The deimplementation of laboratory testing in low-risk patients as recommended by the American society of anesthesiologists: An ACS-NSQIP longitudinal analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) published guidelines recommending against routine preoperative laboratory testing for low-risk patients to reduce unnecessary medical expenditures. The aim of this study was to assess the change in routine preoperative laboratory testing in low-risk versus higher-risk patients before and after release of these guidelines. METHODS: The ACS-NSQIP database, 2005-2018, was separated into low-risk versus higher-risk patients based upon a previously published stratification. The guideline implementation date was defined as January 2013. Changes in preoperative laboratory testing over time were compared between low- and higher-risk patients. A difference-in-differences model was applied. The primary outcome included any laboratory test obtained ≤90 days prior to surgery. RESULTS: Of 7,507,991 patients, 972,431 (13.0%) were defined as low-risk and 6,535,560 (87.0%) higher-risk. Use of any preoperative laboratory test declined in low-risk patients from 66.5% before to 59.6% after guidelines, a 6.9 percentage point reduction, versus 93.0%-91.9% in higher-risk patients, a 1.1 percentage point reduction (p < 0.0001, comparing percentage point reductions). After risk-adjustment, the adjusted odds ratio for having any preoperative laboratory test after versus before the guidelines was 0.77 (95% CI 0.76-0.78) in low-risk versus 0.93 (0.92-0.94) in higher-risk patients. In low-risk patients, lack of any preoperative testing was not associated with worse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: While a majority of low-risk patients continue to receive preoperative laboratory testing not recommended by the ASA, there has been a decline after implementation of guidelines. Continued effort should be directed at the deimplementation of routine preoperative laboratory testing for low-risk patients.

The association between patient preoperative disposition and outcomes after diagnostic lung biopsy.

Background: Surgical diagnostic lung biopsy (DLB) is performed to guide the management of pulmonary disease with unclear etiology. However, the utilization of surgical DLB in critically ill patients remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine if patient preoperative disposition impacts complication rates after DLB. Methods: This was retrospective cohort study using electronic health record (EHR) data at one academic institution [2013-2021]. Patients who underwent DLB were identified using current procedural terminology (CPT) codes and cohorted based on preoperative disposition. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality; secondary outcomes were overall morbidity, individual complications, and changes to medical therapy. Complication rates were compared using chi-squared tests, Fisher's exact tests, or analysis of variance (ANOVA). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to generate risk-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for each complication. Results: Of 285 patients, 238 (83.5%) presented from home, 26 (9.1%) from inpatient floor units, and 21 (7.4%) from intensive care units (ICUs). Patients requiring ICU had the highest 30-day rates of mortality, overall morbidity, and all individual complications (all P<0.05). After risk adjustment, non-ICU inpatients had higher odds of postoperative ventilator use, prolonged ventilation, and ICU need than outpatients (all P<0.05). Preoperative ICU disposition was associated with increased OR of 30-day mortality [OR, 70.92; 95% confidence interval (CI): 5.55-906.32] and overall morbidity (OR, 7.27; 95% CI: 1.93-27.42) compared to patients with other preoperative dispositions. There were no differences in changes to medical therapy between the cohorts. Conclusions: Patients requiring ICU before DLB had significantly higher risk-adjusted rates of mortality and postoperative complications than outpatients and other inpatients. A clear benefit from tissue diagnosis should be defined prior to performing DLB on critically ill patients.

