Low Preoperative Serum Creatinine is Common and Associated With Poor Outcomes After Nonemergent Inpatient Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between low preoperative serum creatinine and postoperative outcomes. BACKGROUND: The association between low creatinine and poor surgical outcomes is not well understood. METHODS: We identified patients with creatinine in the 7 days preceding nonemergent inpatient surgery in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2005 to 2020. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between creatinine and 30-day mortality and major complications. RESULTS: Of 1,809,576 patients, 27.8% of males and 23.5% of females had low preoperative serum creatinine, 14.6% experienced complications, and 1.2% died. For males, compared with the reference creatinine of 0.85 to 1.04, those with serum creatinine ≤0.44 had 55% increased odds of mortality [ adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.55; 95% CI, 1.29-1.86] and 82% increased odds of major complications (aOR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.69-1.97). Similarly, for females, compared with the reference range of 0.65 to 0.84, those with serum creatinine ≤0.44 had 49% increased odds of mortality (aOR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.32-1.67) and 76% increased odds of major complications (aOR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.70-1.83). These associations persisted for the total cohort, among those with mildly low albumin, and for those with creatinine values measured 8 to 30 days preoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: A low preoperative creatinine is common and associated with poor outcomes after nonemergent inpatient surgery. A low creatinine may help identify high-risk patients who may benefit from further evaluation and optimization.

Developing a Machine Learning Risk-adjustment Method for Hospitalizations and Emergency Department Visits of Nursing Home Residents With Dementia.

BACKGROUND: Long-stay nursing home (NH) residents with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) are at high risk of hospital transfers. Machine learning might improve risk-adjustment methods for NHs. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to develop and compare NH risk-adjusted rates of hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits among long-stay residents with ADRD using Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and logistic regression. RESEARCH DESIGN: Secondary analysis of national Medicare claims and NH assessment data in 2012 Q3. Data were equally split into the training and test sets. Both XGBoost and logistic regression predicted any hospitalization and ED visit using 58 predictors. NH-level risk-adjusted rates from XGBoost and logistic regression were constructed and compared. Multivariate regressions examined NH and market factors associated with rates of hospitalization and ED visits. SUBJECTS: Long-stay Medicare residents with ADRD (N=413,557) from 14,057 NHs. RESULTS: A total of 8.1% and 8.9% residents experienced any hospitalization and ED visit in a quarter, respectively. XGBoost slightly outperformed logistic regression in area under the curve (0.88 vs. 0.86 for hospitalization; 0.85 vs. 0.83 for ED visit). NH-level risk-adjusted rates from XGBoost were slightly lower than logistic regression (hospitalization=8.3% and 8.4%; ED=8.9% and 9.0%, respectively), but were highly correlated. Facility and market factors associated with the XGBoost and logistic regression-adjusted hospitalization and ED rates were similar. NHs serving more residents with ADRD and having a higher registered nurse-to-total nursing staff ratio had lower rates. CONCLUSIONS: XGBoost and logistic regression provide comparable estimates of risk-adjusted hospitalization and ED rates.

Mediating Factors Between Race and Time to Treatment in Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Previous disparities research has demonstrated that underrepresented racial minority patients have worse colorectal cancer outcomes and that they experience unnecessary delays in time to treatment. These delays may explain worse colorectal cancer outcomes for minority patients and serve as a marker of inequalities in our healthcare system. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to quantify the mechanisms that contribute to this disparity in treatment delay. DESIGN: This is a retrospective analysis of colorectal cancer patients who underwent elective resection from 2004 to 2017. A causal inference mediation analysis using the counterfactual framework was utilized to estimate the extent to which racial disparities among patient factors explain the racial disparities in time to treatment. Mediators included income, education, comorbidities, insurance, and hospital type. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at hospitals participating in the National Cancer Database. PATIENTS: Stage I-III colorectal cancer patients, ≥18 years old, who underwent elective resection from 2004 through 2017 were included. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The primary measures were indirect effects of mediators between race and delayed time to treatment. RESULTS: Of the 504,405 patients (370,051 colon and 134,354 rectal), 10%, 5%, and 4% were black, Hispanic, and other. In multivariable models, compared to white patients, these patients had 25%, 27%, and 17% greater odds of delayed treatment. Mediation analyses suggested that 43%, 20%, and 31% of the treatment delay among them could be removed if an intervention equalized income, education, comorbidities, insurance, and hospital type to that of white patients. Treatment at an academic hospital explained 15% to 32% of the racial disparity and was the most potent mediator. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective design and failure to capture all meaningful mediators. CONCLUSIONS: Black, Hispanic, and other colorectal cancer patients experience treatment delays when compared to white patients. Equalization of the mediators used in this study could reduce treatment delays by 20% to 43% depending on the racial/ethnic group. Future research should identify other causes of racial disparities in treatment delay and intervene accordingly. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B871 . FACTORES MEDIADORES ENTRE LA RAZA Y EL TIEMPO HASTA EL TRATAMIENTO EN EL CNCER COLORECTAL: ANTECEDENTES:Investigaciones anteriores sobre disparidades han demostrado que los pacientes de minorías raciales subrepresentados tienen peores resultados de cáncer colorrectal y que experimentan retrasos innecesarios en el tiempo de tratamiento. Estos retrasos pueden explicar los peores resultados del cáncer colorrectal para los pacientes de minorías y servir como un marcador de desigualdades en nuestro sistema de salud.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tiene como objetivo cuantificar los mecanismos que contribuyen a esta disparidad en el retraso del tratamiento.DISEÑO:Este es un análisis retrospectivo de pacientes con cáncer colorrectal que se sometieron a resección electiva entre 2004 y 2017. Se utilizó un análisis de mediación de inferencia causal utilizando el marco contra factual para estimar hasta qué punto las disparidades raciales entre los factores del paciente explican las disparidades raciales en el tiempo hasta el tratamiento. Los mediadores incluyeron ingresos económicos, educación, comorbilidades, seguro médico y tipo de hospital.AJUSTES:Este estudio se realizó en hospitales que participan en la Base de datos nacional del cáncer.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes con cáncer colorrectal en estadio I-III, ≥18 años, que se sometieron a resección electiva entre 2004 y 2017.PRINCIPALES RESULTADOS MEDIDAS:Las principales mediciones fueron el efecto indirecto de los mediadores entre la raza y el retraso en el tratamiento.RESULTADOS:De los 504,405 pacientes (370,051 de colon, 134,354 rectal), 10%, 5%, 4% eran negros, hispanos, y otros, respectivamente. En modelos multivariables, en comparación con los pacientes blancos, estos pacientes tenían un 25%, 27%, y 17% más de probabilidades de retrasar el tratamiento. Los análisis de medición sugirieron que el 43%, 20%, 31% del retraso del tratamiento entre, respectivamente, podría eliminarse si una intervención igualara los ingresos económicos, la educación, las comorbilidades, el seguro médico y el tipo de hospital a los de los pacientes blancos. El tratamiento en un hospital académico demostró entre el 15% y el 32% de la disparidad racial y fue el mediador más potente.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio estuvo limitado por su diseño retrospectivo; falla en capturar a todos los mediadores significativos.CONCLUSIONES:Los pacientes negros, hispanos y otros con cáncer colorrectal experimentan retrasos en el tratamiento en comparación con los pacientes blancos. La igualación de los mediadores utilizados en este estudio podría reducir los retrasos en el tratamiento en un 20-43%, según el grupo racial / étnico. Las investigaciones futuras deberían identificar otras causas de disparidades raciales en el retraso del tratamiento e intervenir sobre ellas. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B871 . (Traducción-Dr. Yolanda Colorado ).

