Mortality and Severe Complications Among Newly Graduated Surgeons in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate severe complications and mortality over years of independent practice among general surgeons. BACKGROUND: Despite concerns that newly graduated general surgeons may be unprepared for independent practice, it is unclear whether patient outcomes differ between early and later career surgeons. METHODS: We used Medicare claims for patients discharged between July 1, 2007 and December 31, 2019 to evaluate 30-day severe complications and mortality for 26 operations defined as core procedures by the American Board of Surgery. Generalized additive mixed models were used to assess the association between surgeon years in practice and 30-day outcomes while adjusting for differences in patient, hospital, and surgeon characteristics. RESULTS: The cohort included 1,329,358 operations performed by 14,399 surgeons. In generalized mixed models, the relative risk (RR) of mortality was higher among surgeons in their first year of practice compared with surgeons in their 15th year of practice [5.5% (95% CI: 4.1%-7.3%) vs 4.7% (95% CI: 3.5%-6.3%), RR: 1.17 (95% CI: 1.11-1.22)]. Similarly, the RR of severe complications was higher among surgeons in their first year of practice compared with surgeons in their 15th year of practice [7.5% (95% CI: 6.6%-8.5%) versus 6.9% (95% CI: 6.1%-7.9%), RR: 1.08 (95% CI: 1.03-1.14)]. When stratified by individual operation, 21 operations had a significantly higher RR of mortality and all 26 operations had a significantly higher RR of severe complications in the first compared with the 15th year of practice. CONCLUSIONS: Among general surgeons performing common operations, rates of mortality and severe complications were higher among newly graduated surgeons compared with later career surgeons.

Association of Elective Surgical Volume With State Executive Order Curtailing Elective Surgery in Michigan During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate changes in elective surgical volume in Michigan while an executive order (EO) was in place curtailing elective surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Many state governors enacted EOs curtailing elective surgery to protect scare resources and generate hospital capacity for patients with COVID-19. Little is known of the effectiveness of an EO on achieving a sustained reduction in elective surgery. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of data from a statewide claims-based registry in Michigan includes claims from the largest private payer in the state for a representative set of elective operations on adult patients from February 2 through August 1, 2020. We reported trends in surgical volume over the period the EO was in place. Estimated backlogs in elective surgery were calculated using case counts from the same period in 2019. RESULTS: Hospitals achieved a 91.7% reduction in case volume before the EO was introduced. By the time the order was rescinded, hospitals were already performing elective surgery at 60.1% of pre-pandemic case rates. We estimate that a backlog of 6419 operations was created while the EO was in effect. Had hospitals ceased elective surgery during this period, an additional 18% of patients would have experienced a delay in surgical care. CONCLUSIONS: Both the introduction and removal of Michigan's EO lagged behind the observed ramp-down and ramp-up in elective surgical volume. These data suggest that EOs may not effectively modulate surgical care and could also contribute to unnecessary delays in surgical care.

Postoperative Opioid Prescribing and New Persistent Opioid Use: The Risk of Excessive Prescribing.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the association between postoperative opioid prescribing and new persistent opioid use. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Opioid-nave patients who develop new persistent opioid use after surgery are at increased risk of opioid-related morbidity and mortality. However, the extent to which postoperative opioid prescribing is associated with persistent postoperative opioid use is unclear. METHODS: Retrospective study of opioid-naïve adults undergoing surgery in Michigan from 1/1/2017 to 10/31/2019. Postoperative opioid prescriptions were identified using a statewide clinical registry and prescription fills were identified using Michigan's prescription drug monitoring program. The primary outcome was new persistent opioid use, defined as filling at least 1 opioid prescription between post-discharge days 4 to 90 and filling at least 1 opioid prescription between post-discharge days 91 to 180. RESULTS: A total of 37,654 patients underwent surgery with a mean age of 52.2 (16.7) years and 20,923 (55.6%) female patients. A total of 31,920 (84.8%) patients were prescribed opioids at discharge. Six hundred twenty-two (1.7%) patients developed new persistent opioid use after surgery. Being prescribed an opioid at discharge was not associated with new persistent opioid use [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.88 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.09)]. However, among patients prescribed an opioid, patients prescribed the second largest [12 (interquartile range (IQR) 3) pills] and largest [20 (IQR 7) pills] quartiles of prescription size had higher odds of new persistent opioid use compared to patients prescribed the smallest quartile [7 (IQR 1) pills] of prescription size [aOR 1.39 (95% CI 1.04-1.86) andaOR 1.97 (95% CI 1.442.70), respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of opioid-naïve patients undergoing common surgical procedures, the risk of new persistent opioid use increased with the size of the prescription. This suggests that while opioid prescriptions in and of themselves may not place patients at risk of long-term opioid use, excessive prescribing does. Consequently, these findings support ongoing efforts to mitigate excessive opioid prescribing after surgery to reduce opioid-related harms.

