Please note this application is under active development. If you spot any errors or something isn't working, please contact us at evidence.service@wales.nhs.uk.

Perioperative alcohol cessation intervention for postoperative complications

Egholm GW et al (2018)

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews - doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008343.pub3.

Evidence Categories

  • Care setting: Community setting
  • Population group: Adults
  • Intervention: Supporting behaviour change
  • Outcome: Abstinence from alcohol
  • Outcome: Changes to frequency/amount of alcohol use
  • Outcome: Other

Type of Evidence

Systematic Review

Aims

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

Findings

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.

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.

Also In This Category