using a brief description to define polypharmacy). Results A total of 1156 articles were identified and 110 articles met the inclusion criteria. Articles not only defined polypharmacy but associated terms such as minor and major polypharmacy. As a result, a total of 138 definitions of polypharmacy and associated terms were obtained. There were 111 numerical only definitions (80.4% of all definitions), 15 numerical definitions which incorporated a duration of therapy or healthcare setting (10.9%) and 12 descriptive definitions (8.7%). The most commonly reported definition of polypharmacy was the numerical definition of five or more medications daily (n = 51, 46.4% of articles), with definitions ranging from two or more to 11 or more medicines. Only 6.4% of articles classified the distinction between appropriate and inappropriate polypharmacy, using descriptive definitions to make this distinction. Conclusions Polypharmacy definitions were variable. Numerical definitions of polypharmacy did not account for specific comorbidities present and make it difficult to assess safety and appropriateness of therapy in the clinical setting.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

            Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a two-day workshop, in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Clinical consequences of polypharmacy in elderly.

              Polypharmacy, defined as the use of multiple drugs or more than are medically necessary, is a growing concern for older adults. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from January 1, 1986 to June 30, 2013) to identify relevant articles in people aged > 65 years. We present information about: i) prevalence of polypharmacy and unnecessary medication use; ii) negative consequences of polypharmacy; and iii) interventions to improve polypharmacy. International research shows that polypharmacy is common in older adults with the highest number of drugs taken by those residing in nursing homes. Nearly 50% of older adults take one or more medications that are not medically necessary. Research has clearly established a strong relationship between polypharmacy and negative clinical consequences. Moreover, well-designed interprofessional (often including clinical pharmacist) intervention studies that focus on enrolling high-risk older patients with polypharmacy have shown that they can be effective in reducing aspects of unnecessary prescribing with mixed results on distal health outcomes.

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                BJS Open
                BJS Open
                bjsopen
                BJS Open
                Oxford University Press (US )
                2474-9842
                June 2023
                17 May 2023
                17 May 2023
                : 7
                : 3
                : zrad041
                Affiliations
                Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Iceland , Reykjavik, Iceland
                Pharmacy Services, Landspitali - The National University Hospital of Iceland , Reykjavik, Iceland
                Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Iceland , Reykjavik, Iceland
                Development Centre for Primary Healthcare in Iceland , Primary Health Care of the Capital Area, Reykjavik, Iceland
                Division of Geriatrics, Landspitali - The National University Hospital of Iceland , Reykjavik, Iceland
                Faculty of Medicine, University of Iceland , Reykjavik, Iceland
                School of Pharmacy, University College London , London, UK
                Institute of Pharmaceutical Science, King's College , London, UK
                Pharmacy Department, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust , London, UK
                Faculty of Medicine, University of Iceland , Reykjavik, Iceland
                Division of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Landspitali - The National University Hospital of Iceland , Reykjavik, Iceland
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: Freyja Jónsdóttir, Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Iceland, Hofsvallagata 53, 107 Reykjavík, Iceland (e-mail: freyjaj@ 123456hi.is )
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9232-6723
                Article
                zrad041
                10.1093/bjsopen/zrad041
                10189279
                37194458
                550b1695-279e-420f-a1ec-57accca02c6a
                © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 30 November 2022
                : 10 March 2023
                : 16 March 2023
                Page count
                Pages: 8
                Funding
                Funded by: Foundation of St Josef’s Hospital;
                Funded by: Icelandic Gerontological Research Centre;
                Funded by: National University Hospital of Iceland;
                Funded by: Landspitali University Hospital Science Fund;
                Funded by: University of Iceland Research Fund;
                Categories
                Original Article
                AcademicSubjects/MED00910
                Bjs/2

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log