Anatomic Lung Resection Outcomes After Implementation of a Universal Thoracic ERAS Protocol Across a Diverse Health Care System.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate how implementing a thoracic enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol impacted surgical outcomes after elective anatomic lung resection. BACKGROUND: The effect of implementing the ERAS Society/European Society of Thoracic Surgery thoracic ERAS protocol on postoperative outcomes throughout an entire health care system has not yet been reported. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study within one health care system (January 2019-March, 2023). A thoracic ERAS protocol was implemented on May 1, 2021 for elective anatomic lung resections, and postoperative outcomes were tracked using the electronic health record and Vizient data. The primary outcome was overall morbidity; secondary outcomes included individual complications, length of stay, opioid use, chest tube duration, and total cost. Patients were grouped into pre-ERAS and post-ERAS cohorts. Bivariable comparisons were performed using independent t -test, χ 2 , or Fisher exact tests, and multivariable logistic regression was performed to control for confounders. RESULTS: There were 1007 patients in the cohort; 450 (44.7%) were in the post-ERAS group. Mean age was 66.2 years; most patients were female (65.1%), white (83.8%), had a body mass index between 18.5 and 29.9 (69.7%), and were ASA class 3 (80.6%). Patients in the postimplementation group had lower risk-adjusted rates of any morbidity, respiratory complication, pneumonia, surgical site infection, arrhythmias, infections, opioid usage, ICU use, and shorter postoperative length of stay (all P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative outcomes were improved after the implementation of an evidence-based thoracic ERAS protocol throughout the health care system. This study validates the ERAS Society/European Society of Thoracic Surgery guidelines and demonstrates that simultaneous multihospital implementation can be feasible and effective.

The Effect of Laparoscopic Gastric Ischemic Preconditioning Prior to Esophagectomy on Anastomotic Stricture Rate and Comparison with Esophagectomy-Alone Controls.

BACKGROUND: Benign anastomotic stricture is a recognized complication following esophagectomy. Laparoscopic gastric ischemic preconditioning (LGIP) prior to esophagectomy has been associated with decreased anastomotic leak rates; however, its effect on stricture and the need for subsequent endoscopic intervention is not well studied. METHODS: This was a case-control study at an academic medical center using consecutive patients undergoing oncologic esophagectomies (July 2012-July 2022). Our institution initiated an LGIP protocol on 1 January 2021. The primary outcome was the occurrence of stricture within 1 year of esophagectomy, while secondary outcomes were stricture severity and frequency of interventions within the 6 months following stricture. Bivariable comparisons were performed using Chi-square, Fisher's exact, or Mann-Whitney U tests. Multivariable regression controlling for confounders was performed to generate risk-adjust odds ratios and to identify the independent effect of LGIP. RESULTS: Of 253 esophagectomies, 42 (16.6%) underwent LGIP prior to esophagectomy. There were 45 (17.7%) anastomotic strictures requiring endoscopic intervention, including three patients who underwent LGIP and 42 who did not. Median time to stricture was 144 days. Those who underwent LGIP were significantly less likely to develop anastomotic stricture (7.1% vs. 19.9%; p = 0.048). After controlling for confounders, this difference was no longer significant (odds ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.14-1.82; p = 0.29). Of those who developed stricture, there was a trend toward less severe strictures and decreased need for endoscopic dilation in the LGIP group (all p < 0.20). CONCLUSION: LGIP may reduce the rate and severity of symptomatic anastomotic stricture following esophagectomy. A multi-institutional trial evaluating the effect of LGIP on stricture and other anastomotic complications is warranted.

The Effect of Social Vulnerability on Initial Stage and Treatment for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) is a composite metric for social determinants of health. The objective of this study was to determine if SVI influences stage at presentation for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients and subsequent therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: NSCLC patients from our local contribution to the National Cancer Database (2011-2021) were grouped into low SVI (<75 %ile) and high SVI (>75 %ile) cohorts. Demographics, cancer-related variables, and treatment modalities were compared. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to control for the impact of demographics on cancer presentation and for the impact of oncologic variables on treatment outcomes. RESULTS: Of 1,662 NSCLC patients, 435 (26 %) were defined as high SVI. Compared to the 1,227 (74 %) low SVI patients, highly vulnerable patients were more likely to be male (53.3 % vs 46.0 %, p = 0.009), non-White (17.2 % vs 9.7 %, p < 0.0001), have comorbidities (29.4 % vs 23.1 %, p = 0.009) and present at a higher AJCC clinical T, M and overall stage (all p < 0.05). These findings persisted on multivariable analysis, with highly vulnerable patients having 1.5x the odds (95 %CI: 1.23-1.86, p < 0.001) of presenting at more advanced stage. Patients with high SVI were less likely to be recommended for and receive surgery (40.9 % vs 53.2 %, p < 0.001), and this finding persisted after controlling for stage at presentation (OR 1.37, 95 %CI 1.04-1.80). CONCLUSIONS: Highly vulnerable patients present at a more advanced clinical stage and are less likely to be recommended and receive surgery, even after controlling for stage at presentation. Further investigation into these findings is warranted to achieve more equitable oncologic care.

