Detection and Management of Perioperative Hyperglycemia at a Tertiary Cancer Center.

INTRODUCTION: To improve the detection and management of perioperative hyperglycemia at our tertiary cancer center, we implemented a glycemic control quality improvement initiative. The primary goal was to decrease the percentage of diabetic patients with median postoperative glucose levels > 180 mg/dL during hospitalization by 15% within 2 years. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team standardized preoperative screening, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative hyperglycemia management. We included all patients undergoing nonemergent inpatient and outpatient operations. We used a t test, rank sum, chi-square, or Fisher's exact test to assess differences in outcomes between patients at baseline (BL) (10/2018-4/2019), during the first phase (P1) (10/2019-4/2020), second phase (P2) (5/2020-12/2020), and maintenance phase (M) (1/2021-10/2022). RESULTS: The analysis included 9891 BL surgical patients (1470 with diabetes), 8815 P1 patients (1233 with diabetes), 10,401 P2 patients (1531 with diabetes) and 30,410 M patients (4265 with diabetes). The percentage of diabetic patients with median glucose levels >180 mg/dL during hospitalization decreased 32% during the initiative (BL, 20.1%; P1, 16.9%; P2, 12.1%; M, 13.7% [P < .001]). We also saw reductions in the percentages of diabetic patients with median glucose levels >180 mg/dL intraoperatively (BL, 34.0%; P1, 26.6%; P2, 23.9%; M, 20.3% [P < .001]) and in the postanesthesia care unit (BL, 36.0%; P1, 30.4%; P2, 28.5%; M, 25.8% [P < .001]). The percentage of patients screened for diabetes by hemoglobin A1C increased during the initiative (BL, 17.5%; P1, 52.5%; P2, 66.8%; M 74.5% [P < .001]). CONCLUSIONS: Our successful initiative can be replicated in other hospitals to standardize and improve glycemic control among diabetic surgical patients.

Efficacy, safety, and feasibility of Apixaban for postoperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis following open gynecologic cancer surgery at a comprehensive cancer center.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate safety, efficacy, and feasibility of apixaban for postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following open gynecologic cancer surgery at a comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: This retrospective, cohort study included patients with gynecologic cancer who underwent open surgery between 3/2021 and 3/2023 and received 28-day postoperative VTE prophylaxis. Patients on therapeutic anticoagulation preoperatively were excluded. Predictors of 90- and 30-day VTE and 30-day bleeding events were determined using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for known confounders. RESULTS: 452 patients were included in the cohort: 348 received apixaban and 104 received enoxaparin. Those who received enoxaparin were more likely to be American Society of Anesthesiologists class III/IV (compared to I/II) (p = 0.033), current or former smokers (p = 0.012) and have a higher BMI (p < 0.001), Charlson Comorbidity Index (p = 0.005), and age (p = 0.046). 30-day VTE rate was significantly lower in the apixaban group (0.6%) compared to the enoxaparin group (6.2%) (adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03-0.56; p = 0.006). 90-day VTE rate was 2.7% and 6.2% in the apixaban and enoxaparin groups, respectively (adjusted OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.38-1.92; p = 0.704). Major bleeding complications (2.4% vs. 2.0%) and minor bleeding complications (0.9% vs. 3.0%) were similar in the apixaban and enoxaparin groups, respectively, on multivariate analyses. The median patient out of pocket cost was $10 (IQR 0.0-40.0) for apixaban and $20 (IQR 3.7-67.7) for enoxaparin (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings along with previously published data suggest that apixaban should be considered the standard of care for VTE prophylaxis in patients undergoing open surgery for gynecologic malignancies.

Longitudinal perioperative patient-reported outcomes in open compared with minimally invasive hysterectomy.

