Validation of the Adapted Clavien-Dindo in Trauma (ACDiT) Classifications in Medical and Surgical Management of Acute Diverticulitis.

OBJECTIVES: To validate the adapted Clavien-Dindo in trauma (ACDiT) tool as a novel outcome measure for patients with acute diverticulitis managed both operatively and nonoperatively. BACKGROUND: Complications following diverticulitis are difficult to classify because no traditional tools address patients managed both operatively and nonoperatively. The ACDiT grading system-graded from 0 to 5b-is applied in this manner but has not yet been validated for this patient group. METHODS: We performed a 5-year observational study of patients with acute diverticulitis at a safety-net hospital. Baseline demographics and hospitalization data were collected. ACDiT scores were assigned, and validation was undertaken by comparing scores with hospital-free days, and verifying that higher scores were associated with known risk factors for poor outcomes. Inverse probability weighted propensity scores were assigned for surgical management, and inverse probability weighted regression analysis was used to determine factors associated with ACDiT ≥ grade 2. RESULTS: Of 260 patients, 188 (72%) were managed nonoperatively. Eighty (31%) developed a complication; 73 (91%) were grades 1 to 3b. Higher grades correlated inversely with hospital-free days (rs = -0.67, P < 0.0001) for all patients and for nonoperative (rs = -0.63, P < 0.0001) and operative (rs = -0.62, P < 0.0001) patients. Hinchey 2 to 3 and initial operative management had higher odds of having a complication of ACDiT ≥ grade 2. CONCLUSION: The ACDiT tool was successfully applied to acute diverticulitis patients managed operatively and nonoperatively, is associated with known risk factors for adverse outcomes. ACDiT may be considered a meaningful outcome measure for comparing strategies for acute diverticulitis.

Routine preoperative endoscopy in patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: The role of routine preoperative endoscopy before primary weight loss surgery remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: We reviewed our experience to determine the frequency of abnormal findings in patients undergoing routine preoperative endoscopy before bariatric surgery. SETTING: A tertiary level, academic-affiliated bariatric surgery practice. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed between July 2014 and June 2016 of patients undergoing routine preoperative endoscopy before primary bariatric surgery. Variables evaluated included preendoscopy symptoms, planned bariatric surgical procedure, abnormal findings on endoscopy, and changes in planned bariatric surgical procedure after endoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 631 patients met inclusion criteria. Of patients, 72% (457) were female. The median age was 44 (interquartile range 36-55). The median body mass index was 46 (interquartile range 42-51). Most patients had no preendoscopy clinical symptoms (61.3%). The most frequent abnormal findings included esophagitis (26.5%), hiatal hernia (27.1%), gastric ulcer (4.9%), and biopsy-proven Barrett's esophagus (4.6%). Although patients with preoperative symptoms were more likely to have abnormal findings on endoscopy, there were no significant differences in rates of Barrett's esophagus in patients with (5.3%) or without (4.1%) symptoms. Of the total cohort, 18.4% had a change in their planned operation after endoscopy results. CONCLUSION: The findings in our large series suggest selective screening in symptomatic patients only may lead to failure of discovery of foregut pathology that should prompt consideration for changes in the planned bariatric surgical procedure. Further study is necessary to see if our findings have broad applicability.

Shared decision-making during surgical consultation for gallstones at a safety-net hospital.

BACKGROUND: Understanding patient perspectives regarding shared decision-making is crucial to providing informed, patient-centered care. Little is known about perceptions of vulnerable patients regarding shared decision-making during surgical consultation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a validated tool reflects perceptions of shared decision-making accurately among patients seeking surgical consultation for gallstones at a safety-net hospital. METHODS: A mixed methods study was conducted in a sample of adult patients with gallstones evaluated at a safety-net surgery clinic between May to July 2016. Semi-structured interviews were conducted after their initial surgical consultation and analyzed for emerging themes. Patients were administered the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire and Autonomy Preference Scale. Univariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with shared decision-making and to compare the results of the surveys to those of the interviews. RESULTS: The majority of patients (N = 30) were female (90%), Hispanic (80%), Spanish-speaking (70%), and middle-aged (45.7 ± 16 years). The proportion of patients who perceived shared decision-making was greater in the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire versus the interviews (83% vs 27%, P < .01). Age, sex, race/ethnicity, primary language, diagnosis, Autonomy Preference Scale score, and decision for operation was not associated with shared decision-making. Contributory factors to this discordance include patient unfamiliarity with shared decision-making, deference to surgeon authority, lack of discussion about different treatments, and confusion between aligned versus shared decisions. CONCLUSION: Available questionnaires may overestimate shared decision-making in vulnerable patients suggesting the need for alternative or modifications to existing methods. Furthermore, such metrics should be assessed for correlation with patient-reported outcomes, such as satisfaction with decisions and health status.