Christopher Wirtalla

National Cancer Institute designation predicts improved outcomes in colorectal cancer surgery.

Background:Although National Cancer Institute (NCI) designation as a cancer center is based almost solely on research activities, it is often viewed, by patients and referring providers, as an indication of clinical excellence. Objective:To compare the short- and long-term outcomes of colon and rectal cancer surgery performed at NCI-designated centers to the outcomes after resection at non–NCI-designated hospitals. Methods:We performed a retrospective cohort study of Survival, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database patients undergoing segmental colectomy (n = 33,969) or proctectomy (n = 8591) for cancer from 1996–2003. Multivariate logistic regression, with and without propensity scores, and matched conditional regression were performed to evaluate the relationship between NCI status and postoperative mortality (in-hospital or 30-day death). The log-rank test, Kaplan-Meier curves, and Cox regression compared survival between hospital types. Results:We evaluated 33,969 colectomy and 8591 proctectomy patients. Postoperative mortality after colectomy was 6.7% at non-NCI and 3.2% at NCI centers. Mortality after proctectomy was 5.0% and 1.9%, respectively. These differences were significant when adjusted for patient and hospital characteristics. For both colon and rectal cancer patients, long-term mortality was significantly improved after resection at NCI centers (HR 0.84, P < 0.001; HR 0.85, P = 0.02, respectively). Conclusion:NCI designation is associated with lower risk of postoperative death and improved long-term survival. Possible factors responsible for these benefits include surgeon training, multidisciplinary care, and adherence to treatment guidelines. Studies are underway to elucidate the factors leading to improved patient outcomes.

Underuse of Esophagectomy as Treatment for Resectable Esophageal Cancer

HYPOTHESIS Esophagectomy is underused as treatment for resectable stage I, II, and III esophageal cancers. DESIGN AND SETTING Retrospective cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database. PATIENTS We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to identify persons 65 years or older who were not enrolled in a health maintenance organization and who were diagnosed as having stage I, II, or III esophageal cancer between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 2002 (N = 2386). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The rate of surgical intervention was compared across varying patient characteristics, including age, race, comorbidity score, sex, tumor stage, and socioeconomic region. Survival was compared between patients who received surgery and those who did not using Kaplan-Meier curves, the log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards regression. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi2 test and multiple logistic regression. RESULTS The overall rate of surgical intervention in this cohort was 34.1%. In all, 36.8% of white patients underwent surgical treatment of their disease, whereas only 19.2% of nonwhite patients did. Patients residing in areas with high poverty rates were 27% less likely to have surgery. Older age and higher comorbidity scores were also associated with lower rates of surgery. Patients who received surgical treatment for their disease experienced significantly longer survival than did patients who did not undergo surgical resection. CONCLUSIONS There seems to be significant underuse of esophagectomy as treatment for potentially resectable stage I, II, and III esophageal cancers across all patient groups. In nonwhite and low socioeconomic patient cohorts, the underuse is even more pronounced.

Gender influences treatment and survival in colorectal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: It has been observed that survival after colorectal cancer resection is longer in women than men. The majority of these studies are in non-U.S. populations and few use appropriate multivariate adjustment. We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database to examine disease-specific survival in women and men undergoing colorectal cancer resection in the United States, adjusting for patient, cancer, and hospital characteristics in an effort to identify disparities, not only in survival, but also in patterns of presentation, surgical resection, and treatment. METHODS: With use of the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare–linked database, we performed a retrospective cohort study of 30,975 patients with colon cancer and 8,350 patients with rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection from 1996 to 2003. Kaplan-Meier curves, the log-rank test, and Cox regression compared survival between genders. Multivariate adjustment was performed by use of patient demographics; cancer variables including stage, medical treatment, and adequacy of nodal harvest; and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: In both cancers, women presented at an older age and more emergently than men. They also underwent less aggressive medical therapy for advanced disease; in particular, in the octogenarian population. In unadjusted analysis, there was no gender difference in survival (colon hazard ratio, 0.98; P = 0.74; rectal hazard ratio, 0.95; P = 0.10). After full adjustment, however, women had significantly longer survival, in particular, after rectal resection (colon hazard ratio, 0.91; P < 0.001; rectal hazard ratio, 0.82; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Women in this cohort have longer adjusted survival compared with men; however, they present more emergently and at an older age, and they receive less aggressive medical treatment. These are noticeable disparities that could serve as targets for continued improvement.

Acuity and survival in colon cancer surgery.