Timing of recovery of quality of life after robotic anatomic lung resection.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an underreported aspect of surgical recovery. The purpose of our study was to track PROs after robotic anatomic lung to determine the timing to recovery of baseline patient baseline quality of life. This was a prospective cohort study at an academic medical center (4/2021-12/2022). Patients who underwent robotic anatomic lung resection were asked to complete PROMIS-29 surveys at the preoperative clinic visit, postoperative clinic visit, 30 days and 90 days postoperatively via in-person and email-based electronic surveys. The PROPr score, a summary of health-related quality of life, and mental and physical health z-scores were estimated for each patient using published methods and compared by postoperative timing. 75 patients completed the preoperative survey and at least one postoperative survey; 56 completed postoperative clinic surveys, 54 completed 30-day postoperative surveys, and 40 completed 90-day postoperative surveys. All three PROMIS scores decreased between the preoperative and first postoperative visit (all p < 0.05). PROPr scores increased over time but remained significantly worse than baseline by 90 days (-0.08 difference between 90 days and preoperative, p = 0.02). While PROMIS summary z-scores for physical health remained - 0.29 lower at 90 days postoperatively, this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.06). Mental health scores returned to baseline by 90 days postoperatively (p = 0.41). While some PROs returned to baseline by 90 days postoperatively, overall quality-of-life scores remained significantly below preoperative baselines. These findings are important to share with patients during the informed consent process to achieve patient centered care more effectively.

Social vulnerability is associated with higher risk-adjusted rates of postoperative complications in a broad surgical population.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine if an association between Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) and risk-adjusted complications exists in a broad spectrum of surgical patients. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Growing evidence supports the impact of social circumstances on surgical outcomes. SVI is a neighborhood-based measure accounting for sociodemographic factors putting communities at risk. METHODS: This was a multi-hospital, retrospective cohort study including a sample of patients within one healthcare system (2012-2017). Patient addresses were geocoded to determine census tract of residence and estimate SVI. Patients were grouped into low SVI (score<75) and high SVI (score≥75) cohorts. Perioperative variables and postoperative outcomes were tracked and compared using local ACS-NSQIP data. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to generate risk-adjusted odds ratios of postoperative complications in the high SVI cohort. RESULTS: Overall, 31,224 patients from five hospitals were included. Patients with high SVI were more likely to be racial minorities, have 12/18 medical comorbidities, have high ASA class, be functionally dependent, be treated at academic hospitals, and undergo emergency operations (all p â€‹< â€‹0.05). Patients with high SVI had significantly higher rates of 30-day mortality, overall morbidity, respiratory, cardiac and infectious complications, urinary tract infections, postoperative bleeding, non-home discharge, and unplanned readmissions (all p â€‹< â€‹0.05). After risk-adjustment, only the associations between high SVI and mortality and unplanned readmission became non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: High SVI was associated with multiple adverse outcomes even after risk adjustment for preoperative clinical factors. Targeted preventative interventions to mitigate risk of these specific complications should be considered in this high-risk population.

The United States experience with diagnosing and treating esophageal cancer during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: A retrospective cohort study.

The downstream effects on healthcare delivery during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine how the healthcare environment surrounding the pandemic affected the oncologic care of patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer. This was a retrospective cohort study evaluating patients in the National Cancer Database (2019-2020). Patients with esophageal cancer diagnoses were divided into pre-pandemic (2019) and pandemic (2020) groups. Patient demographics, cancer-related variables, and treatment modalities were compared. Among 26,231 esophageal cancer patients, 14,024 patients (53.5%) were in the pre-pandemic cohort and 12,207 (46.5%) were in the pandemic cohort. After controlling for demographics, patients diagnosed during the pandemic were more likely to have poorly differentiated tumors (odds ratio [OR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.42), pathologic T3 disease compared to T1 (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.02-1.53), positive lymph nodes on pathology (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.14-1.64), and to be pathologic stage IV (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.29-1.76). After controlling for oncologic characteristics, patients diagnosed during the pandemic were more likely to require at least two courses of systemic therapy (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.48-2.14) and to be offered palliative care (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04-1.22). While these patients were offered curative therapy at lower rates, this became non-significant after risk-adjustment (p = .15). The pandemic healthcare environment was associated with significantly increased risk-adjusted rates of patients presenting with advanced esophageal cancer. While this led to significant differences in treatment, most of these differences became non-significant after controlling for oncologic factors.

