Conversion to Radical Nephrectomy From Robotic Partial Nephrectomy Is Most Commonly Due to Anatomic and Oncologic Complexity.

PURPOSE: Partial nephrectomy is standard-of-care treatment for small renal masses. As utilization of partial nephrectomy increases and includes larger and complex tumors, the risk of conversion to radical nephrectomy likely increases. We evaluated incidence and reason for conversion to radical nephrectomy in patients scheduled for partial nephrectomy by surgeons participating in MUSIC (the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients in whom robotic partial nephrectomy was planned were stratified by completed procedure (robotic partial nephrectomy vs radical nephrectomy). Preoperative and intraoperative records were reviewed for preoperative assessment of difficulty and reason for conversion. Patient, tumor, pathologic, and practice variables were compared between cohorts. RESULTS: Of 650 patients scheduled for robotic partial nephrectomy, conversion to radical nephrectomy occurred in 27 (4.2%) patients. No conversions to open were reported. Preoperative documentation indicated a plan for possible conversion in 18 (67%) patients including partial with possible radical (n = 8), partial vs radical (n = 6), or likely radical nephrectomy (n = 4). Intraoperative documentation indicated that only 5 (19%) conversions were secondary to bleeding, with the remaining conversions due to tumor complexity and/or oncologic concerns. Patients undergoing conversion had larger (4.7 vs 2.8 cm, P < .001) and higher-complexity tumors (64% vs 6%, P < .001) with R.E.N.A.L. (for radius, exophytic/endophytic, nearness of tumor to collecting system, anterior/posterior, location relative to polar line) nephrometry score ≥ 10. The converted cases had a higher rate of ≥ pT3 (27% vs 8.4%, P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: There was a low rate of conversion from robotic partial to radical nephrectomy in the MUSIC-KIDNEY (Kidney mass: Identifying and Defining Necessary Evaluation and therapY) collaborative, and an even lower risk of conversion due to uncontrolled bleeding. Targeted review of each conversion identified appropriate decision-making based on oncologic risk in most cases.

Utilization of a Virtual Tumor Board for the Care of Patients With Renal Masses: Experience From a Quality Improvement Collaborative.

INTRODUCTION: Multidisciplinary tumor board meetings are useful sources of insight and collaboration when establishing treatment approaches for oncologic cases. However, such meetings can be time intensive and inconvenient. We implemented a virtual tumor board within the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative to discuss and improve the management of complicated renal masses. METHODS: Urologists were invited to discuss decision-making for renal masses through voluntary engagement. Communication was performed exclusively through email. Case details were collected and responses were tabulated. All participants were surveyed about their perceptions of the virtual tumor board. RESULTS: Fifty renal mass cases were reviewed in a virtual tumor board that included 53 urologists. Patients ranged from 20-90 years old and 94% had localized renal mass. The cases generated 355 messages, ranging from 2-16 (median 7) per case; 144 responses (40.6%) were sent via smartphone. All urologists (100%) who submitted to the virtual tumor board had their questions answered. The virtual tumor board provided suggestions to those with no stated treatment plan in 42% of cases, confirmed the physician's initial approach to their case in 36%, and offered alternative approaches in 16% of cases. Eighty-three percent of survey respondents felt the experience was "Beneficial" or "Very Beneficial," and 93% stated increased confidence in their case management. CONCLUSIONS: Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative's initial experience with a virtual tumor board showed good engagement. The format reduced barriers to multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary discussions and improved the quality of care for selected patients with complex renal masses.

Cost effectiveness of ultrasound-guided long peripheral catheters in difficult vascular access patients.

