Preoperative Exposure to Fine Particulate Matter and Risk of Postoperative Complications: A Single Center Observational Cohort Bayesian Analysis
================================================================================================================================================
* John F. Pearson
* Cameron Jacobson
* Calvin Riss
* Matt Strickland
* Longyin Lee
* Neng Wan
* Tabitha M. Benney
* Nathan L. Pace
* Ben Goodrich
* Jonah Gabry
* Cade Kartchner
* Michael H. Andreae
## Abstract
**Background & Objectives** While exposure to fine particulate matter air pollution (PM2.5) is known to cause adverse health effects, its impact on postoperative outcomes in US adults remains understudied. Perioperative exposure to PM2.5 may induce inflammation that insidiously interacts with the systemic inflammatory response after surgery, leading to higher postoperative complications.
**Methods** We conducted a single center, retrospective cohort study using data from 64,313 surgical patients living along Utah’s Wasatch Front and undergoing elective surgical procedures at a single academic medical center from 2016-2018. Patients’ addresses were geocoded and linked to daily Census-tract level PM2.5 estimates preoperatively. We hypothesized that elevated PM2.5 concentrations in the seven days prior to surgery would be associated with an increase in a bundle of major postoperative complications. A hierarchical Bayesians regression model was fit adjusting for age, sex, season, neighborhood disadvantage, and the Elixhauser index of comorbidities.
**Results** Postoperative complications increased in a dose-dependent manner with higher concentrations of PM2.5 exposure, with a relative increase of 7% in the odds of complications for every 10ug/m3 increase in the highest single-day 24-hr PM2.5 exposure during the 7 days prior to surgery. The association persisted after controlling for comorbidities and potential confounders; our inferences were robust to modeling choices and sensitivity analysis.
**Discussion & Conclusion** In this large Utah cohort, exposure to elevated PM2.5 concentrations in the week before surgery was associated with increased postoperative complications in a dose-dependent manner, suggesting a potential impact of air pollution on surgical outcomes. These findings merit replication in larger datasets to identify populations at risk and to define the interaction and impact of different pollutants. PM2.5 exposure is a potential perioperative risk factor and, given the unmitigated air pollution in urban areas, a global health concern.
Keywords
* air pollution
* particulate matter
* postoperative complications
* surgery
* PM2.5
* perioperative medicine
* health registry
* clinical informatics
## Introduction
Short-term exposure to air pollution, especially fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is a well-established risk factor for cardiovascular, respiratory, metabolic, and neurologic, morbidity, and mortality worldwide1–6. While regulatory action in high income countries on PM2.5 has resulted in reductions in exposure over the past several decades, the increasing prevalence of wildfires has threatened to undo this progress7 and portends to worsen globally with climate change. In addition, millions suffer globally under high levels of PM2.5, especially in megacities and the highly populated urban areas in Asia8,9. Despite the well-established risk to cardiopulmonary health, *a knowledge gap* remains regarding the impact of individual perioperative patient air pollution exposure (IPAPE) on postoperative complications. This phenomenon has thus far been described in only a small number of studies10–14 and none of which have examined major post-operative medical complications in the U.S. adult surgical population as a whole.
Post-operative complications continue to be a significant source of morbidity and mortality after surgery15–18. For instance, cardiac complications after non-cardiac surgery continue to be a source of significant morbidity and costs, and a focus of research for risk stratification tools such as the Revised Cardiac Risk Index19,20. Pulmonary complications after surgery also continue to plague patients globally, with pulmonary complication rates in the US varying from 2 – 5%21. Likewise, infectious complications such as sepsis surgical site infections and urinary tract infections (UTI), while dramatically lower than in the pre-antibiotic era, continue to plague at risk populations in the perioperative period with national registry studies reporting a greater than 5% incidence22. Despite the prevalence of these risks, commonly used risk calculators and models do not currently incorporate any contribution from air pollution.
### Mechanism: The overlap of air pollution systemic inflammation and the surgical stress response
The mechanism that produces air pollution caused systemic inflation is well established. Small airborne pollutants enter through the lungs or skin23 and disseminate across the body. Such pollutants can be found in every organ system, including the lungs, brain, the heart, and gastrointestinal tract among others24. IPAPE may lead to an inflammatory response that compounds the surgical stress response (SSR)25,26, including pulmonary inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, thrombosis, and membranous nephropathy27–30.
Several prior studies investigate the association between air pollution and adverse surgical outcomes, but were small and limited to specialized populations like organ transplant recipients12–14,31. A recent analysis of over 19 million patients in China found increased 30-day postoperative mortality associated with higher preoperative PM2.5 concentrations at the city-level, especially among patients with preexisting cardiopulmonary conditions11. Likewise, a recent study from South Korea found a similar mortality risk among cancer patients12. However, both of these studies focus on mortality, not morbidity, and pollution levels in China far exceed those encountered in the U.S. or along the Wasatch Front in Utah, where this study took place. The Korean study utilized annual exposure to air pollution, which contrasts with our acute exposure design.
### Quasi natural experiment
The Salt Lake metropolitan region of Northern Utah is an ideal setting to study acute pollution exposures. The unique mountain geography of the “Wasatch Front,” along with frequent wood burning, an in-land port, the intersection of two major interstate highways, and a national train depot, work together to produce the increased occurrence of extreme pollution events in the region, which dramatically impact ambient PM2.5 concentrations32–34. This results in inversion conditions during the winter, with warm air aloft the valley trapping cold air and pollutants in the densely populated valley below. Similarly, in the summer when wildfires throughout the American West dominate pollution exposures, the geological bowl produced by the intersection of multiple mountain ranges that comprise the Wasatch Front act as a shield that accumulates wildfire smoke in the metropolitan region. Due to the various air pollution events common to the region, the random exposure of patients to variable air pollution prior to surgery leads to a quasi-natural experiment as patients are scheduled for surgery regardless of air pollution considerations.
Our objective is to estimate the impact of preoperative particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution on a bundle of post-operative complications. We hypothesize that exposure to PM2.5 in the 7-day period prior to surgery results in increased risk of a bundle of post-operative complications, controlling for comorbidities, confounders, and other well documented drivers of post-operative complications35,36 in a hierarchical Bayesian regression model.
