Zhaomin Xu

Patients With Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction Should Be Primarily Managed by a Surgical Team.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of a primary medical versus surgical service on healthcare utilization and outcomes for adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO) admissions. Summary Background Data: Adhesive-SBO typically requires hospital admission and is associated with high healthcare utilization and costs. Given that most patients are managed nonoperatively, many patients are admitted to medical hospitalists. However, comparisons of outcomes between primary medical and surgical services have been limited to small single-institution studies. Methods: Unscheduled adhesive-SBO admissions in NY State from 2002 to 2013 were identified using the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System. Bivariate and mixed-effects regression analyses were performed assessing factors associated with healthcare utilization and outcomes for SBO admissions. Results: Among 107,603 admissions for adhesive-SBO (78% nonoperative, 22% operative), 43% were primarily managed by a medical attending and 57% were managed by a surgical attending. After controlling for patient, physician, and hospital-level factors, management by a medical service was independently associated with longer length of stay [IRR = 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.24, 1.56], greater inpatient costs (IRR = 1.38, 95% = 1.21, 1.57), and a higher rate of 30-day readmission (OR = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.22, 1.42) following nonoperative management. Similarly, of those managed operatively, management by a medicine service was associated with a delay in time to surgical intervention (IRR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.69, 2.01), extended length of stay (IRR=1.36, 95% CI = 1.25, 1.49), greater inpatient costs (IRR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.11, 1.71), and higher rates of 30-day mortality (OR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.50, 2.47) and 30-day readmission (OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.97, 1.32). Conclusions: This study suggests that management of patients presenting with adhesive-SBO by a primary medical team is associated with higher healthcare utilization and worse perioperative outcomes. Policies favoring primary management by a surgical service may improve outcomes and reduce costs for patients admitted with adhesive-SBO.

The impact of age on complications, survival, and cause of death following colon cancer surgery

Background:Given scarce data regarding the relationship among age, complications, and survival beyond the 30-day postoperative period for oncology patients in the United States, this study identified age-related differences in complications and the rate and cause of 1-year mortality following colon cancer surgery.Methods:The NY State Cancer Registry and Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System identified stage I–III colon cancer resections (2004–2011). Multivariable logistic regression and survival analyses assessed the relationship among age (<65, 65–74, ⩾75), complications, 1-year survival, and cause of death.Results:Among 24 426 patients surviving >30 days, 1-year mortality was 8.5%. Older age groups had higher complication rates, and older age and complications were independently associated with 1-year mortality (P<0.0001). Increasing age was associated with a decrease in the proportion of deaths from colon cancer with a concomitant increase in the proportion of deaths from cardiovascular disease. Older age and sepsis were independently associated with higher risk of colon cancer-specific death (65–74: HR=1.59, 95% CI=1.26–2.00; ⩾75: HR=2.57, 95% CI=2.09–3.16; sepsis: HR=2.58, 95% CI=2.13–3.11) and cardiovascular disease-specific death (65–74: HR=3.72, 95% CI=2.29–6.05; ⩾75: HR=7.02, 95% CI=4.44–11.10; sepsis: HR=2.33, 95% CI=1.81–2.99).Conclusions:Older age and sepsis are associated with higher 1-year overall, cancer-specific, and cardiovascular-specific mortality, highlighting the importance of geriatric assessment, multidisciplinary care, and cardiovascular optimisation for older patients and those with infectious complications.

Explaining variation in ventral and inguinal hernia repair outcomes: A population-based analysis

Background: No study has evaluated the relative importance of patient, surgeon, and hospital‐level factors on surgeon and hospital variation in hernia reoperation rates. This population‐based retrospective cohort study evaluated factors associated with variation in reoperation rates for recurrence after initial ventral hernia repair and inguinal hernia repair. Methods: The Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System identified initial ventral hernia repairs and inguinal hernia repairs in New York state from 2003–2009. Mixed‐effects Cox proportional hazards analyses were performed assessing factors associated with surgeon/hospital variation in 5‐year reoperation rates for hernia recurrence. Results: Among 78,267 ventral hernia repairs and 124,416 inguinal hernia repairs, the proportion of total variation in reoperation rates attributable to individual surgeons compared with hospitals was 87% for ventral hernia repairs and 92% for inguinal hernia repairs. In explaining variation in ventral hernia repair reoperation between surgeons, 19% was attributable to patient‐level factors, 4% attributable to mesh placement, and 10% attributable to surgeon volume and type of board certification. In explaining variation in inguinal hernia repair reoperation between surgeons, 1.1% was attributable to mesh placement and 10% was attributable to surgeon volume and years of experience. However, 67% of the variation between surgeons for ventral hernia repair and 89% of the variation between surgeons for inguinal hernia repair remained unexplained by factors in the models. Conclusion: The majority of variation in hernia reoperation rates is attributable to surgeon‐level variation. This suggests that hernia recurrence may be an appropriate surgeon quality metric. While modifiable factors such as mesh placement and surgeon characteristics play roles in surgeon variation, future research should focus on identifying additional surgeon attributes responsible for this variation.