National trends in technique use for esophagectomy: Does primary surgeon specialty matter?

BACKGROUND: Cardiothoracic surgeons and general surgeons (including surgical oncologists) perform most esophagectomies. The purpose of this study was to explore whether specialty-driven differences in surgical techniques and the use of minimally invasive surgical approaches exist and are associated with postoperative outcomes after esophagectomy. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program esophagectomy-targeted participant user file (2016-2018). Patients who underwent esophagectomy were sorted into cardiothoracic and general surgeon cohorts based on surgeon specialty. Perioperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes were compared using the χ2 analysis or independent t test. Multivariable logistic regression controlling for perioperative variables was performed to generate risk-adjusted rates of postoperative outcomes compared by surgical specialty. RESULTS: Of 3,247 patients included, 1,792 (55.2%) underwent esophagectomy by cardiothoracic surgeons and 1,455 (44.5%) by general surgeons as the primary surgeon. Cardiothoracic surgeons were more likely to use traditional minimally invasive surgical (P = .0004) or open approaches (P < .0001) and less likely to use robotic (P = .04) or a hybrid robotic and traditional approaches (P < .0001). Cardiothoracic surgeons performed more Ivor Lewis esophagectomies and fewer transhiatal and McKeown esophagectomies (P < .0001). After risk adjustment, there were no differences in rates of postesophagectomy complications, such as anastomotic leaks or positive margins, between cardiothoracic surgeons and general surgeons (all P > .05). However, cardiothoracic surgeons were more likely than general surgeons to treat anastomotic leaks with surgery rather than procedural interventions (odds ratio = 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.52). CONCLUSION: Cardiothoracic surgeons and general surgeons use minimally invasive surgical subtypes differently when performing esophagectomy. However, there were no risk-adjusted differences in postoperative complications when compared by surgical subspecialty. Esophagectomy is being performed safely by surgeons with different specialties and training pathways.

Social vulnerability is associated with post-operative morbidity following robotic-assisted lung resection.

Background: The social vulnerability index (SVI) is a neighborhood-based metric used to determine an individual's susceptibility to socioeconomic hardship, with high SVI indicating high susceptibility. SVI has previously been associated with surgical outcomes. We aimed to determine if SVI influences morbidity following robotic-assisted lung resection. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study at one academic medical center (1/1/2021-11/30/2022). Patients undergoing robotic-assisted lung resection were grouped into low (<75th percentile) and high (≥75th percentile) SVI cohorts. The primary outcome was 30-day overall morbidity; secondary outcomes were individual 30-day post-operative outcomes. Univariate analysis was performed using Chi-squared or Mann-Whitney-U tests, and multivariable logistic regression was performed to generate risk-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of postoperative complications. Results: We included 320 patients, of which 40 patients (12.5%) in the high-SVI group and 280 (87.5%) in the low-SVI group. High SVI patients were more likely to be non-Caucasian and of Hispanic ethnicity, but there were no other differences in perioperative characteristics (all P>0.05). High SVI patients were more likely to experience a post-operative complication (42.5% vs. 24.6%, P=0.017), surgical site infection (SSI) (12.5% vs. 4.3%, P=0.047), hemothorax (5.0% vs. 0.0%, P=0.015), intensive care need (15.0% vs. 4.6%, P=0.021), sepsis (10.0% vs. 1.1%, P=0.006) and unplanned reoperation (5.0% vs. 0.4%, P=0.042). After risk-adjustment, the association of increased overall morbidity with high SVI persisted (OR =2.53; 95% confidence interval: 1.19-5.35). Conclusions: High SVI was associated with increased risk-adjusted odds of morbidity after robotic-assisted lung resection. Highly vulnerable patients should be allocated perioperative resources to help mitigate the increased risk of these complications.