Transplantation Mediates Much of the Racial Disparity in Survival from Childhood-Onset Kidney Failure.

BACKGROUND: The role of kidney transplantation in differential survival in Black and White patients with childhood-onset kidney failure is unexplored. METHODS: We analyzed 30-year cohort data of children beginning RRT before 18 years of age between January 1980 and December 2017 (n=28,337) in the US Renal Data System. Cox regression identified transplant factors associated with survival by race. The survival mediational g-formula estimated the excess mortality among Black patients that could be eliminated if an intervention equalized their time with a transplant to that of White patients. RESULTS: Black children comprised 24% of the cohort and their crude 30-year survival was 39% compared with 57% for White children (log rank P<0.001). Black children had 45% higher risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.36 to 1.54), 31% lower incidence of first transplant (aHR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.72), and 39% lower incidence of second transplant (aHR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.65). Children and young adults are likely to require multiple transplants, yet even after their first transplant, Black patients had 11% fewer total transplants (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.92). In Black patients, grafts failed earlier after first and second transplants. Overall, Black patients spent 24% less of their RRT time with a transplant than did White patients (aIRR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.78). Transplantation compared with dialysis strongly protected against death (aHR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.48) by time-varying analysis. Mediation analyses estimated that equalizing transplant duration could prevent 35% (P<0.001) of excess deaths in Black patients. CONCLUSIONS: Equalizing time with a functioning transplant for Black patients may equalize survival of childhood-onset ESKD with White patients.

Association of Bariatric Surgery and Risk of Cancer in Patients With Morbid Obesity.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the rates of obesity-related cancers in patients undergoing vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), or no surgical intervention. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Obesity has been previously associated with increased rates of cancers; however, weight loss surgeries have not been explored to demonstrate their potential risk reduction impact. METHODS: Patients meeting bariatric eligibility criteria between January 2010 and December 2018 were identified. Exact 1:1:1 matching based on baseline patient demographics and comorbidities was used to create 3 groups with identical covariates: patients undergoing VSG, RYGB, and no surgery. RESULTS: A total of 28, bariatric-eligible patients equally split into patients undergoing VSG (n = 9636, 33.3%), RYGB (n = 9636, 33.3%), and those with no surgical intervention (n = 9636, 33.3%). Bariatric-eligible patients that did not undergo surgical intervention had significantly higher rates and odds of developing numerous cancer types included in our study when compared to either surgical cohorts, with any cancer type (4.61%), uterine (0.86%), colorectal (0.57%), and lung cancers (0.50%) being most common. Individuals undergoing RYGB were significantly less likely to develop colorectal cancer compared to patients without any surgical intervention [odds ratio (OR) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30-0.75]. Additionally, those undergoing VSG were significantly less likely to develop lung cancer than the bariatric eligible no surgery cohort (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.25-0.70). CONCLUSION: Postoperative rates of any cancer type, lung, ovarian, and uterine cancer were significantly lower in obese patients undergoing either vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG) or RYGB compared to bariatric-eligible patients without any surgical intervention.

