The effect of tracheostomy on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal timing for pursuing tracheostomy in patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation with either veno-arterial (VA) or veno-venous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a discussion of risk versus benefit. Depending on the etiology, cardiothoracic surgical patients carry some of the highest risk for respiratory failure postprocedure. Given that patients with end-stage cardiopulmonary status may be fraught with substantial comorbidities, it is critically important to manage the risk-benefit profile of performing a tracheostomy procedure on a patient requiring ECMO support. These cohorts have risk factors that may depend on each patient's inflammatory state, lung de-recruitment peri-procedure and postprocedure and bleeding requiring transfusions to name a few. We provide a descriptive analysis of ECMO patients on both VA and VV configurations who survived to hospital discharge receiving tracheostomy either during or after their ECMO course. METHODS: A retrospective single-institutional study collected all consecutive patients age 18 and above who received any form of ECMO between 2016 and 2020. Five hundred forty-five patients were screened based on having received ECMO. Patients with mixed EMCO modality were excluded due to heterogeneity of disease process. A total of 521 patients received either VV or VA ECMO. A total of 54 patients received tracheostomy and had sufficiently clean data for analysis. Tracheostomy patients were compared based on survival to discharge, tracheostomy surgical complications, ECMO duration, ECMO configuration, inotrope and vasopressor use, transfusion rates, total ventilator days, total days on intravenous sedation, and history of cardiotomy or heart transplant were assessed. Baseline characteristics of race, age, gender, and body mass index (BMI) were also collected. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients received tracheostomy. Twenty-nine of those patients received tracheostomy during the course of their ECMO, of whom 13 were on VV ECMO, 16 on VA ECMO. Another 25 patients underwent tracheostomy after successful ECMO explant; 8 of those were VV ECMO with the remaining 17 were on VA ECMO before explantation, with mean delay to tracheostomy, 10 and 19 days after explant between both modalities, respectively. A statistically significantly greater proportion of VV ECMO patients received a tracheostomy at any point versus VA ECMO patients (25.93% vs. 8.35%, p ≤ .0001). No statistically significant difference was noted in timing of tracheostomy when stratified by EMCO modality (VA 51.51% after explant vs. VV 38.10% after explant, p = .33). There was a greater frequency of minor tracheostomy complications in patients who were on ECMO at the time of their tracheostomy (p = .014) than in those who received their tracheostomy after being explanted. However, these minor complications did not contribute to a change in survival to hospital discharge (p = .58). Similarly, the small number of major complications (n = 13) did not impair survival to hospital discharge (p = .84). Finally, mean duration of ECMO was longer in those who received tracheostomy during ECMO versus after ECMO. (488.45 vs. 259.72 h, p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Tracheostomy is known to increase patient mobility, clinical participation, and overall decrease in sedation use. Pursuing tracheostomy during ECMO is feasible, does not result in major bleeding, and is associated with only minor complications that overall do not decrease survival. While there is an increased duration of ECMO support in the tracheostomy cohort, this may be due to existing patient conditions, and may not be causal. Research is needed to further determine the external patient factors and specific timing to optimize both VV and VA ECMO courses. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: We hope that our analysis will pave the initial pathway for an evidence-based guideline on optimal timing of tracheostomy in ECMO patients, whether initiated during or after ECMO and taking into consideration ECMO configuration, its expected duration, and patient comorbidities.

Multimodality Curative Treatment of IIIA/T4 Lung Adenocarcinoma.

We present a 41-year-old female smoker with concurrent invasive ductal carcinoma of the right breast and stage IIIA (T4N0M0) adenocarcinoma of the left lung requiring neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by left pneumonectomy. We use this report as an educational work to show how multidisciplinary clinical decisions can be made to give way to successful treatment of a highly complex lung adenocarcinoma. Specifically, we show curative radical treatment of T4 disease and successful radical intervention of radiation-induced cardiac complications to achieve a comprehensive and curative treatment.