## Methods
### Study Design and Data Sources
We performed a single center cohort analysis of the University of Utah local Multi-Center Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG)37 electronic health registry, which was supplemented with data from the University of Utah Health’s Epic database for the period January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018. We adhered to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies (STROBE) statement and principles38. The study was approved as Exemption Category 4 by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Utah, with IRB approval number 00142167.
### Study Population: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Extracting information from our Epic and local MPOG instances we included elective and non-emergent general anesthesia cases performed at University of Utah Health operating room locations on or after January 1, 2016 and on or before December 31, 2018. We excluded cases with ASA 5 or 6, age <18 years, ICU transfers, cases performed without general anesthesia, as well as obstetric, electroconvulsive therapy, and bronchoscopy procedures. We only included cases where geocoding could match to an address. We limited our study area further to State of Utah counties along the Wasatch Front, as these counties episodically experience some of the worst particulate matter pollution in the US, and globally, due to inversion events where cold air becomes trapped along the mountain valleys, and are also impacted by wildfire smoke33,39. As such, we included only patients residing in the Counties of Salt Lake, Utah, Davis, Weber, Cache, and Box Elder, all of which are served by the University of Utah Health locations in Salt Lake and Davis Counties of Utah. Further exclusions were made based on availability of the PM2.5 estimates and ability to assign Elixhauser Comorbidity scores (Figure 1).
[Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/13/2024.08.13.24311943/F1)
Figure 1: Consort Flow Diagram:
This figure details our initisal cohort downloaded from Data Direct from [MPOG.org](https://MPOG.org) and the process of exclusion criteria applied to generate our final cohort. Of note, the greatest number of patients eliminated was when excluding those who lived outside of the Wasatch Front study area.
### Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Exposure
Daily fine particulate matter with diameter <2.5μm (PM2.5) measurements were obtained from a public dataset of machine learning-derived daily PM2.5 concentration estimates at the County, Zip Code and Census Tract for 11 Western States 2008-201840. These estimates utilize a combination of EPA and state-level ground sensors and satellite derived pollution estimates to provide validated and accurate concentrations of PM2.5 across the Western US. We then matched these estimates to individual patients at the census tract of their geocoded home address. For our primary analysis, we utilized the maximum value of PM2.5 within 7 days of surgery, which included the day of surgery itself, for two reasons: (1) inversion and pollution events in northern Utah tend to be of short duration33, so as to ensure catchment of short-lived events without obscuring them with use of multiple day means, the maximum value in the window was used and (2) prior literature suggests pollution effects on inflammation and thrombosis may manifest over 1-4 weeks, but most acutely within days of the exposure event41,42.
### Outcome Bundle: Major Post-operative Complications
The primary outcome was a composite of major postoperative complications occurring during in-hospital stays after surgery as derived from their presence in the discharge diagnosis codes captured in Epic and our local MPOG database43–45, including: pneumonia, surgical site infection, urinary tract infection, sepsis, stroke, myocardial infarction, or thromboembolic event. We classified the presence of any post-operative complication into a binary outcome measure, with a positive (yes) being the presence of any complication, while negative (no) being that no complications were present.
### Covariates
Multivariable models were adjusted for patient age, sex, year, season, County of residence, neighborhood deprivation, which is an index of poverty, race, education and income generated by the National Neighborhood Data Archive (NANDA)46, and the Elixhauser comorbidity index35,36. Elixhauser comorbidity index was utilized in place of the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Classification Score (ASA-PS) as it has demonstrated equivalent reliability in predicting post-operative outcomes47–49, and as it is a validated model that relies on documented comorbidities and can be calculated based on Epic data rather than subjective assessments at the bedside. We assigned Elixhauser comorbidity scores to all patients utilizing their EPIC records following standard assignment procedures as outline by Syed et al50. We hypothesized that complications would rise with increasing Elixhauser comorbidity index score.
### Statistical Analysis
We investigated the impact of PM2.5 exposure on postoperative complications (outcome) using a multivariable Bayesian model. We utilized a three-season exposure model to adjust for possible confounding factors, where summer months (Jun-Aug) were considered “fire season”, winter months (Dec-Mar) were considered “inversion” season, and spring months (Feb-May) were considered a baseline period. Thus, all months were included in the model.
Model fit was by hierarchical Bayesian regression methods using Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms, specifically Hamiltonian Monte Carlo with the No-U-Turn Sampler having more rapid convergence for high-dimensional models. Models were run with six chains, 2000 iterations and a 50% thinning of the initial estimates. For the beta regression parameters, we used two different weakly informative prior distributions to test for sensitivity of parameter estimates. These were the standard normal distribution N(0, 1) and the R2D2M2(0.25, 4, 05) prior51. The priors for the variance parameters with the exponential (exp(1)) and the R2D2M2(0.25, 4, 05) priors51. County was included in the statistical model as group effect.
Convergence characteristics of the model estimation was assessed using the Gelman-Rubin R-hat statistic, effective sample size (ESS), chain mixing, and chain autocorrelation. The posterior predictive distribution was used to generate a predictive accuracy metric as measured by leave-one-out cross-validation. Nested models were compared by expected-log-predictive-density. Model fits and parameter values were explored using conditional effects, R2 coefficient of determination, and Bayesian hypothesis testing.
Model results are presented as parameter estimates and odds ratio transformed values using means, medians, standard deviations, and 95% credible intervals (CI). A 95% credible interval has a 95% probability of containing the true parameter value. Model coefficients are also presented with forest plots to show the probability of direction.
Analyses were conducted using R Statistical Software v4.4.1, and used two software packages *built on STAN* (*brms*) and a Hamiltonian MonteCarlo based software to estimate Bayesian models52. Additional data and model description was done in the R language using the tableone, loo, mcmcplot, posterior, and tidybayes packages.
