Predicting short-term mortality and long-term survival for hospitalized US patients with alcoholic hepatitis.

BACKGROUND: No study has evaluated current scoring systems for their accuracy in predicting short and long-term outcome of alcoholic hepatitis in a US population. METHODS: We reviewed electronic records for patients with alcoholic liver disease (ALD) admitted to Parkland Memorial Hospital between January 2002 and August 2005. Data and outcomes for 148 of 1,761 admissions meeting pre-defined criteria were collected. The discriminant function (DF) was revised (INRdf) to account for changes in prothrombin time reagents that could potentially affect identification of risk using the previous DF threshold of >32. Admission and theoretical peak scores were calculated by use of the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD). Analysis models compared five different scoring systems. RESULTS: INRdf was closely correlated with the old DF (r (2) = 0.95). Multivariate analysis of the data showed that survival for 28 days was significantly associated with a scoring system using a combination of age, bilirubin, coagulation status, and creatinine (p < 0.001), and an elevated ammonia result within two days of admission (p = 0.012). When peak values for MELD were included, they were the most significant predictor of short-term mortality (p < 0.001), followed by INRdf (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: On admission, two scoring systems that identify a subset of patients with severe alcoholic liver disease are able to predict >50 % mortality at four weeks and >80 % mortality at six months without specific treatment.

Transferred and delayed care of patients with colorectal cancer in a safety-net hospital system--manifestations of a distressed healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Safety-net hospital systems provide care to a large proportion of United States' under- and uninsured population. We have witnessed delayed colorectal cancer (CRC) care in this population and sought to identify demographic and systemic differences in these patients compared to those in an insured health-care system. DESIGN, PATIENTS, AND APPROACH/MEASUREMENTS: We collected demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical data from 2005-2007 on all patients with CRC seen at Parkland Health and Hospital System (PHHS), a safety-net health system and at Presbyterian Hospital Dallas System (Presbyterian), a community health system, and compared characteristics among the two health-care systems. Variables associated with advanced stage were identified with multivariate logistic regression analysis and odds ratios were calculated. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighteen patients at PHHS and 397 patients at Presbyterian with CRC were identified. An overwhelming majority (75 %) of patients seen at the safety-net were diagnosed after being seen in the emergency department or at an outside facility. These patients had a higher percentage of stage 4 disease compared to the community. Patients within the safety-net with Medicare/private insurance had lower rates of advanced disease than uninsured patients (25 % vs. 68 %, p < 0.001). Insurance status and physician encounter resulting in diagnosis were independent predictors of disease stage at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of patients seen in the safety-net health system were transferred from outside systems after diagnosis, thus leading to delayed care. This delay in care drove advanced stage at diagnosis. The data point to a pervasive and systematic issue in patients with CRC and have fundamental health policy implications for population-based CRC screening.

Physician knowledge and appropriate utilization of computed tomographic colonography in colorectal cancer screening.

GOALS: To assess physician understanding of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines in a pilot study. BACKGROUND: CTC is a sensitive and specific method of detecting colorectal polyps and cancer. However, several factors have limited its clinical availability, and CRC screening guidelines have issued conflicting recommendations. STUDY: A web-based survey was administered to physicians at two institutions with and without routine CTC availability. RESULTS: 398 of 1655 (24%) participants completed the survey, 59% was from the institution with routine CTC availability, 52% self-identified as trainees, and 15% as gastroenterologists. 78% had no personal experience with CTC. Only 12% was aware of any current CRC screening guidelines that included CTC. In a multiple regression model, gastroenterologists had greater odds of being aware of guidelines (OR 3.49, CI 1.67-7.26), as did physicians with prior CTC experience (OR 4.81, CI 2.39-9.68), controlling for institution, level of training, sex, and practice type. Based on guidelines that recommend CTC, when given a clinical scenario, 96% of physicians was unable to select the appropriate follow-up after a CTC, which was unaffected by institution. CONCLUSIONS: Most physicians have limited experience with CTC and are unaware of recent recommendations concerning CTC in CRC screening.

Management of small polyps detected by screening CT colonography: patient and physician preferences.

BACKGROUND: Management of small polyps found on computed tomography (CT) colonography is controversial and critical to both cancer outcomes and cost. Patient and physician behavior are influenced by personal beliefs and prior experience. Thus, we aimed to understand patient and physician preferences after finding polyps on CT colonography. METHODS: Patients were given a validated handout and survey asking for their preference for evaluation of a "pea-sized" polyp found on CT colonography. By using an Internet survey, physicians were asked how they would manage a 5-mm, 8-mm, or 12-mm polyp, or three 5-mm polyps found by CT colonography in a hypothetical 52-year-old patient of average colorectal cancer risk. Survey reliability was assessed using Cronbach's coefficient alpha. RESULTS: Of the 305 patient respondents, 95% wanted to know if the polyp found on CT colonography was precancerous, 86% stated they would request endoscopic evaluation, and 85% wanted polypectomy. Of the 277 primary care physicians, 71% would refer a 5-mm sigmoid polyp for endoscopy, 86% would refer an 8-mm polyp, 97% would refer a 12-mm polyp, and 91% would refer three 5-mm polyps. Of the 461 gastroenterologists, 83% would refer a 5-mm sigmoid polyp for endoscopy, 96% would refer an 8-mm polyp, 97% would refer a 12-mm polyp, and 93% would refer three 5-mm polyps. Overall, 75% of physicians indicated the fear of missing a precancerous lesion would prompt referral for colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: Both patients and physicians overwhelmingly preferred to follow up small polyps identified by CT colonography with endoscopy, suggesting that population-based CT colonography screening programs in which polyps are not removed might require significant patient and physician education before implementation.