Factors Mediating Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Delayed Treatment of Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite improvements, disparities in breast cancer care have led to an inequitable distribution of treatment delays and worse outcomes among patients with breast cancer. This study aimed to quantify the contribution of mediators that may explain racial/ethnic disparities in breast cancer treatment delays. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients from the National Cancer Database with stage I-III breast cancer who underwent surgical resection. Mediation analyses estimated the extent to which racial/ethnic disparities in the distribution of patient characteristics account for racial/ethnic disparities in delayed treatment. RESULTS: Of the 1,349,715 patients with breast cancer included, 10%, 5%, and 4% were Black, Hispanic, and other non-white race/ethnicity, respectively. Multivariable models showed that patients in these racial/ethnic groups had 73%, 81%, and 24% increased odds of having a treatment delay relative to white patients. Mediation analyses suggested that 15%, 19%, and 15% of the treatment delays among Black, Hispanic, and other non-white race/ethnicity patients, respectively, are explained by disparities in education, comorbidities, insurance, and facility type. Therefore, if these mediators had been distributed equally among all races/ethnicities, a reduction of 15-19% in the delayed treatment disparities experienced by minority patients would have been observed. Academic facility type was the factor that could yield the largest reduction in time to treatment disparities, contributing to 8-13% of racial/ethnic disparities. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with breast cancer who identified as Black, Hispanic, and other non-white races/ethnicities are exposed to longer treatment delays relative to white patients. Efforts to equalize mediators could remove substantial portions of racial/ethnic disparities in delayed treatment.

Keep Them on the Table: Outcomes Are Improved After Minimally Invasive Colectomy Despite Longer Operative Times in Patients With High-Risk Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: For high-risk patients, traditional surgical dogma advises open operations, with short operative times, to "get them off the table" instead of longer minimally invasive surgery approaches. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes in patients with high-risk colon cancer undergoing elective longer minimally invasive surgery operations compared with shorter open operations. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative cohort study. SETTINGS: Interventions were performed in hospitals participating in the national surgical database. PATIENTS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to identify patients with colon cancer with ASA class 3 to 4 undergoing right and sigmoid colectomy between 2012 and 2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Thirty-day postoperative outcomes were compared between short open and long minimally invasive groups. RESULTS: A total of 3775 patients were identified as having undergone long minimally invasive right colectomy and short open right colectomy (33% open, 67% minimally invasive surgery), and 1042 patients were identified as having undergone long minimally invasive sigmoid colectomy and short open sigmoid colectomy (36% open, 64% minimally invasive). Patients undergoing long minimally invasive right colectomy had significantly lower rates of overall morbidity, severe adverse events, mortality, superficial surgical site infections, and wound disruptions, as well as discharge to a higher level of care and shorter length of stay ( p < 0.05). Patients undergoing long minimally invasive sigmoid colectomy had decreased rates of overall morbidity, severe adverse events, and length of stay, as well as discharge to a higher level of care compared with the patients undergoing short open sigmoid colectomy ( p < 0.05). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the retrospective nature and standardized outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients undergoing colectomy for colon cancer, outcomes were worse with shorter open compared with longer minimally invasive surgery operations. Focus should shift from getting patients "off the table" faster to longer, but safer, minimally invasive surgery in high-risk patients. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B642 . MANTNGALOS SOBRE LA MESA HAY MEJORES RESULTADOS DESPUS DE COLECTOMA MNIMAMENTE INVASIVA A PESAR DE TIEMPOS QUIRRGICOS MS PROLONGADOS EN PACIENTES CON CNCER DE COLON DE ALTO RIESGO: ANTECEDENTES:Para los pacientes de alto riesgo, el dogma quirúrgico tradicional aconseja operaciones abiertas, con tiempos quirúrgicos cortos, con el fin de "sacarlos de la mesa" en lugar de enfoques quirúrgicos mínimamente invasivos más prolongados.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar los resultados posoperatorios en pacientes electivos de cáncer de colon de alto riesgo sometidos a operaciones de cirugía mínimamente invasiva más prolongadas en comparación con operaciones abiertas más cortas.DISEÑO:Los resultados posoperatorios de pacientes con cáncer de colon con clase 3-4 de la Sociedad Americana de Anestesiología sometidos a colectomía derecha o sigmoidea se compararon en un análisis multivariado. Se comparó el grupo de colectomía derecha abierta corta (tiempo operatorio <116 minutos) y colectomía derecha mínimamente invasiva larga (tiempo operatorio> 132 minutos). También se compararon la colectomía sigmoidea abierta corta (tiempo operatorio <127 minutos) y la colectomía sigmoidea mínimamente invasiva larga (tiempo operatorio> 161 minutos).ESCENARIO:Las intervenciones se realizaron en hospitales participantes en la base de datos quirúrgica nacional.PACIENTES:La base de datos del Programa Nacional de Mejoramiento de la Calidad Quirúrgica se utilizó para identificar a los pacientes con cáncer de colon con clase 3-4 de la Sociedad Americana de Anestesiología sometidos a colectomía derecha y sigmoidea entre 2012-2017.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se compararon los resultados posoperatorios a los treinta días entre el grupo de procedimientos abiertos cortos y el de mínimamente invasivos largos.RESULTADOS:Se identificó un total de 3.775 pacientes sometidos a colectomía derecha mínimamente invasiva larga y colectomía derecha abierta corta (33% abierta, 67% cirugía mínimamente invasiva) y se identificaron 1042 pacientes sometidos a colectomía sigmoidea mínimamente invasiva larga y colectomía sigmoidea abierta corta (36% abierta, 64% mínimamente invasiva). Los pacientes con colectomía derecha larga mínimamente invasiva tuvieron significativamente menor morbilidad general, eventos adversos graves, mortalidad, infecciones superficiales del sitio quirúrgico, dehiscencia de herida, alta a un nivel más alto de atención y estadía más corta ( p <0.05). Los pacientes con colectomía sigmoidea mínimamente invasiva prolongada tuvieron menor morbilidad general, eventos adversos graves, duración de la estadía y alta a un nivel más alto de atención en comparación con los pacientes con colectomía sigmoidea abierta corta ( p <0.05).LIMITACIONES:Este estudio estuvo limitado por la naturaleza retrospectiva y las medidas de resultado estandarizadas.CONCLUSIONES:En los pacientes de alto riesgo sometidos a colectomía por cáncer de colon, los resultados fueron peores con operaciones abiertas más cortas en comparación con operaciones mínimamente invasivas más largas. El enfoque debe pasar de hacer que los pacientes "salgan rápido de la mesa quirúrgica" a una cirugía mínimamente invasiva más prolongada pero más segura, en pacientes de alto riesgo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B642 . (Traducción-Dr. Jorge Silva Velazco ).

