Mortality and failure-to-rescue after esophagectomy in the procedure-targeted National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry.

BACKGROUND: The association between procedural volume and esophagectomy outcomes has been established, but the relationship between higher levels of care and esophagectomy outcomes has not been explored. This study aims to investigate whether hospital participation in the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) esophagectomy-targeted registry is associated with superior outcomes. METHODS: The 2016-2020 ACS NSQIP standard and esophagectomy-targeted registries were queried. Esophagectomy outcomes were analyzed overall and stratified by esophagectomy type (Ivor Lewis vs. transhiatal vs. 3-field McKeown). RESULTS: A total of 2181 and 5449 esophagectomy cases were identified in the standard and targeted databases (68% Ivor Lewis esophagectomy). The median age was 65 years and 80% were male. Preoperative characteristics were largely comparable. On univariate analysis, targeted hospitals were associated with lower mortality (2% vs. 4%, p < 0.01) and failure-to-rescue rates (11% vs. 17%, p < 0.01), higher likelihood of an optimal outcome (62% vs. 58%, p = 0.01), and shorter hospital stay (median 9 vs. 10 days, p < 0.01). On multivariable analysis, Ivor Lewis esophagectomy at targeted centers was associated with reduced odds of mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.57 and 95% confidence intervals 0.35-0.90] and failure-to-rescue [OR 0.54 (0.33-0.90)] with no difference in serious morbidity or optimal outcome. There was no statistically significant difference in odds of mortality or failure to rescue in targeted versus standard centers when performing transhiatal or McKeown esophagectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Esophagectomy performed at hospitals participating in the targeted ACS NSQIP is associated with roughly half the risk of mortality compared to the standard registry. The factors underlying this relationship may be valuable in quality improvement.

Morbidity of colectomy during pancreatoduodenectomy: An analysis of the pancreas-targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Registry.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatoduodenectomy is a complex operation with considerable morbidity and mortality. Locally advanced tumors may require concurrent colectomy. We hypothesized that a concurrent colectomy increases the risk associated with pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: This retrospective review of the 2014-2019 pancreas-targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry classified operations as pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) versus pancreatoduodenectomy/colectomy (PD+C). The two groups were compared with respect to demographics, comorbidities, disease characteristics, intraoperative variables, and postoperative outcomes. Main effect models were developed to examine the effect of concurrent colectomy on outcomes after adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Of 24 421 pancreatoduodenectomies, 430 (1.8%) involved concurrent colectomy. PD + C patients had less comorbidities (obesity 19% vs. 27%, hypertension 43% vs. 53%, diabetes 20% vs. 26%) and were associated with malignant diagnosis (94% vs. 83%), vascular resection (28% vs. 18%), and longer operative time (median 6.9 vs. 6 h). On multivariable analysis, concurrent colectomy was independently associated with serious morbidity (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.94-3.54) but not mortality (OR 1.44 [0.63-3.31]). CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent colectomy at the time of pancreatoduodenectomy significantly increased the odds of serious morbidity but did not affect mortality. This should be considered in operative planning, preoperative counseling, and sequencing of cancer-directed treatments.

Sociodemographic and prior clinical course characteristics associated with treatment response in depressed patients.

A sociodemographic and clinical picture is presented of 82 depressed subjects who had an unequivocal response or lack of response to treatment with amitriptyline or imipramine. Patients with less severe depressive illness were found more likely to respond to treatment, while those with psychotic features were more likely to be treatment resistant. Sociodemographic and other prior and current clinical course variables were not predictive of treatment response in depressed patients.