BACKGROUND: There are few prospective studies in the gynecologic surgical literature that compared patient-reported outcomes between open and minimally invasive hysterectomies within enhanced recovery after surgery pathways. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare prospectively collected perioperative patient-reported symptom burden and interference measures in open compared with minimally invasive hysterectomy cohorts within enhanced recovery after surgery pathways. STUDY DESIGN: We compared patient-reported symptom burden and functional interference in 646 patients who underwent a hysterectomy (254 underwent open surgery and 392 underwent minimally invasive surgery) for benign and malignant indications under enhanced recovery after surgery protocols. Outcomes were prospectively measured using the validated MD Anderson Symptom Inventory, which was administered perioperatively up to 8 weeks after surgery. Cohorts were compared using Fisher exact and chi-squared tests, adjusted longitudinal generalized linear mixed modeling, and Kaplan Meier curves to model return to no or mild symptoms. RESULTS: The open cohort had significantly worse preoperative physical functional interference (P=.001). At the time of hospital discharge postoperatively, the open cohort reported significantly higher mean symptom severity scores and more moderate or severe scores for overall (P<.001) and abdominal pain (P<.001), fatigue (P=.001), lack of appetite (P<.001), bloating (P=.041), and constipation (P<.001) when compared with the minimally invasive cohort. The open cohort also had significantly higher interference in physical functioning (score 5.0 vs 2.7; P<.001) than the minimally invasive cohort at the time of discharge with no differences in affective interference between the 2 groups. In mixed modeling analysis of the first 7 postoperative days, both cohorts reported improved symptom burden and functional interference over time with generally slower recovery in the open cohort. From 1 to 8 postoperative weeks, the open cohort had worse mean scores for all evaluated symptoms and interference measures except for pain with urination, although scores indicated mild symptomatic burden and interference in both cohorts. The time to return to no or mild symptoms was significantly longer in the open cohort for overall pain (14 vs 4 days; P<.001), fatigue (8 vs 4 days; P<.001), disturbed sleep (2 vs 2 days; P<.001), and appetite (1.5 vs 1 days; P<.001) but was significantly longer in the minimally invasive cohort for abdominal pain (42 vs 28 days; P<.001) and bloating (42 vs 8 days; P<.001). The median time to return to no or mild functional interference was longer in the open than in the minimally invasive hysterectomy cohort for physical functioning (36 vs 32 days; P<.001) with no difference in compositive affective functioning (5 vs 5 days; P=.07) between the groups. CONCLUSION: Open hysterectomy was associated with increased symptom burden in the immediate postoperative period and longer time to return to no or mild symptom burden and interference with physical functioning. However, all patient-reported measures improved within days to weeks of both open and minimally invasive surgery and differences were not always clinically significant.

Rate of venous thromboembolism on an enhanced recovery program after gynecologic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism is a life-threatening complication of surgery. An Enhanced Recovery After Surgery program is a multimodal care pathway that facilitates faster recovery from surgery. The rate of venous thromboembolism after gynecologic surgery on an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery program is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the rate of venous thromboembolism within 30 days of gynecologic surgery on an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery pathway performed at a cancer center. STUDY DESIGN: Data were collected prospectively on Enhanced Recovery After Surgery pathway gynecologic patients undergoing open surgery (November 3, 2014, to March 31, 2021) and minimally invasive surgery (February 1, 2017, to March 31, 2021). Care was delivered at a tertiary cancer care center located in a large urban area. Patients undergoing emergency surgery or multispecialty surgeries were excluded. Patients undergoing open surgery were to receive heparin prophylaxis before surgery, sequential compression devices during surgery and admission, and low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis during admission. If diagnosed with malignancy, patients were to receive extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for 28 days after surgery. For minimally invasive surgery, patients received only sequential compression devices during surgery and no heparin prophylaxis before or after surgery. Venous thromboembolism events were included if detected on imaging obtained for symptoms or other indications. Descriptive statistics and bivariate statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 3329 patients, 1519 (45.6%) underwent laparotomy, 1452 (43.6%) underwent laparoscopy, and 358 (10.8%) underwent robotic surgery. The incidence rates of venous thromboembolism were 0.6% (n=21; 95% confidence interval, 0.4%-0.9%) overall, 1.1% (n=16, 95% confidence interval, 0.6%-1.7%) in the open approach, and 0.3% (n=5; 95% confidence interval, 0.3%-0.6%) in the minimally invasive approach (P=.02). The incidence rates of venous thromboembolism among the 1999 patients with malignancy were 0.9% (n=18; 95% confidence interval, 0.5%-1.4%) overall, 1.4% (n=15; 95% confidence interval, 0.7%-2.2%) in the open approach, and 0.3% (n=3; 95% confidence interval, 0.1%-0.9%) in the minimally invasive approach. The incidence rates of venous thromboembolism among the 1165 patients with benign disease were 0.3% (n=3; 95% confidence interval, 0.1%-0.7%) overall, 0.3% (n=1; 95% confidence interval, 0.0%-1.7%) in the open approach, and 0.2% (n=2; 95% confidence interval, 0.0%-0.9%) in the minimally invasive approach. CONCLUSION: The rate of venous thromboembolism among patients undergoing laparotomy and minimally invasive surgery on an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery pathway was ≤1%. This study established a benchmark for the rate of venous thromboembolism after gynecologic surgery on an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery pathway performed at a cancer center.