A New Bibliometric Index: The Top 100 Most Disruptive and Developmental Publications in Colorectal Surgery Journals.

BACKGROUND: A new bibliometric index called the disruption score was recently proposed to identify innovative and paradigm-changing publications. OBJECTIVE: The goal was to apply the disruption score to the colorectal surgery literature to provide the community with a repository of important research articles. DESIGN: This study is a bibliometric analysis. SETTINGS: The 100 most disruptive and developmental publications in Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, Colorectal Disease, International Journal of Colorectal Disease, and Techniques in Coloproctology were identified from a validated data set of disruption scores and linked with the iCite National Institutes of Health tool to obtain citation counts. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the disruption score and citation count. RESULTS: We identified 12,127 articles published in Diseases of the Colon & Rectum (n = 8109), International Journal of Colorectal Disease (n = 1912), Colorectal Disease (n = 1751), and Techniques in Coloproctology (n = 355) between 1954 and 2014. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum had the most articles in the top 100 most disruptive and developmental lists. The disruptive articles were in the top 1% of the disruption score distribution in PubMed and were cited between 1 and 671 times. Being highly cited was weakly correlated with high disruption scores (r = 0.09). Developmental articles had disruption scores that were more strongly correlated with citation count (r = 0.18). LIMITATIONS: This study is subject to the limitations of bibliometric indices, which change over time. DISCUSSION: The disruption score identified insightful and paradigm-changing studies in colorectal surgery. These studies include a wide range of topics and consistently identified editorials and case reports/case series as important research. This bibliometric analysis provides colorectal surgeons with a unique archive of research that can often be overlooked but that may have scholarly significance. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B639.UN NUEVO INDICE BIBLIOMÉTRICO: LAS 100 MAS IMPORTANTES PUBLICACIONES EN INNOVACIONES DESESTABILIZADORAS Y DE DESARROLLO EN LAS REVISTAS DE CIRUGÍA COLORRECTALANTECEDENTES:Un nuevo índice bibliométrico llamado innovación desestabilizadora y de desarrollo ha sido propuesto para identificar publicaciones de vanguardia y que pueden romper paradigmas.OBJETIVO:La meta fué aplicar el índice de desestabilización a la literature en cirugía colorectal para aportar a la comunidad con un acervo importante de artículos de investigación.DISEÑO:Un análisis bibliométrico.PARAMETROS:Las 100 publicaciones mas desestabilizadores y de desarrollo en las revistas: Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, Colorectal Disease, International Journal of Colorectal Disease, y Techniques in Coloproctology se recuperaron de una base de datos validada con puntuaciones de desestabilización y se ligaron con la herramienta iCite NIH para obtener la cuantificación de citas.PRINCIPAL MEDIDA DE RESULTADO:El índice desestabilizador y la cuantificación de citas.RESULTADOS:Se identificaron 12,127 articulos publicados en Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (n = 8,109), International Journal of Colorectal Disease (n = 1,912), Colorectal Disease (n = 1,751), y Techniques in Coloproctology (n = 355) de 1954-2014. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum representó la mayoría de las publicaciones dentro de la lista de los 100 mas desestabilizadores y de desarrollo. Esta literatura desestabilizadora se encuentra en el principal 1% de la distribución de la puntuacón desestabilizadora en PubMed y se citaron de 1 a 671 veces. El ser citado con frecuencia se relacionó vagamente con las puntuaciones de desastibilización (r = 0.09). Los artículos de desarrollo tuvieron puntuaciones de desestabilización que estuvieron muy correlacionados con la cuantificación de las citas (r = 0.18).LIMITACIONES:Las sujetas a las limitaciones de los índices bibliométricos, que se modifican en el tiempo.DISCUSION:La putuación de desestabilicación identificó trabajos perspicaces, pragmáticos y modificadores de paradigmas en cirugía colorrectal. Es de interés identificar que se incluyeron una gran variedad de temas y en forma consistente editoriales, reportes de casos y series de casos que representaron una investigación importante. Este análisis bibliométrico aporta a los cirujanos colorrectales de un acervo de investigación único que puede con frecuencia pasarse por alto, y sin embargo tener una gran importancia académica. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B639. (Traducción- Dr. Miguel Esquivel-Herrera).

