For the Love of the Game: Calculating the Premium Associated with Academic Surgical Practice.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the premium associated with a career in academic surgery, as measured by compensation normalized to the work relative value unit (wRVU). BACKGROUND: An academic surgical career, embodying innovation and mentorship, offers intrinsic rewards, but is not well monetized. We know compensation for academic surgeons is less than their non-academic counterparts, but the value of clinical effort, as normalized to the wRVU, between academic and non-academic surgeons has not been well characterized. Thus, we analyzed the variations in the valuation of academic and non-academic surgical work from 2010 to 2022. METHODS: We utilized Medical Group Management Association Provider Compensation data from 2010, 2014, 2018, and 2022 to compare academic and non-academic surgeons. We analyzed raw total cash compensation (TCC), wRVU, TCC per wRVU (TCC/wRVU), and TCC to collections (TCCtColl). We calculated collections per wRVU (Coll/wRVU). We adjusted TCC and TCCtColl for inflation using the Consumer Price Index. Linear modeling for trend analysis was performed. RESULTS: Compared to non-academic, academic surgeons had lower TCC (2010: $500,415.0±23,666 vs. $631,515.5±23,948.2, -21%; 2022: $564,789.8±23,993.9 vs. $628,247.4±15,753.2, -10%), despite higher wRVUs (2022: 9,109.4±474.9 vs. 8,062.7±252.7) and higher Coll/wRVU (2022: 76.68±8.15 vs. 71.80±6.10). Trend analysis indicated TCC will converge in 2038 at an estimated $660,931. CONCLUSIONS: In 2022, academic surgeons had more clinical activity and superior organizational revenue capture, despite less total and normalized clinical compensation. Based on TCC/wRVUs, academia charges a premium of 16% over non-academic surgery. However, trend analysis suggests that TCC will converge within the next twenty years.

Survival Tree Provides Individualized Estimates of Survival After Lung Transplant.

INTRODUCTION: Identifying contributors to lung transplant survival is vital in mitigating mortality. To enhance individualized mortality estimation and determine variable interaction, we employed a survival tree algorithm utilizing recipient and donor data. METHODS: United Network Organ Sharing data (2000-2021) were queried for single and double lung transplants in adult patients. Graft survival time <7 d was excluded. Sixty preoperative and immediate postoperative factors were evaluated with stepwise logistic regression on mortality; final model variables were included in survival tree modeling. Data were split into training and testing sets and additionally validated with 10-fold cross validation. Survival tree pruning and model selection was based on Akaike information criteria and log-likelihood values. Estimated survival probabilities and log-rank pairwise comparisons between subgroups were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 27,296 lung transplant patients (8175 single; 19,121 double lung) were included. Stepwise logistic regression yielded 47 significant variables associated with mortality. Survival tree modeling returned six significant factors: recipient age, length of stay from transplant to discharge, recipient ventilator duration post-transplant, double lung transplant, recipient reintubation post-transplant, and donor cytomegalovirus status. Eight subgroups consisting of combinations of these factors were identified with distinct Kaplan-Meier survival curves. CONCLUSIONS: Survival trees provide the ability to understand the effects and interactions of covariates on survival after lung transplantation. Individualized survival probability with this technique found that preoperative and postoperative factors influence survival after lung transplantation. Thus, preoperative patient counseling should acknowledge a degree of uncertainty given the influence of postoperative factors.

Expanded analysis for patients with acute cholecystitis indicates outcomes vary based on COVID-19 status and treatment modality.

BACKGROUND: The impact of different phases of COVID-19 infection on outcomes from acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) is not well understood. Therefore, we examined outcomes of acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic, comparing the effect of different treatment modalities and COVID-19 infection status. We hypothesized that patients with acute COVID-19 would have worse outcomes than COVID-negative patients, but there would be no difference between COVID-negative and COVID-recovered patients. METHODS: We used 2020-2023 National COVID Cohort Collaborative data to identify adults with ACC. Treatment (antibiotics-only, cholecystostomy tube, or cholecystectomy) and COVID-19 status (negative, active, or recovered) were collected. Treatment failure of nonoperative managements was noted. Adjusted analysis using a series of generalized linear models controlled for confounders (age, sex, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, severity at presentation, and year) to better assess differences in outcomes among treatment groups, as well as between COVID-19 groups. RESULTS: In total, 32,433 patients (skewed count) were included: 29,749 COVID-negative, 2112 COVID-active, and 572 (skewed count) COVID-recovered. COVID-active had higher rates of sepsis at presentation. COVID-negative more often underwent cholecystectomy. Unadjusted, COVID-active had higher 30-day mortality, 30-day complication, and longer length of stay than COVID-negative and COVID-recovered. Adjusted analysis revealed cholecystectomy carried lower odds of mortality for COVID-active and COVID-negative patients than antibiotics or cholecystostomy. COVID-recovered patients' mortality was unaffected by treatment modality. Treatment failure from antibiotics was more common for COVID-negative patients. CONCLUSION: Acute cholecystitis outcomes are affected by phase of COVID-19 infection and treatment modality. Cholecystectomy does not lead to worse outcomes for COVID-active and COVID-recovered patients than nonoperative treatments; thus, these patients can be considered for cholecystectomy if their physiology is not prohibitive.