## Results
### Study Population Characteristics
Our initial cohort of patients was n=96,302 for the study period of January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018, as downloaded from DataDirect. After application of exclusion criteria detailed in Figure 1, a cohort of n=65,487 patients remained. Systematically missing PM2.5 values for one week prevented the creation of lag values for 1174 cases, thus reducing the analysis cohort to 64,313 patients. The majority of exclusions occurred from limiting the sample to the Wasatch Front counties (n=26,485, or 85.9% of exclusions). Median age was 51.58 years (SD=17.82) and a majority were female (55.3%). Most patients had low comorbidity burden, with a mean Elixhauser of 0.97 (SD=1.8). A majority of patients presented from Salt Lake County (n=42,881), which is the highest population county in the state. There was also a slight increase in total cases per year from 19,995 in 2016, to 21,950 in 2018. Table 1 presents baseline characteristics of patients.
View this table:
[Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/13/2024.08.13.24311943/T1)
Table 1:
Cohort Characteristics by Year
### Post-Operative Complications
The overall rate of the composite complication outcome was 4.3% (n=2,766 events among total cohort of 64,313); complication rates are presented in Table 2 broken down by population characteristics in a bivariate analysis (yes vs. no complications). The complication rate varied from a low of 3.77% in Davis County to a high of 6.30% in Box Elder County. While female patients dominated the cohort, they were less likely to experience complications than males (46% vs. 54%, respectively). As expected, complication rates increased with a greater Elixhauser comorbidity index, with those without complications having a mean index of 0.78 (SD=1.43) while those with complications had a mean index of 5.01 (SD=3.66) (p<0.001). We also observed a slight downtrend in complications over time, from 4.53% in 2016 to 3.93% in 2018 (p=0.004). Complications did not vary significantly by season (p=0.843). Finally, we observed that when PM2.5 was dichotomized by the EPA daily limit, there was a significantly increased complication rate, from 4.3% (n=2676/60176) on days below 35 ug/m3 PM2.5, to 6.2% (n=90/1371). The exposure to high pollution did not differ greatly between Counties, nor did it vary by season. These results are summarized in table 3.
View this table:
[Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/13/2024.08.13.24311943/T2)
Table 2:
Cohort characteristics dichotomized by presence of a complication
View this table:
[Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/13/2024.08.13.24311943/T3)
Table 3:
Cohort characteristics dichotomized by whether or not exposed to maximum of 35ug/m3 in pre-operative period.
### Multivariable Exposure Analysis of PM2.5 impact on outcome bundle
Model estimation satisfied usual criteria (Gelman-Rubin R-hat, ESS, posterior predictive error checks). There was no significant autocorrelation. The posterior density plots for model parameters indicate reasonable unimodal distributions. Our sensitivity analysis exploring both two weakly informative priors did not change the inferences or results.
Our findings were robust to model parameters and model specifications.
In our main Bayesian multivariable model, we found an increased risk of post-operative complications with increasing concentrations of PM2.5 with a regression coefficient estimate of 0.01 with a 95% CI (0.00-0.01). A Bayesian hypothesis test showed a 98% probability of an increasing odds of complications with increasing PM2.5.. In clinical terms there is a 7% increase in the chance of complication for every 10ug/m3 increase in the maximum PM2.5 observed in the 7-day preoperative period; that is the increase in the odds of a complication was 1.07, for every 10ug/m3 rise in PM2.5 concentrations. This dose dependent increase in exposure to a maximum PM2.5 in the 7-day preoperative period thus results in an over 22% (95%CI: 1%-49%) increase in the odds of a complication when PM2.5 exceeded 30 ug/m3 for any day in the 7-day preop window. This increase was noted in a curvilinear fashion, as presented in Figure 2.
[Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/13/2024.08.13.24311943/F2)
Figure 2: Maximum PM2.5 in the 7 days pre-operatively (Lag0-Lag6) vs. Complication Rate.
Complication rate is shown as absolute value, so here 0.04 = 4% complication rate. The PM2.5 values are the maximum observed in the 7-day preop window, in ug/m3, Lag 0 is day of surgery.
There was no apparent change in this relationship across seasons as we defined them for this region (fire, inversion, other), nor did the inclusion of neighborhood disadvantage alter the findings. The impact of PM2.5 was of greater magnitude among patients with a higher Elixhauser comorbidity score, especially for those with Elixhauser of 3 or greater compared to those with Elixhauser <1, as shown in Figure 3. Overall the parameters in the model explained about 1/4th of the variance (R2 = 0.28).
[Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/13/2024.08.13.24311943/F3)
Figure 3: Complications vs. Maximum PM2.5 In the 7-day preoperative exposure window.
PM2.5 is again presented in ug/m3. As noted, the overall complication rate for those with higher Elixhauser comorbidity index is higher at baseline, but rose more quickly with elevations in PM2.5. This response to PM2.5 continued to increase in magnitude as Elixhauser index increased.
## Discussion
### Summary of Findings
In our single center cohort of over 60,000 patients undergoing elective surgery at an academic medical center near the Wasatch front in Utah, we found that increased exposure to PM2.5 in the 7-days prior to surgery was associated with significantly higher risk of postoperative complications, confirming our primary hypothesis. The findings were statistically highly significant, and the effect size is consistent with risk observed in the air pollution epidemiology literature53, providing further confirmation of our findings. There appeared to be a dose-response relationship, with over 20% increased risk of complications at the highest PM2.5 concentrations compared to low concentrations, with significant increase in risk above an apparent cut-off exposure of 35 ug/m3 (Table 3).
This association and the cutoff were consistent across all patient age groups, with those with higher Elixauser Co-morbidity status appearing to have greater susceptibility to elevated PM2.5(Figure 3). Age, sex, County, year of procedure, neighborhood deprivation (a measure of social distress) and season appeared to have minimal influence on the association. We found that the rate our complication bundle decreased year over year, while the distribution of Elixhauser remained consistent, and the exposure to air pollution remained comparable between years.
