Background Pulse oximetry is ubiquitous in anesthesia and is generally a reliable noninvasive measure of arterial oxygen saturation. Concerns regarding the impact of skin pigmentation and race/ethnicity on the accuracy of pulse oximeter accuracy exist. The authors hypothesized a greater prevalence of occult hypoxemia (arterial oxygen saturation [Sao2] less than 88% despite oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry [Spo2] greater than 92%) in patients undergoing anesthesia who self-reported a race/ethnicity other than White. Methods Demographic and physiologic data, including self-reported race/ethnicity, were extracted from a departmental data warehouse for patients receiving an anesthetic that included at least one arterial blood gas between January 2008 and December 2019. Calculated Sao2 values were paired with concurrent Spo2 values for each patient. Analysis to determine whether Black, Hispanic, Asian, or Other race/ethnicities were associated with occult hypoxemia relative to White race/ethnicity within the Spo2 range of 92 to 100% was completed. Results In total, 151,070 paired Sao2–Spo2 readings (70,722 White; 16,011 Black; 21,223 Hispanic; 8,121 Asian; 34,993 Other) from 46,253 unique patients were analyzed. The prevalence of occult hypoxemia was significantly higher in Black (339 of 16,011 [2.1%]) and Hispanic (383 of 21,223 [1.8%]) versus White (791 of 70,722 [1.1%]) paired Sao2–Spo2 readings (P < 0.001 for both). In the multivariable analysis, Black (odds ratio, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.11 to 1.87]; P = 0.006) and Hispanic (odds ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.68]; P = 0.031) race/ethnicity were associated with occult hypoxemia. Asian and Other race/ethnicity were not associated with occult hypoxemia. Conclusions Self-reported Black and Hispanic race/ethnicity are associated with a greater prevalence of intraoperative occult hypoxemia in the Spo2 range of 92 to 100% when compared with self-reported White race/ethnicity. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Study Design. A retrospective review of prospectively collected data. Objective. The purpose of this study is to compare and validate several preoperative scores for predicting outcomes following spine tumor resection. Summary of Background Data. Preoperative risk assessment for patients undergoing spinal tumor resection remains challenging. At present, few risk assessment tools have been validated in this high-risk population. Methods. The 2008 to 2014 National Surgical Quality Improvement database was used to identify all patients undergoing surgical resection of spinal tumors, stratified as extradural, intradural extramedullary, and intramedullary based on CPT codes. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, modified Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and modified Frailty Index (mFI) were computed. A binary logistic regression model was used to explore the relationship between these variables and postoperative outcomes, including mortality, major and minor adverse events, and hospital length of stay (LOS). Other significant variables such as demographics, operative time, and tumor location were controlled for in each model. Results. Two thousand one hundred seventy patients met the inclusion criteria. Higher CCI scores were independent predictors of mortality (OR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.14–1.36, P < 0.001), major adverse events (OR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01–1.31, P = 0.018), minor adverse events (OR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.10–1.20, P < 0.001), and prolonged LOS (OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.09–1.19, P < 0.001). Patients’ mFI scores were significantly associated with mortality and LOS, but not major or minor adverse events. ASA scores were not associated with any outcome metric when controlling for other variables. Conclusion. The CCI demonstrated superior predictive capacity compared with mFI and ASA scores and may be valuable as a preoperative risk assessment tool for patients undergoing surgical resection of spinal tumors. The validation of assessment scores is important for preoperative risk stratification and improving outcomes in this high-risk group. Level of Evidence: 3

4.

No abstract