Sex-based outcomes in surgical repair of acute type A aortic dissection: A meta-analysis and meta-regression.

OBJECTIVE: Epidemiologic variation with respect to sex has been established in aortic dissection. However, current literature on sex-based outcomes in patients with aortic dissection is conflicting. In this study we aimed to compare perioperative outcomes according to sex in patients treated surgically for acute type A aortic dissection. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for studies that reported sex-based differences in postoperative outcomes among patients with acute type A aortic dissection. The primary outcome was in-hospital/30-day mortality, and secondary outcomes included postoperative stroke, renal failure requiring dialysis, and reoperation for bleeding. Data were aggregated using the random effects model as pooled risk ratio (RR). Meta-regression was applied to identify sources of heterogeneity between studies. RESULTS: Nine of 1022 studies were included for final analysis comprising 3338 female and 5979 male participants. Compared with male sex, female sex was associated with similar in-hospital/30-day mortality (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.85-1.28; P = .67), postoperative stroke risk (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.91-1.25; P = .43), and postoperative risk of acute renal failure requiring dialysis (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.59-1.19; P = .32). A decreased risk of reoperation for bleeding (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.94; P < .01) was observed in female participants. Meta-regression analysis indicated that differences in preoperative shock were a source of heterogeneity in the sex difference in in-hospital/30-day mortality across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients treated surgically for acute type A aortic dissection, female sex was not associated with increased risk of short-term mortality nor with major postoperative complications. Male sex was associated with a greater risk of postoperative bleeding.

Association between hospital safety-net burden and receipt of trimodality therapy and survival for patients with esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: To examine the relationship between hospital safety-net burden and (1) receipt of surgery after chemoradiation (trimodality therapy) and (2) survival in esophageal cancer patients. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried to identify 22,842 clinical stage II to IVa esophageal cancer patients diagnosed in 2004 to 2015. The treatment facilities were categorized by proportion of uninsured/Medicaid-insured patients into percentiles. No safety-net burden hospitals (0-37th percentile) treated no uninsured/Medicaid-insured patients, whereas low (38-75th percentile) and high (76-100th percentile) safety-net burden hospitals treated a median (range) of 8.8% (0.87%-16.7%) and 23.6% (16.8%-100%), respectively. Adjusted odds ratios and hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals were computed, adjusting for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: Compared to no safety-net burden hospital patients, high safety-net burden hospital patients were significantly more likely to be young, Black, and low-income. Age, female sex, Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, nonprivate insurance, lower income, higher comorbidity score, upper esophageal location, squamous cell histology, higher stage, time to treatment, and treatment at a community program or a low-volume facility were associated with lower odds of receiving trimodality therapy. Adjusting for these factors, high safety-net burden hospital patients were less likely to receive surgery after chemoradiation versus no safety-net burden hospital patients (adjusted odds ratio 0.77 [95% confidence interval 0.68-0.86], P < .0001); no difference was detected comparing low safety-net burden hospitals versus no safety-net burden hospitals (adjusted odds ratio 1.01 [0.92-1.11], P = .874). No significant survival difference was noted by safety-net burden (low safety-net burden hospitals versus no safety-net burden hospitals: adjusted hazard ratio 1.01 [0.96-1.06], P = .704; high safety-net burden hospital versus no safety-net burden hospitals: adjusted hazard ratio 0.99 [0.93-1.06], P = .859). CONCLUSION: Adjusting for patient, tumor, and treatment factors, high safety-net burden hospital patients were less likely to undergo surgery after chemoradiation but without significant survival differences.

Primary Pericardial Mesothelioma: A Population-Based Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Primary pericardial mesothelioma is a rare malignancy of the mesothelial lining of the pericardium. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical characteristics and survival outcomes of these patients using a United States population-based cancer database. We queried the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program (1973-2015). Primary pericardial mesothelioma patients with complete follow-up data were included, and primary pleural mesothelioma patients were identified as controls. Propensity-score matching was used to balance individual characteristics. Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank tests were performed to compare overall survival. Forty-one primary pericardial mesothelioma and 15,970 primary pleural mesothelioma patients were identified. Before matching, when compared to the pleural mesothelioma counterparts, primary pericardial mesothelioma patients were younger (median 57 vs 73 years, P < 0.001), more likely to be female (46.3% vs 20.2%, P < 0.001), more likely to be nonwhite (24.4% vs 8.4%, P = 0.001), and less likely to have been diagnosed in the most recent study decade (2006-2015, 34.1% vs 43.5%, P = 0.002). The overall 1- and 2-year survival rates were 22.0% and 12.2%, with a median survival of 2 months (IQR: 1-6). After 1:2 nearest neighbor propensity-score matching, 38 pericardial mesothelioma and 76 matched pleural mesothelioma cases were identified. The 2 matched groups had comparable baseline characteristics, including age, sex, race, year of diagnosis, histological type, and cancer history. Compared to their pleural mesothelioma counterparts, primary pericardial mesothelioma patients were less likely to receive chemotherapy (23.7% vs 50.0%, P = 0.01) and had worse overall survival (median survival: 2 vs 10 months, log-rank P = 0.006). Primary pericardial mesothelioma has worse survival outcomes than pleural mesothelioma, with a median survival of only 2 months. These patients should seek care from experienced multidisciplinary teams at tertiary care centers that handle high volumes of mesothelioma patients.