National Analysis of Sternal Wound Complications and Readmissions After Coronary Bypass Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Wound complications are a cause for readmission after cardiac surgery. Health insurance status has been associated with poor postoperative outcomes. We investigate the association between health insurance status and post-CABG wound dehiscence or infection along with 30-day wound-related readmission using a national database. METHODS: We queried the National Readmissions Database for the year 2018 for patients aged 18 years or more undergoing multivessel coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). Patients were subcategorized by health insurance status (private, Medicaid, Medicare, uninsured). Our primary outcomes were wound dehiscence or infection during the index admission and 30-day readmission after discharge for wound-related complications. RESULTS: In all, 131,976 patients met inclusion criteria: 32.7% private, 7.6% Medicaid, 59.3% Medicare, and 0.4% uninsured. Compared with patients having private insurance, Medicaid patients had greater odds of readmission for superficial wound dehiscence (odds ratio [OR] 2.11; 1.11-4.00; P = .022) and deep wound dehiscence (OR 2.11; 95% CI, 1.09-4.10; P = .026), as did Medicare patients (OR 2.34; 95% CI, 1.29-3.88; P = .004; and OR 3.23; 95% CI, 1.76-5.90; P = .001, respectively). Medicaid patients additionally had higher odds of readmission for superficial wound infection (OR 1.59; 95% CI, 1.11-4.00; P = .014). Compared with patients with private insurance, Medicaid patients had higher odds of deep wound dehiscence on index admission (OR 1.97; 95% CI, 1.02-3.83; P = .044), and Medicare patients had higher odds of superficial wound dehiscence (OR 2.55; 95% CI, 1.28-5.06; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Medicaid and Medicare had greater odds of readmission for wound complications and higher rates of wound dehiscence in their index admission. Further research is warranted to characterize factors driving readmission due to postsurgical wound complications in low socioeconomic status populations.

Cost analysis of pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction.

With improvement in mastectomy skin flap viability and increasing recognition of animation deformity following sub-pectoral implant placement, there has been a transition toward pre-pectoral breast reconstruction. While studies have explored the cost effectiveness of implant-based breast reconstruction, few investigations have evaluated cost with respect to pre-pectoral versus sub-pectoral breast reconstruction. A retrospective review of 548 patients who underwent mastectomy and implant-based breast reconstruction was performed from 2017 to 2020. The demographic and surgical characteristics of the pre-pectoral and sub-pectoral cohorts were well matched, except for reconstructive staging, as patients who underwent pre-pectoral reconstruction were more likely to undergo single-stage instead of two-stage reconstruction. Comparison of institutional cost ratios by reconstructive technique revealed that the sub-pectoral approach was more costly (1.70 ± 0.44 vs 1.58 ± 0.31, p < 0.01). However, further stratification by laterality and reconstructive staging failed to demonstrate difference in cost by reconstructive technique. These results were confirmed by multivariable linear regression, which did not reveal reconstructive technique to be an independent variable for cost. This study suggests that pre-pectoral breast reconstruction is a cost-effective alternative to sub-pectoral breast reconstruction and may confer cost benefit, as it is more strongly associated with direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.

Improving surgical efficiency of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction following mastectomy.

PURPOSE: Traditionally, during a mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction, the surgical oncologist completes their operative procedure prior to the reconstructive surgeon entering the room. In this scenario, two separate instruments kits and tables are utilized. In our institution, we created a combined instrument kit for use by both surgical teams. We compared set-up and operative times for each process and the subsequent savings associated with this novel approach. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients undergoing mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction were divided into two groups-those who underwent the procedure with separate oncology and reconstructive kits and those who underwent the procedure with combined instrumentation. Set-up time, procedure time, and clinical outcome endpoints were compared. Costs associated with each process were estimated. RESULTS: Surgical set-up time was lower using the combined kit versus separate kits [mean for unilateral cases, 25.1 ± 9.6 min vs. 35.7 ± 10.4 min (p < 0.01) and mean for bilateral cases, 33.1 ± 10.3 min vs. 43.5 ± 9.9 min (p = 0.31)]. Procedure time was significantly lower using the combined kit versus separate kits [mean for unilateral cases, 156.2 ± 31.7 min vs. 172.1 ± 33.0 min (p < 0.05) and mean for bilateral cases, 207.3 ± 39.3 min vs. 228. 8 ± 42.7 min (p = 0.03)]. Post-operative outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups at 6 months post-surgery (p = 0.72). Due to a decrease in operating room utilization and costs associated with instrumentation, we estimated $134,396 to $206,621 with unilateral cases and a $289,167 to $465,967 in yearly savings with bilateral cases by using the combined process. CONCLUSION: Mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction utilizing combined instrumentation, with surgeons working simultaneously, led to decreased operating room utilization and costs without impacting clinical outcomes. Level of evidence II.

Association between hypogonadism, symptom burden, and survival in male patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: A high frequency of hypogonadism has been reported in male patients with advanced cancer. The current study was performed to evaluate the association between low testosterone levels, symptom burden, and survival in male patients with cancer. METHODS: Of 131 consecutive male patients with cancer, 119 (91%) had an endocrine evaluation of total (TT), free (FT), and bioavailable testosterone (BT); high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP); vitamin B12; thyroid-stimulating hormone; 25-hydroxy vitamin D; and cortisol levels when presenting with symptoms of fatigue and/or anorexia-cachexia. Symptoms were evaluated by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. The authors examined the correlation using the Spearman test and survival with the log-rank test and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 64 years; the majority of patients were white (85 patients; 71%). The median TT level was 209 ng/dL (normal: ≥ 200 ng/dL), the median FT was 4.4 ng/dL (normal: ≥ 9 ng/dL), and the median BT was 22.0 ng/dL (normal: ≥ 61 ng/dL). Low TT, FT, and BT values were all associated with worse fatigue (P ≤ .04), poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (P ≤ .05), weight loss (P ≤ .01), and opioid use (P ≤ .005). Low TT and FT were associated with increased anxiety (P ≤ .04), a decreased feeling of well-being (P ≤ .04), and increased dyspnea (P ≤ .05), whereas low BT was only found to be associated with anorexia (P = .05). Decreased TT, FT, and BT values were all found to be significantly associated with elevated CRP and low albumin and hemoglobin. On multivariate analysis, decreased survival was associated with low TT (hazards ratio [HR], 1.66; P = .034), declining Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (HR, 1.55; P = .004), high CRP (HR, 3.28; P < .001), and decreased albumin (HR, 2.52; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In male patients with cancer, low testosterone levels were associated with systemic inflammation, weight loss, increased symptom burden, and decreased survival. A high frequency of hypogonadism has been reported in male patients with advanced cancer. In the current study, an increased symptom burden, systemic inflammation, weight loss, opioid use, and poor survival were found to be associated with decreased testosterone levels in male patients with cancer. Cancer 2014;120:1586-1593. © 2014 American Cancer Society.