PURPOSE: Reports indicate that up to 40% of patients with colon cancer require nonelective resection, which has been shown to portend worse long-term prognosis compared with elective resection. We used a national database to identify specific preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative factors mediating the acuity–survival relationship in an effort to identify areas of medical practice that can serve as targets for improvement in cancer care. METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results–Medicare–linked database to identify non–health maintenance organization–enrolled people aged 66 years and older who were diagnosed with stages I to III colon cancer between 1996 and 2003 (N = 30,685). Using stepwise, multivariate Cox regression, disease-specific survival was compared in patients undergoing elective vs nonelective resection. Adjustment for preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative variables was performed to identify factors contributing to the acuity–survival relationship. RESULTS: Five-year disease-specific survival was 86.3% after elective and 75.4% after nonelective colon resection (hazard ratio, 1.92; P < .001). A significant proportion of this disparity was the result of differences in stage and patient characteristics, particularly age and comorbidity burden, at the time of resection. Differences in adequacy of nodal assessment and the use of surveillance colonoscopy and adjuvant chemotherapy, however, also contributed to the disparity. After adjustment for these factors, the hazard ratio for nonelective resection was 1.30 (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Nonelective resection of colon cancer is associated with poor long-term prognosis compared with elective resection. Disease-specific survival among patients undergoing nonelective surgery may be improved by addressing insufficient nodal assessment, inadequate follow-up care, and underutilization of appropriate, adjuvant chemotherapy.

Effect of Clinical Trial Experience on Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes

Background—Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in November 2011 after a collaborative technology development process involving professional medical societies, the medical device industry, and the FDA. After FDA approval, TAVR was adopted by numerous hospitals that had not participated in TAVR clinical trials. It is uncertain if outcomes at these hospitals were comparable with those at clinical trial hospitals. Methods and Results—All patients with Medicare physician claims for TAVR between January 1, 2011, and November 30, 2012, were identified, and postoperative mortality was assessed using Medicare enrollment data. Risk-adjusted mortality was calculated via a multivariable model that adjusted for demographics and comorbidities. We identified 5009 patients who underwent TAVR, with 3617 TAVRs performed at 68 hospitals that had participated in clinical trials and 1392 TAVRs performed at 140 nontrial hospitals. The preoperative characteristics of patients at trial versus nontrial hospitals were similar. There were no significant differences in risk-adjusted 30-day mortality (5.9% versus 5.6%, odds ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.66–1.15; P=0.34) or 180-day mortality (16.5% versus 15.8%, odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.75–1.3; P=0.94). Conclusions—Patients undergoing TAVR at nontrial hospitals had comparable clinical outcomes to patients undergoing TAVR at clinical trial hospitals. This finding contrasts with several other cardiovascular devices and procedures for which higher mortality was observed at hospitals that did not participate in clinical trials. The unique policy and regulatory environment governing TAVR adoption by hospitals may have contributed to better outcomes during the technology diffusion process.

Association of Surgical Practice Patterns and Clinical Outcomes With Surgeon Training in University- or Nonuniversity-Based Residency Program

Importance Important metrics of residency program success include the clinical outcomes achieved by trainees after transitioning to practice. Previous studies have shown significant differences in reported training experiences of general surgery residents at nonuniversity-based residency (NUBR) and university-based residency (UBR) programs. Objective To examine the differences in practice patterns and clinical outcomes between surgeons trained in NUBR and those trained in UBR programs. Design, Setting, and Participants This observational cohort study linked the claims data of patients who underwent general surgery procedures in New York, Florida, and Pennsylvania between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2013, to demographic and training information of surgeons in the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. Patients who underwent a qualifying procedure were grouped by surgeon. Practice pattern analysis was performed on 3638 surgeons and 1 237 621 patients, representing 214 residency programs. Clinical outcomes analysis was performed on 2301 surgeons and 312 584 patients. Data analysis was conducted from February 1, 2017, to July 31, 2017. Exposures NUBR or UBR training status. Main Outcomes and Measures Inpatient mortality, complications, and prolonged length of stay. Results No significant differences were observed between the NUBR-trained surgeons and UBR-trained surgeons in age (mean, 53.3 years vs 53.7 years), sex (female, 18.2% vs 16.9%), or years of clinical experience (mean, 16.5 years vs 16.5 years). Overall, NUBR-trained surgeons compared with UBR-trained surgeons performed more procedures (median interquartile range [IQR], 328 [93-661] vs 164 [49-444]; P < .001) and performed a greater proportion of procedures in the outpatient setting (risk difference, 6.5; 95% CI, 6.4 to 6.7; P < .001). Before matching, the mean proportion of patients with documented inpatient mortality was lower for NUBR-trained surgeons than for UBR-trained surgeons (risk difference, −1.01; 95% CI, −1.41 to −0.61; P < .001). The mean proportion of patients with complications (risk difference, −3.17%; 95% CI, −4.21 to −2.13; P < .001) and prolonged length of stay (risk difference, −1.89%; 95% CI, −2.79 to −0.98; P < .001) was also lower for NUBR-trained surgeons. After matching, no significant differences in patient mortality, complications, and prolonged length of stay were found between NUBR- and UBR-trained surgeons. Conclusions and Relevance Surgeons trained in NUBR and UBR programs have distinct practice patterns. After controlling for patient, procedure, and hospital factors, no differences were observed in the inpatient outcomes between the 2 groups.