The paralyzing effect of insurance status on throughput of acute spinal cord patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether lack of insurance is a predictor of poor outcomes and increased healthcare expenditure for SCI patients. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of trauma patients admitted with an acute, severe (AIS ≥ 3) SCI and admission score of ASIA-A to a Level 1 trauma center (2012-2016). Patient characteristics and outcomes (LOS, complications) were compared between insured and uninsured patients. Multivariable adjustment was performed using linear regression. RESULTS: Of 76 patients who met eligibility, 44 had insurance and 32 were uninsured (NOINSUR). Despite having similar ventilator days (13 vs. 12.1) and ICU LOS (20.1 vs. 16.8), the NOINSUR group had more ventilator-free days (22.3 vs 6.6; p < 0.0001), longer Stepdown Unit length of stay (10.2 vs 2.3; p = 0.0036), and a longer hospital length of stay (35.3 vs 18.7; p = 0.0062). CONCLUSION: Uninsured SCI patients face longer hospital LOS due to their insurance status and lack of funding for timely rehabilitation placement. This utilizes valuable hospital resources and puts them at risk for hospital related complications and further increased healthcare expenditures.

Removal of retrievable inferior vena cava filters before discharge: Is it associated with increased incidence of pulmonary embolism?

BACKGROUND: Severely injured trauma patients are at high risk of developing deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary emboli (PE), and may have contraindications to prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation. Retrievable inferior vena cava filters (rIVCFs) are used to act as a mechanical obstruction to prevent PE in high risk populations and those with deep venous thrombosis who cannot be anticoagulated. The removal rate of rIVCFs is variable in trauma centers, including our previous published rate of 50% to 89%/year. Indwelling filters carry a risk of significant morbidity and the success of retrieval decreases as the dwell time increases. We hypothesized that once patients could receive appropriate prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation, rIVCF could be removed before hospital discharge without impact on occurrence or recurrence of PE. METHODS: All trauma patients with rIVCF placed and removed between January 2006 and August 2018 were reviewed. We collected data from record review from admission to 6 months postfilter removal, including demographics, filter indication, filter type, dwell time, placement and removal complications, antithrombosis medications, location of venous thromboembolism, complications, and discharge disposition. Exposure of interest was timing of filter removal: before (BEF) or after hospital discharge (AFT). The outcome of interest was whether the patient had a documented PE within 6 months of filter removal. RESULTS: A total of 281 rIVCFs were placed, 218 were eligible for removal, 72.4% (158/218) were retrieved with 63% (100/158) removed before discharge. Mean filter duration was 26 days and 103 days for the before and after groups, respectively. No differences (p > 0.05) were noted in the distribution of demographic and clinical factors except for filter indication (venous thromboembolism indication, 95% in AFT vs. 74% in BEF, p = 0.0043). Postremoval PE rates were 0% BEF and 1% AFT (Fisher's exact test, p = 1.000). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that removal of rIVCFs before discharge once patients are appropriately anticoagulated is a safe strategy to improve retrieval rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level V.

Time to stroke: A Western Trauma Association multicenter study of blunt cerebrovascular injuries.

BACKGROUND: Screening for blunt cerebrovascular injuries (BCVIs) in asymptomatic high-risk patients has become routine. To date, the length of this asymptomatic period has not been defined. Determining the time to stroke could impact therapy including earlier initiation of antithrombotics in multiply injured patients. The purpose of this study was to determine the time to stroke in patients with a BCVI-related stroke. We hypothesized that the majority of patients suffer stroke between 24 hours and 72 hours after injury. METHODS: Patients with a BCVI-related stroke from January 2007 to January 2017 from 37 trauma centers were reviewed. RESULTS: During the 10-year study, 492 patients had a BCVI-related stroke; the majority were men (61%), with a median age of 39 years and ISS of 29. Stroke was present at admission in 182 patients (37%) and occurred during an Interventional Radiology procedure in six patients. In the remaining 304 patients, stroke was identified a median of 48 hours after admission: 53 hours in the 144 patients identified by neurologic symptoms and 42 hours in the 160 patients without a neurologic examination and an incidental stroke identified on imaging. Of those patients with neurologic symptoms, 88 (61%) had a stroke within 72 hours, whereas 56 had a stroke after 72 hours; there was a sequential decline in stroke occurrence over the first week. Of the 304 patients who had a stroke after admission, 64 patients (22%) were being treated with antithrombotics when the stroke occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients suffer BCVI-related stroke in the first 72 hours after injury. Time to stroke can help inform clinicians about initiation of treatment in the multiply injured patient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/Epidemiologic, level III.