Is robotic utilization associated with increased minimally invasive colorectal surgery rates? Surgeon-level evidence.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether robotic utilization has increased overall minimally invasive colorectal surgery rates or if robotics is being adopted instead of laparoscopy. The goal was to evaluate whether increasing robotic surgery utilization is associated with increased rates of overall colorectal minimally invasive surgery. METHODS: The Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (New York) was used to identify patients undergoing elective colectomy or proctectomy from 2009 to 2015. Individual surgeons were categorized as having increasing or non-increasing robotic utilization (IRU or non-IRU, respectively) based on the annual increase in the proportion of robotic surgery performed. The odds of surgical approach across the study period were evaluated with multinomial regression. RESULTS: Among 72,813 resections from 2009 to 2015, minimally invasive-surgery increased (47-61%, p < 0.0001). For colectomy, overall minimally invasive-surgery rates increased (54-66%, p < 0.0001), laparoscopic remained stable (53-54%), and robotics increased (1-12%). For proctectomy, overall minimally invasive-surgery rates increased (22-43%, p < 0.0001), laparoscopic remained stable (20-21%), and robotics increased (2-22%). Over the study period, 2487 surgeons performed colectomies. Among 156 surgeons with IRU for colectomies, robotics increased (2-29%), while laparoscopy decreased (67-44%), and open surgery decreased (31-27%). Overall, surgeons with IRU performed minimally invasive colectomies 73% of the time in 2015 versus 69% in 2009. Over the study period, 1131 surgeons performed proctectomies. Among 94 surgeons with IRU for proctectomies, robotics increased (3-42%), while laparoscopy decreased (25-15%), and open surgery decreased (73-44%). Overall, surgeons with IRU performed minimally invasive proctectomy 56% of the time in 2015 versus 27% in 2009. Patients in the latter study period had 57% greater odds of undergoing robotic surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, minimally invasive colorectal resections increased from 2009 to 2015 largely due to increasing robotic utilization, particularly for proctectomies.

Variation in outcomes across surgeons meeting the Leapfrog volume standard for complex oncologic surgery.

BACKGROUND: A large body of evidence supports regionalization of complex oncologic surgery to high-volume surgeons at high-volume hospitals. However, whether there is heterogeneity of outcomes among high-volume surgeons at high-volume hospitals remains unknown. METHODS: Patients who underwent esophagectomy, lung resection, pancreatectomy, or proctectomy for primary cancer were identified within the Medicare 100% Standard Analytic File (2013-2017). Mixed-effects analyses assessed the association between Leapfrog annual volume standards for surgeons (esophagectomy ≥7, lung resection ≥15, pancreatectomy ≥10, proctectomy ≥6) and hospitals (esophagectomy ≥20, lung resection ≥40, pancreatectomy ≥20, proctectomy ≥16) relative to postoperative complications and 90-day mortality. Additional analyses using New York's all-payer Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (2004-2015) were performed. RESULTS: Among 112,154 Medicare beneficiaries, high-volume surgeons at high-volume hospitals were associated with lower adjusted odds of complications (esophagectomy: odds ratio [OR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.61-0.86]; lung resection: OR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.82-0.94]; pancreatectomy: OR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.66-0.80]; proctectomy: OR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.85-0.99]) and 90-day mortality (esophagectomy: OR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.44-0.76]; lung resection: OR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.73-0.93]; pancreatectomy: OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.56-0.76]; proctectomy: OR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.65-0.85]). For the average patient at the average high-volume hospital, there was a 2-fold difference in the adjusted complication rate between the best-performing and worst-performing high-volume surgeon for all operations (esophagectomy, 28%-55%; lung resection, 7%-21%; pancreatectomy, 16%-35%; proctectomy, 16%-28%). Wide variation was also present in adjusted 90-day mortality for esophagectomy (3.5%-9.3%). Results from New York's all-payer database were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Even among high-volume surgeons meeting the Leapfrog volume standards, wide variation in postoperative outcomes exists. These findings suggest that volume alone should not be used as a quality indicator, and quality metrics should be continuously evaluated across all surgeons and hospital systems. LAY SUMMARY: Previous studies have demonstrated a surgical volume-outcome relationship for high-risk operations-that is high-volume surgeons and hospitals that perform a specific surgical procedure more frequently have better outcomes for that operation. Although most high-volume surgeons had better outcomes, this study demonstrated that some high-volume surgeons did not have better outcomes. Therefore, volume is an important factor but should not be the only factor considered when assessing the quality of a surgeon and a hospital for cancer surgery.

Is Textbook Oncologic Outcome a Valid Hospital-Quality Metric after High-Risk Surgical Oncology Procedures?

BACKGROUND: "Textbook oncologic outcome" (TOO) is a composite quality measure representing the "ideal" outcome for patients undergoing cancer surgery. This study sought to assess the validity of TOO as a metric to evaluate hospital quality. METHODS: Patients who underwent curative-intent resection of gastric, pancreatic, colon, rectal, lung, esophageal, bladder, or ovarian cancer were identified in the National Cancer Database (2006-2017). Cancer site-specific TOO was defined as adequate lymph node yield, R0 resection, non-length-of-stay outlier, no hospital readmission, and receipt of guideline-concordant chemotherapy and/or radiation. Mixed-effects analyses estimated the adjusted TOO rate for each hospital stratified by cancer site. The association between hospital adjusted TOO rates and 5-year overall survival was assessed using mixed-effects Cox proportional hazards analyses. RESULTS: Among 852,988 cancer resections, the TOO rate varied across cancer sites as follows: stomach (31.8%), pancreas (25%), colon (66.9%), rectum (33.6%), lung (35.1%), esophagus (31.2%), bladder (43%), and ovary (44.7%). After characterization of adjusted hospital TOO rates into quintiles, an incremental improvement in overall survival was observed, with higher adjusted TOO rates. Similarly, with the adjusted hospital TOO rate treated as a continuous variable, there was a significant 4% to 12% improvement in overall survival for every 10% increase in the adjusted hospital TOO rate for gastric (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.91), pancreatic (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.88-0.93), colon (0.93; 95% CI, 0.91-0.94), rectal (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87-0.93), lung (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.95-0.97), esophageal (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.95), bladder (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.97), and ovarian (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98) cancer. CONCLUSIONS: A direct association exists between adjusted hospital TOO rates and survival after high-risk cancer procedures. As a valid hospital metric, TOO can be used to compare the overall quality of cancer care across hospitals.