### Implications for clinical practice, research and policy
To our knowledge, this is the first large-scale study demonstrating the acute impact of individual patient air pollution exposure on postsurgical inpatient outcomes (our complications bundle) in a large surgical patient cohort in an OECD country10,14. The implications are threefold; our study should inform: (1) Policy, demonstrating a potentially novel and unaccounted for susceptible population (surgery patients), (2) Individual patient scheduling decisions for high-risk patients (elevated Elixhauser index) and targeted mitigation (masks, indoor air filters), and (3) Further research into the pathophysiological mechanisms of healing after surgery in human and animal studies.
### Policy Implications
While air pollution in some regions of the U.S. have improved dramatically since the 1970s, improvements have often benefitted some groups over others. For instance, Black Americans are exposed to higher annual concentrations of air pollution containing fine particulate matter than their White counter parts54. Minority populations often face greater pollution burdens and may also be more susceptible to their health effects due to their lack of access to health services and lower income and educational status, which reduces accessibility to pollution information and knowledge54 and other forms of prevention. This problem tracks globally as well. Today, air pollution is considered a leading causes of health complications and mortality worldwide, especially affecting lower-income groups, who tend to be more exposed and vulnerable55. Consequently, the burdens presented in this research have policy implications for public health and contribute to the literature on health disparities across populations,
In addition, climate change is expected to increase the incidence of wildfire by 29% worldwide56, which will further burden urban and developing regions disproportionately. While these regions are already facing a growing severity of pollution impacts, this research suggests that the interaction of surgery and pollution will also lead to increasing medical and health burdens. For instance, in China where approximately 10% of GDP57 is spent on the health effects of pollution, a 1% increase of PM2.5 currently leads to a 2.942% increase in household healthcare expenditure58 and these numbers are expected to grow over the next ten years. Subsequently, developing states, global megacities, and urban areas in Asia are already faced with tough and costly choices that may lead to further sacrifices in human health. Economically, the impact of air pollution on surgery outcomes will further contribute to decreases in labor productivity for the patient and the family, and, therefore, a lower tax base for these communities. In addition, poor surgical outcomes lead to inefficient use of hospital resources, increases the costs of insurance for all, and maybe lead to long term welfare costs, especially where loss of life is concerned. When combined with the disproportionate health disparities, the scale of costs are dramatic for all major population areas.
### Scheduling and Targeted Mitigation
Targeted mitigation efforts around the perioperative period may reduce complications attributable to PM2.5 exposure among susceptible patients. Surgical delay or protection from pollution during high-risk periods through use of indoor HEPA filtration systems could be considered for patients with planned procedures (if they work indoors or from home) during seasonal inversion events or wildfire smoke conditions. Huang et al’s study from China11, though it focused on mortality, found a beneficial economic impact from rescheduling elective surgery cases in at-risk populations, in their case especially surgical oncology patients, during high pollution events. This sophisticated econometric study indicates that similar scheduling mitigation may be cost-effective in other global contexts. The implications for elective and non-urgent major surgery, especially during wildfire events, merit further study with multidisciplinary teams.
### Research implications and Future Directions
Our findings lead to several new research questions. Our ability to identify high risk populations through sub-group analyses was limited due to sample size, and extension of our study to more years and more sites should help elucidate questions regarding the most vulnerable surgical populations. Additional outcomes should be studied to corroborate our findings and refine the impact of air pollution, incorporating outcome measures such as length of stay, mortality, and additional long- and short-term outcomes. Ours and others future epidemiological studies should also guide and be balanced with animal models where more precise biochemical mechanisms can be uncovered. We are also concerned that social determinants of health might confound the association of small particle pollution with post-surgical outcomes and will study this association in subsequent investigations. Finally, while we did identify that the relationship with PM2.5 appeared to accelerate with higher concentrations of pollution, formulating this exposure mathematically into a functional relationship will be a challenge for future research.
### Strength and Limitations
This study has several strengths:
1. The natural experiment present in this case due to the natural geography of Utah creates a unique strength to this study in that the same population is exposed to low and high concentrations of pollution, with the main variable of exposure being the essentially random timing of surgery.
2. We examined a large cohort of nearly 100,000 patients over a 3-year contemporary period. We utilized precise PM2.5 estimates at the small census tract level and investigated the effects across the full range of PM22.5 concentrations. We tested different exposure windows and adjusted for clinical comorbidities.
3. Our outcome was a previously used and validated as a composite of serious complications encompassing major morbidity events. We specifically focused on major morbidity complications that are meaningful outcomes for quality improvement and risk mitigation efforts around elective surgery timing as well as patient optimization and that are plausibly related to IPAPE. We controlled for individual patient comorbidities with the validated and widely used Elixhauser comorbidity index.
Our study has some limitations:
1. Exposure: While our study leveraged a large sample size, we estimated IPAPE based on a wildfire exposure model based on census tract locations. This model does not account for proximity to highways, industrial sources, or other sources of PM2.5 pollution that may be more chronic rather than episodic in nature. This model also used daily mean exposure estimates and lacked elevation in the model. Both factors could be biased in terms of missing peaks of exposure within 24-hour windows and at different elevations, which could lead to further bias in exposure estimates. Additionally, we evaluated PM2.5 mass concentration and did not have data on particulate composition that may influence toxicity59.
2. Mitigation and social determinants of health: We could also not control for in-home filtration or other personal mitigation measures, which may be less available to those of lower incomes, non-English Language speakers, and in more socially vulnerable neighborhoods. Our preliminary results indicate minimal influence from these factors, and is an aspect we plan to investigate with future research.
3. Population: Our cohort was predominantly white and treated at a single health system, although population-level variability in PM2.5 exposure was leveraged. We did not account for patient reported or EHR recorded race and ethnicity, which may confound our results. Despite the Salt Lake City region’s reputation for homogeneity, the metropolitan area is close to the median diversity index for
mid-size US cities. As a result, the findings of this study could be generalized to similar metropolitan areas, both larger and smaller, though the region is dominated by white and Hispanic populations.
1. Analysis Type: As a retrospective analysis, unmeasured confounding is also a possibility, as is incorrect inferences due to the ecological fallacy, we discussed in detail elsewhere60, though the use of residential address mitigates this in part.