Analysis of Discharge Destination After Open Versus Minimally Invasive Surgery for Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients express strong opinion regarding discharge destination, preferring discharge home vs elsewhere. As focus on patient satisfaction increases, we sought to understand differences in postoperative discharge destination after minimally invasive vs open anatomic lung resection for lung cancer to guide patient education and management and better understand the postoperative patient experience. METHODS: Procedures were identified by Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases codes using the 2012-2017 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program dataset. Propensity score analysis was used to assess the relationship between the surgical approach and nonhome discharge destination (primary outcome) and postoperative complications; related, unplanned readmission; and mortality (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: A total of 17,303 patients underwent anatomic lung resection for lung cancer, including 10,121 (58.5%) minimally invasive and 7182 (41.5%) open resections. Patients undergoing open resection had 60% greater odds of nonhome discharge (P < .001), 58% greater odds of postoperative mortality (P = .003), 36% greater odds of postoperative complication (P < .001), and 17% greater odds of readmission (P = .04) compared with patients undergoing minimally invasive resection. CONCLUSIONS: The minimally invasive approach to lung resection for lung cancer offers patients a more desirable patient-centered postoperative experience, as well as more favorable clinical outcomes, and should be favored when feasible.

Postoperative Complications Drive Unplanned Readmissions After Esophagectomy for Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Hospital readmissions are increasingly viewed as a marker of inferior health care quality and penalized with decreased reimbursement. The timing of, and reasons for, readmissions after esophagectomy for cancer are not well understood. We examined the association of complications to 30-day postoperative-related, unplanned readmission to identify opportunities for improvement in patient care. METHODS: We analyzed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2012 to 2015) to characterize 30-day postoperative unplanned readmissions after esophagectomy for cancer using descriptive statistics. Type and timing of readmission after discharge was assessed. A Cox proportional hazards model was developed to identify predictors of readmission. RESULTS: Of 3,723 patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer, 1,419 (38.1%) experienced ≥1 complication within 30 days. A total of 400 patients (10.7%) experienced related, unplanned readmissions within 30 days of the operation, and postoperative complications were documented in 263 (65.8%). Leading causes of readmission were infectious, pulmonary, and gastrointestinal complications. Of these patients, 155 (59%) were readmitted within 7 days and 236 (90%) within 14 days of discharge. The Cox proportional hazards model identified readmission being associated with occurrence of postdischarge infectious, pulmonary, venous thromboembolic, and urinary tract infection complications, in-hospital urinary tract infection complications, and log-transformation of length of stay (representing increasing length of stay) (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative occurrence of common complications and prolonged length of stay are associated with unplanned readmission after esophagectomy. Most patients are readmitted within 1 week of discharge. Earlier follow-up after discharge may identify patients with complications and facilitate outpatient intervention to prevent readmission.

National Analysis of Unplanned Readmissions After Thoracoscopic Versus Open Lung Cancer Resection.

BACKGROUND: Hospital readmissions are viewed as a mark of inferior health care quality and are penalized. Unplanned postoperative readmission reason and timing after lung resection are not well understood. We examine related, unplanned readmissions after thoracoscopic versus open anatomic lung resections to identify opportunities to improve patient care. METHODS: We analyzed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) data set, 2012 to 2015, characterizing 30-day related, unplanned postoperative readmissions after anatomic lung resections for primary lung cancer. Risk-adjusted comparison of readmission after thoracoscopic and open resection was performed using propensity matching. RESULTS: Patients (n = 9,510) underwent anatomic lung resections; 4,935 (51.9%) were thoracoscopic resections and 4,575 (48.1%) were open resections. Of the thoracoscopic patients, 10.9% experienced one or more complications, versus 19.4% of patients with open resection (p < 0.0001). Of the thoracoscopic patients 5.5% experienced related, unplanned readmissions versus 7.2% of the patients with open resection (p < 0.001). 24.8% of complications after thoracoscopic approach occurred after discharge, versus 15.5% after open approach (p < 0.0001). Timing of unplanned readmission was similar for both groups. The propensity-matched odds ratio of risk of readmission after thoracoscopic versus open resection was 1.16 (95% confidence interval, 0.949 to 1.411, p = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Open anatomic lung resections for primary lung cancer had nearly twice the complication rate but only a slightly higher readmission rate than thoracoscopic resection. More complications occurred after discharge after thoracoscopic than open resections. Most readmissions occurred within 2 weeks after both thoracoscopic and open resections. Risk-adjusted comparison identified no statistically significant difference in risk of related, unplanned readmission after thoracoscopic versus open resections. Future studies should focus on identification of processes of care to decrease complications and unplanned readmissions after lung cancer resection.