I want to go home: should we abandon open surgery for treatment of rectal prolapse? Consideration of discharge destination following surgery for rectal prolapse.

AIM: Despite the financial and value-based implications associated with higher levels of care at discharge, few studies have evaluated modifiable treatment factors that may optimize postacute care. The aim of this work was to assess the association between operative approach and disposition to a higher level of care and other outcomes following surgery for rectal prolapse. METHOD: Using a retrospective cohort study design, the database of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was used to identify patients with rectal prolapse who underwent perineal repair or open or laparoscopic rectopexy with or without resection between 2012 and 2017. Discharge destination and 30-day postoperative outcomes were compared using propensity score mathcing and weighting. Nomograms generated using multivariable regression calculated the risk of requiring higher levels of care upon discharge and morbidity. RESULTS: Propensity-score analysis included 3000 patients [1500 in the perineal group, 580 in the open abdominal group and 920 in the minimally invasive (MIS) group]. Patients who received open abdominal surgery were more likely to require elevation of care at destination compared with those who received perineal surgery (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.22-1.24) and MIS abdominal surgery (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.18-2.76). Similar effects were seen for overall morbidity. Increased age, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class, congestive heart failure, dependent functional status and open surgery were independent predictors of discharge to higher level of care (c-statistic = 0.79). CONCLUSION: Open surgery compared with MIS and perineal surgery was associated with higher levels of discharge disposition following rectal prolapse surgery. Future research should continue to identify modifiable treatment factors that reduce poor postoperative outcomes among patients with rectal prolapse.

Acuity patterns of heart failure among emergency departments in a large health system.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic importance of Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade (EHMRG) score in assessing short term mortality in Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) patients has been validated in the past, however, few studies have examined acuity patterns in the CHF population across healthcare settings. We aim to understand acuity patterns of CHF patients across a large health system for better resource utilization. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of adult patients with acute CHF in a large Metropolitan health system was performed in 3 community and 3 academic hospitals between January 2014 and January 2016. We collected demographic data, setting type, and calculated EHMRG score. Descriptive analysis of each hospital and mixed-effects negative binomial models were created to see patterns of acuity versus hospital volume. RESULTS: A total of 3312 Emergency Department (ED) visits among 2490 unique patients were included. Academic and community hospitals had 2168 patients and 1144 patients, respectively. Hospitals with higher volume treated a large amount of lower acuity patients. Academic hospitals had 30% of CHF ED visits in the lowest EHMRG quantile versus 20% at community hospital (p < 0.0001). Compared to EHMRG quantile 5b, hospital volume was 17%, 8% and 5% higher in quantile 1, 2, and 3 with a p-value less than 0.05 (IRR = 1.17; 1.08;1.05), respectively, but were not significant compared to quantile 4 and 5a. Revisit rates were lower in academic hospitals; admission rates were lower in community hospitals. CONCLUSION: Academic hospitals had a higher number of Acute Heart Failure (AHF) patients, larger number of low acuity patients, higher admission rates, but less revisit rates to the ED as compared to community hospitals. We suggest acuity specific interventions will help decrease admission and revisit rates.

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Atrial Fibrillation Treatment and Outcomes among Dialysis Patients in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Because stroke prevention is a major goal in the management of ESKD hemodialysis patients with atrial fibrillation, investigating racial/ethnic disparities in stroke among such patients is important to those who could benefit from strategies to maximize preventive measures. METHODS: We used the United States Renal Data System to identify ESKD patients who initiated hemodialysis from 2006 to 2013 and then identified those with a subsequent atrial fibrillation diagnosis and Medicare Part A/B/D. Patients were followed for 1 year for all-cause stroke, mortality, prescription medications, and cardiovascular disease procedures. The survival mediational g-formula quantified the percentage of excess strokes attributable to lower use of atrial fibrillation treatments by race/ethnicity. RESULTS: The study included 56,587 ESKD hemodialysis patients with atrial fibrillation. Black, white, Hispanic, and Asian patients accounted for 19%, 69%, 8%, and 3% of the population, respectively. Compared with white patients, black, Hispanic, or Asian patients were more likely to experience stroke (13%, 15%, and 16%, respectively) but less likely to fill a warfarin prescription (10%, 17%, and 28%, respectively). Warfarin prescription was associated with decreased stroke rates. Analyses suggested that equalizing the warfarin distribution to that in the white population would prevent 7%, 10%, and 12% of excess strokes among black, Hispanic, and Asian patients, respectively. We found no racial/ethnic disparities in all-cause mortality or use of cardiovascular disease procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Racial/ethnic disparities in all-cause stroke among hemodialysis patients with atrial fibrillation are partially mediated by lower use of anticoagulants among black, Hispanic, and Asian patients. The reasons for these disparities are unknown, but strategies to maximize stroke prevention in minority hemodialysis populations should be further investigated.

The Most Disruptive Publications in Craniofacial Surgery (1954-2014).