Lymph node yield is an independent predictor of survival in rectal cancer regardless of receipt of neoadjuvant therapy.

Aims Lymph node yield (LNY) is used as a marker of adequate oncological resection. The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) currently recommends that at least 12 nodes are necessary to confirm node-negative disease for rectal cancer. A LNY of 12 is not always achieved, particularly in patients who have undergone neoadjuvant treatment. This study attempts to examine factors associated with LNY and its prognostic impact following neoadjuvant chemoradiation in rectal cancer. Methods The 2006–2011 National Cancer Data Base was queried for patients with clinical stage I–III rectal cancer who underwent a proctectomy. Suboptimal LNY was defined as <12 lymph nodes examined. A mixed-effects multinomial logistic regression model was used to identify independent factors associated with LNY. Mixed-effects Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the adjusted effect of LNY on 5-year overall survival. Results 25 447 patients met inclusion criteria. Overall, 62% of the cohort received neoadjuvant chemoradiation and 32% had suboptimal LNY. The median LNY for patients who received neoadjuvant therapy was 13 (IQR: 9–18) and for patients who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy was 15 (IQR: 12–21). After risk adjustment, there was a 3.5-fold difference in the rate of suboptimal LNY among individual hospitals (27%–95%). Suboptimal LNY was independently associated with an 18% increased hazard of death among patients who did not receive neoadjuvant treatment and a 20% increased hazard of death among those who did receive neoadjuvant treatment when controlled for adjuvant treatment, staging, proximal/distal margins and other patient factors. Conclusions Suboptimal LNY is independently associated with worse overall survival regardless of neoadjuvant therapy, pathological staging and patient factors in rectal cancer. This finding underlies the importance and challenge of an optimal lymph node evaluation for prognostication, especially for patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy.

Is the Distance Worth It? Patients With Rectal Cancer Traveling to High-Volume Centers Experience Improved Outcomes

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether traveling long distances to high-volume centers would compensate for travel burden among patients undergoing rectal cancer resection. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether operative volume outweighs the advantages of being treated locally by comparing the outcomes of patients with rectal cancer treated at local, low-volume centers versus far, high-volume centers. DESIGN: This was a population-based study. SETTINGS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with rectal cancer. PATIENTS: Patients with stage II or III rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection between 2006 and 2012 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcomes of interest were margins, lymph node yield, receipt of neoadjuvant chemoradiation, adjuvant chemotherapy, readmission within 30 days, 30-day and 90-day mortality, and 5-year overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 18,605 patients met inclusion criteria; 2067 patients were in the long-distance/high-volume group and 1362 in the short-distance/low-volume group. The median travel distance was 62.6 miles for the long-distance/high-volume group and 2.3 miles for the short-distance/low-volume group. Patients who were younger, white, privately insured, and stage III were more likely to have traveled to a high-volume center. When controlled for patient factors, stage, and hospital factors, patients in the short-distance/low-volume group had lower odds of a lymph node yield ≥12 (OR = 0.51) and neoadjuvant chemoradiation (OR = 0.67) and higher 30-day (OR = 3.38) and 90-day mortality (OR = 2.07) compared with those in the long-distance/high-volume group. The short-distance/low-volume group had a 34% high risk of overall mortality at 5 years compared with the long-distance/high-volume group. LIMITATIONS: We lacked data regarding patient and physician decision making and surgeon-specific factors. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that when controlled for patient, tumor, and hospital factors, patients who traveled a long distance to a high-volume center had improved lymph node yield, neoadjuvant chemoradiation receipt, and 30- and 90-day mortality compared with those who traveled a short distance to a low-volume center. They also had improved 5-year survival. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A446.

Poor compliance with adjuvant chemotherapy use associated with poorer survival in patients with rectal cancer: An NCDB analysis

National Comprehensive Cancer Network treatment guidelines for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer include neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by total mesorectal excision and adjuvant chemotherapy. The objective of the current study was to examine the rate of adjuvant chemotherapy and associated survival in patients with stage II/III rectal cancer.

