Frailty as a Risk Predictor of Morbidity and Mortality Following Liver Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Given the increasing number of elderly and comorbid patients undergoing surgery, there is increased interest in preoperatively identifying patients at high risk of morbidity and mortality following liver resection. We sought to develop and validate the use of a frailty index (FI) to predict poor postoperative outcomes following liver surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing a liver resection were identified using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Hepatectomy-targeted database for 2014 and randomized into a training or validation cohort. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to develop a revised frailty index (rFI) to predict adverse postoperative clinical outcomes. Leave one out cross-validation was performed to validate the proposed rFI. RESULTS: A total of 2714 patients were identified who met the inclusion criteria. Postoperatively, 826 patients (30.4%) developed a postoperative complication, while 39 patients died within 30 days of surgery. Five preoperative variables (ASA class, BMI, serum albumin, hematocrit, underlying pathology, and type of liver resection) were used to develop the rFI. The rFI demonstrated good discrimination (AUROC = 0.68) and outperformed the previously proposed modified frailty index (mFI; AUROC = 0.53, p < 0.001) when evaluated among patients included in the training cohort. On validation, the rFI demonstrated good model discrimination (AUROC = 0.68) and was accurately able to risk-stratify patients within the validation cohort at risk for developing a postoperative complication, prolonged length-of-stay, and postoperative mortality (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Frailty, as measured by the rFI, was predictive of increased risk of morbidity and mortality following liver surgery and can be used to guide patient decision-making.

Variation in inpatient hospital and physician payments among patients undergoing general versus orthopedic operations.

BACKGROUND: Comparative data on surgeon payments for operative procedures are not well documented. We sought to assess variations in surgeon payments after common general and orthopedic operations using a nationally representative sample of privately insured patients. METHODS: A total of 486,506 patients who underwent a general (appendectomy, cholecystectomy, colectomy) or orthopedic (total knee replacement, total hip replacement) operation between 2010-2012 were identified from the Truven Health MarketScan database. RESULTS: Median age was 54 years (general operation, 44 years vs orthopedic operation, 58 years; P < .001). Patients had an average Charlson Comorbidity Index of 0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0, 1). Median duration of stay was 3 days (IQR: 2, 4) (general operation, 3 days [IQR: 1, 5] vs orthopedic operation, 3 days [IQR: 2, 3]; P < .001). Total hospital payments averaged $18,209 (IQR: $11,751, $26,598) (general operation: $12,744 [IQR: $8,402, $19,896] vs orthopedic operation: $22,386 [IQR: $16,888, $30,100]; P < .001). Median surgeon reimbursement was $1,923 (IQR: $1,146, $2,676), with orthopedic surgeon payments being on average twice as high as general surgeon payments ($2,349 vs $1,191; P < .001). Median surgeon payment varied among both general (appendectomy: $903 vs cholecystectomy: $1,125 vs colectomy: $2,209; P < .001) and orthopedic operations (total knee replacement: $2,282 vs total hip replacement: $2,392; P < .001). The presence of a postoperative complication resulted in an increase in hospital payments by 25% and surgeon payments by 11%. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital and surgeon payments following routine general and orthopedic operations vary greatly. Patients with comorbid conditions and those who experienced a postoperative complication resulted in higher overall payments. Though significant variability existed at the surgeon level, hospital payments were responsible for the highest source of variability.

Sarcopenia predicts costs among patients undergoing major abdominal operations.

