Costs and Complications Associated with Infected Mesh for Ventral Hernia Repair.

Background: Mesh hernia repair is widely accepted because of the associated reduction in hernia recurrence compared with suture-based repair. Despite initiatives to reduce risk, mesh infection and mesh removal are a significant challenge. In an era of healthcare value, it is essential to understand the global cost of care, including the incidence and cost of complications. The purpose of this study was to identify the outcomes and costs of care of patients who required the removal of infected hernia mesh. Methods: A review of databases from 2006 through June 2018 identified patients who underwent both ventral hernia repair (VHR) and re-operation for infected mesh removal. Patient demographic and operative details for both procedures, including age, Body Mass Index, mesh type, amount of time between procedures, and information regarding interval procedures were obtained. Clinical outcome measures were the length of the hospital stay, hospital re-admission, incision/non-incision complications, and re-operation. Hospital cost data were obtained from the cost accounting system and were combined with the clinical data for a cost and clinical representation of the cases. Results: Thirty-four patients underwent both VHR and removal of infected mesh material over the 12-year time frame and were included in the analyses; the average age at VHR was 48 years, and 16 patients (47%) were female. Following VHR, 21 patients (62%) experienced incision complications within 90 days post-operatively, the complications ranging from superficial surgical site infection (SSI) to evisceration. A mean of 22.65 months passed between procedures. After mesh removal, 16 patients (47%) experienced further incisional complications; and 22 (65%) patients had at least one re-admission. Eighteen patients (53%) required a minimum of one additional related operative procedure after mesh removal. Median hospital costs nearly doubled (p < 0.001) for the mesh removal ($23,841 [interquartile range {IQR} $13,596-$42,148]) compared with the VHR admission ($13,394 [IQR $8,424-$22,161]) not accounting for re-admission costs. A majority experienced hernia recurrence subsequent to mesh removal. Conclusions: Mesh infection after hernia repair is associated with significant morbidity and costs. Hospital re-admission, re-operations, and recurrences are common among these patients, resulting in greater healthcare resource utilization. Development of strategies to prevent mesh infection, identify patients most likely to experience infectious complications, and define best practices for the care of patients with mesh infection are needed.

Implementation of Real-Time Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Heart Failure Clinic: A Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) quantify, from patients' perspectives, their symptoms, function, and quality of life. Our aim was to determine the feasibility of integrating PRO capture into routine clinical practice at a large heart failure (HF) clinic. METHODS: We examined the practicality of PRO completion at the time of clinic visit, the time required to complete the selected instruments, the completion rate, and the feasibility of immediate PRO scoring and integration of the results into the electronic health record (EHR). We deployed a computer program to capture PROs (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) on a portable computer platform at the time of a clinic visit. An automated algorithm identified patients scheduled for appointments at the HF clinic at registration, provided a portable tablet computer with which to complete the appropriate PRO instruments and then scored and immediately integrated the results in the patient's EHR. RESULTS: In a 12-month period, 862 unique patients completed 1,320 PRO assessments. The mean age of this cohort was 60.1 ± 16.3 years and 66% were male. The average time for PRO assessment was 6.7 minutes and the completion rate among eligible patients was 58%, with 91% of started assessments completed in full. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary data support the feasibility of serial PRO assessment with real-time integration into the EHR in a large outpatient population of patients with HF. We identified critical steps that should enhance adoption of this approach by clinicians and render PRO results meaningful and actionable in routine clinical care.

Cardiovascular Risk Assessment and Management in Prerenal Transplantation Candidates.

Cardiovascular (CV) assessment in prerenal transplant patients varies by center. Current guidelines recommend stress testing for candidates if ≥ 3 CV risk factors exist. We evaluated the CV assessment and management in 685 patients referred for kidney transplant over a 7-year period. All patients had CV risk factors, and the most common cause of end-stage renal disease was diabetes. Thirty-three percent (n = 229) underwent coronary angiography. The sensitivity of stress testing to detect obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) was poor (0.26). Patients who had no CAD, nonobstructive CAD, or CAD with intervention had significantly higher event-free survival compared with patients with obstructive CAD without intervention. There were no adverse clinical events (death, myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization, and graft failure) within 30 days post-transplant in patients who had preoperative angiography (n = 77). Of the transplanted patients who did not have an angiogram (n = 289), there were 8 clinical events (6 myocardial infarctions) in the first 30 days. In conclusion, our results indicate that stress testing and usual risk factors were poor predictors of obstructive CAD and that revascularization may prove beneficial in these patients.