Incidence of acute kidney injury after open gynecologic surgery in an enhanced recovery after surgery pathway.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of postoperative AKI after open gynecologic surgery within ERAS, compare AKI in pre-ERAS and ERAS cohorts, and identify factors associated with AKI. METHODS: We compared postoperative AKI in patients who underwent open gynecologic surgery at one institution before and after ERAS implementation. AKI was defined as acute risk, injury, or failure by RIFLE criteria. Pre-ERAS and ERAS cohorts were matched using propensity score analysis in a 1:1 fashion using the nearest neighbor technique. Chi-squared, Fisher's Exact, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used. RESULTS: Among 1334 ERAS and 191 pre-ERAS patients, postoperative AKI incidence was higher in the ERAS cohort (13.1% vs 5.8%, p = .004). In 166 matched pairs, ERAS patients had higher incidence (16.9% vs 5.4%, p < .001) and odds (OR 3.54, 95% CI 1.61-7.76) of AKI. Within ERAS, AKI was associated with older age (median age 65 vs 57, p < .001), Charlson Comorbidity Index score ≥ 3 (71.4% vs 57.9%, p < .001), and higher intraoperative estimated blood loss (400 vs 225 mL, p < .001), fluid administration (net fluid balance +1535 vs 1261 mL, p < .001), and hypotension lasting >5 min (41.7% vs 30.7%, p < .001). ERAS patients with AKI had longer hospital stays (median 4 vs 3 days, p < .001) and more readmissions (19% vs. 10%, p < .001) and grade 3+ complications (26% vs. 7%, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence and odds of postoperative AKI was higher after gynecologic surgery within ERAS, and patients with AKI were more likely to have complications. Potential strategies to prevent postoperative AKI include perioperative fluid and blood pressure optimization.

A prospective randomized trial comparing liposomal bupivacaine vs standard bupivacaine wound infiltration in open gynecologic surgery on an enhanced recovery pathway.