### Comparison with the literature and proposed mechanistic pathways
Our findings among over 60,000 patients along Utah’s heavily polluted Wasatch Front build on limited prior data on air pollution and postoperative outcomes. In the China analysis, city-level PM2.5 during the week prior to surgery was associated with 1% higher adjusted 30-day mortality per 10 μg/m3 increase in PM2.511. Their mortality association was stronger at higher PM2.5 levels (>100 μg/m3), similar to our findings. The few other studies that have examined adverse impacts of air pollution on perioperative outcomes have been limited in scope, methodologies and patient populations: A majority of these studies examined only organ transplants14, while a reasonable suspicion given their immunocompromised nature, they are a relatively small and high-risk patient populations thus limiting generalizability. Spencer-Hwang et al found that kidney transplants have an increased risk of fatal MI with increasing ozone, in a dose-dependent manner61, while studies of lung transplant recipients suggest that proximity to major roads can increase risk of chronic allograft dysfunction14. Recent data from California also suggests pediatric patients are susceptible to adverse pulmonary events under anesthesia during wildfire events, especially those with reactive airway disease13.
The 7-day PM2.5 exposure timeframe corresponds to the period when detrimental effects of pollution on inflammatory, thrombotic, and immune pathways implicated in surgical complications may become manifest62. For example, PM2.5 instigates systemic inflammation through release of IL-1, IL-6, and CRP as well as reactive oxygen species63,64. Resultant endothelial dysfunction promotes a prothrombotic state over 7-14 days65. Surgical trauma induces a similar acute phase response and immunomodulation27,28,66, which combined with the biological impact from recent pollution exposure could synergistically heighten complication risk.
Taken as a whole, the literature is suggestive of adverse impacts from air pollution, and most notably fine particulate matter, on outcomes after surgery, though major gaps exist on which pollution source may be most harmful, which patient population may be most affected, and there is a need for better understanding of the pathophysiology of the mechanisms. We furthermore need to define interactions between specific pollutants, social determinants of health, and specific surgical disease processes, as well as which timing of exposure may be most detrimental. Further studies should explore possible mitigation efforts, either pre-operatively or post-operatively, for example the offering of patient bedroom air filters or patient masks preoperatively, or the rescheduling of elective high-risk patients during extreme exposure events, like wildfires.
## Conclusions
In our single center cohort study, we found that elevated individual patient exposure to small particles in the week prior to surgery was associated with significantly increased postoperative complications. We demonstrated a dose-response relationship in all age groups and regardless of patient co-morbidity (as measured by the Elixhauser index) in a large cohort at an academic medical center in Utah. This clearly demonstrates a statistically significant impact of air pollution exposure on surgical outcomes, with an effect size consistent with the broader pollution literature53.
We need to further define individual patient risk related to particulate matter pollution, the interaction with other pollutants and with social determinants of health. Our results cover a wide swath of surgical specialties and thus have implications for much of elective surgery performed in areas suffering from periodic acute pollution episodes, such as inversion events and much more commonly with climate change, wildfire smoke. At-risk patients may benefit from pollution mitigation and close monitoring in the postoperative period after procedures preceded by heavy pollution exposure. Overall, our findings highlight that limiting particulate matter exposure through clean air policies and practices can have wide-ranging health benefits beyond just cardiopulmonary disease, including reducing complications of surgery.
## Financial Disclosures/Declarations of Competing Interests
Ben Goodrich and Jonah Gabry are both member-managers of GG Statistics, LLC.
## Funding Statement
This study was funded from an intramural University of Utah Wilkes Center for Climate Science and Policy seed grant [to JFP and NW] as well as partially supported by the National Institute of Health National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Cancer Institute (NIH grant 5R01ES029528-05 [to MS], 5R37CA276365-02 [to NW]). Further funding was from the National Science Foundation (NSF grant 2051246 [BG] and 2153019[BG]). The funding sources were not involved in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data, in writing the report, or in the decision to submit the article for publication. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, or the University of Utah Wilkes Center for Climate Science and Policy.
## Author Approval
All authors have seen and approved the manuscript.
## Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
* Received August 13, 2024.
* Revision received August 13, 2024.
* Accepted August 13, 2024.
* © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission.
## References
1. 1.Farhadi Z, Abulghasem Gorgi H, Shabaninejad H, Aghajani Delavar M, Torani S. Association between PM(2.5) and risk of hospitalization for myocardial infarction: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. Mar 12 2020;20(1):314. doi:10.1186/s12889-020-8262-3
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12889-020-8262-3&link_type=DOI)
2. 2.Atkinson RW, Kang S, Anderson HR, Mills IC, Walton HA. Epidemiological time series studies of PM2.5 and daily mortality and hospital admissions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorax. Jul 2014;69(7):660–5. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2013-204492
[Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToidGhvcmF4am5sIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjY5LzcvNjYwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDgvMTMvMjAyNC4wOC4xMy4yNDMxMTk0My5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=)
3. 3.Fu P, Guo X, Cheung FMH, Yung KKL. The association between PM(2.5) exposure and neurological disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Total Environ. Mar 10 2019;655:1240–1248. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.218
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.218&link_type=DOI)
4. 4.Reid CE, Brauer M, Johnston FH, Jerrett M, Balmes JR, Elliott CT. Critical Review of Health Impacts of Wildfire Smoke Exposure. Environ Health Perspect. Sep 2016;124(9):1334–43. doi:10.1289/ehp.1409277
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1289/ehp.1409277&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27082891&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F13%2F2024.08.13.24311943.atom)
5. 5.Shah AS, Lee KK, McAllister DA, et al. Short term exposure to air pollution and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. Mar 24 2015;350:h1295. doi:10.1136/bmj.h1295
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1136/bmj.h1295&link_type=DOI)
6. 6.Pearson JF, Bachireddy C, Shyamprasad S, Goldfine AB, Brownstein JS. Association between fine particulate matter and diabetes prevalence in the U.S. Diabetes Care. Oct 2010;33(10):2196–201. doi:10.2337/dc10-0698
[Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiZGlhY2FyZSI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMDoiMzMvMTAvMjE5NiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzA4LzEzLzIwMjQuMDguMTMuMjQzMTE5NDMuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9)
7. 7.Burke M, Childs ML, de la Cuesta B, et al. The contribution of wildfire to PM(2.5) trends in the USA. Nature. Oct 2023;622(7984):761–766. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06522-6
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41586-023-06522-6&link_type=DOI)
8. 8.Marlier ME, Jina AS, Kinney PL, DeFries RS. Extreme Air Pollution in Global Megacities. Curr Clim Change Rep. Mar 2016;2(1):15–27. doi:10.1007/s40641-016-0032-z
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s40641-016-0032-z&link_type=DOI)
9. 9.Collaborators GBDRF. Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. Oct 17 2020;396(10258):1223–1249. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30752-2
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30752-2&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F13%2F2024.08.13.24311943.atom)
10. 10.Kovtun R, Ha L, Mendoza D, Pearson J. Influence of Air Pollution on Perioperative Outcomes & Potential for Big Data Driven Discoveries. Anesth Analg. Mar 2021;132:49–51.