OBJECTIVE: Peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) placement is a routinely performed invasive procedure in hospital settings with an unacceptably high failure rate that can result in significant costs. This investigation aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of using long peripheral catheters (LPC) versus standard short peripheral catheters (SPC) in the difficult vascular access (DVA) population. METHODS: A secondary analysis was performed of a randomized control trial that compared a 20-gauge 4.78 cm SPC to a 20-gauge 6.35 cm SPC for the endpoint of survival. This study assessed cost-effectiveness of the comparative interventions. Costs associated with increased hospitalization length of stay due to PIVC failure, including labor, materials, equipment, and treatment delays were estimated by utilizing healthcare resource utilization data. Cost-effectiveness of the LPC was analyzed through the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, and the incremental net benefit. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the robustness of the results during the time interval of PIVC insertion. RESULTS: Among the 257 patients, the average total cost for therapy was lower in the LPC group compared to the SPC group ($400 vs $521; mean difference -$121, 95% bootstrapped CI -$461 to $225). A marginally significant absolute difference of complication averted was found for LPC versus SPC (10.8%, p = 0.07). The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for LPC as compared with SPC was -$1123 (95% bootstrapped CI -$8652 to $5964) per complication averted. In a willingness to pay (WTP) analysis, as WTP = $0, the incremental net benefit (INB) $121 was positive, indicating LPC was less costly. Analysis of PIVCs that survived ⩽48 h (n = 134) demonstrated a lower average total cost for therapy among the LPC group ($418 vs $531; mean difference -$113, 95% bootstrapped CI -$507 to $282). Forty-seven of 66 (71.2%) LPCs did not experience a complication, compared with 37 of 68 (54.4%) SPCs, resulting in a significant absolute difference of complication adverted of 16.8% (p = 0.04). In addition, with a positive slope, the INB $113 was positive as WTP = $0, indicating LPC was estimated to be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: When using ultrasound guidance for vascular access, LPCs are potentially a cost-effective strategy for reducing PIVC complications in DVA patients compared to SPCs. Given this finding, ultrasound-guided LPCs should be routinely considered as first-line among the DVA population in order to improve their overall care and wellbeing.

Predictors of ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter failure: A secondary analysis of existing trial data.

OBJECTIVES: Ultrasound-guided (US) peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVC) have a high failure rate with many failing prior to completion of therapy. Risk factors associated with catheter failure are poorly delineated. This study aimed to assess risk factors related to catheter failure including patient, procedure, catheter, and vein characteristics to further elucidate which variables may impact catheter longevity. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis using an existing trial dataset that primarily compared survival of two catheters: a standard long (SL) and an ultra-long (UL) US PIVC. Adult emergency room patients with difficult intravenous access at a tertiary care suburban academic center were study participants. Kaplan-Meier was employed to estimate the median catheter survival time. Cox regression univariable and multivariable analyses were used to evaluate the primary outcome of catheter survival. RESULTS: Among 257 subjects, 63% of PIVCs survived until completion of therapy. In a multivariable Cox regression model, length of catheter in vein >2.75 cm (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.90, p = 0.01) was associated with improved survival. First stick success decreased the risk of catheter failure (aHR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44-1.06, p = 0.09) but was not statistically significant. Factors associated with the increased risk of catheter failure included: depth of vein >1.2 cm (aHR 1.68, 95% CI 1.06-2.66, p = 0.03) and PIVC placement in right extremity (aHR 1.64, 95% CI 1.07-2.51, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that catheter length in vein (>2.75 cm) was associated with improved US PIVC survival highlighting the value of longer catheters in US PIVC survival. Choosing targets in the non-dominant extremity with shallower depths (⩽1.2 cm) may also increase catheter survival.

Vesicant infusates are not associated with ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter failure: A secondary analysis of existing data.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous vesicants are commonly infused via peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVC) despite guidelines recommending administration via central route. The impact of these medications on PIVC failure is unclear. We aimed to assess dose-related impact of these caustic medications on ultrasound-guided (US) PIVC survivorship. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized control trial that compared survival of two catheters: a standard long (SL) and an ultra-long (UL) US PIVC. This study involved reviewing and recording all vesicants infusions through the PIVCs. Type and number of vesicants doses were extracted and characterized as one, two or multiple. The most commonly used vesicants were individually categorized for further analysis. The primary outcome was PIVC failure accounting for use and timing of vesicant infusates. RESULTS: Between October 2018 and March 2019, 257 subjects were randomized with 131 in the UL group and 126 in the SL group. Vesicants were infused in 96 (37.4%) out of 257 study participants. In multivariable time-dependent extended Cox regression analysis, there was no significant increased risk of failure due to vesicant use [adjusted hazard ratio, aHR 1.71 (95% CI 0.76-1.81) p = 0.477]. The number of vesicant doses was not significantly associated with the increased risk of PIVC failure [(1 vs 0) aHR 1.20 (95% CI 0.71-2.02) p = 0.500], [(2 vs 0) aHR 1.51 (95% CI 0.67-3.43) p = 0.320] and [(≥ 3 vs 0) aHR 0.98 (95% CI 0.50-1.92) p = 0.952]. CONCLUSION: Vesicant usage did not significantly increase the risk of PIVC failure even when multiple doses were needed in this investigation. Ultrasound-guided PIVCs represent a pragmatic option when vesicant therapy is anticipated. Nevertheless, it is notable that overall PIVC failure rates remain high and other safety events related to vesicant use should be considered when clinicians make vascular access decisions for patients.