Evidence-Based Opioid Prescribing Guidelines and New Persistent Opioid Use After Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the association of evidence-based opioid prescribing guidelines with new persistent opioid use after surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Patients exposed to opioids after surgery are at risk of new persistent opioid use, which is associated with opioid use disorder and overdose. It is unknown whether evidence-based opioid prescribing guidelines mitigate this risk. METHODS: Using Medicare claims, we performed a difference-in-differences study of opioid-naive patients who underwent 1 of 6 common surgical procedures for which evidence-based postoperative opioid prescribing guidelines were released and disseminated through a statewide quality collaborative in Michigan in October 2017. The primary outcome was the incidence of new persistent opioid use, and the secondary outcome was total postoperative opioid prescription quantity in oral morphine equivalents (OME). RESULTS: We identified 24,908 patients who underwent surgery in Michigan and 118,665 patients who underwent surgery outside of Michigan. Following the release of prescribing guidelines in Michigan, the adjusted incidence of new persistent opioid use decreased from 3.29% (95% CI 3.15-3.43%) to 2.51% (95% CI 2.35-2.67%) in Michigan, which was an additional 0.53 (95% CI 0.36-0.69) percentage point decrease compared with patients outside of Michigan. Simultaneously, adjusted opioid prescription quantity decreased from 199.5 (95% CI 198.3-200.6) mg OME to 88.6 (95% CI 78.7-98.5) mg OME in Michigan, which was an additional 55.7 (95% CI 46.5-65.4) mg OME decrease compared with patients outside of Michigan. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based opioid prescribing guidelines were associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of new persistent opioid use and the quantity of opioids prescribed after surgery.

Assessment of Determinants of Value in Carotid Endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Over 150,000 carotid endarterectomies (CEA) are performed annually worldwide, accounting for $900 million in the United States alone. How cost/spending and quality are related is not well understood but remain essential components in maximizing value. We sought to identify determinants of variability in hospital 90-day episode value for CEA. METHODS: Medicare and private-payer admissions for CEA from January 2, 2014 to August 28, 2020 were linked to retrospective clinical registry data for hospitals in Michigan performing vascular surgery. Hospital-specific, risk-adjusted, 30-day composite complications (defined as reoperation, new neurologic deficit, myocardial infarction, additional procedure including CEA or carotid artery stenting, readmission, or mortality) and 30-day risk-adjusted, price-standardized total episode payments were used to categorize hospitals into low or high value by defining the intersection between complications and spending. RESULTS: A total of 6,595 patients across 39 hospitals were identified across both datasets. Patients at low-value hospitals had a higher rate of 30-day composite complications (17.9% vs. 10.1%, P < 0.001) driven by a significantly higher rate of reoperation (3.0% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.016), readmission (10.7% vs. 6.2%, P = 0.012), new neurologic deficit (4.6% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.017), and mortality (1.6% vs. 0.6%, P < 0.049). Mean total episode payments were $19,635 at low-value hospitals compared to $15,709 at high-value hospitals driven by index hospitalization ($10,800 vs. $9,587, P = 0.002), professional ($3,421 vs. $2,827, P < 0.001), readmission ($3,011 vs. $1,826, P < 0.001), and post-acute care payments ($2,335 vs. $1,486, P < 0.001). Findings were similar when only including patients who did not suffer a complication. CONCLUSIONS: There is tremendous variation in both quality and payments across hospitals included for CEA. Importantly, costs were higher at low-value hospitals independent of postoperative complication. There appears to be little to no relationship between total episode spending and surgical quality, suggesting that improvements in value may be possible by decreasing total episode cost without affecting surgical outcomes.

