The Effect of Patient and Hospital Characteristics on Total Costs of Peripheral Bypass in New York State.

INTRODUCTION: With the aging U.S. population, peripheral vascular procedures will become increasingly common. The objective of this study is to characterize the factors associated with increased total costs after peripheral bypass surgery. METHODS: Data for 34,819 patients undergoing peripheral bypass surgery in NY State were extracted using the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database for years 2009-2017. Patient demographics, All Patient Refined Diagnostic Related Groups (APR) severity score, mortality risk, hospital volume, and length of stay data were collected. Primary outcomes were total costs and length of stay. Data were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: 28.1% of peripheral bypass surgeries were performed in New York City. 7.9% of patients had extreme APR severity of illness whereas 32.0% had major APR severity of illness. 6.3% of patients had extreme risk of mortality and 1 in every 5 patients (20%) had major risk of mortality. 24.9% of patients were discharged to a facility. The mean length of stay (LOS) was 9.9 days. Patient LOS of 6-11 days was associated with +$2,791.76 total costs. Mean LOS of ≥ 12 days was associated with + $27,194.88 total costs. Multivariate analysis revealed risk factors associated with an admission listed in the fourth quartile of total costs (≥$36,694.44) for peripheral bypass surgery included NYC location (2.82, CI 2.62-3.04), emergency surgery (1.12, CI 1.03-1.22), extreme APR 2.08, 1.78-2.43, extreme risk of mortality (2.73, 2.34-3.19), emergency room visit (1.68, 1.57-1.81), discharge to a facility (1.27, CI 1.15-1.41), and LOS in the third or fourth quartile (11.09, 9.87-12.46). CONCLUSION: The cost of peripheral bypass surgery in New York State is influenced by a variety of factors including LOS, patient comorbidity and disease severity, an ER admission, and discharge to a facility.

Managing central venous access during a health care crisis.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, central venous access line teams were implemented at many hospitals throughout the world to provide access for critically ill patients. The objective of this study was to describe the structure, practice patterns, and outcomes of these vascular access teams during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, self-reported study of central venous access line teams in hospitals afflicted with the COVID-19 pandemic. To participate in the study, hospitals were required to meet one of the following criteria: development of a formal plan for a central venous access line team during the pandemic; implementation of a central venous access line team during the pandemic; placement of central venous access by a designated practice group during the pandemic as part of routine clinical practice; or management of an iatrogenic complication related to central venous access in a patient with COVID-19. RESULTS: Participants from 60 hospitals in 13 countries contributed data to the study. Central venous line teams were most commonly composed of vascular surgery and general surgery attending physicians and trainees. Twenty sites had 2657 lines placed by their central venous access line team or designated practice group. During that time, there were 11 (0.4%) iatrogenic complications associated with central venous access procedures performed by the line team or group at those 20 sites. Triple lumen catheters, Cordis (Santa Clara, Calif) catheters, and nontunneled hemodialysis catheters were the most common types of central venous lines placed by the teams. Eight (14%) sites reported experience in placing central venous lines in prone, ventilated patients with COVID-19. A dedicated line cart was used by 35 (59%) of the hospitals. Less than 50% (24 [41%]) of the participating sites reported managing thrombosed central lines in COVID-19 patients. Twenty-three of the sites managed 48 iatrogenic complications in patients with COVID-19 (including complications caused by providers outside of the line team or designated practice group). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a dedicated central venous access line team during a pandemic or other health care crisis is a way by which physicians trained in central venous access can contribute their expertise to a stressed health care system. A line team composed of physicians with vascular skill sets provides relief to resource-constrained intensive care unit, ward, and emergency medicine teams with a low rate of iatrogenic complications relative to historical reports. We recommend that a plan for central venous access line team implementation be in place for future health care crises.

