Association of Social Deprivation Index with Home Dialysis Technique Failure: A Single Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: Despite offering several advantages to patients and healthcare systems, utilization of home dialysis modalities (HDM) remains low, particularly among racial and ethnic minorities, and those with increased sociodemographic stress. Providers' apprehension towards adverse outcomes and home dialysis failure remains a barrier to HDM referral. We investigated the relationship sociodemographic factors have on HDM use and technique failure. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult incident ESRD patients over a six-year period at the University of Rochester to evaluate the association between demographic factors, social deprivation index (SDI), and co-morbidity burden on HDM utilization and technique failure. Person-time incidence rates were calculated to compare outcome variables, and rates were compared using a Poisson Rate Ratio Test. A univariate Cox regression was used to examine predictors impacting technique failure. RESULTS: Of the 873 patients, 102 started dialysis with HDM, 79 patients converted to HDM, and 692 remained on in-center hemodialysis (ICHD). Age, race, and SDI scores were significantly different between patients starting on ICHD, peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HHD) with no significant difference in comorbidity burden. Black patients represented 32% of the overall cohort, but only 16% of the initial home dialysis population. Compared to those that remained on ICHD, individuals converting from ICHD to HDM were younger and had significantly different SDI scores. SDI was not associated with HDM technique failure. CONCLUSIONS: Historically underrepresented racial populations are less represented in those starting home dialysis, however there was no racial difference in the group transitioning to HDM after initiating ICHD. Social deprivation scores were higher in those on ICHD compared to PD. Neither social deprivation nor race predicted success on home therapy. These findings demonstrate a disparity in initial modality, and a disconnect between sociodemographic factors associated with home dialysis use and those predicting HDM technique failure.

Hernia Recurrence and Complications After Abdominal Reconstruction With Reinforced Versus Nonreinforced Biologic Mesh.

INTRODUCTION: Both biologic and permanent (synthetic) meshes are used for abdominal wall reconstruction. Biologic mesh has the advantage of eventual incorporation, which makes it generally preferred in contaminated patients compared with synthetic mesh (Ann Surg. 2013;257:991-996). However, synthetic mesh has been shown to have decreased long-term hernia recurrence despite increased complications (JAMA Surg. 2022;157:293-301). Ovitex (TelaBio, Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand) is a combined reinforced biologic mesh with a permanent Prolene suture weave that theoretically combines incorporation with a long-term strength component. We hypothesize that a reinforced biologic will have a similar complication profile but decreased long-term hernia recurrence. METHODS: A single-center retrospective review was performed from January 2013 to January 2022. Baseline patient characteristics and outcomes including 90-day complications and recurrence were compared. Categorical and continuous variables were analyzed with χ2 and Wilcoxon rank sum tests, respectively. Predictors of postoperative complications and hernia recurrence were analyzed via univariate logistic regression and multivariate logistic regression with backward stepwise selection with a threshold of P < 0.2. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-four patients underwent abdominal wall reconstruction biologic mesh (Strattice, Allergan; FlexHD, MTF Biologics; Alloderm, Allergan; Surgisis Gold, Cook Biotech; Ovitex, Telabio) with retrorectus (66.5%) or intraperitoneal (33.5%) mesh placement. Sixty-six of these used reinforced biologic mesh (Ovitex, TelaBio). Baseline characteristics were comparable including preoperative hernia size measured on CT. The mean follow-up time was 343 days. The majority of patients underwent component separation (80.3% bilateral, 11.4% unilateral, 8.3% none). On univariate analysis, reinforced biologic mesh did not impact 90-day complication rates (P = 0.391) or hernia recurrence rates (P = 0.349). On multivariate analysis, reinforced mesh had no impact on complication or recurrence rates (P > 0.2). A previous history of infected mesh was an independent risk factor for hernia recurrence (P = 0.019). Nonreinforced biologics were more likely to be used in instances of previous mesh infection (P = 0.025), bowel resection (P = 0.026), and concomitantly at the time of stoma takedown (P = 0.04). Reinforced biologics were more likely to be used with a history of previous hernia repair with recurrence not due to infection (P = 0.001). Body mass index >35 was an independent risk factor across both groups for 90-day complications (P = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: Reinforced versus nonreinforced biologics have similar risk profile and recurrence rate when placed primary fascial repair achieved. In abdominal walls with history of infection, or abdominal wall reconstruction performed concomitantly at the time of stoma takedown or bowel resection/anastomosis, nonreinforced biologics were used more commonly with no difference in negative outcomes. This implies that they may have a role for use in contaminated surgical cases. Reinforced biologics were more commonly used as a mesh choice in the setting of previous hernia repair with recurrence with no difference in outcomes. This implies that the reinforced nature may be useful in situations where extra reinforcement of already traumatized abdominal wall tissue is needed. Retrorectus or intraperitoneal placement of any biologic mesh is acceptable and should be chosen based off surgeon comfort and anticipated cost saving of individual mesh brands. There may be a role for reinforced mesh in the setting of previous failed hernia repair with weakened fascia, as well as nonreinforced in contaminated cases.

Preoperative Risk Factors Impacting Length of Stay After Transcarotid Artery Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), using interoperative flow reversal is a unique, hybrid operation utilized in treating critical carotid artery stenosis. Over the past decade, TCAR has been increasingly used to treat asymptomatic carotid artery disease and has a similar risk profile to traditional carotid endarterectomy. Postoperative length of stay (LOS) has a significant impact on cost-effectiveness and quality outcomes in this expanded setting. The objective of this study is to develop a multivariate regression model to identify key preoperative variables and their impact factor on LOS after TCAR for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. We hypothesized that high-risk preoperative patient factors historically identified in carotid endarterectomy would similarly impact LOS after TCAR. METHODS: A multi-institution, retrospective study of all adult patients undergoing TCAR with flow-reversal for intraoperative neuroprotection was performed using the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) from January 2016 to August 2021. Patients with prolonged preoperative hospitalization (preoperative LOS ≥1 day) were excluded to enhance the capture of carotid artery stenosis as the index admission. Univariate analysis was done on preoperative factors against LOS using nonparametric statistical tests. A multivariate model was then constructed using a negative binomial regression. The study population was split into 80% "training" data for model formulation and 20% "test" data for model validation. RESULTS: Thirteen thousand four hundred eighty-three patients undergoing TCAR for asymptomatic carotid stenosis met the study's inclusion criteria with a median postoperative LOS of 1.82 days. Factors in VQI found to have a significant effect on LOS and retained in the multivariate model were lesion type (restenosis versus atherosclerotic), age, gender, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, preoperative beta blocker, calcific lesion burden, hypertension status, and race (P < 0.05). The model accurately predicted LOS after TCAR within 1 day for 86.04% and within 2 days for 94.51% of patients in the test population. CONCLUSIONS: This large-scale analysis from 2016 to 2021 spans a considerable expansion in the practice of TCAR for asymptomatic carotid disease. All preoperative variables shown to significantly increase the postoperative LOS were derived from the VQI data set. As LOS is a measure of health-care efficiency and cost-effectiveness, this model can be used to identify patients at risk for increased postoperative LOS. It has the potential to be incorporated into a patient/physician decision support tool to optimize resource planning and patient selection for elective TCAR.