Analyzing the impact of the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on initial oncologic presentation and treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: A significantly lower rate of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) screening, greater healthcare avoidance, and changes to oncologic recommendations were some consequences of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affecting the medical environment. We sought to determine how the healthcare environment during the COVID-19 pandemic affected the oncologic treatment of patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study evaluating patients with NSCLC in the National Cancer Database (2019-2020). Patients were divided into prepandemic (2019) and pandemic (2020) cohorts, and patient, oncologic, and treatment variables were compared. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to control for the impact of demographic characteristics on oncologic variables and the impact of oncologic variables on treatment variables. RESULTS: The study population comprised 250,791 patients, including 114,533 patients (45.7%) in the pandemic cohort. There were 15% fewer new NSCLC diagnoses during the pandemic compared with prepandemic. Patients diagnosed during the pandemic had more advanced clinical TNM stage on presentation (P < .0001) and were more likely to have tumors in overlapping lobes or in a main bronchus (P = .0002). They were less likely to receive cancer treatment (P < .0001) and to undergo primary resection (P < .0001) and more likely to receive adjuvant systemic therapy (P = .004) and a combination of palliative treatment regimens (P < .0001). After risk adjustment, all these differences remained statistically significant (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increased clinical stage at presentation for patients with NSCLC, which impacted subsequent treatment strategies. However, treatment differed minimally when controlling for cancer stage. Future studies will examine the impact of these differences on overall survival and cancer-free survival.

Perioperative hypothermia in robotic-assisted thoracic surgery: Incidence, risk factors, and associations with postoperative outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia has been associated with poor surgical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence and associated postoperative complications of inadvertent perioperative hypothermia in patients undergoing robotic-assisted thoracic surgery lung resections. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study evaluating all consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted thoracic surgery lung resection between January 1, 2021, and November 30, 2022. Temperatures were measured at 5 time points: preprocedure unit, anesthesia induction, 30 minutes postinduction, extubation, and recovery room arrival. Temperature changes were calculated at each interval. Adjusted and unadjusted comparison was performed between those who experienced varying levels of inadvertent perioperative hypothermia (Hypothermia I: <36 °C, Hypothermia II: <35.5 °C, and Hypothermia III: <35 °C) and those who did not. RESULTS: A total of 313 patients were included, and 201 (64.2%) lobectomies, 50 (16.0%) segmentectomies, and 62 (19.8%) wedge resections were performed. Across all patients, 291 (93.0%) had a temperature less than 36 °C, 195 (62.3%) had a temperature less than 35.5 °C, and 100 (31.9%) had a temperature less than 35.0 °C. Patients experienced significant temperature change at all intervals (P < .001), with the greatest loss occurring during the preprocedure interval (between leaving preprocedure unit and anesthesia induction). On adjusted analysis, patients who experienced inadvertent perioperative hypothermia less than 35.5 °C were older (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05), had lower body mass index (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.87-0.98), and had increasing operative time (odds ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01). Patients who experienced inadvertent perioperative hypothermia had higher risk-adjusted rates of overall morbidity and infectious postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients undergoing robotic-assisted thoracic surgery lung resections experience some degree of inadvertent perioperative hypothermia and have associated increased rates of 30-day morbidity. Structured and interval-specific interventions should be implemented to decrease rates of inadvertent perioperative hypothermia and subsequent complications.

Esophagram should be performed to diagnose esophageal perforation before inter-hospital transfer.