The Association of Postoperative Opioid Prescriptions with Patient Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes after surgery between patients who were not prescribed opioids and patients who were prescribed opioids. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Postoperative opioid prescriptions carry significant risks. Understanding outcomes among patients who receive no opioids after surgery may inform efforts to reduce these risks. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of adult patients who underwent surgery between January 1, 2019 and October 31, 2019. The primary outcome was the composite incidence of an emergency department visit, readmission, or reoperation within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain, satisfaction, quality of life, and regret collected via postoperative survey. A multilevel, mixed-effects logistic regression was performed to evaluate differences between groups. RESULTS: In a cohort of 22,345 patients, mean age (standard deviation) was 52.1 (16.5) years and 13,269 (59.4%) patients were female. About 3175 (14.2%) patients were not prescribed opioids, of whom 422 (13.3%) met the composite adverse event endpoint compared to 2255 (11.8%) of patients not prescribed opioids ( P = 0.015). Patients not prescribed opioids had a similar probability of adverse events {11.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 10.2%-13.2%] vs 11.9% (95% CI 10.6%-13.3%]}. Among 12,872 survey respondents, patients who were not prescribed an opioid had a similar rate of high satisfaction [81.7% (95% CI 77.3%-86.1%) vs 81.7% (95% CI 77.7%- 85.7%)] and no regret [(93.0% (95% CI 90.8%-95.2%) vs 92.6% (95% CI 90.4%-94.7%)]. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were not prescribed opioids after surgery had similar clinical and patient-reported outcomes as patients who were prescribed opioids. This suggests that minimizing opioids as part of routine postoperative care is unlikely to adversely affect patients.

Graft Survival and Segment Discards Among Split-Liver and Reduced-Size Transplantations in the United States From 2008 to 2018.

Split-liver transplantation has allocation advantages over reduced-size transplantation because of its ability to benefit 2 recipients. However, prioritization of split-liver transplantation relies on the following 3 major assumptions that have never been tested in the United States: similar long-term transplant recipient outcomes, lower incidence of segment discard among split-liver procurements, and discard of segments among reduced-size procurements that would be otherwise "transplantable." We used United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research data to identify all split-liver (n = 1831) and reduced-size (n = 578) transplantation episodes in the United States between 2008 and 2018. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to compare 7-year all-cause graft loss between cohorts. Secondary analyses included etiology of 30-day all-cause graft loss events as well as the incidence and anatomy of discarded segments. We found no difference in 7-year all-cause graft loss (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-1.5) or 30-day all-cause graft loss (aHR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-1.8) between split-liver and reduced-size cohorts. Vascular thrombosis was the most common etiology of 30-day all-cause graft loss for both cohorts (56.4% versus 61.8% of 30-day graft losses; P = 0.85). Finally, reduced-size transplantation was associated with a significantly higher incidence of segment discard (50.0% versus 8.7%) that were overwhelmingly right-sided liver segments (93.6% versus 30.3%). Our results support the prioritization of split-liver over reduced-size transplantation whenever technically feasible.

