Trends in utilization of whole-body computed tomography in blunt trauma after MVC: Analysis of the Trauma Quality Improvement Program database.

BACKGROUND: The use of whole-body computed tomography (WBCT) in awake, clinically stable injured patients is controversial. It is associated with unnecessary radiation exposure and increased cost. We evaluate use of computed tomography (CT) imaging during the initial evaluation of injured patients at American College of Surgeons Levels I and II trauma centers (TCs) after blunt trauma. METHODS: We identified adult blunt trauma patients after motor vehicle crash (MVC) from the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database between 2007 and 2016 at Level I or II TCs. We defined awake clinically stable patients as those with systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or higher with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15. Computed tomography imaging had to have been performed within 2 hours of arrival. Whole-body computed tomography was defined as simultaneous CT of the head, chest and abdomen, and selective CT if only one to two aforementioned regions were imaged. Patients were stratified by Injury Severity Score (ISS). RESULTS: There were 217,870 records for analysis; 131,434 (60.3%) had selective CT, and 86,436 (39.7%) had WBCT. Overall, there was an increasing trend in WBCT utilization over the study period (p < 0.001). In patients with ISS less than 10, WBCT was utilized more commonly at Level II versus Level I TCs in patients discharged from the emergency department (26.9% vs. 18.3%, p < 0.001), which had no surgical procedure(s) (81.4% vs. 80.3%, p < 0.001) and no injury of the head (53.7% vs. 52.4%, p = 0.008) or abdomen (83.8% vs. 82.1%, p = 0.001). The risk-adjusted odds of WBCT was two times higher at Level II TC vs. Level I (odds ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval 1.82-1.94; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Whole-body computed tomography utilization is increasing relative to selective CT. This increasing utilization is highest at Level II TCs in patients with low ISSs, and in patients without associated head or abdominal injury. The findings have implications for quality improvement and cost reduction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Care management, Level IV.

State-Level Examination of Clinical Outcomes and Costs for Robotic and Laparoscopic Approach to Diaphragmatic Hernia Repair.

BACKGROUND: Published studies evaluating the effect of robotic assistance on clinical outcomes and costs of care in diaphragmatic hernia repair (DHR) have been limited. STUDY DESIGN: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases for Florida were queried to identify patients undergoing transabdominal DHR between 2011 and 2018 and associated inpatient and outpatient encounters within 12 months after the index operation. Patients undergoing robotic DHR were 1:1:1 propensity score-matched for age, sex, race, Elixhauser comorbidity score, case priority, payer, and facility volume with patients undergoing open and laparoscopic DHR. RESULTS: There were 5,962 patients (67.3%) who underwent laparoscopic DHR, 1,520 (17.2%) who underwent open DHR, and 1,376 (15.5%) who underwent robotic DHR. On comparison of matched cohorts, median index length of stay (3 days; interquartile range [IQR] 2 to 5 days vs 2 days; IQR 1 to 4 days; p < 0.001) and index hospitalization costs ($17,236; IQR $13,231 to $22,183 vs $12,087; IQR $8,881 to $17,439; p < 0.001) for robotic DHR were greater than for laparoscopic DHR. Median length of stay for open DHR (6 days; IQR 4 to 10 days) was longer than that for both laparoscopic and robotic DHR. Median index hospitalization costs for open DHR ($16,470; IQR $11,152 to $23,768) were greater than those for laparoscopic DHR, but less than those for robotic DHR. There were no significant differences between cohorts in the overall rate of post-index care. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic DHR is the most cost-effective approach to DHR. Robotic assistance provides clinical outcomes comparable with laparoscopic DHR, but is associated with increased index cost.

Unhealthy alcohol and drug use is associated with an increased length of stay and hospital cost in patients undergoing major upper gastrointestinal and pancreatic oncologic resections.