BACKGROUND: Although sarcopenia has been identified as a predictor of poor, postoperative, clinical outcomes, the financial impact of sarcopenia remains undetermined. We sought to evaluate the relationship between sarcopenia and hospital finances among a cohort of patients undergoing a hepato-pancreatico-biliary or colorectal resection. METHODS: Clinical, financial, and morphometric data were collected for 1,169 patients undergoing operative resection between January 2011 and December 2013 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to assess the relationship between sarcopenia and total hospital costs. RESULTS: Using sex-specific cutoffs for total psoas volume, 293 patients were categorized as sarcopenic. The presence of sarcopenia was associated with a $14,322 increase in the total hospital cost (median covariate-adjusted cost, sarcopenia versus no sarcopenia: $38,804 vs $24,482, P < .001). Patients who presented with sarcopenia demonstrated a higher total hospital cost within the subgroup of patients who developed a postoperative complication (sarcopenia versus no sarcopenia: $65,856 vs $59,609) and among those patients who did not develop a postoperative complication (sarcopenia versus no sarcopenia: $26,282 vs $23,763, both P < .001). Similarly, total hospital costs were higher among patients presenting with sarcopenia regardless of the length of stay for index admission (observed:expected, length of stay < 1: sarcopenia versus no sarcopenia: $25,038 vs $22,827; observed:expected, length of stay > 1: sarcopenia versus no sarcopenia: $43,283 vs $38,679, both P < .001). CONCLUSION: As measured by sarcopenia, patient frailty is inversely related to total hospital costs. Sarcopenia represents a novel tool for forecasting patient outcomes and operative costs and can be used to inform quality improvement and cost containment strategies.

Understanding recurrent readmission after major surgery among patients with employer-provided health insurance.

BACKGROUND: Most studies on readmission only report data on first readmission within 30 days. These data may underestimate the true impact of readmission, as recurrent readmissions are common among patients undergoing major surgery. We therefore sought to define characteristics and readmission patterns of patients recurrently readmitted after major surgery. METHODS: A total of 81,769 patients discharged after 10 major surgical procedures (coronary artery bypass graft, abdominal aortic aneurysm, carotid endarterectomy, aortic valve replacement, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, pancreatectomy, pulmonary resection, hepatectomy, and colorectal resection) between 2010 and 2012 were identified from a large employer-provided health plan. Maximum number of unplanned readmissions experienced within 365 days of discharge was measured. RESULTS: Median patient age was 55 years, and a slight majority (55.4%) was male. Comorbidities were common as 36.9% had a Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) of ≥2. Median length of stay was 5 (interquartile range, 3 and 8) days. Among 24,344 (29.8%) patients who experienced readmission, 64.0% experienced 1 readmission, whereas 36.0% experienced recurrent readmissions within 365 day of a prior discharge. Compared with patients experiencing 1 readmission, patients with ≥2 readmissions were more likely to be female (47.3% vs 44.2%) and have more comorbidities (Charlson comorbidity index ≥2, 49.5% vs 42.5%; both P < .001). Complications during the index hospitalization were more common among patients experiencing recurrent readmissions (35.5% vs 30.7%, P < .001). Although median length of stay during index hospitalization was longer among patients with recurrent readmissions (6 vs 7 days), median time to first readmission was shorter (97 vs 40 days, both P < .001). Among study cohort, 4.5% experienced 3 or more readmissions; these patients accounted for 14.8% of all admissions and 13.7% of hospital charges for the study cohort during the entire follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who underwent major surgery, 3 in 10 patients experienced readmission of which 1 in 10 patients experienced recurrent readmission within 1 year after surgery. Overall 4.5% of patients with ≥3 readmissions accounted for 14.8% of total admission during the study period. Assessment of only first rehospitalization may not fully capture the long-term outcomes after major surgery.

Hospital readmission after multiple major operative procedures among patients with employer provided health insurance.