Reliability of hospital-level mortality in abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: The relationship between volume and surgical outcomes has been shown for a variety of surgical procedures. The effects in abdominal aortic aneurysm repair have continued to be debated. Reliability adjustment has been used as a method to remove statistical noise from hospital-level outcomes. However, its impact on aortic aneurysm repair is not well understood. METHODS: We used prospectively collected data from the Vascular Quality Initiative to identify all patients who had undergone abdominal aortic aneurysm repair from 2003 to 2019. We first calculated the hospital-level risk-adjusted 30-day mortality rates. We subsequently used hierarchical logistic regression modeling to adjust for measurement reliability using empirical Bayes techniques. The effect of volume on risk- and reliability-adjusted mortality rates was then assessed using linear regression. RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2019, 67,073 abdominal aortic aneurysms were repaired, of which 11,601 (17.3%) were repaired with an open approach. The median annual volume was 7.4 (interquartile range, 3.0-13.3) for open repairs and 35.4 (interquartile range, 18.8-59.8) for endovascular repairs. Of the 223 hospitals that had performed open repairs during the study period, only 11 (4.9%) had performed ≥15 open repairs annually, and the risk-adjusted mortality rates varied from 0% to 75% across all centers. After reliability adjustment, the variability of the risk-adjusted mortality rates had decreased significantly to 1.3% to 8.2%. The endovascular repair risk-adjusted mortality rate variability had decreased from 0% to 14.3% to 0.3% to 2.8% after reliability adjustment. A decreasing trend in mortality was found with increasing an annual case volume for open repair with each additional annual case associated with a 0.012% decrease in mortality (P = .05); however, the relationship was not significant for endovascular repair (P = .793). CONCLUSIONS: We found that most hospitals do not perform a sufficient number of annual cases to generate a reliable center-specific mortality rate for open aneurysm repair. Center-specific mortality rates for low-volume centers should be viewed with caution, because a substantial proportion of the variation for these outcomes will be statistical noise rather than true center-level differences in the quality of care.

Endovascular surgery is not protective against new persistent opioid use development compared to open vascular surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular techniques continue to be increasingly utilized to treat vascular disease, but the effect of these minimally invasive techniques on opioid use following surgery is not known. METHODS: Using Medicare data, we identified opioid-naive patients undergoing vascular procedures between 2009 and 2017. We selected patients ≥65 years old with continuous enrollment 12 months before and 6 months after surgery and had no additional operations. We defined new persistent opioid use (NPOU) as one or more opioid prescription fills both between 4-90 and 91-180 days postoperatively. Multivariable regression was performed for risk adjustment, and frequencies of NPOU were estimated between endovascular and open techniques to compare surgical approach. RESULTS: A total of 77,767 patients were identified, with 2.6% of all patients developing new persistent use. In addition to the identification of several risk factors for new persistent use, patients undergoing endovascular carotid or vertebral interventions were found to have higher adjusted frequencies of persistent use compared to those undergoing open interventions (3.0% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.001) as did those undergoing endovenous compared to open vein procedures (2.2%, vs. 1.6%, p = 0.019). We found no difference for peripheral vascular or aortic/iliac procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing vascular surgery are at high risk for new persistent use. Undergoing endovascular carotid or venous surgery was associated with an increased risk of NPOU, whereas no differences were found between endovascular and open approaches for peripheral arterial or aortic disease.

Modeling the elective vascular surgery recovery after coronavirus disease 2019: Implications for moving forward.

OBJECTIVE: The delays in elective surgery caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have resulted in a substantial backlog of cases. In the present study, we sought to determine the estimated time to recovery for vascular surgery procedures delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic in a regional health system. METHODS: Using data from a 35-hospital regional vascular surgical collaborative consisting of all hospitals performing vascular surgery in the state of Michigan, we estimated the number of delayed surgical cases for adults undergoing carotid endarterectomy, carotid stenting, endovascular and open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, and lower extremity bypass. We used seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average models to predict the surgical volume in the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic and historical data to predict the elective surgical recovery time. RESULTS: The median statewide monthly vascular surgical volume for the study period was 439 procedures, with a maximum statewide monthly case volume of 519 procedures. For the month of April 2020, the elective vascular surgery procedural volume decreased by ∼90%. Significant variability was seen in the estimated hospital capacity and estimated number of backlogged cases, with the recovery of elective cases estimated to require ∼8 months. If hospitals across the collaborative were to share the burden of backlogged cases, the recovery could be shortened to ∼3 months. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study of vascular surgical volume in a regional health collaborative, elective surgical procedures decreased by 90%, resulting in a backlog of >700 cases. The recovery time if all hospitals in the collaborative were to share the burden of backlogged cases would be reduced from 8 months to 3 months, underscoring the necessity of regional and statewide policies to minimize patient harm by delays in recovery for elective surgery.