Comparison of 2 Midline Catheter Devices With Differing Antithrombogenic Mechanisms for Catheter-Related Thrombosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Data regarding upper extremity midline catheter (MC)-related thrombosis (CRT) are sparse, with some evidence indicating that MCs have a high rate of CRT. Objective: To compare 2 MCs with differing antithrombogenic mechanisms for this outcome. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this parallel, 2-arm randomized clinical trial, 496 adult patients hospitalized at a tertiary care suburban academic medical center who received an MC were assessed for eligibility between January 1, 2019, and October 31, 2020, and 212 were randomized. Interventions: Inpatients were randomized to receive a 4F antithrombotic MC (MC-AT) or a 4.5F antithrombotic and antimicrobial MC (MC-AT-AM). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was symptomatic midline CRT inclusive of deep vein thrombosis or superficial venous thrombophlebitis within 30 days after insertion. Secondary outcomes included catheter-associated bloodstream infection and catheter failure. Results: A total of 191 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.2 [16.7] years; 114 [59.7%] female) were included in the final analysis: 94 patients in the MC-AT group and 97 in the MC-AT-AM group. Symptomatic midline CRT occurred in 7 patients (7.5%) in the MC-AT group and 11 (11.3%) in the MC-AT-AM group (P = .46). Deep vein thrombosis occurred in 5 patients (5.3%) in the MC-AT group and 5 patients (5.2%) in the MC-AT-AM group (P > .99). Pulmonary embolism occurred in 1 patient in the MC-AT group. No catheter-associated bloodstream infection occurred in either group. Premature catheter failure occurred in 22 patients (23.4%) in the MC-AT group and 20 (20.6%) in the MC-AT-AM group (P = .64). In Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, no statistically significant difference was found between groups for the risk of catheter failure (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.67-2.43; P = .46). Conclusions and Relevance: No difference was found in thrombosis in MCs with 2 distinct antithrombogenic mechanisms; however, the risk of CRT in both groups was high. Practitioners should strongly consider the safety risks associated with MCs when determining the appropriate vascular access device. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03725293.

Ultralong Versus Standard Long Peripheral Intravenous Catheters: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Ultrasonographically Guided Catheter Survival.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Ultrasonographically guided intravenous peripheral catheters have dismal dwell time, with most intravenous lines failing before completion of therapy. Catheter length in the vein is directly related to catheter longevity. We investigate the survival of an ultralong ultrasonographically guided intravenous peripheral catheter compared with a standard long one. METHODS: We conducted a single-site, nonblinded, randomized trial of catheter survival. Adult patients presenting to the emergency department with difficult vascular access were recruited and randomized to receive either standard long, 4.78-cm, 20-gauge ultrasonographically guided intravenous peripheral catheters or ultralong, 6.35-cm, 20-gauge ultrasonographically guided intravenous peripheral catheters. The primary outcome was duration of catheter survival. The secondary outcome was the optimal length of the catheter in the vein to maximize survival. Additional intravenous-related endpoints included first-stick success, time to insertion, number of attempts, thrombosis, and infection. RESULTS: Between October 2018 and March 2019, 257 patients were randomized, with 126 in the standard long ultrasonographically guided intravenous peripheral catheter group and 131 in the ultralong group. Kaplan-Meier estimate of catheter median survival time in the ultralong group was 136 hours (95% confidence interval [CI] 116 to 311 hours) compared with 92 hours (95% CI 71 to 120 hours) in the standard long group, for a difference of 44 hours (95% CI 2 to 218 hours). The optimal catheter length in the vein was 2.75 cm, and intravenous lines with greater than 2.75 cm inserted had a median survival of 129 hours (95% CI 102 to 202 hours) compared with 75 hours (95% CI 52 to 116 hours) for intravenous lines with less than or equal to 2.75 cm, for a difference of 54 hours (95% CI 10 to 134 hours). Insertion characteristics were similar between the groups: 74.1% versus 79.4% first-stick success (95% CI for the difference -2% to 5%), 1.4 versus 1.3 for number of attempts (95% CI for the difference -0.1 to 0.3), and 6.9 versus 5.9 minutes to completion (95% CI for the difference -1.3 to 3.4) with ultralong versus standard long, respectively. There were no cases of infection or thrombosis. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated increased catheter survival when the ultralong compared with the standard long ultrasonographically guided intravenous peripheral catheter was used, whereas insertion characteristics and safety appeared similar.