BACKGROUND: Most studies report data only on readmission within 30 days of discharge from the same hospital following a single procedure. We sought to define the incidence of early versus late hospital readmission among patients undergoing multiple major operative procedures. METHODS: Patients were identified using the MarketScan database from 2010-2012. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with early (≤30 days) versus late readmission (31-90 days) among patients who underwent multiple operative procedures. RESULTS: A total of 194,111 patients were identified of whom 63.2% (n = 122,660) underwent an abdominal procedure (esophagectomy, pancreatectomy, hepatectomy, colectomy, lung resection, and gastrectomy), while the remaining 71,451 (36.8%) patients underwent a cardiovascular procedure (repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm, coronary-artery bypass grafting, carotid endarterectomy, and mitral/aortic valve replacement). A total of 3,444 patients underwent >1 simultaneous procedure (abdominal: 885, 0.7%; cardiovascular: 2,559, 3.6%). The overall incidence of 90-day readmission was 15.6% (n = 30,309); 9.6% of patients were readmitted early, while 6.0% of patients were readmitted late. Readmission was higher among patients undergoing multiple procedures (21.8% vs 15.5%; P < .001). On multivariable analysis, patients undergoing multiple operative procedures demonstrated a 20% greater odds of readmission compared with patients undergoing a single operative procedure (abdominal: odds ratio 1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.37; P = .03; cardiovascular: odds ratio 1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.31; P = .002). Other risk factors independently associated with increased odds for early and late readmission included a higher preoperative comorbidity, postoperative discharge with additional care, an increasing duration of stay, and the development of postoperative complications (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: Readmission following a major operation is common, with >15% of patients being readmitted within 90 days of index discharge. Compared with patients undergoing a single operative procedure, patients undergoing multiple operative procedures demonstrated an increased risk for readmission within 90 days of discharge and were more likely to be readmitted within 30 days of index discharge.

Racial disparities in treatment and survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: While the incidence and mortality of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) continue to increase across the United States (US), disparities may exist relative to treatment modality and survival. The objective of the present study was to determine the factors associated with racial differences in survival among patients with HCC in the US. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was used to identify patients with HCC between 1998 and 2012 in the US. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to examine associations between type of therapy and race, while a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was built to determine the effect of race on survival. RESULTS: A total of 58,186 patients with HCC were identified. Over two-thirds of patients were white (n=39,223, 67.4%), while 18.3% were Asian (n=10,665), 13.1% black (n=7,620) and 1.2% native American (n=678). In comparison to other racial groups, Asian patients with HCC tended to be older [white vs. black vs. native American vs. Asian: median age: 63 years, interquartile range (IQR), 55-73 vs. 59 years, IQR, 53-66 vs. 59 years, IQR, 53-69 vs. 64 years, IQR, 55-73, P<0.001] and were diagnosed with larger tumors (white vs. black vs. native American vs. Asian: median tumor size: 4.8 cm, IQR, 3.0-8.0 vs. 5.1 cm, IQR, 3.1-8.7 vs. 4.8 cm, IQR, 3.0-7.3 vs. 5.5 cm, IQR, 3.1-9.0, P<0.001). Asian patients were also less likely to present with concomitant cirrhosis (white vs. black vs. native American vs. Asian: 81.8% vs. 77.7% vs. 83.2% vs. 69.1%, P<0.001) while elevated levels of alpha-fetoprotein more were often noted among black patients (white vs. black vs. native American vs. Asian: 25.5% vs. 14.9% vs. 22.2% vs. 21.8%, P<0.001). Compared to other racial groups, Asian patients were most likely to receive any form of treatment (white vs. black vs. native American vs. Asian: 29.2% vs. 25.2% vs. 27.6% vs. 34.4%, P<0.001). In particular, after controlling for potential confounders, Asian patients demonstrated the greatest odds of undergoing surgery (OR: 1.48, 95% CI, 1.13-1.95, P=0.01). The median overall survival (OS) was 11 months with the worst prognosis noted among black patients. After accounting for disease and patient factors, Asian patients demonstrated the lowest risk for death [hazard ratio (HR): 0.76, 95% CI, 0.66-0.87, P<0.001] while no differences were noted in the risk of death among other racial groups (all P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Significant racial differences were noted in presentation, treatment and survival among patients with HCC. Further research is necessary to better understand socio-demographic and biological factors driving racial disparities in care. Future policies should aim to improve access to care among racial/ethnic minorities.

Crystalloid administration among patients undergoing liver surgery: Defining patient- and provider-level variation.