BACKGROUND: Emphasis on the quantification and qualification of scientific literature has increased over recent years. The newly validated disruption score is a bibliometric measure that identifies groundbreaking research that eclipses prior research in a specific field of study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 100 most disruptive craniofacial surgery publications were identified through query of the 4 top craniofacial journals and 10 of the most prominent Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery journals, looking at craniofacial specific publications. RESULTS: Presented is the compilation and analysis of the 100 most disruptive publications in the field of craniofacial surgery compared to the 100 most cited publications between 1954 and 2014. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery had the most papers in the top 100 (n = 56) followed by Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (n = 22), and British Journal of Surgery (n = 12). The correlation coefficient between disruption scores and citation counts was -0.001 and -0.07 among all papers, and the top 100 most disruptive papers, respectively. For craniofacial journals, Journal of Craniofacial Surgery had the highest average disruption score for all published papers. The most common decade represented in the top 100 was the 1980's (n = 32) and the least common was the 2000's (n = 14). Randomized controlled trials did not comprise a large amount of either the most disruptive (n = 1) or most cited (n = 2) lists. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first use of disruption index score to describe craniofacial surgery research. The disruption score can help recognize paradigm shifts and innovative research in this unique surgical subspecialty.

Diversity and Inclusion in the Epidemiology Workforce.

Increasing participation by promoting diversity and inclusion in professional society membership has become an important topic for many scientific fields. In a recent issue of the Journal, DeVilbiss et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2020;189(10):998-1010) reported results from a survey conducted by the Society for Epidemiologic Research (SER) Diversity and Inclusion Committee by which several aspects of participation by sociodemographic and cultural variables among its members were measured. Here, we summarize the major findings of the survey, put the authors' results within the greater context of the epidemiology workforce, and provide suggestions on how the Committee could expand its influence by considering measuring variables related to career outcomes and trajectories. This suggestion is based on an attempt to link the interventions being facilitated by SER, the participation indices it is trying to improve, and the greater mission of SER to build sustainable career trajectories that produce the best science that will improve the health of human populations.

Variation in Adequate Lymph Node Yield for Gastric, Lung, and Bladder Cancer: Attributable to the Surgeon, Pathologist, or Hospital?

BACKGROUND: The Commission on Cancer recently released quality-of-care measures regarding adequate lymphadenectomy for colon, gastric, lung, and bladder cancer. There is currently little information regarding variation in adequate lymph node yield (ALNY) for gastric, lung, and bladder cancer. METHODS: The New York State Cancer Registry and Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System were queried for stage I-III gastric, stage I-II lung, and stage II-III bladder cancer resections from 2004 to 2014. Hierarchical models assessed factors associated with ALNY (gastric ≥ 15; lung ≥ 10; bladder ≥ 2). Additionally, the proportions of variation attributable to surgeons, pathologists, and hospitals were estimated among Medicare patients. RESULTS: Among 3716 gastric, 18,328 lung, and 1512 bladder cancer resections, there were low rates of ALNY (gastric = 53%, lung = 36%, bladder = 67%). When comparing 2004-2006 and 2012-2014, there was significant improvement in ALNY for gastric cancer (39% vs. 68%), but more modest improvement for lung (33% vs. 38%) and bladder (65% vs. 71%) cancer. Large provider-level variation existed for each organ system. After controlling for patient-level factors/variation, the majority of variation was attributable to hospitals (gastric: surgeon = 4%, pathologist = 2.8%, hospital = 40%; lung: surgeon = 13.8%, pathologist = 1.5%, hospital = 18.3%) for gastric and lung cancer. For bladder cancer, most of the variation was attributable to pathologists (surgeon = 3.3%, pathologist = 10.5%, hospital = 6.2%). CONCLUSIONS: ALNY rates are low for gastric, lung, and bladder cancer, with only modest improvement over time for lung and bladder cancer. Given that the proportion of variation attributable to the surgeon, pathologist, and hospital is different for each organ system, future quality improvement initiatives should target the underlying causes, which vary by individual organ system.

Concomitant Use of Gabapentinoids with Opioids Is Associated with Increased Mortality and Morbidity among Dialysis Patients.

BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic is a public health emergency and appropriate medication prescription for pain remains challenging. Physicians have increasingly prescribed gabapentinoids for pain despite limited evidence supporting their use. We determined the prevalence of concomitant gabapentinoid and opioid prescriptions and evaluated their associations with outcomes among dialysis patients. METHODS: We used the United States Renal Data System to identify patients treated with dialysis with Part A, B, and D coverage for all of 2010. Patients were grouped into 4 categories of drugs exposure status in 2010: (1) no prescriptions of either an opioid or gabapentinoid, (2) ≥1 prescription of an opioid and no prescriptions of gabapentinoids, (3) no prescriptions of an opioid and ≥1 prescription of gabapenbtinoids, (4) ≥1 prescription of both an opioid and gabapentinoid. Outcomes included 2-year all-cause death, dialysis discontinuation, and hospitalizations assessed in 2011 and 2012. RESULTS: The study population included 153,758 dialysis patients. Concomitant prescription of an opioid and gabapentin (15%) was more common than concomitant prescription of an opioid and pregabalin (4%). In adjusted analyses, concomitant prescription of an opioid and gabapentin compared to no prescription of either was associated with increased risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.19), dialysis discontinuation (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03-1.27), and hospitalization (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.31-1.36). Concomitant prescription of an opioid and pregabalin compared to no prescription of either was associated with increased mortality (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.16-1.28) and hospitalization (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.33-1.41), but not dialysis discontinuation (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.95-1.35). Prescription of opioids and gabepentinoids compared to only being prescribed opioids was associated with higher risk of hospitalizations, but not mortality, or dialysis discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant prescription of opioids and gabapentinoids among US dialysis patients is common, and both drugs have independent effects on outcomes. Future research should prospectively investigate the potential harms of such drugs and identify safer alternatives for treatment of pain in end-stage renal disease patients.

