Perioperative hyperglycemia and risk of adverse events among patients with and without diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To study the association between diabetes status, perioperative hyperglycemia, and adverse events in a statewide surgical cohort. BACKGROUND: Perioperative hyperglycemia may increase the risk of adverse events more significantly in patients without diabetes (NDM) than in those with diabetes (DM). METHODS: Using data from the Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program, a cohort study (2010-2012) evaluated diabetes status, perioperative hyperglycemia, and composite adverse events in abdominal, vascular, and spine surgery at 53 hospitals in Washington State. RESULTS: Among 40,836 patients (mean age, 54 years; 53.6% women), 19% had diabetes; 47% underwent a perioperative blood glucose (BG) test, and of those, 18% had BG ≥180 mg/dL. DM patients had a higher rate of adverse events (12% vs 9%, P < 0.001) than NDM patients. After adjustment, among NDM patients, those with hyperglycemia had an increased risk of adverse events compared with those with normal BG. Among NDM patients, there was a dose-response relationship between the level of BG and composite adverse events [odds ratio (OR), 1.3 for BG 125-180 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1-1.5); OR, 1.6 for BG ≥180 (95% CI, 1.3-2.1)]. Conversely, hyperglycemic DM patients did not have an increased risk of adverse events, including those with a BG 180 or more (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-1.0). NDM patients were less likely to receive insulin at each BG level. CONCLUSIONS: For NDM patients, but not DM patients, the risk of adverse events was linked to hyperglycemia. Underlying this paradoxical effect may be the underuse of insulin, but also that hyperglycemia indicates higher levels of stress in NDM patients than in DM patients.

Addressing the appropriateness of elective colon resection for diverticulitis: a report from the SCOAP CERTAIN collaborative.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the reported indications for elective colon resection for diverticulitis and concordance with professional guidelines. BACKGROUND: Despite modern professional guidelines recommending delay in elective colon resection beyond 2 episodes of uncomplicated diverticulitis, the incidence of elective colectomy has increased dramatically in the last 2 decades. Whether surgeons have changed their threshold for recommending a surgical intervention is unknown. In 2010, Washington State's Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program initiated a benchmarking and education initiative related to the indications for colon resection. METHODS: Prospective cohort study evaluating indications from chronic complications (fistula, stricture, bleeding) or the number of previously treated diverticulitis episodes for patients undergoing elective colectomy at 1 of 49 participating hospitals (2010-2013). RESULTS: Among 2724 patients (58.7 ± 13 years; 46% men), 29.4% had a chronic complication indication (15.6% fistula, 7.4% stricture, 3.0% bleeding, 5.8% other). For the 70.5% with an episode-based indication, 39.4% had 2 or fewer episodes, 56.5% had 3 to 10 episodes, and 4.1% had more than 10 episodes. Thirty-one percent of patients failed to meet indications for either a chronic complication or 3 or more episodes. Over the 4 years, the proportion of patients with an indication of 3 or more episodes increased from 36.6% to 52.7% (P < 0.001) whereas the proportion of those who failed to meet either clinical or episode-based indications decreased from 38.4% to 26.4% (P < 0.001). The annual rate of emergency resections did not increase significantly, varying from 5.6 to 5.9 per year (P = 0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to a guideline based on 3 or more episodes for elective colectomy increased concurrently with a benchmarking and peer-to-peer messaging initiative. Improving adherence to professional guidelines related to appropriate care is critical and can be facilitated by quality improvement collaboratives.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the risk for anastomotic failure: a report from Washington State's Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP).

IMPORTANCE: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have many physiologic effects and are being used more commonly to treat postoperative pain, but recent small studies have suggested that NSAIDs may impair anastomotic healing in the gastrointestinal tract. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between postoperative NSAID administration and anastomotic complications. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of 13,082 patients undergoing bariatric or colorectal surgery at 47 hospitals in Washington State from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010, using data from the Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program linked to the Washington State Comprehensive Abstract Reporting System. EXPOSURE: NSAID administration beginning within 24 hours after surgery. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We used multivariate logistic regression modeling to assess the risk for anastomotic complications (reoperation, rescue stoma, revision of an anastomosis, and percutaneous drainage of an abscess) through 90 days after bariatric and colorectal surgery involving anastomoses. RESULTS: Of the 13,082 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.1 [15.8] years; 60.7% women), 3158 (24.1%) received NSAIDs. The overall 90-day rate of anastomotic leaks was 4.3% for all patients (151 patients [4.8%] in the NSAID group and 417 patients [4.2%] in the non-NSAID group; P=.16). After risk adjustment, NSAIDs were associated with a 24% increased risk for anastomotic leak (odds ratio, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.01-1.56]; P=.04). This association was isolated to nonelective colorectal surgery, for which the leak rate was 12.3% in the NSAID group and 8.3% in the non-NSAID group (odds ratio, 1.70 [95% CI, 1.11-2.68]; P=.01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Postoperative NSAIDs were associated with a significantly increased risk for anastomotic complications among patients undergoing nonelective colorectal resection. To determine the role of NSAIDs in colorectal surgery, future evaluations should consider specific formulations, the dose effect, mechanism, and other relevant outcome domains, including pain control, cardiac complications, and overall recovery.