BACKGROUND: Fluid administration among patients undergoing liver resection is a key aspect of perioperative care. We sought to examine practice patterns of crystalloid administration, as well as potential factors associated with receipt of crystalloid fluids. METHOD: Patients who underwent liver resection between 2010 and 2014 were identified. Data on clinicopathologic variables, operative details, and perioperative fluid administration were collected and analyzed using univariable and multivariable analyses; variation in practice of crystalloid administration was presented as coefficient of variation (COV). RESULTS: Among 487 patients, median crystalloid administered at the time of surgery was 4,000 mL. After adjusting for body size and operative duration, median corrected crystalloid was 30.0 mL kg(-1) m(2) h(-1), corresponding with a COV of 35%. Patients who received <30 mL kg(-1) m(2) h(-1) crystalloids were more likely to be younger (58 vs 60 years), white (79% vs 74%), and have a higher body mass index (BMI; 28.2 vs 25.4 kg/m(2); all P < .001). On multivariable analysis, increasing Charlson comorbidity index, BMI, estimated blood loss, and each additional hour of surgery were all associated with increased crystalloid administration (all P < .05). Corrected crystalloid administration varied among providers with a corrected COV ranging from 14% to 61%. When overall variation in crystalloid administration was assessed, 80% of the variation occurred at the patient level, and 20% occurred at the provider level (surgeon, 3% vs anesthesiologist, 17%). CONCLUSION: There was wide variability in crystalloid administration among patients undergoing liver resection. Although the majority of variation was attributable to patient factors, a large amount of residual variation was attributable to provider-level differences.

Effect of surgeon and anesthesiologist volume on surgical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the effects of caseload volume of other relevant members of the "surgical team." The present study sought to report variations in health care utilization and outcomes relative to surgeon and anesthesiologist volume among patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. METHODS: A total of 969 patients undergoing pancreatic surgery from 2011-2013 were identified at a large, tertiary care center. Multivariable regression analyses explored the effects of provider volume on crystalloid administration, blood transfusions, mortality, length of stay, and hospital charges. RESULTS: A total of 11 surgeons were identified while 100 anesthesiologists were involved in providing care to all patients. Annual case volume for surgeons ranged from 5-101 pancreatic resections per year; each anesthesiologist was involved in a fewer number of cases per year with a maximum of 15 patients treated by the same anesthesiologist. Higher volume surgeons had higher transfusions (odds ratio [OR], 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-2.47; P < 0.001), greater crystalloid administration (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.24-2.12; P < 0.001), and longer length of stay (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.20-2.53; P = 0.003). In contrast, 30-d readmission was lower among higher volume surgeons (low volume versus high volume; 23.1% versus 11.6%; P < 0.001). Variations in patient-related outcomes were not associated with anesthesia provider volume (all P > 0.05). Similarly, total hospital charges and mortality were not associated with provider volumes (both P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although variability exists in health care practices among providers at the surgeon level, less is observed among anesthesiologists. Although a proportion of this variability can be explained by provider volumes, a significant proportion remains unexplained possibly due to nonmodifiable factors such as patient case mix.

Factors Associated With Interhospital Variability in Inpatient Costs of Liver and Pancreatic Resections.