BACKGROUND: Few studies evaluate the impact of unhealthy alcohol and drug use on the risk and severity of postoperative outcomes after upper gastrointestinal and pancreatic oncologic resections. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample was queried to identify patients undergoing total gastrectomy, esophagectomy, total pancreatectomy, and pancreaticoduodenectomy between 2012 and 2015. Unhealthy alcohol and drug use was assessed by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, and National Inpatient Sample coder designation. Multivariable regression was used to identify associations between alcohol and drug use and postoperative complication, duration of stay, hospital cost, and mortality. RESULTS: In the study, 59,490 patients met inclusion criteria; 2,060 (3.5%) had unhealthy alcohol use; 1,265 (2.1%) had unhealthy drug use. Postoperative complication rates were higher in patients with alcohol and drug use than in abstainers (67.5% vs 62.8% vs 57.2%; P < .01). On multivariable regression, alcohol use was independently associated with increased risk of a nonwithdrawal complication (odds ratio 1.33 [1.05, 1.68]), and alcohol and drug use were independently associated with increased length of stay (1.54 [0.12, 2.96]) and 2.22 [0.90, 3.55] days) and cost ($5,471 [$60, $10,881] and $4,022 [$402, $7,643]), but not mortality. CONCLUSION: Unhealthy substance use is associated with increased rates of postoperative complications, prolonged length of stay, and costs in patients undergoing major upper gastrointestinal and pancreatic oncologic resections. Screening and abstinence interventions should be incorporated into the preoperative care pathways for these patients.

Biliary Enteric Reconstruction After Biliary Injury: Delayed Repair Is More Costly Than Early Repair.

BACKGROUND: Bile duct injury (BDI) during cholecystectomy requiring biliary enteric reconstruction (BER) is associated with increased risk of postoperative mortality and substantive increases in costs of care. The impact of the timing of repair on overall costs of care is poorly understood. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Florida State databases (2006-2015) were queried to identify patients undergoing BER within 1-y of cholecystectomy performed for benign biliary disease. Patients were then categorized by the time interval between cholecystectomy to BER: early (≤3 d), intermediate (4 d to 6 wk), or delayed (>6 wk). By repair timing strategy, 1-y outcomes were aggregated, including charges, inpatient costs, aggregate length of stay, and inpatient mortality. RESULTS: Of 563,887 patients undergoing cholecystectomy, 1168 required a BER (0.21%) within 1-y of cholecystectomy. Early BER was performed in 560 patients (47.9%), intermediate BER in 439 patients (37.6%), and delayed BER in 169 (14.5%) patients. On multivariable analysis adjusting for patient, procedure, and facility factors, intermediate BER demonstrated an increased risk of mortality (odds ratio 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16-3.56) and increased aggregate inpatient cost (+$12,472; 95% CI: $6421-$18,524) relative to early BER. There was no notable difference in adjusted risk of inpatient mortality between the early and delayed BER cohorts (odds ratio 0.90; 95% CI: 0.32-1.25), but delayed BER was associated with increased aggregate inpatient costs (+$45,111; 95% CI: $36,813-$53,409). CONCLUSIONS: When compared with delayed BER, early repair was associated with shorter aggregate inpatient hospitalization without increased postoperative mortality. Intermediate timing of repair is associated with increased costs and risk of mortality.

Trends, Cost, and Mortality From Sepsis After Trauma in the United States: An Evaluation of the National Inpatient Sample of Hospitalizations, 2012-2016.

OBJECTIVES: Identification and outcomes in patients with sepsis have improved over the years, but little data are available in patients with trauma who develop sepsis. We aimed to examine the cost and epidemiology of sepsis in patients hospitalized after trauma. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENTS: National Inpatient Sample. INTERVENTIONS: Sepsis was identified between 2012 and 2016 using implicit and explicit International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision codes. Analyses were stratified by injury severity score greater than or equal to 15. Annual trends were modeled using generalized linear models. Survey-adjusted logistic regression was used to compare the odds for in-hospital mortality, and the average marginal effects were calculated to compare the cost of hospitalization with and without sepsis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 320,450 (SE = 3,642) traumatic injury discharges from U.S. hospitals with sepsis between 2012 and 2016, representing 6.0% (95% CI, 5.9-6.0%) of the total trauma population (n = 5,329,714; SE = 47,447). In-hospital mortality associated with sepsis after trauma did not change over the study period (p > 0.40). In adjusted analysis, severe (injury severity score ≥ 15) and nonsevere injured septic patients had an odds ratio of 1.39 (95% CI, 1.31-1.47) and 4.32 (95% CI, 4.06-4.59) for in-hospital mortality, respectively. The adjusted marginal cost for sepsis compared with nonsepsis was $16,646 (95% CI, $16,294-$16,997), and it was greater than the marginal cost for severe injury compared with nonsevere injury $8,851 (95% CI, $8,366-$8,796). CONCLUSIONS: While national trends for sepsis mortality have improved over the years, our analysis of National Inpatient Sample did not support this trend in the trauma population. The odds risk for death after sepsis and the cost of care remained high regardless of severity of injury. More rigor is needed in tracking sepsis after trauma and evaluating the effectiveness of hospital mandates and policies to improve sepsis care in patients after trauma.