Postendoscopy Care for Patients Presenting With Esophageal Food Bolus Impaction: A Population-Based Multicenter Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Esophageal food bolus impactions (FBI) are a common gastrointestinal emergency. Appropriate management includes not only index endoscopy for disimpaction but also medical follow-up and treatment for the underlying esophageal pathology. We evaluated the appropriateness of postendoscopy care for patients with FBI and assessed patient-related, physician-related, and system-related factors that may contribute to loss to follow-up. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, population-based, multicenter cohort study of all adult patients undergoing endoscopy for FBI in the Calgary Health Zone, Canada, from 2016 to 2018. Appropriate postendoscopy care was defined by a composite of a clinical or endoscopic follow-up visit, appropriate investigations (e.g., manometry), or therapy (e.g., proton-pump inhibitors or endoscopic dilation). Predictors of inappropriate care were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 519 patients underwent endoscopy for FBI: 25.2% (131/519) did not receive appropriate postendoscopy care. Half of the patients (55.3%, 287/519) underwent follow-up endoscopy or attended clinic, and among this group, 22.3% (64/287) had a change in their initial diagnosis after follow-up, including 3 new cases of esophageal cancer. Patients in whom a suspected underlying esophageal pathology was not identified at the index endoscopy were 7-fold (adjusted odds ratio 7.28, 95% confidence interval 4.49-11.78, P < 0.001) more likely to receive inappropriate postendoscopy follow-up and treatment, even after adjusting for age, sex, rural residence, timing of endoscopy, weekend presentation, and endoscopic interventions. DISCUSSION: One-quarter of patients presenting with an FBI do not receive appropriate postendoscopy care. This is strongly associated with failure to identify a potential underlying pathology at index presentation.

Urban-Rural Disparities and Temporal Trends in Peptic Ulcer Disease Epidemiology, Treatment, and Outcomes in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of peptic ulcer disease (PUD) has been decreasing over time with Helicobacter pylori eradication and use of acid-suppressing therapies. However, PUD remains a common cause of hospitalization in the United States. We aimed to evaluate contemporary national trends in the incidence, treatment patterns, and outcomes for PUD-related hospitalizations and compare care delivery by hospital rurality. METHODS: Data from the National Inpatient Sample were used to estimate weighted annual rates of PUD-related hospitalizations. Temporal trends were evaluated by joinpoint regression and expressed as annual percent change with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We determined the proportion of hospitalizations requiring endoscopic and surgical interventions, stratified by clinical presentation and rurality. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess independent predictors of in-hospital mortality and postoperative morbidity. RESULTS: There was a 25.8% reduction (P < 0.001) in PUD-related hospitalizations from 2005 to 2014, although the rate of decline decreased from -7.2% per year (95% CI: 13.2% to -0.7%) before 2008 to -2.1% per year (95% CI: 3.0% to -1.1%) after 2008. In-hospital mortality was 2.4% (95% CI: 2.4%-2.5%). Upper endoscopy (84.3% vs 78.4%, P < 0.001) and endoscopic hemostasis (26.1% vs 16.8%, P < 0.001) were more likely to be performed in urban hospitals, whereas surgery was performed less frequently (9.7% vs 10.5%, P < 0.001). In multivariable logistic regression, patients managed in urban hospitals were at higher risk for postoperative morbidity (odds ratio 1.16 [95% CI: 1.04-1.29]), but not death (odds ratio 1.11 [95% CI: 1.00-1.23]). DISCUSSION: The rate of decline in hospitalization rates for PUD has stabilized over time, although there remains significant heterogeneity in treatment patterns by hospital rurality.

Age-related disparities and trends in national healthcare spending for management of appendicitis in the United States: A retrospective cost-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Changes in clinical care for appendicitis have impacted healthcare use associated with treatment. We evaluated national trends and assessed factors associated with healthcare costs for appendicitis in the United States. DESIGN: The Disease Expenditure Project, the Global Burden of Disease study, and the National Inpatient Sample were used to estimate total national expenditures, per-capita costs for incident cases, and factors associated with inpatient costs for appendicitis management, respectively. The national estimates of appendicitis costs were obtained from 1996 to 2016. Appendicitis incidence was estimated to calculate per-capita costs. After application of survey weights for the stratified sample design, 191,180 weighted discharges for appendicitis from the 2016 National Inpatient Sample study were evaluated. The Disease Expenditure Project and the Global Burden of Disease study were used to estimate total and per-capita spending. Temporal trends were evaluated using joinpoint regression, expressed as annual percent change. Multivariable linear regression was used to evaluate patient factors associated with total hospital charges. RESULTS: In 2016, total spending on appendicitis was $9.3 billion (95% confidence interval: $8.0-$10.8], a 2-fold increase from $4.7 billion ($4.0-$5.3) in 1996. Per-capita spending decreased significantly after 2011 (annual percent change -3.7% [-4.4% to -2.9%]). Patients ≥65 years accounted for 64.1% (61.1%-67.3%) of total spending for appendicitis. The hospital charges for older patients were significantly higher among those undergoing appendectomy. CONCLUSION: Overall healthcare spending for appendicitis has doubled from 1996 to 2016, but per capita spending has decreased since 2011, driven by improved efficiency of inpatient care. Nearly two-thirds of spending is on patients ≥65 years, with significantly higher costs associated with surgical management in this population.