Centralizing Rectal Cancer Surgery: What Is the Impact of Travel on Patients?

BACKGROUND: It is unclear what impact centralizing rectal cancer surgery may have on travel burden for patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the impact of centralizing rectal cancer surgery to high-volume centers on patient travel distance. DESIGN: This is a population-based study. SETTINGS: The New York State Cancer Registry and Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System were queried for patients with rectal cancer undergoing proctectomy. PATIENTS: Patients with stage I to III rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection between 2004 and 2014 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome of interest was travel distance calculated as the straight-line distance between the centroid of the patient residence zip code and the hospital zip code. Mean distance was compared by using the Student t test. RESULTS: A total of 5860 patients met inclusion criteria. The total number of hospitals performing proctectomies for rectal cancer decreased between 2004 and 2014. The average number of proctectomies performed at high-volume centers (20+ resections/year) increased from 16.6 to 24.4 during this time. The average number of miles traveled by patients was 12.1 miles in 2004, and this increased to 15.4 in 2014. If proctectomies were centralized to high-volume centers, there would be 11 facilities. The mean distance traveled would be 24.5 miles. LIMITATIONS: This study is subject to the limitations of an administrative data set. There are no patient preference or referral data. CONCLUSIONS: The number of hospitals performing rectal cancer resections in New York State is decreasing and volume by center is increasing. There was a statistically significant difference in the mean distance traveled by patients over time. If rectal cancer resections were centralized to high-volume centers, the mean travel distance would increase by 9.5 miles. There would be a 321% increase in the number of patients having to travel 50+ miles for surgery. Any plan for centralization in New York State will require careful planning to avoid placing undue travel burden on patients. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B138. CENTRALIZACIÓN DE LA CIRUGÍA DE CÁNCER RECTAL: ¿CUÁL ES EL IMPACTO DEL VIAJE PARA LOS PACIENTES?: No está claro qué impacto puede tener la centralización de la cirugía de cáncer rectal en la carga de viaje para los pacientes.Determinar el impacto de centralizar la cirugía de cáncer rectal en centros de alto volumen sobre la distancia de viaje del paciente.Este es un estudio basado en cohorte poblacional.El Registro de Cáncer del Estado de Nueva York y el Sistema Cooperativo de Planificación e Investigación Estatal fueron consultados para pacientes con cáncer rectal sometidos a proctectomía.Pacientes con cáncer rectal en estadio I-III que se sometieron a resección quirúrgica entre 2004-2014.El resultado de interés fue la distancia de viaje calculada como la distancia en línea recta entre el centroide de la residencia del paciente y el código postal del hospital. La distancia media se comparó mediante la prueba t de Student.Un total de 5,860 pacientes cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. El número total de hospitales que realizaron proctectomías para cáncer rectal disminuyó entre 2004-2014. El número promedio de proctectomías realizadas en centros de alto volumen (más de 20 resecciones/año) aumentó de 16.6 a 24.4 durante este tiempo. El número promedio de millas recorridas por los pacientes fue de 12.1 millas en 2004 y esto aumentó a 15.4 en 2014. Si las proctectomías se centralizaran en centros de alto volumen, habría 11 instalaciones. La distancia media recorrida sería de 24.5 millas.Limitaciones inherentes a un conjunto de datos administrativos. No existen datos sobre preferencia del paciente o sobre referencia de los mismos.El número de hospitales que realizan resecciones de cáncer rectal en Nueva York está disminuyendo y el volumen por centro está aumentando. Hubo una diferencia estadísticamente significativa en la distancia media recorrida por los pacientes a lo largo del tiempo. Si las resecciones por cáncer rectal se centralizaran en centros de gran volumen, la distancia media de viaje aumentaría 9.5 millas. Habría un aumento del 321% en el número de pacientes que tienen que viajar más de 50 millas para la cirugía. Cualquier plan de centralización en Nueva York requerirá una planificación cuidadosa para evitar imponer una carga de viaje excesiva a los pacientes. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B138.

A Population-Based Study of 90-Day Hospital Cost and Utilization Associated With Robotic Surgery in Colon and Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of robotic surgery in colorectal cancer remains contentious with most data arising from small, single-institution studies. METHODS: Stage I-III colorectal cancer resections from 2008 to 2014 were identified in New York State. Propensity score-adjusted negative binomial models were used to compare cost and utilization between robotic, laparoscopic, and open resections. RESULTS: A total of 12,218 patients were identified. For colectomy, the robotic-to-open conversion rate was 3%, and the laparoscopic-to-open conversion rate was 13%. For rectal resection, the robotic-to-open conversion rate was 7% and the laparoscopic-to-open conversion rate was 32%. In intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in cost across the surgical approaches, both in overall and stratified analyses. Both laparoscopic and robotic approaches were associated with decreased 90-d hospital utilization compared with open surgery in intention-to-treat analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic and laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections were not associated with a hospital cost benefit after 90 d compared with open but were associated with decreased hospital utilization. Conversion to open resection was common, and efforts should be made to prevent them. Future research should continue to measure how robotic and laparoscopic approaches can add value to the health care system.