BACKGROUND: Value in healthcare is reflected by patient-centered outcomes of care per health dollar expended. Although liposomal bupivacaine is more expensive, it has been shown to provide prolonged analgesia (up to 72 hours). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate whether the addition of liposomal bupivacaine to standard bupivacaine could decrease opioid intake and improve pain control after laparotomy for gynecologic surgery compared with standard bupivacaine alone in an enhanced recovery after surgery pathway. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective randomized controlled single-blinded trial of wound infiltration with liposomal bupivacaine plus 0.25% bupivacaine (study arm) vs 0.25% bupivacaine (control arm) was performed at a National Cancer Institute-designated tertiary referral cancer center. Participants were patients aged ≥18 years undergoing exploratory laparotomy for a gynecologic indication. All patients were treated on an enhanced recovery pathway including local wound infiltration before closure. In this study, 266 mg of liposomal bupivacaine (free base; equal to 300 mg bupivacaine HCL)+150 mg of bupivacaine mixed in the same syringe was used in the study arm, and 150 mg of bupivacaine was used in the control arm. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who were opioid-free within 48 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes included number of opioid-free days from postoperative day 0 to postoperative day 3, days to first opioid administration, morphine equivalent daily dose, and patient-reported outcomes collected with the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory. The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory was administered as a preoperative baseline, daily while hospitalized, and at least weekly for 8 weeks after discharge. All outcomes were prespecified before data collection. RESULTS: In this study, 102 patients were evaluated. Among them, 16.7% of patients in the study arm received no opioids up to 48 hours compared with 14.8% in the control arm (P=.99). There were no significant differences in the amount of intraoperative opioids administered or days to first opioid use. There was no significant difference between the 2 arms in median cumulative morphine equivalent daily dose (21.3 [study arm] vs 33.8 [control arm]; P=.36) or between the groups in morphine equivalent daily dose per individual day. There were no significant differences in patient-reported pain or interference with walking between the 2 arms or other patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSION: Within an enhanced recovery after surgery pathway, adding liposomal bupivacaine to 0.25% bupivacaine wound infiltration did not decrease the proportion of patients who were opioid-free within 48 hours after surgery, did not decrease opioid intake, or did not improve patient's self-reported pain and functional recovery compared with standard bupivacaine.

Effect of preoperative intravenous vs oral acetaminophen on postoperative opioid consumption in an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program in patients undergoing open gynecologic oncology surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Both intravenous (IV) and oral acetaminophen provide effective opioid-sparing analgesia after surgery when used as part of a multimodal preemptive pain management strategy. The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative opioid consumption in patients undergoing open gynecologic oncology surgery who received preoperative IV vs oral acetaminophen within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program. METHODS: Retrospective data were collected on consecutive patients undergoing open gynecologic oncology surgery from May 1, 2016 to February 28, 2018 in patients receiving either 1 g IV or oral acetaminophen preoperatively. Patients were given a preoperative multimodal analgesia regimen including acetaminophen, celecoxib, pregabalin and tramadol. The primary outcomes were morphine equivalent daily doses (MEDD) on postoperative days (POD) 0 and 1. Secondary outcomes included highest patient-reported pain score in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) and intraoperative MEDD. Regression models adjusted by matched pairs were fit to estimate the average treatment effect of IV vs oral acetaminophen on MEDD. RESULTS: Of 353 patients, 178 (50.4%) received IV acetaminophen and 175 (49.6%) received oral acetaminophen. When balancing across the matched samples, there was no difference in postoperative MEDD for POD 0 between the IV and oral acetaminophen groups (Beta = -1.11; 95% CI: -4.83 to 2.60; p = 0.56). On POD 1, there was no difference between the IV and oral groups (Beta = 2.24; 95% CI: -2.76 to 7.25; p = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in postoperative opioid consumption between patients receiving preoperative IV or oral acetaminophen within an ERAS program for patients undergoing open gynecologic oncology surgery.