National trends in admissions, repair, and mortality for thoracic aortic aneurysm and type B dissection in the National Inpatient Sample

Objective: The advent of endovascular repair for both thoracic aortic aneurysm and type B dissection has transformed the management of these disease processes. This study was undertaken to better define, compare, and contrast the national trends in hospital admissions, invasive treatments, and inpatient mortality of patients with thoracic aortic aneurysm and type B dissection in the National Inpatient Sample. Methods: The cohort was derived from International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis codes for thoracic aortic dissection and thoracic aortic or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm. Patients receiving type A dissection or ascending aortic repair during their index admission were excluded using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision procedure codes. A total of 155,187 patients were available for analysis from 2000 to 2012. Results: Admissions for thoracic aortic aneurysm outnumbered the admissions for type B dissection (69.8% vs 30.2%; P < .001), and the number of admissions for aneurysm grew more rapidly during this time (132% vs 63%; P < .001). Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for aneurysm experienced an increase in 2005, concordant with Food and Drug Administration approval of TEVAR for thoracic aortic aneurysm indication, then superseded open repair for thoracic aortic aneurysm from 2006 onward. Despite this, the rate of thoracic aortic aneurysm repair has remained relatively stable over time. TEVAR for dissection increased in 2006, superseded open repair in 2010, and continues to account for 50.5% of all dissection repairs. Overall, the number of type B dissection repairs has increased (P < .001), over and above the increase in number of admissions for type B dissection. Despite the increased trends of utilization of TEVAR for both aneurysm and type B dissection, the overall in‐hospital mortality rate among patients admitted for either disease state has decreased steadily over time (P < .001). Conclusions: Whereas admissions for thoracic aortic aneurysm disease have increased over time, the rate of aneurysm repair has been stable, although TEVAR has supplanted a proportion of open repairs. In contrast, whereas admissions for type B dissection have experienced a more modest increase, there has been a disproportionate increase in type B dissection repair, largely due to increased use of TEVAR. These results show embracing of endovascular technology for dissection through expansion of indication. Despite the increase in rate of repair for type B dissection, inpatient mortality rate was reduced in both aneurysm and dissection patients, influenced by appropriate selection of patients for intervention.

Development and validation of a prediction model for patients discharged to post–acute care after colorectal cancer surgery

Background. As payment shifts toward bundled reimbursement, decreasing unnecessary inpatient care may provide cost savings. This study examines the association between discharge status, hospital duration of stay, and cost for colorectal operation patients without complications and uses risk factors to predict the need for post–acute care. Methods. We used the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System and the California Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases to identify all patients who underwent operative resection for colorectal cancer in 2009–2010 and were discharged to home or post–acute care. Patients with complications were excluded. Duration of stay and inpatient costs were calculated. Risk factors associated with discharge to post–acute care were identified using multivariable logistic regression and were incorporated into a model to predict discharge status. Results. A total of 5.4% of 23,942 patients were discharged to a post–acute care facility. Duration of sty was 2 days greater and

Outcomes of hospitalized patients undergoing emergency general surgery remote from admission

3,823 more costly for patients discharged to post–acute care. Significant risk factors included age, number of comorbidities, emergency admission, open operation, admission in the previous year, and a new ostomy. A scoring system using these factors accurately predicted discharge to post–acute care. Conclusion. Admissions after colorectal operations were greater and more costly for patients discharged to post–acute care even without operative complications. Risk factors can predict the need for post–acute care early in the postoperative course, thereby potentially facilitating early discharge planning.

Disparities in operative outcomes in patients with comorbid mental illness

Background: Emergency general surgery during hospitalization has not been well characterized. We examined emergency operations remote from admission to identify predictors of postoperative 30‐day mortality, postoperative duration of stay >30 days, and complications. Methods: Patients >18 years in The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2011–2014) who had 1 of 7 emergency operations between hospital day 3–18 were included. Patients with operations >95th percentile after admission (>18 days; n = 581) were excluded. Exploratory laparotomy only (with no secondary procedure) represented either nontherapeutic or decompressive laparotomy. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of study outcomes. Results: Of 10,093 patients with emergency operations, most were elderly (median 66 years old [interquartile ratio: 53–77 years]), white, and female. Postoperative 30‐day mortality was 12.6% (n = 1,275). Almost half the cohort (40.1%) had a complication. A small subset (6.8%) had postoperative duration of stay >30 days. Postoperative mortality after exploratory laparotomy only was particularly high (>40%). In multivariable analysis, an operation on hospital day 11–18 compared with day 3–6 was associated with death (odds ratio 1.6 [1.3–2.0]), postoperative duration of stay >30 days (odds ratio 2.0 [1.6–2.6]), and complications (odds ratio 1.5 [1.3–1.8]). Exploratory laparotomy only also was associated with death (odds ratio 5.4 [2.8–10.4]). Conclusion: Emergency general surgery performed during a hospitalization is associated with high morbidity and mortality. A longer hospital course before an emergency operation is a predictor of poor outcomes, as is undergoing exploratory laparotomy only.