Long-term Deleterious Impact of Surgeon Care Fragmentation After Colorectal Surgery on Survival: Continuity of Care Continues to Count

BACKGROUND: Surgical care fragmentation at readmission impacts short-term outcomes. However, the long-term impact of surgical care fragmentation is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to evaluate the impact of surgical care fragmentation, encompassing both surgeon and hospital care, at readmission after colorectal surgery on 1-year survival. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The study included patients undergoing colorectal resection in New York State from 2004 to 2014. PATIENTS: Included were 20,016 patients undergoing colorectal resection who were readmitted within 30 days of discharge and categorized by source-of-care fragmentation. Each readmission was classified by the source of fragmentation: readmission to the index hospital and managed by another provider, readmission to another hospital by the index surgeon, and readmission to another hospital by another provider. Patients readmitted to the index hospital and managed by the index surgeon served as controls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: One-year overall survival and 1-year colorectal cancer-specific survival were the outcomes measured. RESULTS: After propensity adjustment, surgeon care fragmentation was independently associated with decreased survival. In comparison with patients without surgical care fragmentation (patients readmitted to the index hospital and managed by the index surgeon), patients readmitted to the index hospital and managed by another provider had over a 2-fold risk (HR, 2.33; 95% CI, 2.10–2.60) and patients readmitted to another hospital by another provider had almost a 2-fold risk (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.63–2.25) of 1-year mortality. Among 9545 patients with a colorectal cancer diagnosis, surgical care fragmentation was once again associated with decreased survival with patients readmitted to the index hospital and managed by another provider having a HR of 2.12 (95% CI, 1.76–2.56) and patients readmitted to another hospital by another provider having a HR of 1.57 (95% CI, 1.17–2.11) compared with patients readmitted to the index hospital and managed by the index surgeon. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include possible miscoding of data, retrospective design, and selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: After accounting for patient, index hospital, index surgeon, and readmission factors, there is a significant 2-fold decrease in survival associated with surgeon care fragmentation regardless of hospital continuity. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A431.

Nonelective colon cancer resection: A continued public health concern

Background: Little is known regarding recent trends in the rate of nonelective colon cancer resection in the United States and its impact on both short‐term and long‐term outcomes. Methods: The New York State Cancer Registry and Statewide Planning & Research Cooperative System identified stage I–III colon cancer resections from 2004–2011. Propensity‐matched analyses assessed differences in short‐term adverse outcomes and 5‐year disease‐specific and overall survival between elective and nonelective colon cancer operations. Further analyses assessed the association among patient, surgeon, and hospital‐level factors and outcomes within the nonelective operation group. Results: Among 26,420 patients, 26.5% underwent nonelective operations. There was no significant change in the rate of nonelective resection from 2004–2011 (P = .25). Nonelective operations were independently associated with greater odds of 30‐day mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 3.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.87–4.06), stoma creation (OR = 4.49, 95% CI = 3.95–5.09), intensive care unit admission (OR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.53–1.84), complications (OR = 2.34, 95% CI = 2.18–2.52), and discharge to another health care facility (OR = 2.46, 95% CI = 2.26–2.68), longer duration of stay (incidence rate ratio = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.76–1.83), and worse disease‐specific (hazard ratio = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.61–1.88) and overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.55–1.75). Other than an association among high‐volume surgeons, adequate lymph node yield, and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy and lower mortality, no other potentially modifiable factors were associated with survival after nonelective operations. Conclusion: Nonelective colon cancer resection remains a concerning public health issue with >25% of cases being performed on a nonelective basis and an independent association with poor short‐term and long‐term survival compared with elective operations. Given that few potentially modifiable factors appear to have an impact on survival after nonelective operations, these findings highlight the importance of adherence to colon cancer screening guidelines to limit the number of nonelective colon cancer resections.

Evaluating the Current Status of Rectal Cancer Care in the US: Where We Stand at the Start of the Commission on Cancer's National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND In an effort to improve the quality of rectal cancer care in the US, the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer has developed the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC). We aimed to describe the current status of rectal cancer care before implementation of the NAPRC. STUDY DESIGN The 2011-2014 National Cancer Database was queried for non-metastatic rectal cancer patients who underwent proctectomy. The NAPRC process measures evaluated included clinical staging completion, treatment starting fewer than 60 days from diagnosis, CEA level drawn before treatment, tumor regression grading, and margin assessment. The NAPRC performance measures included negative proximal, distal, and circumferential margins, and ≥12 lymph nodes harvested during resection. RESULTS There were 39,068 patients identified (mean age 62 years, 61.6% male sex). In >85% of patients, clinical staging was completed, treatment was started within 60 days, and all tumor margins were assessed. Pretreatment CEA level (64.6% complete) was the process measure most often omitted. However, completion of all included process measures occurred in only 28.1% of patients. All pathologic margins were negative in 79.8% of patients and 73.2% of specimens reported ≥12 lymph nodes. Overall, 56.3% of patients achieved all performance measures. Patients treated at high-volume centers (>30 cases/year) had higher odds of meeting all performance measures (odds ratio 1.42; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Overall, very few patients achieved all of the proposed quality measures for rectal cancer care. It will be important to re-evaluate these data after the implementation of the NAPRC.

Population-based study of outcomes following an initial acute diverticular abscess: Outcomes after an initial acute diverticular abscess

Studies examining long‐term outcomes following resolution of an acute diverticular abscess have been limited to single‐institution chart reviews. This observational cohort study compared outcomes between elective colectomy and non‐operative management following admission for an initial acute diverticular abscess.