Impact of implementation of an enhanced recovery program in gynecologic surgery on healthcare costs.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery programs have been associated with improved outcomes after gynecologic surgery. There are limited data on the effect of enhanced recovery programs on healthcare costs or healthcare service use. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in hospital charges for women who undergo surgery for a suspected gynecologic cancer that is managed in an enhanced recovery program as compared with conventional perioperative care. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent open abdominal surgery for a suspected gynecologic cancer before and after the implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery program. Consecutive patients from May to October 2014 and from November 2014 to November 2015 comprised the conventional perioperative care (before enhanced recovery after surgery) and enhanced recovery after surgery cohorts, respectively. Patients were excluded if they underwent surgery with a multidisciplinary surgical team or minimally invasive surgery. All technical and professional charges were ascertained for all healthcare services from the day of surgery until postoperative day 30. Charges for adjuvant treatment were excluded. Charges were classified according to the type of clinical service provided. The primary outcome was the difference in total hospital charges between the pre-enhanced recovery after surgery and the enhanced recovery after surgery groups. Secondary outcomes were between group differences in hospital charges within clinical service categories. RESULTS: A total of 271 patients were included in the analysis (58 patients in the pre-enhanced recovery after surgery and 213 patients in the enhanced recovery after surgery cohort). A total of 70,177 technical charges and 6775 professional charges were identified and classified. The median hospital charge for a patient decreased 15.6% in the enhanced recovery after surgery group compared with the pre-enhanced recovery after surgery group (95% confidence interval, 5-24.5%; P=.008). Patients in the enhanced recovery after surgery group also had lower charges for laboratory services (20% lower; 95% confidence interval, 0--39%; P=.04), pharmacy services (30% lower; 95% confidence interval, 14--41%; P<.001), room and board (25% lower; 95% confidence interval, 20--47%; P=.005), and material goods (64% lower; 95% confidence interval, 44--81%; P<.001). No differences in charges were observed for perioperative services, diagnostic procedures, emergency department care, transfusion-related services, interventional radiology procedures, physical/occupational therapy, outpatient care, or other services. CONCLUSION: Hospital charges and healthcare service use were lower for enhanced recovery patients compared with patients who received conventional perioperative care after open surgery for a suspected gynecologic cancer. Enhanced recovery programs may be considered to be high value in healthcare because they provide improved outcomes while lowering resource use.

Patient characteristics and opioid use prior to discharge after open gynecologic surgery in an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program.

OBJECTIVE: To identify clinical and demographic characteristics associated with the absence of opioid usage on the day before discharge among patients undergoing open gynecologic surgery within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program. METHODS: This was a single institution retrospective cohort study including all patients who underwent elective open gynecologic surgery as part of an ERAS program between November 1, 2014 and September 30, 2018 and who were discharged between post-operative day 2 and 7. Patients were excluded if they reported pre-existing chronic opioid use or underwent total pelvic exenteration. Descriptive statistics were used and multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with the absence of opioid usage on the day before discharge, after adjustment for relevant covariates. RESULTS: A total of 971 were included with a median length of stay of 3 days, and of these 526 (54.2%) used opioids on day before discharge and 445 (45.8%) did not. Absence of opioid use on the day before discharge was associated with age (P < .001), race (P = .04), Charlson Co-morbidity Index (P < .001), marital status (P = .004), and smoking status (P = .002) by univariate analysis. In a multivariable model, older age (adjusted OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.02-1.06; P < .001), current smoker status (adjusted OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.20-0.81; P = .01), and white or Caucasian race (adjusted OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.38-0.91; P = .02) were significantly associated with the absence of opioid use on the day prior to discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of patients undergoing open gynecologic surgery within an established ERAS program did not consume any opioids on day before discharge. Safe, evidence-based reductions in post-operative opioid prescribing may be feasible for a subset of gynecologic surgery patients.

A practical guide for the safe implementation of early phase drug development and immunotherapy program in gynecologic oncology practice.

The success of targeted and immune therapies in other malignancies has led to an exponential increase in the number of active and pending clinical trials using these therapeutic approaches in patients with gynecologic cancers. These novel investigational agents are associated with unique and potentially life-threatening toxicities and many require special multidisciplinary logistical considerations. The objective of this review is to describe a practical approach for the safe implementation of targeted and immune therapies in academic gynecologic oncology practices based on our experience at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.

