Use and Outcomes of Dexamethasone in the Management of Malignant Small Bowel Obstruction.

Objective: To describe rates of dexamethasone use in the nonoperative management of malignant small bowel obstruction (mSBO) and their outcomes. Background: mSBO is common in patients with advanced abdominal-pelvic cancers. Management includes prioritizing quality of life and avoiding surgical intervention when possible. The use of dexamethasone to restore bowel function is recommended in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for mSBO. Yet, it is unknown how often dexamethasone is used for mSBO and whether results from nonresearch settings support its use. Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study including unique admissions for mSBO from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021. Dexamethasone use and management outcomes were summarized with descriptive statistics and multiple logistic regression. Results: Among 571 admissions (68% female, mean age 63 years, 85% history of abdominal surgery) that were eligible and initially nonoperative, 26% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 23%-30%] received dexamethasone treatment (69% female, mean age 62 years, 87% history of abdominal surgery). Dexamethasone use by site ranged from 13% to 52%. Among dexamethasone recipients, 13% (95% CI = 9%-20%) subsequently required nonelective surgery during the same admission and 4 dexamethasone-related safety-events were reported. Amongst 421 eligible admissions where dexamethasone was not used, 17% (95% CI = 14%-21%) required nonelective surgery. Overall, the unadjusted odds ratio (OR) for nonelective surgery with dexamethasone use compared to without its use was 0.7 (95% CI = 0.4-1.3). Using multiple logistic regression, OR after adjusting for site, age, sex, history of abdominal surgery, nasogastric tube, and Gastrografin use was 0.6 (95% CI = 0.3-1.1). Conclusion: Dexamethasone was used in about 1 in 4 eligible mSBO admissions with high variability of use between tertiary academic centers. This multicenter retrospective cohort study suggested an association between dexamethasone use and lower rates of nonelective surgery, representing a potential opportunity for quality improvement.

Trial Participation and Outcomes Among English-Speaking and Spanish-Speaking Patients With Appendicitis Randomized to Antibiotics: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Spanish-speaking participants are underrepresented in clinical trials, limiting study generalizability and contributing to ongoing health inequity. The Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial intentionally included Spanish-speaking participants. Objective: To describe trial participation and compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes among Spanish-speaking and English-speaking participants with acute appendicitis randomized to antibiotics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, a pragmatic randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy with appendectomy in adult patients with imaging-confirmed appendicitis enrolled at 25 centers across the US from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020. The trial was conducted in English and Spanish. All 776 participants randomized to antibiotics are included in this analysis. The data were analyzed from November 15, 2021, through August 24, 2022. Intervention: Randomization to a 10-day course of antibiotics or appendectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Trial participation, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire scores (higher scores indicating a better health status), rate of appendectomy, treatment satisfaction, decisional regret, and days of work missed. Outcomes are also reported for a subset of participants that were recruited from the 5 sites with a large proportion of Spanish-speaking participants. Results: Among eligible patients 476 of 1050 Spanish speakers (45%) and 1076 of 3982 of English speakers (27%) consented, comprising the 1552 participants who underwent 1:1 randomization (mean age, 38.0 years; 976 male [63%]). Of the 776 participants randomized to antibiotics, 238 were Spanish speaking (31%). Among Spanish speakers randomized to antibiotics, the rate of appendectomy was 22% (95% CI, 17%-28%) at 30 days and 45% (95% CI, 38%-52%) at 1 year, while in English speakers, these rates were 20% (95% CI, 16%-23%) at 30 days and 42% (95% CI 38%-47%) at 1 year. Mean EQ-5D scores were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.95) among Spanish speakers and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.93) among English speakers. Symptom resolution at 30 days was reported by 68% (95% CI, 61%-74%) of Spanish speakers and 69% (95% CI, 64%-73%) of English speakers. Spanish speakers missed 6.69 (95% CI, 5.51-7.87) days of work on average, while English speakers missed 3.76 (95% CI, 3.20-4.32) days. Presentation to the emergency department or urgent care, hospitalization, treatment dissatisfaction, and decisional regret were low for both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: A high proportion of Spanish speakers participated in the CODA trial. Clinical and most patient-reported outcomes were similar for English- and Spanish-speaking participants treated with antibiotics. Spanish speakers reported more days of missed work. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

The effect of cirrhosis on trauma outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The negative effect of cirrhosis on mortality following traumatic injury has been quantified in multiple observational studies. However, to our knowledge, the information contained in these studies has never been synthesized. The aims of this study were: (1) to determine the magnitude of the effect of liver cirrhosis on mortality, morbidity, and hospital course among trauma patients and (2) to analyze sources of study heterogeneity that may lead to differing estimates in the observed mortality rate among patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: A systematic search of EMBASE and PubMed was conducted. Data were extracted from eligible studies and analyzed using a random-effects model to compare trauma outcomes in cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients (PROSPERO Registration CRD42018088464). Mortality was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included complication rate, length of hospital stay, length of intensive care unit stay, and mechanical ventilation days. RESULTS: Title and abstract review of 15,958 articles led to the identification of 31 relevant articles. Ultimately, 18 observational studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled effect sizes for mortality (odds ratio [OR], 4.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.13-6.54) and complication rate (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.30-2.85) were higher in the cirrhotic group than the noncirrhotic group. Trauma patients with cirrhosis also incurred longer hospital stays (mean difference, 3.81 days; 95% CI, 1.22-6.41) and longer ICU stays (mean difference, 2.40 days; 95% CI, 0.65-4.15). There was no difference in days spent on mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSION: Preexisting liver cirrhosis is associated with increased mortality rate, complication rate, and length of hospitalization among trauma patients, even after adjusting for confounding factors and potential sources of between-study heterogeneity. Trauma patients with cirrhosis would benefit from heightened surveillance and injury prevention interventions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III.

Experiences of Advanced Breast Cancer Among Latina Immigrants: A Qualitative Pilot Study.

To explore the experiences of Latina immigrants with advanced breast cancer and their support networks. We conducted semi-structured interviews with low-income Latina immigrants with advanced breast cancer and their support networks (informal caregivers, physicians, and complementary medicine (CM) practitioners). Patient interviews explored patients' illness experience and end of life (EOL) concerns. Support network member interviews focused on the relationship of the interviewee with the patient and EOL conversations. Six authors independently coded transcripts and jointly conducted qualitative thematic analysis. 72 total interviews (13 patients, 12 informal caregivers, 6 CM practitioners, and 4 physicians) revealed two themes. (1) Staying positive was a primary patient coping mechanism. (2) Patients' language barriers and socioeconomic and immigration status posed challenges in participants' illness experience. Appropriately addressing language barriers and social context during medical visits is crucial for effective EOL care. Clinicians should consider patients' financial constraints and ensure support in applying for public benefits.