Comparative effectiveness of skin antiseptic agents in reducing surgical site infections: a report from the Washington State Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSI) are an important source of morbidity and mortality. Chlorhexidine in isopropyl alcohol is effective in preventing central venous-catheter associated infections, but its effectiveness in reducing SSI in clean-contaminated procedures is uncertain. Surgical studies to date have had contradictory results. We aimed to further evaluate the relationship of commonly used antiseptic agents and SSI, and to determine if isopropyl alcohol has a unique effect. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a prospective cohort analysis to evaluate the relationship of commonly used skin antiseptic agents and SSI for patients undergoing mostly clean-contaminated surgery from January 2011 through June 2012. Multivariate regression modeling predicted expected rates of SSI. Risk adjusted event rates (RAERs) of SSI were compared across groups using proportionality testing. RESULTS: Among 7,669 patients, the rate of SSI was 4.6%. The RAERs were 0.85 (p = 0.28) for chlorhexidine (CHG), 1.10 (p = 0.06) for chlorhexidine in isopropyl alcohol (CHG+IPA), 0.98 (p = 0.96) for povidone-iodine (PVI), and 0.93 (p = 0.51) for iodine-povacrylex in isopropyl alcohol (IPC+IPA). The RAERs were 0.91 (p = 0.39) for the non-IPA group and 1.10 (p = 0.07) for the IPA group. Among elective colorectal patients, the RAERs were 0.90 (p = 0.48) for CHG, 1.04 (p = 0.67) for CHG+IPA, 1.04 (p = 0.85) for PVI, and 1.00 (p = 0.99) for IPC+IPA. CONCLUSIONS: For clean-contaminated surgical cases, this large-scale state cohort study did not demonstrate superiority of any commonly used skin antiseptic agent in reducing the risk of SSI, nor did it find any unique effect of isopropyl alcohol. These results do not support the use of more expensive skin preparation agents.

Implementation of a "real-world" learning health care system: Washington State's Comparative Effectiveness Research Translation Network (CERTAIN).

BACKGROUND: Learning health care systems apply the experiences of prior patients to inform care and help to guide decision making for current patients. These systems should help to deliver more effective, efficient, and appropriate care. Most examples of learning systems derive from integrated care delivery systems and examples of such systems in the community at large have been lacking. METHODS: The comparative effectiveness research translation network (CERTAIN) is a learning system bringing together hospitals and outpatient clinics across Washington State. CERTAIN leverages existing medical record-based data collection taking place at nearly all statewide hospitals and links this data collection with patient-reported information about function and quality of life. RESULTS: We have described the components of the CERTAIN infrastructure, the elements of a pilot project evaluating treatments of claudication, and the opportunities and challenges of developing and implementing a "real world" learning system. Examples in the areas of vascular disease, spine care, gastrointestinal disease, and urology. CONCLUSION: Learning health care systems face many operational challenges but hold great promise for discovery and implementation of more effective clinical practices.

Time to appendectomy and risk of perforation in acute appendicitis.

IMPORTANCE: In the traditional model of acute appendicitis, time is the major driver of disease progression; luminal obstruction leads inexorably to perforation without timely intervention. This perceived association has long guided clinical behavior related to the timing of appendectomy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether there is an association between time and perforation after patients present to the hospital. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using data from the Washington State Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP), we evaluated patterns of perforation among patients (≥18 years) who underwent appendectomy from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2011. Patients were treated at 52 diverse hospitals including urban tertiary centers, a university hospital, small community and rural hospitals, and hospitals within multi-institutional organizations. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcome of interest was perforation as diagnosed on final pathology reports. The main predictor of interest was elapsed time as measured between presentation to the hospital and operating room (OR) start time. The relationship between in-hospital time and perforation was adjusted for potential confounding using multivariate logistic regression. Additional predictors of interest included sex, age, number of comorbid conditions, race and/or ethnicity, insurance status, and hospital characteristics such as community type and appendectomy volume. RESULTS: A total of 9048 adults underwent appendectomy (15.8% perforated). Mean time from presentation to OR was the same (8.6 hours) for patients with perforated and nonperforated appendicitis. In multivariate analysis, increasing time to OR was not a predictor of perforation, either as a continuous variable (odds ratio = 1.0 [95% CI, 0.99-1.01]) or when considered as a categorical variable (patients ordered by elapsed time and divided into deciles). Factors associated with perforation were male sex, increasing age, 3 or more comorbid conditions, and lack of insurance. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There was no association between perforation and in-hospital time prior to surgery among adults treated with appendectomy. These findings may reflect selection of those at higher risk of perforation for earlier intervention or the effect of antibiotics begun at diagnosis but they are also consistent with the hypothesis that perforation is most often a prehospital occurrence and/or not strictly a time-dependent phenomenon. These findings may also guide decisions regarding personnel and resource allocation when considering timing of nonelective appendectomy.