11. 11.Huang JL, Xing JW, Zou EY. (Re)scheduling pollution exposure: The case of surgery schedules. J Public Econ. Mar 2023;219doi:ARTN 104825 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2023.104825
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jpubeco.2023.104825&link_type=DOI)
12. 12.Oh TK, Song IA. Mortality Risk After a Major Cancer Surgery Is Associated With Preoperative Exposure to Air Pollution. J Occup Environ Med. Mar 2024;66(3):192–197. doi:10.1097/Jom.0000000000003009
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/Jom.0000000000003009&link_type=DOI)
13. 13.Marsh BJ, Kolodzie K, Robinowitz D, Jacobson A, Ferschl M. Wildfire Smoke Exposure Is Associated with Adverse Respiratory Events under General Anesthesia in At-risk Pediatric Patients. Anesthesiology. Nov 1 2022;137(5):543–554. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000004344
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/ALN.0000000000004344&link_type=DOI)
14. 14.Supphapipat K, Leurcharusmee P, Chattipakorn N, Chattipakorn SC. Impact of air pollution on postoperative outcomes following organ transplantation: Evidence from clinical investigations. Clin Transplant. Jan 2024;38(1):e15180. doi:10.1111/ctr.15180
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/ctr.15180&link_type=DOI)
15. 15.Nepogodiev D, Martin J, Biccard B, Makupe A, Bhangu A, National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit on Global S. Global burden of postoperative death. Lancet. Feb 2 2019;393(10170):401. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)33139-8
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(18)33139-8&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F13%2F2024.08.13.24311943.atom)
16. 16.International Surgical Outcomes Study g. Global patient outcomes after elective surgery: prospective cohort study in 27 low-, middle- and high-income countries. Br J Anaesth. Oct 31 2016;117(5):601–609. doi:10.1093/bja/aew316
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/bja/aew316&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27799174&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F13%2F2024.08.13.24311943.atom)
17. 17.Ghaferi AA, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Variation in hospital mortality associated with inpatient surgery. N Engl J Med. Oct 1 2009;361(14):1368–75. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa0903048
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMsa0903048&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19797283&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F13%2F2024.08.13.24311943.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000270300000011&link_type=ISI)
18. 18.Dencker EE, Bonde A, Troelsen A, Varadarajan KM, Sillesen M. Postoperative complications: an observational study of trends in the United States from 2012 to 2018. BMC Surg. Nov 6 2021;21(1):393. doi:10.1186/s12893-021-01392-z
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12893-021-01392-z&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F13%2F2024.08.13.24311943.atom)
19. 19.Smilowitz NR, Berger JS. Perioperative Cardiovascular Risk Assessment and Management for Noncardiac Surgery: A Review. JAMA. Jul 21 2020;324(3):279–290. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.7840
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2020.7840&link_type=DOI)
20. 20.Lee TH, Marcantonio ER, Mangione CM, et al. Derivation and prospective validation of a simple index for prediction of cardiac risk of major noncardiac surgery. Circulation. Sep 7 1999;100(10):1043–9. doi:10.1161/01.cir.100.10.1043
[Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTQ6ImNpcmN1bGF0aW9uYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjExOiIxMDAvMTAvMTA0MyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzA4LzEzLzIwMjQuMDguMTMuMjQzMTE5NDMuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9)
21. 21.Lakshminarasimhachar A, Smetana GW. Preoperative Evaluation: Estimation of Pulmonary Risk. Anesthesiol Clin. Mar 2016;34(1):71–88. doi:10.1016/j.anclin.2015.10.007
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.anclin.2015.10.007&link_type=DOI)
22. 22.Aasen DM, Bronsert MR, Rozeboom PD, et al. Relationships between predischarge and postdischarge infectious complications, length of stay, and unplanned readmissions in the ACS NSQIP database. Surgery. Feb 2021;169(2):325–332. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2020.08.009
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.surg.2020.08.009&link_type=DOI)
23. 23.Weschler CJ, Beko G, Koch HM, et al. Transdermal Uptake of Diethyl Phthalate and Di(n-butyl) Phthalate Directly from Air: Experimental Verification. Environ Health Perspect. Oct 2015;123(10):928–34. doi:10.1289/ehp.1409151
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1289/ehp.1409151&link_type=DOI)
24. 24.Li T, Yu Y, Sun Z, Duan J. A comprehensive understanding of ambient particulate matter and its components on the adverse health effects based from epidemiological and laboratory evidence. Part Fibre Toxicol. Nov 29 2022;19(1):67. doi:10.1186/s12989-022-00507-5
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12989-022-00507-5&link_type=DOI)
25. 25.Cusack B, Buggy DJ. Anaesthesia, analgesia, and the surgical stress response. BJA Educ. Sep 2020;20(9):321–328. doi:10.1016/j.bjae.2020.04.006
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.bjae.2020.04.006&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F13%2F2024.08.13.24311943.atom)
26. 26.Takenaka K, Ogawa E, Wada H, Hirata T. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome and surgical stress in thoracic surgery. J Crit Care. Mar 2006;21(1):48–53; discussion 53-5. doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2005.07.001
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jcrc.2005.07.001&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16616623&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F13%2F2024.08.13.24311943.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000237066600008&link_type=ISI)
27. 27.Iwasaki M, Edmondson M, Sakamoto A, Ma D. Anesthesia, surgical stress, and “long-term” outcomes. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan. Sep 2015;53(3):99-104. doi:10.1016/j.aat.2015.07.002
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.aat.2015.07.002&link_type=DOI)
28. 28.McSorley ST, Watt DG, Horgan PG, McMillan DC. Postoperative Systemic Inflammatory Response, Complication Severity, and Survival Following Surgery for Colorectal Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. Sep 2016;23(9):2832–40. doi:10.1245/s10434-016-5204-5