Economic Disparities in Patients Undergoing Sigmoidectomy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Disparities in health care outcomes and resources utilized are present in the treatment of many conditions and represent an area for targeted improvement. This study analyzes the differences in outcomes and total hospital charges between the highest and lowest income quartiles of patients undergoing sigmoid colectomy. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing sigmoid colectomy from 2013 to 2014 queried from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality National Inpatient Sample Database who were categorized as the lowest and highest income quartile based on average income of the patient's ZIP code. Patients were grouped into income quartiles, as defined by average income in the ZIP code of residence. In-hospital complications were the primary outcome of this study. We hypothesized that patients in the lowest income quartile would have poorer outcomes than those in the highest income quartile prior to data collection. RESULTS: The lowest (n = 40,995) and highest (n = 40,940) income quartiles are not significantly different based on age or gender. The lowest income quartile was sicker, with higher mean scores for the All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group Severity Index and All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group Risk of Mortality Index. The lowest income quartile cohort had higher rates of postoperative complications and higher total charges than those in the highest income quartile. Adjusted regression analysis showed significantly lower total charges for the lowest income quartile but no significant differences in overall complications, mortality rates, or nonhome discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in the highest income quartile utilize more hospital resources than the lowest income quartile. Additional study is required to understand why these differences exist. KEY POINTS: 1. Significant differences in outcomes and hospital charges exist between socioeconomic groups undergoing sigmoidectomy. 2. There does not seem to be a difference in outcomes after sigmoidectomy among different socioeconomic groups. 3. Elective and laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy is more frequently applied to higher socioeconomic groups. 4. Hospital charges are also greater among patients of higher socioeconomic groups undergoing sigmoid colectomy. QUESTION: Does socioeconomic status affect outcomes and total charges in patients undergoing sigmoid colectomy? FINDINGS: Unadjusted analysis showed significant disparities between the highest and lowest income quartile in outcomes after sigmoid colon resection. Adjusted analysis showed no difference in outcomes, with patients in the highest income quartile having higher total charges. MEANING: There is a value difference between high-income and low-income patients undergoing sigmoid colectomy.

Interhospital transfer for intact abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Medically complex patients who need abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair are at increased risk of mortality. We study the effects of interhospital transfer to high-volume hospitals (HVHs) on postoperative complications and mortality after complications in these patients. METHODS: Data for 491,779 patients undergoing intact AAA surgery were extracted using Medicare files. Patient demographics, comorbidities, hospital volume, repair type, and patient transfer status were collected. Primary outcomes were postoperative complications and failure to rescue within 30 days after surgery. Data were analyzed using multivariable and propensity analysis. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2011, the percentage of patients transferred to another hospital for surgery before starting treatment more than doubled from .7% to 1.9% for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR; P < .001) and from 1.2% to 3.7% for open repair (P < .001). At baseline, transferred patients had more congestive heart failure (18.7% vs 11.2%; P < .001), coronary (17.4% vs 15.0%; P < .001), pulmonary (38.3% vs 33.6%; P < .001), and renal failure (8.1% vs 4.6%; P < .001) comorbidities. Transferred patients incurred more complications after EVAR (25.1% vs 12.8%; P < .001) or open repair (42.3% vs 35.5%; P < .001). After propensity matching for comorbidities and demographics, there were fewer complication rates (40.4% vs 47.8%; P < .001) and decreased failure to rescue (5.5% vs 6.5%; P = .04) after open repair in patients transferred to HVHs than in patients who remained at the primary, low-volume hospital for surgery. Complication rates after EVAR for nontransferred patients at low-volume hospitals and transferred patients at HVHs were similar (23.9% vs 24.7%; P = .55). After propensity matching, there was no significant difference in failure to rescue (P = .06) after EVAR between patients transferred to HVHs and nontransferred patients who had procedures at low-volume hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Transfer of medically complex patients to HVHs for open AAA repair improves outcomes in AAA surgery. Complication rates decrease, and survival of transferred patients increases when they undergo open repair at HVHs.