IMPORTANCE: In an era of accountable care, understanding variation in health care costs is critical to reducing health care spending. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with increased hospital costs and quantify variations in costs among individual hospitals in patients undergoing liver and pancreatic surgery in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of total costs among 42 480 patients undergoing hepatopancreaticobiliary surgery from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2011, using a nationally representative data set (Nationwide Inpatient Sample of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project). Analysis was conducted in May 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total inpatient costs and proportional variation in inpatient costs among individual hospitals. RESULTS: Among the 42 480 patients who underwent liver or pancreatic resection, the median age was 62 years, 52.4% were female, and 72.9% had a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 2 or higher. The median cost for the entire cohort was $21,535 (interquartile range, $15,373-$31,104), varying from $3320 to $279,102 among individual hospitals. On multivariable analysis, increasing patient comorbidity (coefficient, 2000.30; 95% CI, 1363.33-2637.27; P < .001) and operative characteristics (total pancreatectomy: coefficient, 12 742.31; 95% CI, 10 063.66-15 420.94; P < .001; lobectomy: coefficient, 6336.42; 95% CI, 3934.61-8737.24; P < .001) were associated with higher hospital costs. The development of postoperative complications, such as sepsis (coefficient, 30 571.25; 95% CI, 29 308.96-31 833.54; P < .001) or stroke (coefficient, 8925.34; 95% CI, 2801.38-15 049.30; P = .004), and a longer length of stay were most strongly predictive of higher inpatient cost (length of stay >14 days: coefficient, 44 162.24; 95% CI, 43 125.56-45 198.92; P < .001). After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, the overall cost of hepatopancreaticobiliary surgery varied by $9000 among individual hospitals. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Significant variability was noted in hospital costs among patients undergoing pancreatic and liver surgery. Future policies should focus on reducing variations in costs by promoting payment paradigms that support a better quality of care and lower costs.

Early versus late readmission after surgery among patients with employer-provided health insurance.

OBJECTIVES: To define the incidence of 90-day readmission and characterize the factors associated with 90-day readmission after 10 major surgical procedures. BACKGROUND: Most data on readmission focus solely on same hospital readmission (index hospitals) within 30 days of discharge. These studies may underestimate readmission, as patients may be readmitted beyond 30 days of discharge or to other non-index hospitals. METHODS: Patients discharged after 10 major surgical procedures (coronary artery bypass grafting, abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, carotid endarterectomy, aortic valve replacement, esophagectomy, pancreatectomy, pulmonary resection, hepatectomy, colectomy, and cystectomy) between 2010 and 2012 were identified from the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify determinants of early (≤30 days) and late (31-90 days) readmission. RESULTS: A total of 158,753 patients were identified; 60.3% were male, and 42.3% had a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 2 or more. A total of 26,817 (16.9%) patients were readmitted within 90 days [early: 16,419 (10.4%) vs late: 10,398 (6.5%)]. Among readmitted patients, 38.3% were readmitted to a different hospital than the index hospital. Both early and late readmissions were more common at the index versus non-index hospital (early: 83.9% vs 16.1%; late: 75.0% vs 25.0%; both P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality after early readmission and late readmission was found to be lower at index hospitals than that at non-index hospitals (early; 0.7% vs 2.5%, P = 0.04; late; 0.2% vs 2.0%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: More than one-third of readmission occurred after 30 days of index discharge. Approximately 20% of patients were readmitted to non-index hospitals. Assessment of 30 day same hospital readmissions underestimated the true incidence of readmission.

Understanding drivers of hospital charge variation for episodes of care among patients undergoing hepatopancreatobiliary surgery.

BACKGROUND: Understanding factors associated with variation in hospital charges may help identify means to increase savings. The aim of the present study was to define potential variation in hospital charges associated with hepatopancreatobiliary(HPB) surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent an HPB procedure between 2009-2013 were identified. Total hospital charges were tabulated for room and board, surgical/anaesthesia services, medications, laboratory/radiology services and other miscellaneous charges. RESULTS: Approximately 2545 patients underwent either a pancreas (66.8%) or liver/biliary (33.2%) resection. The mean total charges for all patients were $42,357 ± 33,745 (pancreas: $46,352 ± 34,932 versus the liver: $34,303 ± 29,639; P < 0.001). Morbidity (pancreas, range: 7-18%; liver, range: 9-18%) and observed:expected (O:E) length of stay (LOS)(pancreas, range: 0.67-1.64; liver, range: 1.06-3.35) varied among providers (both P < 0.001). While a peri-operative complication resulted in increased total hospital charges (complication: $66,401 ± 55,124 versus no complication: $39,668 ± 29,250; P < 0.001), total charges remained variable even among patients who did not experience a complication (P < 0.001). Surgeons within the lowest quartile of O:E LOS had lower total charges ($33 879 ± $27 398) versus surgeons in the highest quartile ($49,498 ± 40 971) (P < 0.001). Surgeons with the highest O:E LOS had higher across-the-board charges (operating room, highest quartile: $10,514 ± $4496 versus lowest quartile: $7842 ± $3706; medication, highest quartile: $1796 ± $3799 versus lowest quartile: $925 ± $2211; radiology, highest quartile: $2494 ± $4683 versus lowest quartile: $1424 ± $3247; P = 0.001; laboratory, highest quartile: $4236 ± $5991 versus lowest quartile: $3028 ± $3804; all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: After accounting for in-hospital complications, the total mean hospital charges for HPB surgery remained variable by case type and provider. While the variation in charges was associated with LOS, provider-level differences in across-the-board charges were also noted.