A model for incorporating patient and stakeholder voices in a learning health care network: Washington State's Comparative Effectiveness Research Translation Network.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the inaugural comparative effectiveness research (CER) cohort study of Washington State's Comparative Effectiveness Research Translation Network (CERTAIN), which compares invasive with noninvasive treatments for peripheral artery disease, and to focus on the patient centeredness of this cohort study by describing it within the context of a newly published conceptual framework for patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The peripheral artery disease study was selected because of clinician-identified uncertainty in treatment selection and differences in desired outcomes between patients and clinicians. Patient centeredness is achieved through the "Patient Voices Project," a CERTAIN initiative through which patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments are administered for research and clinical purposes, and a study-specific patient advisory group where patients are meaningfully engaged throughout the life cycle of the study. A clinician-led research advisory panel follows in parallel. RESULTS: Primary outcomes are PRO instruments that measure function, health-related quality of life, and symptoms, the latter developed with input from the patients. Input from the patient advisory group led to revised retention procedures, which now focus on short-term (3-6 months) follow-up. The research advisory panel is piloting a point-of-care, patient assessment checklist, thereby returning study results to practice. The cohort study is aligned with the tenets of one of the new conceptual frameworks for conducting PCOR. CONCLUSION: The CERTAIN's inaugural cohort study may serve as a useful model for conducting PCOR and creating a learning health care network.

Adoption of laparoscopy for elective colorectal resection: a report from the Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the adoption of laparoscopic colon surgery and assess its impact in the community at large. STUDY DESIGN: The Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP) is a quality improvement benchmarking initiative in the Northwest using medical record-based data. We evaluated the use of laparoscopy and a composite of adverse events (ie, death or clinical reintervention) for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery at 48 hospitals from the 4th quarter of 2005 through 4th quarter of 2010. RESULTS: Of the 9,705 patients undergoing elective colorectal operations (mean age 60.6 ± 15.6 years; 55.2% women), 38.0% were performed laparoscopically (17.8% laparoscopic procedures converted to open). The use of laparoscopic procedures increased from 23.3% in 4th quarter of 2005 to 41.6% in 4th quarter of 2010 (trend during study period, p < 0.001). After adjustment (for age, sex, albumin levels, diabetes, body mass index, comorbidity index, cancer diagnosis, year, hospital bed size, and urban vs rural location), the risk of transfusions (odds ratio [OR] = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.39-0.7), wound infections (OR = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34-0.61), and composite of adverse events (OR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43-0.79) were all significantly lower with laparoscopy. Within those hospitals that had been in SCOAP since 2006, hospitals where laparoscopy was most commonly used also had a substantial increase in the volume of all types of colon surgery (202 cases per hospital in 2010 from 112 cases per hospital in 2006, an 80.4% increase) and, in particular, the number of resections for noncancer diagnoses and right-sided pathology. CONCLUSIONS: The use of laparoscopic colorectal resection increased in the Northwest. Increased adoption of laparoscopic colectomies was associated with greater use of all types of colorectal surgery.

Creating a learning healthcare system in surgery: Washington State's Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP) at 5 years.

There are increasing efforts towards improving the quality and safety of surgical care while decreasing the costs. In Washington state, there has been a regional and unique approach to surgical quality improvement. The development of the Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP) was first described 5 years ago. SCOAP is a peer-to-peer collaborative that engages surgeons to determine the many process of care metrics that go into a "perfect" operation, track on risk adjusted outcomes that are specific to a given operation, and create interventions to correct under performance in both the use of these process measures and outcomes. SCOAP is a thematic departure from report card oriented QI. SCOAP builds off the collaboration and trust of the surgical community and strives for quality improvement by having peers change behaviors of one another. We provide, here, the progress of the SCOAP initiative and highlight its achievements and challenges.

Case report of a hybrid endovascular approach to an abdominal aortic dissection with retrograde thoracic extension and infrarenal aneurysm.

Spontaneous abdominal aortic dissection (AAD) with retrograde thoracic extension is an extremely rare occurrence with a high mortality. Abdominal aortic dissection can be associated with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and the presence of an AAD with an AAA mandates surgical intervention because of a high rate of rupture. We present the case of a 53-year-old woman with a spontaneous AAD that extended retrograde into the thoracic aorta with a concomitant supraceliac intimal tear and an infrarenal AAA repaired electively with a hybrid approach using a supraceliac stent graft and an open infrarenal aortobiiliac graft. This hybrid approach provided an excellent outcome of this rare and complex vascular pathology.