Effect of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program on Opioid Use and Patient-Reported Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program on perioperative outcomes with an emphasis on opioid consumption and patient-reported outcomes in the immediate and extended postoperative periods. METHODS: We initiated our ERAS program as part of a quality improvement initiative in November 2014. We compared clinical outcomes among a cohort of 607 women undergoing open gynecologic surgery before or after implementation of ERAS. For 293 patients, patient-reported outcomes were compared using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Ovarian Cancer. RESULTS: Median age was 58 years (range 18-85 years). Median length of stay decreased by 25% for patients in the ERAS pathway (P<.001). Overall, patients in the ERAS group had a 72% reduction in median opioid consumption and 16% were opioid-free during admission up to postoperative day 3 (P<.001). There was no difference in pain scores (P=.80). Patients on ERAS reported less fatigue (P=.01), interference with walking (P=.003), and total interference (composite score of physical and affective measures) during hospitalization (P=.008). After discharge, those on the ERAS pathway demonstrated a significantly shorter median time to return to no or mild fatigue (10 vs 30 days, P=.03), mild or no interference with walking (5 vs 13 days, P=.003), and mild to no total interference (3 vs 13 days, P=.02). There were no significant differences in complications, rates of readmission, or reoperation between the pre- and post-ERAS groups. CONCLUSION: Implementation of an ERAS program was associated with significantly decreased opioid use after surgery and improvement in key patient-reported outcomes associated with functional recovery after surgery without compromising pain scores.

What Is the Real Rate of Surgical Site Infection?

PURPOSE: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are associated with patient morbidity and increased health care costs. Although several national organizations including the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC), the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), and the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) monitor SSI, there is no standard reporting methodology. METHODS: We queried the UHC, NSQIP, and NHSN databases from July 2012 to June 2014 for SSI after gynecologic surgery at our institution. Each organization uses different definitions and inclusion and exclusion criteria for SSI. The rate of SSI was also obtained from chart review from April 1 to June 30, 2014. SSI was classified as superficial, deep, or organ space infection. The rates reported by the agencies were compared with the rates obtained by chart review using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Overall SSI rates for the databases were as follows: UHC, 1.5%; NSQIP, 8.8%; and NHSN, 2.8% (P < .001). The individual databases had wide variation in the rate of deep infection (UHC, 0.7%; NSQIP, 4.7%; NHSN, 1.3%; P < .001) and organ space infection (UHC, 0.4%; NSQIP, 4.4%; NHSN, 1.4%; P < .001). In agreement with the variation in reporting methodology, only 19 cases (24.4%) were included in more than one database and only one case was included in all three databases (1.3%). CONCLUSION: There is discordance among national reporting agencies tracking SSI. Adopting standardized metrics across agencies could improve consistency and accuracy in assessing SSI rates.

Improved compliance with venous thromboembolism pharmacologic prophylaxis for patients with gynecologic malignancies hospitalized for nonsurgical indications did not reduce venous thromboembolism incidence.

OBJECTIVE: National guidelines recommend prophylactic anticoagulation for all hospitalized patients with cancer to prevent hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, adherence to these evidence-based recommended practice patterns remains low. We performed a quality improvement (QI) project to increase VTE pharmacologic prophylaxis rates among patients with gynecologic malignancies hospitalized for nonsurgical indications and evaluated the resulting effect on rates of development of VTE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In June 2011, departmental VTE practice guidelines were implemented for patients with gynecologic malignancies who were hospitalized for nonsurgical indications. A standardized VTE prophylaxis module was added to the admission electronic order sets. Outcome measures included number of admissions receiving VTE pharmacologic prophylaxis within 24 hours of admission; and number of potentially preventable hospital-acquired VTEs diagnosed within 30 and 90 days of discharge. Outcomes were compared between a preguideline implementation cohort (n = 99), a postguideline implementation cohort (n = 127), and a sustainability cohort assessed 2 years after implementation (n = 109). Patients were excluded if upon admission they had a VTE, were considered low risk for VTE, or had a documented contraindication to pharmacologic prophylaxis. RESULTS: Administration of pharmacologic prophylaxis within 24 hours of admission increased from 20.8% to 88.2% immediately following the implementation of guidelines, but declined to 71.8% in our sustainability cohort (P < 0.001). There was no difference in VTE incidence among the 3 cohorts [n = 2 (4.2%) vs n = 3 (3.9%) vs n = 3 (4.2%), respectively; P = 1.00]. CONCLUSIONS: Our QI project improved pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis rates. A small decrease in prophylaxis during the subsequent 2 years suggests a need for continued surveillance to optimize QI initiatives. Despite increased adherence to guidelines, VTE rates did not decline in this high-risk population.