National Breast Reconstruction Utilization in the Setting of Postmastectomy Radiotherapy.

Background Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is often deferred, when postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) is anticipated, due to high complication rates. Nonetheless, because of robust data supporting improved health-related quality of life associated with reconstruction, physicians and patients may be more accepting of tradeoffs. The current study explores national trends of IBR utilization rates and methods in the setting of PMRT, using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). The study hypothesis is that prosthetic techniques have become the most common method of IBR in the setting of PMRT. Methods NCDB was queried from 2004 to 2013 for women, who underwent mastectomy with or without IBR. Patients were grouped according to PMRT status. Multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate odds of IBR in the setting of PMRT. Trend analyses were done for rates and methods of IBR using Poisson regression to determine incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Results In multivariate analysis, radiated patients were 30% less likely to receive IBR (p < 0.05). The rate increase in IBR was greater in radiated compared with nonradiated patients (IRR: 1.12 vs. 1.09). Rates of reconstruction increased more so in radiated compared with nonradiated patients for both implants (IRR 1.15 vs. 1.11) and autologous techniques (IRR 1.08 vs. 1.06). Autologous reconstructions were more common in those receiving PMRT until 2005 (p < 0.05), with no predominant technique thereafter. Conclusion Although IBR remains a relative contraindication, rates of IBR are increasing to a greater extent in patients receiving PMRT. Implants have surpassed autologous techniques as the most commonly used method of breast reconstruction in this setting.

Survival outcomes in liver transplant recipients with Model for End-stage Liver Disease scores of 40 or higher: a decade-long experience.

BACKGROUND: The Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) has been used as a prognostic tool since 2002 to predict pre-transplant mortality. Increasing proportions of transplant candidates with higher MELD scores, combined with improvements in transplant outcomes, mandate the need to study surgical outcomes in patients with MELD scores of ≥40. METHODS: A retrospective longitudinal analysis of United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) data on all liver transplantations performed between February 2002 and June 2011 (n = 33,398) stratified by MELD score (<30, 30-39, ≥40) was conducted. The primary outcomes of interest were short- and longterm graft and patient survival. A Kaplan-Meier product limit method and Cox regression were used. A subanalysis using a futile population was performed to determine futility predictors. RESULTS: Of the 33,398 transplant recipients analysed, 74% scored <30, 18% scored 30-39, and 8% scored ≥40 at transplantation. Recipients with MELD scores of ≥40 were more likely to be younger (P < 0.001), non-White and to have shorter waitlist times (P < 0.001). Overall patient survival correlated inversely with increasing MELD score; this trend was consistent for both short-term (30 days and 90 days) and longterm (1, 3 and 5 years) graft and patient survival. In multivariate analysis, increasing age, African-American ethnicity, donor obesity and diabetes were negative predictors of survival. Futility predictors included patient age of >60 years, obesity, peri-transplantation intensive care unit hospitalization with ventilation, and multiple comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Liver transplantation in recipients with MELD scores of ≥40 offers acceptable longterm survival outcomes. Futility predictors indicate the need for prospective follow-up studies to define the population to gain the highest benefit from this precious resource.

Trends in Physician Payments for Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Prosthetic breast reconstruction rates have risen in the United States, whereas autologous techniques have stagnated. Meanwhile, single-institution data demonstrate that physician payments for prosthetic reconstruction are rising, while payments for autologous techniques are unchanged. This study aims to assess payment trends and variation for tissue expander and free flap breast reconstruction. METHODS: The Blue Health Intelligence database was queried from 2009 to 2013, identifying women with claims for breast reconstruction. Trends in the incidence of surgery and physician reimbursement were characterized by method and year using regression models. RESULTS: There were 21,259 episodes of breast reconstruction, with a significant rise in tissue expander cases (incidence rate ratio, 1.09; p < 0.001) and an unchanged incidence of free flap cases (incidence rate ratio, 1.02; p = 0.222). Bilateral tissue expander cases reimbursed 1.32 times more than unilateral tissue expanders, whereas bilateral free flaps reimbursed 1.61 times more than unilateral variants. The total growth in adjusted tissue expander mean payments was 6.5 percent (from $2232 to $2378) compared with -1.8 percent (from $3858 to $3788) for free flaps. Linear modeling showed significant increases for tissue expander reimbursements only. Surgeon payments varied more for free flaps (the 25th to 75th percentile interquartile range was $2243 for free flaps versus $987 for tissue expanders). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of tissue expander cases and reimbursements rose over a period where the incidence of free flap cases and reimbursements plateaued. Reasons for stagnation in free flaps are unclear; however, the opportunity cost of performing this procedure may incentivize the alternative technique. Greater payment variation in autologous reconstruction suggests the opportunity for negotiation with payers.

The Influence of Physician Payments on the Method of Breast Reconstruction: A National Claims Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Flap-based breast reconstruction demands greater operative labor and offers superior patient-reported outcomes compared with implants. However, use of implants continues to outpace flaps, with some suggesting inadequate remuneration as one barrier. This study aims to characterize market variation in the ratio of implants to flaps and assess correlation with physician payments. METHODS: Using the Blue Health Intelligence database from 2009 to 2013, patients were identified who underwent tissue expander (i.e., implant) or free-flap breast reconstruction. The implant-to-flap ratio and physician payments were assessed using quadratic modeling. Matched bootstrapped samples from the early and late periods generated probability distributions, approximating the odds of surgeons switching reconstructive method. RESULTS: A total of 21,259 episodes of breast reconstruction occurred in 122 U.S. markets. The distribution of implant-to-flap ratio varied by market, ranging from the fifth percentile at 1.63 to the ninety-fifth percentile at 43.7 (median, 6.19). Modeling the implant-to-flap ratio versus implant payment showed a more elastic quadratic equation compared with the function for flap-to-implant ratio versus flap payment. Probability modeling demonstrated that switching the reconstructive method from implants to flaps with a 0.75 probability required a $1610 payment increase, whereas switching from flaps to implants at the same certainty occurred at a loss of $960. CONCLUSIONS: There was a correlation between the ratio of flaps to implants and physician reimbursement by market. Switching from implants to flaps required large surgeon payment increases. Despite a relative value unit schedule over twice as high for flaps, current flap reimbursements do not appear commensurate with physician effort.