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1245/s10434-016-5204-5&link_type=DOI)
29. 29.Shkirkova K, Lamorie-Foote K, Connor M, et al. Effects of ambient particulate matter on vascular tissue: a review. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. Oct 2 2020;23(7):319–350. doi:10.1080/10937404.2020.1822971
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/10937404.2020.1822971&link_type=DOI)
30. 30.Xu X, Nie S, Ding H, Hou FF. Environmental pollution and kidney diseases. Nat Rev Nephrol. May 2018;14(5):313-324. doi:10.1038/nrneph.2018.11
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nrneph.2018.11&link_type=DOI)
31. 31.Park JB, Kang P, Ji SH, et al. Atmospheric particulate matter and hypoxaemia in Korean children receiving general anaesthesia: A retrospective analysis. Eur J Anaesthesiol. Jun 12 2024;doi:10.1097/EJA.0000000000002027
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/EJA.0000000000002027&link_type=DOI)
32. 32.Ou J, Pirozzi CS, Horne BD, et al. Historic and Modern Air Pollution Studies Conducted in Utah. Atmosphere-Basel. Oct 2020;11(10)doi:ARTN 1094 10.3390/atmos11101094
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/atmos11101094&link_type=DOI)
33. 33.Mitchell LE, Zajchowski CAB. The History of Air Quality in Utah: A Narrative Review. Sustainability-Basel. Aug 2022;14(15)doi:ARTN 9653 10.3390/su14159653
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/su14159653&link_type=DOI)
34. 34.Errigo IM, Abbott BW, Mendoza DL, et al. Human Health and Economic Costs of Air Pollution in Utah: An Expert Assessment. Atmosphere-Basel. Nov 2020;11(11)doi:ARTN 1238 10.3390/atmos11111238
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/atmos11111238&link_type=DOI)
35. 35.van Walraven C, Austin PC, Jennings A, Quan H, Forster AJ. A modification of the Elixhauser comorbidity measures into a point system for hospital death using administrative data. Med Care. Jun 2009;47(6):626–33. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31819432e5
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/MLR.0b013e31819432e5&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19433995&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F13%2F2024.08.13.24311943.atom)
36. 36.Austin SR, Wong YN, Uzzo RG, Beck JR, Egleston BL. Why Summary Comorbidity Measures Such As the Charlson Comorbidity Index and Elixhauser Score Work. Med Care. Sep 2015;53(9):e65–72. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e318297429c
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/MLR.0b013e318297429c&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F13%2F2024.08.13.24311943.atom)
37. 37.Kheterpal S. Clinical research using an information system: the multicenter perioperative outcomes group. Anesthesiol Clin. Sep 2011;29(3):377–88. doi:10.1016/j.anclin.2011.06.002
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.anclin.2011.06.002&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21871400&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F13%2F2024.08.13.24311943.atom)
38. 38.von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. Dec 2014;12(12):1495–9. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.013
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.013&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25046131&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F13%2F2024.08.13.24311943.atom)
39. 39.Wilmot TY, Hallar AG, Lin JC, Mallia DV. Expanding number of Western US urban centers face declining summertime air quality due to enhanced wildland fire activity. Environ Res Lett. May 2021;16(5)doi:ARTN 054036 10.1088/1748-9326/abf966
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1088/1748-9326/abf966&link_type=DOI)
40. 40.Reid CE, Considine EM, Maestas MM, Li G. Daily PM(2.5) concentration estimates by county, ZIP code, and census tract in 11 western states 2008-2018. Sci Data. Apr 19 2021;8(1):112. doi:10.1038/s41597-021-00891-1
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41597-021-00891-1&link_type=DOI)
41. 41.Arias-Perez RD, Taborda NA, Gomez DM, Narvaez JF, Porras J, Hernandez JC. Inflammatory effects of particulate matter air pollution. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. Dec 2020;27(34):42390–42404. doi:10.1007/s11356-020-10574-w
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s11356-020-10574-w&link_type=DOI)
42. 42.Pope CA, 3rd., Ezzati M, Dockery DW. Fine-particulate air pollution and life expectancy in the United States. N Engl J Med. Jan 22 2009;360(4):376–86. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa0805646
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMsa0805646&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19164188&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F13%2F2024.08.13.24311943.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000262519900009&link_type=ISI)
43. 43.Sun E, Mello MM, Rishel CA, et al. Association of Overlapping Surgery With Perioperative Outcomes. JAMA. Feb 26 2019;321(8):762–772. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.0711
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2019.0711&link_type=DOI)
44. 44.Wang HH, Tejwani R, Zhang H, Wiener JS, Routh JC. Hospital Surgical Volume and Associated Postoperative Complications of Pediatric Urological Surgery in the United States. J Urol. Aug 2015;194(2):506–11. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.01.096
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.juro.2015.01.096&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25640646&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F13%2F2024.08.13.24311943.atom)
45. 45.Lawson EH, Louie R, Zingmond DS, et al. A comparison of clinical registry versus administrative claims data for reporting of 30-day surgical complications. Ann Surg. Dec 2012;256(6):973–81. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e31826b4c4f
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/SLA.0b013e31826b4c4f&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23095667&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F13%2F2024.08.13.24311943.atom)
46. 46.Research IfS. The National Neighborhood Data Archive (NaNDA). The Regents of the University of Michigan. 2024. [https://archive.icpsr.umich.edu/nanda/home](https://archive.icpsr.umich.edu/nanda/home)
47. 47.Hinton ZW, Fletcher AN, Ryan SP, Wu CJ, Bolognesi MP, Seyler TM. Body Mass Index, American Society of Anesthesiologists Score, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index Predict Cost and Delay of Care During Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. May 2021;36(5):1621–1625. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2020.12.016
