Examining Perioperative Risk Associated with Simultaneous Resection of Primary Neuroendocrine Tumors and Synchronous Hepatic Metastases.

BACKGROUND: Surgical debulking of primary neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and hepatic resection of metastatic NET disease may each independently improve overall survival. However, evidence for combined primary site debulking and metastasectomy on survival and impact on short-term perioperative outcomes is limited. METHODS: The 2014-2016 ACS-NSQIP targeted hepatectomy database was queried for all patients undergoing liver resection for metastatic NET. Secondary procedure codes were evaluated for major concurrent operations. Multivariable analysis was performed to determine risk factors for 30-day morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 472 patients were identified, of whom 153 (32.4%) underwent ≥1 additional concurrent major operation. The most common concurrent procedures were small bowel resection (14.6%), partial colectomy (8.9%), and radical lymphadenectomy (7.4%). Among all patients, overall 30-day mortality and morbidity were 1.5% and 25.6%, respectively. Modifiable and treatment-related factors associated with increased major postoperative morbidity risk included >10% weight loss within six months of surgery (p = 0.05), increasing number of hepatic lesions treated (p = 0.05), and biliary reconstruction (p = 0.001). No major concurrent procedure was associated with increased 30-day morbidity (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of patients with stage IV NET underwent combined hepatic and multi-organ resection. Although modifiable and treatment-related factors predictive of perioperative morbidity were identified, performance of concurrent major procedures did not increase perioperative morbidity. These results support consideration of multi-organ resection in carefully selected patients with metastatic NET.

Communication With Limited English-Proficient Families in the PICU.

OBJECTIVE: Health care disparities have been described for children of limited English-proficient (LEP) families compared with children of English-proficient (EP) families. Poor communication with the medical team may contribute to these worse health outcomes. Previous studies exploring communication in the PICU have excluded LEP families. We aimed to understand communication experiences and preferences in the 3 primary communication settings in the PICU. We also explored LEP families' views on interpreter use in the PICU. PATIENTS AND METHODS: EP and Spanish-speaking LEP families of children admitted to the PICU of a large tertiary pediatric hospital completed surveys between 24 hours and 7 days of admission. RESULTS: A total of 161 of 184 families were surveyed (88% response rate); 52 were LEP and 109 EP. LEP families were less likely to understand the material discussed on rounds (odds ratio [OR] 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.11-0.90), to report that PICU nurses spent enough time speaking with them (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05-0.41), and to report they could rely on their nurses for medical updates (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02-0.25) controlling for covariates, such as education, insurance type, presence of a chronic condition, PICU length of stay, and mortality index. LEP families reported 53% of physicians and 41% of nurses used an interpreter "often." CONCLUSIONS: Physician and nurse communication with LEP families is suboptimal. Communication with LEP families may be improved with regular use of interpreters and an increased awareness of the added barrier of language proficiency.