Exploring the rapid expansion of office-based laboratories and peripheral vascular interventions across the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the relationship between office-based laboratory (OBL) use and Medicare payments for peripheral vascular interventions (PVI). METHODS: Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Provider Utilization and Payment Data Public Use Files from 2014 to 2017, we identified providers who performed percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, stent placement, and atherectomy. Procedures were aggregated at the provider and hospital referral region (HRR) level. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2017, 2641 providers performed 308,247 procedures. The mean payment for OBL stent placement in 2017 was $4383.39, and mean payment for OBL atherectomy was $13,079.63. The change in the mean payment amount varied significantly, from a decrease of $16.97 in HRR 146 to an increase of $43.77 per beneficiary over the study period in HRR 11. The change in the rate of PVI also varied substantially, and moderately correlated with change in payment across HRRs (R2 = 0.40; P < .001). The majority of HRRs experienced an increase in rate of PVI within OBLs, which strongly correlated with changes in payments (R2 = 0.85; P < .001). Furthermore, 85% of the variance in change in payment was explained by increases in OBL atherectomy (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A rapid shift into the office setting for PVIs occurred within some HRRs, which was highly geographically variable and was strongly correlated with payments. Policymakers should revisit the current payment structure for OBL use and, in particular atherectomy, to better align the policy with its intended goals.

Elective Surgical Delays Due to COVID-19: The Patient Lived Experience.

BACKGROUND: This qualitative research explored the lived experiences of patients who experienced postponement of elective cardiac and vascular surgery due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We know very little about patients during the novel coronavirus pandemic. Understanding the patient voice may play an important role in prioritization of postponed cases and triage moving forward. METHODS: Utilizing a hermeneutical phenomenological qualitative design, we interviewed 47 individuals who experienced a postponement of cardiac or vascular surgery due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were analyzed and informed by phenomenological research methods. RESULTS: Patients in our study described 3 key issues around their postponement of elective surgery. Patients described robust narratives about the meanings of their elective surgeries as the chance to "return to normal" and alleviate symptoms that impacted everyday life. Second, because of the meanings most of our patients ascribed to their surgeries, postponement often took a toll on how patients managed physical health and emotional well-being. Finally, paradoxically, many patients in our study were demonstrative that they would "rather die from a heart attack" than be exposed to the coronavirus. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several components of the patient experience, encompassing quality of life and other desired benefits of surgery, the risks of COVID, and difficulty reconciling the 2. Our study provides significant qualitative evidence to inform providers of important considerations when rescheduling the backlog of patients. The emotional and psychological distress that patients experienced due to postponement may also require additional considerations in postoperative recovery.

Surgery Provider Perceptions on Telehealth Visits During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Room for Improvement.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has mandated rapid adoption of telehealth for surgical care. However, many surgical providers may be unfamiliar with telehealth. This study evaluates the perspectives of surgical providers practicing telehealth care during COVID-19 to help identify targets for surgical telehealth optimization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: At a single tertiary care center with telehealth capabilities, all department of surgery providers (attending surgeons, residents, fellows, and advanced practice providers) were emailed a voluntary survey focused on telehealth during the pandemic. Descriptive statistics and Mann-Whitney U analyses were performed as appropriate on responses. Text responses were thematically coded to identify key concepts. RESULTS: The completion rate was 41.3% (145/351). Providers reported increased telehealth usage relative to the pandemic (P < 0.001). Of respondents, 80% (116/145) had no formal telehealth training. Providers estimated that new patient video visits required less time than traditional visits (P = 0.001). Satisfaction was high for several aspects of video visits. Comparatively lower satisfaction scores were reported for the ability to perform physical exams (sensitive and nonsensitive) and to break bad news. The largest barriers to effective video visits were limited physical exams (55.6%; 45/81) and lack of provider or patient internet access/equipment/connection (34.6%; 28/81). Other barriers included ineffective communication and difficulty with fostering rapport. Concerns regarding video-to-telephone visit conversion were loss of physical exam/visual cues (34.3%; 24/70), less personal interactions (18.6%; 13/70), and reduced efficiency (18.6%; 13/70). CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth remains a new experience for surgical providers despite its expansion. Optimization strategies should target technology barriers and include specialized virtual exam and communication training.

