Patient Reported Outcomes of Transperineal Prostate Biopsy With Tumescent Local Anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE: To report the outcomes of performing transperineal prostate biopsy in the office setting using the novel anesthetic technique of tumescent local anesthesia. We report anxiety, pain, and embarrassment of patients who underwent this procedure compared to patients who underwent a transrectal prostate biopsy using standard local anesthesia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing either a transperineal prostate biopsy under tumescent local anesthesia or a transrectal prostate biopsy with standard local anesthetic technique were prospectively enrolled. The tumescent technique employed dilute lidocaine solution administered using a self-filling syringe. Patients were asked to rate their pain before, during, and after their procedure using a visual analog scale. Patient anxiety and embarrassment was assessed using the Testing Modalities Index Questionnaire. RESULTS: Between April 2021 and June 2022, 430 patients underwent a transperineal prostate biopsy using tumescent local anesthesia and 65 patients underwent a standard transrectal prostate biopsy. Patients who underwent a transperineal biopsy had acceptable but significantly higher pain scores than those who underwent a transrectal prostate biopsy (3.9 vs 1.6, P-value <.01). These scores fell to almost zero immediately following their procedure. Additionally, transperineal biopsy patients were more likely to experience anxiety (71% vs 45%, P < .01) and embarrassment (32% vs 15%, P < .01). CONCLUSION: Transperineal biopsy using local tumescent anesthesia is safe and well-tolerated. Despite the benefits, patients undergoing a transperineal prostate biopsy under tumescent anesthesia still experienced worse procedural pain, anxiety, and embarrassment. Additional studies examining other adjunctive interventions to improve patient experience during transperineal prostate biopsy are needed.

Large Variations in the Prices of Urologic Procedures at Academic Medical Centers 1 Year After Implementation of the Price Transparency Final Rule.

Importance: Patients with urologic diseases often experience financial toxicity, defined as high levels of financial burden and concern, after receiving care. The Price Transparency Final Rule, which requires hospitals to disclose both the commercial and cash prices for at least 300 services, was implemented to facilitate price shopping, decrease price dispersion, and lower health care costs. Objective: To evaluate compliance with the Price Transparency Final Rule and to quantify variations in the price of urologic procedures among academic hospitals and by insurance class. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a cross-sectional study that determined the prices of 5 common urologic procedures among academic medical centers and by insurance class. Prices were obtained from the Turquoise Health Database on March 24, 2022. Academic hospitals were identified from the Association of American Medical Colleges website. The 5 most common urologic procedures were cystourethroscopy, prostate biopsy, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, transurethral resection of the prostate, and ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy. Using the corresponding Current Procedural Terminology codes, the Turquoise Health Database was queried to identify the cash price, Medicare price, Medicaid price, and commercial insurance price for these procedures. Exposures: The Price Transparency Final Rule, which went into effect January 1, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Variability in procedure price among academic medical centers and by insurance class (Medicare, Medicaid, commercial, and cash price). Results: Of 153 hospitals, only 20 (13%) listed a commercial price for all 5 procedures. The commercial price was reported most often for cystourethroscopy (86 hospitals [56%]) and least often for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (45 hospitals [29%]). The cash price was lower than the Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial price at 24 hospitals (16%). Prices varied substantially across hospitals for all 5 procedures. There were significant variations in the prices of cystoscopy (χ23 = 85.9; P = .001), prostate biopsy (χ23 = 64.6; P = .001), prostatectomy (χ23 = 24.4; P = .001), transurethral resection of the prostate (χ23 = 51.3; P = .001), and ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy (χ23 = 63.0; P = .001) by insurance type. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that, more than 1 year after the implementation of the Price Transparency Final Rule, there are still large variations in the prices of urologic procedures among academic hospitals and by insurance class. Currently, in certain situations, health care costs could be reduced if patients paid out of pocket. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services may improve price transparency by better enforcing penalties for noncompliance, increasing penalties, and ensuring that hospitals report prices in a way that is easy for patients to access and understand.

Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes After the Introduction of the Medicare Sepsis Performance Measure (SEP-1).

BACKGROUND: Medicare requires that hospitals report on their adherence to the Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of SEP-1 on treatment patterns and patient outcomes. DESIGN: Longitudinal study of hospitals using repeated cross-sectional cohorts of patients. SETTING: 11 hospitals within an integrated health system. PATIENTS: 54 225 encounters between January 2013 and December 2017 for adults with sepsis who were hospitalized through the emergency department. INTERVENTION: Onset of the SEP-1 reporting requirement in October 2015. MEASUREMENTS: Changes in SEP-1-targeted processes, including antibiotic administration, lactate measurement, and fluid administration at 3 hours from sepsis onset; repeated lactate and vasopressor administration for hypotension within 6 hours of sepsis onset; and sepsis outcomes, including risk-adjusted intensive care unit (ICU) admission, in-hospital mortality, and home discharge among survivors. RESULTS: Two years after its implementation, SEP-1 was associated with variable changes in process measures, with the greatest effect being an increase in lactate measurement within 3 hours of sepsis onset (absolute increase, 23.7 percentage points [95% CI, 20.7 to 26.7 percentage points]; P < 0.001). There were small increases in antibiotic administration (absolute increase, 4.7 percentage points [CI, 1.9 to 7.6 percentage points]; P = 0.001) and fluid administration of 30 mL/kg of body weight within 3 hours of sepsis onset (absolute increase, 3.4 percentage points [CI, 1.5 to 5.2 percentage points]; P < 0.001). There was no change in vasopressor administration. There was a small increase in ICU admissions (absolute increase, 2.0 percentage points [CI, 0 to 4.0 percentage points]; P = 0.055) and no changes in mortality (absolute change, 0.1 percentage points [CI, -0.9 to 1.1 percentage points]; P = 0.87) or discharge to home. LIMITATION: Data are from a single health system. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the SEP-1 mandatory reporting program was associated with variable changes in process measures, without improvements in clinical outcomes. Revising the measure may optimize its future effect. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.