Zeling Chau

Readmission After Resections of the Colon and Rectum: Predictors of a Costly and Common Outcome.

BACKGROUND: Readmission rates are a measure of surgical quality and an object of clinical and regulatory scrutiny. Despite increasing efforts to improve quality and contain cost, 6% to 25% of patients are readmitted after colorectal surgery. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to define the predictors and costs of readmission following colorectal surgery. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing elective and nonelective colectomy and/or proctectomy in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Florida State Inpatient Database 2007 to 2011. Readmission is defined as inpatient admission within 30 days of discharge. Univariate analyses were performed of sex, age, Elixhauser score, race, insurance type, procedure, indication, readmission diagnosis, cost, and length of stay. Multivariate analysis was performed by logistic regression. Sensitivity analysis of nonemergent admissions was conducted. SETTINGS: This study was conducted in Florida acute-care hospitals. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing colectomy and proctectomy from 2007 to 2011 were included. INTERVENTION(S): There were no interventions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary outcomes measured were readmission and the cost of readmission. RESULTS: A total of 93,913 patients underwent colectomy; 14.7% were readmitted within 30 days. From 2007 to 2011, readmission rates remained stable (14.6%–14.2%, trend p = 0.1585). After multivariate adjustment, patient factors associated with readmission included nonwhite race, age <65, and a diagnosis code other than neoplasm or diverticular disease (p < 0.0001). Patients with Medicare or Medicaid were more likely to be readmitted than those with private insurance (p < 0.0001). Patients with longer index admissions, those with stomas, and those undergoing all procedures other than sigmoid or transverse colectomy were more likely to be readmitted (p < 0.0001). High-volume hospitals had higher rates of readmission (p < 0.0001). The most common reason for readmission was infection (32.9%). Median cost of readmission care was

National trends in pancreaticoduodenal trauma: interventions and outcomes

7030 (intraquartile range,

Patient selection and the volume effect in pancreatic surgery: unequal benefits?

4220–

Rankings versus reality in pancreatic cancer surgery: a real-world comparison

13,247). Fistulas caused the most costly readmissions (

Utilization of laparoscopy for resections of stomach and esophagus cancers: Is hospital the deciding factor?

15,174; intraquartile range,

528 Is Routine Intraoperative Cholangiogram Necessary in the 21st Century? a National View

6725–

Is Routine Intraoperative Cholangiogram Necessary in the Twenty-First Century? A National View

26,660). LIMITATIONS: Administrative data and retrospective design were limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Readmissions rates after colorectal surgery remain common and costly. Nonprivate insurance, IBD, and high hospital volume are significantly associated with readmission.

High-volume centers for pancreatic cancer surgery: Does the media message matter?

OBJECTIVES Pancreaticoduodenal trauma (PDT) is associated with substantial mortality and morbidity. In this study, contemporary trends were analysed using national data. METHODS The Nationwide Inpatient Sample for 1998-2009 was queried for patients with PDT. Interventions including any operation (Any-Op) and pancreas-specific surgery (PSURG) were identified. Trends in treatment and outcomes were determined [complications, length of stay (LoS), mortality] for the Any-Op, PSURG and non-operative (Non-Op) groups. Analyses included chi-squared tests, Cochran-Armitage trend tests and logistic regression. RESULTS A total of 27 216 patients (nationally weighted) with PDT were identified. Over time, the frequency of PDT increased by 8.3%, whereas the proportion of patients submitted to PSURG declined (from 21.7% to 19.8%; P = 0.0004) and the percentage of patients submitted to non-operative management increased (from 56.7% to 59.1%; P = 0.01). In the Non-Op group, mortality decreased from 9.7% to 8.6% (P < 0.001); morbidity and LoS remained unchanged at ∼40% and ∼12 days, respectively. In the PSURG group, mortality remained stable at ∼15%, complications increased from 50.2% to 71.8% (P < 0.0001) and LoS remained stable at ∼21 days. For all PDT patients, significant independent predictors of mortality included: the presence of combined pancreatic and duodenal injuries; penetrating trauma, and age >50 years. Having any operation (Any-Op) was associated with mortality, but PSURG was not a predictor of death. CONCLUSIONS The utilization of operations for PDT has declined without affecting mortality, but operative morbidity increased significantly over the 12 years to 2009. The development of an evidence-based approach to invasive manoeuvres and an early multidisciplinary approach involving pancreatic surgeons may improve outcomes in patients with these morbid injuries.

Effects of metformin on pancreatic cancer survival among Medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND The volume effect in pancreatic surgery is well established. Regionalization to high-volume centres has been proposed. The effect of this proposal on practice patterns is unknown. METHODS Retrospective review of pancreatectomy patients in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2004-2011. Inpatient mortality and complication rates were calculated. Patients were stratified by annual centre pancreatic resection volume (low <5, medium 5-18, high >18). Multivariable regression model evaluated predictors of resection at a high-volume centre. RESULTS In total, 129,609 patients underwent a pancreatectomy. The crude inpatient mortality rate was 4.3%. 36.0% experienced complications. 66.5% underwent a resection at high-volume centres. In 2004, low-, medium- and high-volume centres resected 16.3%, 24.5% and 59.2% of patients, compared with 7.6%, 19.3% and 73.1% in 2011. High-volume centres had lower mortality (P < 0.001), fewer complications (P < 0.001) and a shorter median length of stay (P < 0.001). Patients at non-high-volume centres had more comorbidities (P = 0.001), lower rates of private insurance (P < 0.001) and more non-elective admissions (P < 0.001). DISCUSSION In spite of a shift to high-volume hospitals, a substantial cohort still receives a resection outside of these centres. Patients receiving non-high-volume care demonstrate less favourable comorbidities, insurance and urgency of operation. The implications are twofold: already disadvantaged patients may not benefit from the high-volume effect; and patients predisposed to do well may contribute to observed superior outcomes at high-volume centres.

Su1822 Who Travels for Cancer Care? Regionalization of Pancreatectomy in Massachusetts

BACKGROUND Patients are increasingly confronted with systems for rating hospitals. However, the correlations between publicized ratings and actual outcomes after pancreatectomy are unknown. METHODS The Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy Hospital Inpatient Discharge Database was queried to identify pancreatic cancer resections carried out during 2005-2009. Hospitals performing fewer than 10 pancreatic resections in the 5-year period were excluded. Primary outcomes included mortality, complications, median length of stay (LoS) and a composite outcomes score (COS) combining primary outcomes. Ranks were determined and compared for: (i) volume, and (ii) ratings identified from consumer-directed hospital ratings including the US News & World Report (USN), Consumer Reports, Healthgrades and Hospital Compare. An inter-rater reliability analysis was performed and correlation coefficients (r) between outcomes and ratings, and between rating systems were calculated. RESULTS Eleven hospitals in which a total of 804 pancreatectomies were conducted were identified. Surgical volume correlated with overall outcome, but was not the strongest indicator. The highest correlation referred to that between USN rank and overall outcome. Mortality was most strongly correlated with Healthgrades ratings (r = 0.50); however, Healthgrades ratings demonstrated poorer correlations with all other outcomes. Consumer Reports ratings showed inverse correlations. CONCLUSIONS The plethora of publicly available hospital ratings systems demonstrates heterogeneity. Volume remains a good but imperfect indicator of surgical outcomes. Further systematic investigation into which measures predict quality outcomes in pancreatic cancer surgery will benefit both patients and providers.