Net health benefit of hepatic resection versus intraarterial therapies for neuroendocrine liver metastases: A Markov decision model.

BACKGROUND: Management of patients with neuroendocrine liver metastasis (NELM) remains controversial. We sought to compare the net health benefit (NHB) of hepatic resection (HR) versus intraarterial therapy (IAT) among patients with NELM. METHODS: A decision analytic Markov model was created to estimate and compare the cost effectiveness associated with different management strategies (HR vs IAT) for a simulated cohort of patients with NELM. The primary (base case) analysis was calculated based on a 57-year-old male patient with metachronous, symptomatic NELM that involved <25% of the liver in the absence of extrahepatic disease. The endpoints were quality-adjusted life-months (QALMs), quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and NHB. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, HR was strongly favored over IAT providing NHB of 20.0 QALMs and an ICER of $8,427 per QALY. In the Monte Carlo simulation, the greatest NHB for HR was among patients with functioning/symptomatic NELM, regardless of liver tumor burden. In the symptomatic group, IAT was favored only in a minority of old patients (>60 years) with extrahepatic disease and synchronous NELM. In contrast, in patients with nonfunctioning/asymptomatic NELM, hepatic tumor burden was the most important variable and HR was always cost ineffective in large tumors, independent of patient age and extrahepatic disease characteristics. CONCLUSION: A Markov decision model demonstrated that HR was the preferred strategy among patients with symptomatic NELM, regardless of hepatic disease burden. In contrast, IAT should be preferred for patients with large volume nonfunctioning/asymptomatic NELM.

Potential Economic Impact of Using a Restrictive Transfusion Trigger Among Patients Undergoing Major Abdominal Surgery.

IMPORTANCE: Transfusion practice among surgeons varies despite several evidence-based recommendations supporting the restrictive use of blood products. OBJECTIVE: To define the economic impact of liberal blood transfusions as assessed through an analysis of hemoglobin (Hb) triggers. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using a prospective database, data on Hb levels that triggered a transfusion and overall blood product use were obtained for patients undergoing pancreas, liver, or colorectal surgery between January 1, 2010, and August 31, 2013, at Johns Hopkins Hospital. An economic analysis was performed using a range of costs for a single unit of packed red blood cells (PRBCs) based on actual institutional acquisition costs ($220/unit) and an estimated activity-based cost ($760/unit). Guidelines define a liberal Hb trigger as transfusion of PRBCs for an intraoperative Hb level of 10 g/dL or greater or a postoperative Hb level of 8 g/dL or greater (to convert to grams per liter, multiply by 10.0). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Numbers of surgical patients who received PRBC transfusion, estimated cost per transfusion, and estimated cost of excessive blood transfusions. RESULTS: Among 3027 patients, 942 (31.1%) received at least 1 PRBC transfusion, intraoperatively in 264 patients (8.7%), postoperatively in 429 (14.2%), or both in 249 (8.2%). A total of 4000 units of PRBCs (range, 0-167 units/patient) were transfused in the intraoperative (1581 units [39.5%]) and postoperative (2419 units [60.5%]) periods. Estimated total costs of PRBC transfusion ranged from $880,000 to $3,040,000, with marked variation in costs per patient across procedure type and surgeon. Among the 942 patients who received a transfusion, 456 units (11.4%) were transfused using a liberal trigger (intraoperative, 122 patients [13.0%]; postoperative, 79 patients [8.4%]). By adopting a restrictive trigger, total overall PRBC transfusion costs may have been reduced by $100,320 to $346,560 during the 44-month study period or $27,360 to $94,516 per year for patients undergoing a pancreas, liver, or colorectal resection. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: More than 1 in 10 units of PRBCs were transfused using a liberal Hb trigger. Patient blood management programs should aim to identify and reduce liberal transfusion practice in the surgical patient.