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.arth.2020.12.016&link_type=DOI)
48. 48.Maron SZ, Neifert SN, Ranson WA, et al. Elixhauser Comorbidity Measure is Superior to Charlson Comorbidity Index In -Predicting Hospital Complications Following Elective Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion. World Neurosurg. Jun 2020;138:E26–E34. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2020.01.141
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.wneu.2020.01.141&link_type=DOI)
49. 49.Menendez ME, Neuhaus V, van Dijk CN, Ring D. The Elixhauser comorbidity method outperforms the Charlson index in predicting inpatient death after orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. Sep 2014;472(9):2878–86. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3686-7
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s11999-014-3686-7&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24867450&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F13%2F2024.08.13.24311943.atom)
50. 50.Syed S, Baghal A, Prior F, et al. Toolkit to Compute Time-Based Elixhauser Comorbidity Indices and Extension to Common Data Models. Healthc Inform Res. Jul 2020;26(3):193–200. doi:10.4258/hir.2020.26.3.193
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.4258/hir.2020.26.3.193&link_type=DOI)
51. 51.Aguilar JE, Bürkner PC. Intuitive joint priors for Bayesian linear multilevel models: The R2D2M2 prior. Electron J Stat. 2023;17(1):1711–1767. doi:10.1214/23-Ejs2136
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1214/23-Ejs2136&link_type=DOI)
52. 52.Bürkner PC. brms: An R Package for Bayesian Multilevel Models Using Stan. J Stat Softw. Aug 2017;80(1):1–28. doi:10.18637/jss.v080.i01
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.18637/jss.v080.i01&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31532012&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F13%2F2024.08.13.24311943.atom)
53. 53.Lee D, Walton H, Evangelopoulos D, et al. Health impact assessment for air pollution in the presence of regional variation in effect sizes: The implications of using different meta-analytic approaches. Environ Pollut. Nov 1 2023;336:122465. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122465
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122465&link_type=DOI)
54. 54.Josey KP, Delaney SW, Wu X, et al. Air Pollution and Mortality at the Intersection of Race and Social Class. N Engl J Med. Apr 13 2023;388(15):1396–1404. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa2300523
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMsa2300523&link_type=DOI)
55. 55.Rentschler J, Leonova N. Global air pollution exposure and poverty. Nat Commun. Jul 22 2023;14(1):4432. doi:10.1038/s41467-023-39797-4
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41467-023-39797-4&link_type=DOI)
56. 56.Senande-Rivera M, Insua-Costa D, Miguez-Macho G. Spatial and temporal expansion of global wildland fire activity in response to climate change. Nat Commun. Mar 8 2022;13(1):1208. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-28835-2
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41467-022-28835-2&link_type=DOI)
57. 57.Wang XP, Mauzerall DL. Evaluating impacts of air pollution in China on public health: Implications for future air pollution and energy policies. Atmos Environ. Mar 2006;40(9):1706–1721. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.10.066
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.10.066&link_type=DOI)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000236527600013&link_type=ISI)
58. 58.Yang J, Zhang B. Air pollution and healthcare expenditure: Implication for the benefit of air pollution control in China. Environment International. Nov 2018;120:443–455. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.08.011
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.envint.2018.08.011&link_type=DOI)
59. 59.Park M, Joo HS, Lee K, et al. Differential toxicities of fine particulate matters from various sources. Sci Rep-Uk. Nov 16 2018;8doi:ARTN 17007 doi:10.1038/s41598-018-35398-0
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41598-018-35398-0&link_type=DOI)
60. 60.Pearson J, Jacobson C, Ugochukwu N, et al. Geospatial analysis of patients’ social determinants of health for health systems science and disparity research. Int Anesthesiol Clin. Jan 1 2023;61(1):49–62. doi:10.1097/AIA.0000000000000389
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/AIA.0000000000000389&link_type=DOI)
61. 61.Spencer-Hwang R, Knutsen SF, Soret S, et al. Ambient air pollutants and risk of fatal coronary heart disease among kidney transplant recipients. Am J Kidney Dis. Oct 2011;58(4):608–16. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2011.05.017
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1053/j.ajkd.2011.05.017&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21778006&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F13%2F2024.08.13.24311943.atom)
62. 62.Robertson S, Miller MR. Ambient air pollution and thrombosis. Particle and Fibre Toxicology. Jan 3 2018;15 doi:ARTN 1 10.1186/s12989-017-0237-x
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12989-017-0237-x&link_type=DOI)
63. 63.Costa LG, Cole TB, Dao K, Chang YC, Coburn J, Garrick JM. Effects of air pollution on the nervous system and its possible role in neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders. Pharmacol Ther. Jun 2020;210:107523. doi:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2020.107523
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.pharmthera.2020.107523&link_type=DOI)
64. 64.Yan YH, Chou CC, Lee CT, Liu JY, Cheng TJ. Enhanced insulin resistance in diet-induced obese rats exposed to fine particles by instillation. Inhal Toxicol. Aug 2011;23(9):507–19. doi:10.3109/08958378.2011.587472
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3109/08958378.2011.587472&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21736501&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F13%2F2024.08.13.24311943.atom)
65. 65.Nemmar A, Al-Salam S, Beegam S, Yuvaraju P, Ali BH. The acute pulmonary and thrombotic effects of cerium oxide nanoparticles after intratracheal instillation in mice. Int J Nanomedicine. 2017;12:2913–2922. doi:10.2147/IJN.S127180
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2147/IJN.S127180&link_type=DOI)
66. 66.Alam A, Hana Z, Jin Z, Suen KC, Ma D. Surgery, neuroinflammation and cognitive impairment. EBioMedicine. Nov 2018;37:547-556. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.10.021
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.10.021&link_type=DOI)