motivation

Background: Risky consumption of alcohol is a global problem. More than 3.3 million deaths annually are associated with risky use of alcohol, and global alcohol consumption continues to increase. People who have high alcohol consumption often require planned and emergency surgical procedures.Risky drinking is associated with increased postoperative complications such as infections, cardiopulmonary complications, and bleeding episodes. Alcohol causes disorders of the liver, pancreas, and nervous system. Stopping consumption of alcohol can normalize these organ systems to some degree and may reduce the occurrence of complications after surgery.This review was first published in 2012 and was updated in 2018.

Objectives: To assess the effects of perioperative alcohol cessation interventions on rates of postoperative complications and alcohol consumption.

Search methods: We searched the following databases up until 21 September 2018: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL via EBSCOhost; and two trials registers. We scanned the reference lists and citations of included trials and any identified relevant systematic reviews for further references to additional trials. When necessary, we contacted trial authors to ask for additional information.

Selection criteria: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of perioperative alcohol cessation interventions on postoperative complications and alcohol consumption. We included participants with risky consumption of alcohol who were undergoing all types of elective or acute surgical procedures under general or regional anaesthesia or sedation, who were offered a perioperative alcohol cessation intervention or no intervention.We defined 'risky drinking' as alcohol consumption equivalent to more than 3 alcoholic units (AU)/d or 21 AU/week (with 1 AU containing 12 grams of ethanol) with or without symptoms of alcohol abuse or dependency. This corresponds to the amount of alcohol associated with increased postoperative complication rates in most clinical studies.

Data collection and analysis: We used guidance provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We presented main outcomes as dichotomous variables in a meta-analysis. When data were available, we conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses to explore the risk of bias. Primary outcome measures were postoperative complications and in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were successful quitting at the end of the programme, postoperative alcohol use, and length of hospital stay. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

Main results: We included in this updated review one new study (70 participants), resulting in a total of three RCTs (140 participants who drank 3 to 40 AU/d). All three studies were of moderate to good quality. All studies evaluated the effects of intensive alcohol cessation interventions, including pharmacological strategies for alcohol withdrawal symptoms, patient education, and relapse prophylaxis. We identified one ongoing study.Overall, 53 of the 122 participants from three studies who underwent surgery developed any type of postoperative complication that required treatment. Of 61 participants in the intervention groups, 20 had complications, compared with 33 of 61 participants in the control groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.96). Results show differences between the three clinical studies regarding outcome measurement and intensity of the interventions. However, all alcohol cessation programmes were intensive and included pharmacological therapy. The overall quality of evidence for this outcome is moderate.In-hospital and 30-day postoperative mortality rates were low in the three studies. Researchers reported one death among 61 participants in the intervention groups, and three deaths among 61 participants in the control groups (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.96). The quality of evidence for this outcome is low.Investigators describe more successful quitters at the end of the intervention programme than among controls. Forty-one out of 70 participants in the intervention groups successfully quit drinking compared with only five out of 70 participants in the control groups (RR 8.22, 95% CI 1.67 to 40.44). The quality of evidence for this outcome is moderate.All three studies reported postoperative alcohol consumption (grams of alcohol/week) at the end of the programme as median and range values; therefore it was not possible to estimate the mean and the standard deviation (SD). We performed no meta-analysis. All three studies reported length of stay, and none of these studies described a significant difference in length of stay. Data were insufficient for review authors to perform a meta-analysis. No studies reported on the prevalence of participants without risky drinking in the longer term.

Authors' conclusions: This systematic review assessed the efficacy of perioperative alcohol cessation interventions for postoperative complications and alcohol consumption. All three studies showed a significant reduction in the number of participants who quit drinking alcohol during the intervention period. Intensive alcohol cessation interventions offered for four to eight weeks to participants undergoing all types of surgical procedures to achieve complete alcohol cessation before surgery probably reduced the number of postoperative complications. Data were insufficient for review authors to assess their effects on postoperative mortality. No studies reported an effect on length of stay, and no studies addressed the prevalence of risky drinking in the longer term.Included studies were few and reported small sample sizes; therefore one should be careful about drawing firm conclusions based on these study results. All three studies were conducted in Denmark, and most participants were men. The included participants may represent a selective group, as they could have been more motivated and/or more interested in participating in clinical research or otherwise different, and effects may have been overestimated for both intervention and control groups in these studies. Trial results indicate that these studies are difficult to perform, that strong research competencies are necessary for future studies, and that further evaluation of perioperative alcohol cessation interventions in high-quality randomized controlled trials is needed. Once published and assessed, the one 'ongoing' study identified may alter the conclusions of this review.

Conflict of interest statement

Hanne Tønnesen has authored all three of the studies included in this review (Egholm 2017; Tønnesen 1999a; Tønnesen 2002).

Julie Weber Melchior Egholm, Johanna Adami, and Bolette Pedersen have authored one of the included studies (Egholm 2017).

Hanne Tønnesen is also the primary investigator for the ongoing study (NCT02188446).

Therefore, to avoid any potential bias, Carsten B Juhl extracted data and checked the interpretation against study reports and any available study registration details or protocols as an independent review author.

BACKGROUND:

Group-Based Opioid Treatment (GBOT) has recently emerged as a mechanism for treating patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) in the outpatient setting. However, the more practical "how to" components of successfully delivering GBOT has received little attention in the medical literature, potentially limiting its widespread implementation and utilization. Building on a previous case series, this paper delineates the key components to implementing GBOT by asking: (a) What are the core components to GBOT implementation, and how are they defined? (b) What are the malleable components to GBOT implementation, and what conceptual framework should providers use in determining how to apply these components for effective delivery in their unique clinical environment?

METHODS:

To create a blueprint delineating GBOT implementation, we integrated findings from a previously conducted and separately published systematic review of existing GBOT studies, conducted additional literature review, reviewed best practice recommendations and policies related to GBOT and organizational frameworks for implementing health systems change. We triangulated this data with a qualitative thematic analysis from 5 individual interviews and 2 focus groups representing leaders from 5 different GBOT programs across our institution to identify the key components to GBOT implementation, distinguish "core" and "malleable" components, and provide a conceptual framework for considering various options for implementing the malleable components.

RESULTS:

We identified 6 core components to GBOT implementation that optimize clinical outcomes, comply with mandatory policies and regulations, ensure patient and staff safety, and promote sustainability in delivery. These included consistent group expectations, team-based approach to care, safe and confidential space, billing compliance, regular monitoring, and regular patient participation. We identified 14 malleable components and developed a novel conceptual framework that providers can apply when deciding how to employ each malleable component that considers empirical, theoretical and practical dimensions.

CONCLUSION:

While further research on the effectiveness of GBOT and its individual implementation components is needed, the blueprint outlined here provides an initial framework to help office-based opioid treatment sites implement a successful GBOT approach and hence potentially serve as future study sites to establish efficacy of the model. This blueprint can also be used to continuously monitor how components of GBOT influence treatment outcomes, providing an empirical framework for the ongoing process of refining implementation strategies.