The relative net health benefit of liver resection, ablation, and transplantation for early hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: There are no conclusive cost-effectiveness studies measuring the efficacy of salvage LT after liver resection (LR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and compensated cirrhosis. The aim of the present study is to compare liver transplantation (LT) versus locoregional therapy plus salvage LT (to treat tumor recurrence) in patients with early HCC and compensated cirrhosis. METHODS: Reference case: 55-year old male with HCC within Milan criteria and Child-Pugh A cirrhosis. The analysis was performed in two geographical cost settings: USA and Italy. Survival benefit measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs (C) in US$, incremental cost-effectiveness, willingness to pay, and net health benefit (NHB). RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, NHB of LT vs. LR and RFA was -1.7 and -1.3 years for single tumor ≤3 cm, -1.2 and -0.7 for single nodules measuring 3.1-5 cm and -0.7 and -0.7 for multi-nodular tumor ≤3 cm in Italy. In USA, NHB of LT versus LR and RFA were -1.2 and -0.8 years for single tumor ≤3 cm, -0.9 and -0.5 for single nodules measuring 3.1-5 cm, and -0.5 and -0.4 for multi-nodular tumor ≤ 3 cm. On the Monte Carlo simulation, only young patients with multi-nodular HCC and short waiting list time had a positive NHB. Salvage LT proved to be an ineffective cost strategy after RFA or LR. CONCLUSION: In patients with HCC within Milan criteria and Child-Pugh A cirrhosis, LR and RFA were more cost-effective than LT. Salvage LT was not cost-effective.

Synchronous primary colorectal and liver metastasis: impact of operative approach on clinical outcomes and hospital charges.

OBJECTIVES: The management of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and synchronous colorectal liver metastasis (CLM) remains controversial. The present study was conducted in order to assess the clinical and economic impacts of managing synchronous CLM with a staged versus a simultaneous surgery approach. METHODS: A total of 224 patients treated for synchronous CLM during 1990-2012 were identified in the Johns Hopkins Hospital liver database. Data on clinicopathological features, perioperative outcomes and total hospital charges (inflation-adjusted) were collected and analysed. RESULTS: Overall, 113 (50.4%) patients underwent staged surgery and 111 (49.6%) were submitted to a simultaneous CRC and liver operation. At surgery, liver-directed therapy included hepatectomy (75.0%) or combined resection and ablation (25.0%). Perioperative morbidity (30.0%) and mortality (1.3%) did not differ between groups (both P > 0.05). Median total length of hospitalization was longer in the staged (13 days) than the simultaneous (7 days) surgery group (P < 0.001). Median total hospital charges were higher among patients undergoing staged surgery (US$61,938) than among those undergoing a simultaneous operation (US$34,114) (P < 0.01). Median (simultaneous, 32.4 months versus staged, 39.6 months; P = 0.65) and 5-year (simultaneous, 27% versus staged, 29%; P = 0.60) overall survival were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with synchronous CLM managed with either simultaneous or staged surgery have comparable perioperative and longterm outcomes. However, patients treated with simultaneous surgery spent an average of 6 days fewer in hospital, resulting in a reduction of median hospital charges of US$27,824 (55.1%). When appropriate and technically feasible, the simultaneous surgery approach to synchronous CLM should be preferred.