Somatic DNA copy number alterations in non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to analyze non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (NDBE) biopsy tissue and compare the rate of somatic DNA copy number alterations (CNAs) in patients who subsequently progressed to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) to those patients who did not. METHODS: A retrospectively collected database of Barrett's esophagus (BE) patients spanning a 16-year period was queried. Patients who progressed from NDBE to HGD or EAC were identified and compared to patients who did not. Initial biopsy specimens were microdissected and extracted DNA underwent Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification (MLPA) for CNAs. Comparisons between progressors and non-progressors were made with Fisher's exact and two-sample t tests. Logistic regression assessed factors associated with progression. RESULTS: Of the 2459 patients in the BE database, 36 patients progressed from NDBE to either HGD or EAC. There were eight progressors who had biopsy specimens with adequate DNA for analysis. The progressor and non-progressor cohort had similar demographic information and medical history. The progressor group trended towards being older at diagnosis (72 ± 10 vs. 64 ± 13 years, p = 0.097) and fewer progressors reported reflux symptoms (50 vs. 94.7%, p < 0.001). Progressor specimens had more overall CNAs (75% vs. 33.6%, p = 0.026). On univariable analysis, there was an association between progression and absence of GERD symptoms (OR 16.54 [3.42-80.03], p = 0.001), any CNA (OR 5.10 [1.18-23.30], p = 0.035), and CNA in GATA6 or ERBB2 (OR 6.72 [1.18-38.22], p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who progressed from NDBE to HGD or EAC were older at first diagnosis of BE and fewer of the progressors reported symptoms of reflux when compared to non-progressors. Progression was associated with the presence of any CNA and specific CNAs in GATA6 or ERBB2.

Perioperative risks of bariatric surgery among patients with and without history of solid organ transplant.

Bariatric surgery is effective among patients with previous transplant in limited case series. However, the perioperative safety of bariatric surgery in this patient population is poorly understood. Therefore, we assessed the safety of bariatric surgery among previous-transplant patients using a database that captures >92% of all US bariatric procedures. All primary, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures between 2017 and 2018 were identified from the MBSAQIP dataset. Patients with previous transplant (n = 610) were compared with patients without previous transplant (n = 321 447). Primary outcomes were 30 day readmissions, surgical complications, medical complications, and death. Multivariable logistic regression with predictive margins was used to compare outcomes. Previous transplant patients experienced higher incidence of readmissions (8.0% vs 3.5%), surgical complications (5.0% vs 2.7%), and medical complications (4.3% vs 1.5%). There was no difference in incidence of death (0.2% vs 0.1%). Among individual complications, there no statistical differences in intraabdominal leak, unplanned reoperation, myocardial infarction, or infectious complications. Baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate was found to be a strong moderator of primary outcomes, with the highest risk of complications occurring at the lowest baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate. Given the many long-term benefits of bariatric surgery among patients with previous transplant, our findings should not preclude this patient population from operative consideration.

Trends in emergency department utilization following common operations in New York State, 2005-2014.

BACKGROUND: ED overutilization is a leading cause of increased healthcare costs and a key target for healthcare reform. ED utilization patterns following common operative procedures are unknown. METHODS: Using the SPARCS New York (NY) statewide longitudinal administrative database, a longitudinal analysis on 746,633 patients who underwent cholecystectomy (n = 355,368), appendectomy (n = 142,797) or inguinal hernia repair (n = 248,468) from 2005 to 2014 was performed. ED revisits were identified via unique patient identifiers which allow for patient tracking across hospitals in NY State. RESULTS: In total, 59,255 (7.9%) patients presented to the ED within 30-days of their operation of which 21,638 (36.5%) were admitted. The aggregated rate of ED utilization and admission from the ED were as follows: cholecystectomy (9.5%, 40%), appendectomy (9.1%, 33.1%), and inguinal hernia repair (5.1%, 26.2%), respectively. A longitudinal analysis demonstrated a relative slowing of the rate of increase in hospital readmissions for cholecystectomy and inguinal hernia repair but no change in the number of ED revisits for inguinal hernia repair. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1 in 10 patients undergoing cholecystectomy and appendectomy, and 1 in 20 patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair will present to the ED following surgery. The majority of ED visits do not result in admission, calling their necessity into question. These data suggest possible overutilization of the ED following common operations and support the consideration of ED utilization as a quality indicator.

Increased-risk donors and solid organ transplantation: current practices and opportunities for improvement.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The development and implementation of 'increased risk donor' (IRD) status by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was intended to guide patients and providers in decision making regarding risk of infectious transmission via solid organ transplantation. Several contemporary studies have shown underutilization of these organs. This review summarizes the issues surrounding IRD status as well as recent advances in our understanding of the risks and benefits of increased risk organs and their appropriate utilization. RECENT FINDINGS: Risk of window-period infection remains exceedingly low, and implementation of nucleic acid testing for HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) has resulted in decreasing risk of window-period infection often by an order of magnitude or more. Surgeons remain hesitant to utilize IRD organs. In addition, surgeon assessment of risk by donor behaviour was often discordant with known risks of those behaviours. Studies investigating outcomes of utilization of IRD organs suggest long-term mortality and graft survival is at least equivalent to non-IRD organs. Contemporary results suggest that IRD organs continue to be underutilized, particularly adult kidneys and lungs, with hundreds of wasted organs per year. SUMMARY: CDC IRD labelling has led to an underutilization of organs for transplantation. The risks associated with acceptance of an IRD organ are inflated by surgeons and patients, and outcomes for patients who undergo transplantation with increased risk organs are similar to or better than those for patients whom accept standard risk organs. The rate of transmission of window-period infection from IRD organs is exceptionally low. The harms regarding the utility of Public Health Service increased risk classification outweigh the benefits for patients in need of transplant.

Predicting Progression in Barrett's Esophagus: Development and Validation of the Barrett's Esophagus Assessment of Risk Score (BEAR Score).

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a scoring tool capable of accurately predicting which patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) will progress to dysplasia and/or esophageal adenocarcinoma. BACKGROUND: Endoscopic therapies have emerged capable of eradicating BE with high efficacy and low complication rates, but which patients should receive treatment is still debated. Current knowledge of risk factors is insufficient to allow for the accurate prediction of which patients will progress to dysplasia or adenocarcinoma. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data from a cohort of BE patients over a 13-year period. A multivariable logistic regression model was constructed to predict progression. A simplified risk of progression (ROP) score was developed from weighted beta coefficients. Internal validation was performed using bootstrap analysis, and model discrimination was assessed using k-fold cross-validation. RESULTS: The cohort included 2591 BE patients of which 133 progressed to dysplasia/adenocarcinoma. Multivariable analysis with bootstrap internal validation resulted in 5 variables associated with an increased ROP (age ≥70 years, male sex, lack of proton-pump inhibitor use, segment greater than 3 cm, and history of esophageal candidiasis). Using this model, we developed a simple ROP score between 0 and 8. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed a cutoff of 3 or higher to have a sensitivity and specificity of 70% and 79%, respectively. Patients with a score of 3 or higher had an odds ratio of 9.04 (95% confidence interval 6.06-13.46). The c-statistic obtained from 10-fold cross-validation was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.72-0.79), indicating good overall discrimination. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show the development and internal validation of the Barrett's Esophagus Assessment of Risk Score as capable of quantifying the likelihood of progression to dysplasia/adenocarcinoma. The Barrett's Esophagus Assessment of Risk Score can be used clinically to guide treatment decisions in nondysplastic BE patients.