Background: Early recognition of esophageal perforation may prevent morbidity and mortality, and accurate diagnostic imaging facilitates triage. Stable patients with suspected perforation may be transferred to higher levels of care before appropriate work-up and diagnosis confirmation. We reviewed patients transferred for esophageal perforation to critically analyze the diagnostic workflow. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients transferred to our tertiary care institution from 2015-2021 for suspected esophageal perforation. Demographics, referring site characteristics, diagnostic studies, and management were analyzed. Bivariate comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests for continuous variables and chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables. Results: Sixty-five patients were included. Etiology of suspected perforation was spontaneous in 53.8% and iatrogenic in 33.8%. Most patients were transferred within 24 hours from time of suspected perforation (66.2%). Transferring sites included seven states and were 101-300 miles (32.3%) or >300 miles (26.2%) away. CT imaging was obtained in 96.9% before transfer, most commonly demonstrating pneumomediastinum (46.2%). Only 21.5% of patients had an esophagram before transfer. Following transfer, 36.9% (n=24) were ultimately not found to have esophageal perforation, demonstrated by negative arrival esophagram in 79.1%. In patients with confirmed perforation (n=41), 58.5% had surgery, 26.8% endoscopic intervention, and 14.6% supportive care. Conclusions: After transfer a proportion of patients were ultimately found to not have esophageal perforation, typically demonstrated by negative esophagram upon arrival. We conclude that a recommendation of performing esophagram at the presenting site, when possible, may prevent unnecessary transfers, and will likely reduce costs, conserve resources, and decrease management delays.

Prospective Evaluation of a Universally Applied Laparoscopic Gastric Ischemic Preconditioning Protocol Prior to Esophagectomy with Comparison with Historical Controls.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leak after esophagectomy is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Our institution began performing laparoscopic gastric ischemic preconditioning (LGIP) with ligation of the left gastric and short gastric vessels prior to esophagectomy in all patients presenting with resectable esophageal cancer. We hypothesized that LGIP may decrease the incidence and severity of anastomotic leak. METHODS: Patients were prospectively evaluated following the universal application of LGIP prior to esophagectomy protocol in January 2021 until August 2022. Outcomes were compared with patients who underwent esophagectomy without LGIP from a prospectively maintained database from 2010 to 2020. RESULTS: We compared 42 patients who underwent LGIP followed by esophagectomy with 222 who underwent esophagectomy without LGIP. Age, sex, comorbidities, and clinical stage were similar between groups. Outpatient LGIP was generally well tolerated, with one patient experiencing prolonged gastroparesis. Median time from LGIP to esophagectomy was 31 days. Mean operative time and blood loss were not significantly different between groups. Patients who underwent LGIP were significantly less likely to develop an anastomotic leak following esophagectomy (7.1% vs. 20.7%, p = 0.038). This finding persisted on multivariate analysis [odds ratio (OR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03-0.42, p = 0.029]. The occurrence of any post-esophagectomy complication was similar between groups (40.5% vs. 46.0%, p = 0.514), but patients who underwent LGIP had shorter length of stay [10 (9-11) vs. 12 (9-15), p = 0.020]. CONCLUSIONS: LGIP prior to esophagectomy is associated with a decreased risk of anastomotic leak and length of hospital stay. Further, multi-institutional studies are warranted to confirm these findings.

Preoperative risk factors and postoperative complications associated with mortality after outpatient surgery in a broad surgical population: an analysis of 2.8 million ACS-NSQIP patients.

BACKGROUND: Thirty-day mortality after outpatient surgery is unexpected and undesired. We investigated preoperative risk factors, operative variables, and postoperative complications associated with 30-day death after outpatient surgery. METHODS: Using the 2005 to 2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, we evaluated 30-day mortality rate trends over time after outpatient operations. We analyzed associations between 37 preoperative variables, operation time, hospital length of stay, and 9 postoperative complications with mortality rate using χ2 analyses for categorical data and tests for continuous data. We used forward selection logistic regression models to determine the best predictors of mortality preoperatively and postoperatively. We also separately analyzed mortality by age group. RESULTS: A total of 2,822,789 patients were included. The 30-day mortality rate did not change significantly over time (P = .34, Cochran-Armitage trend test), remaining steady at around 0.06%. The most significant preoperative predictors of mortality included the patient having disseminated cancer, decreased functional health status, increased American Society of Anesthesiology Physical Status classification, increased age, and ascites, accounting for 95.8% (0.837/0.874) of the full model c-index. The most significant postoperative complications associated with increased risk of mortality included having cardiac (26.95% yes vs 0.04% no), pulmonary (10.25% vs 0.04%), stroke (9.22% vs 0.06%), and renal (9.33% vs 0.06%) complications. Postoperative complications conferred a greater risk for mortality than preoperative variables. Mortality risk increased incrementally with age, particularly past age 80. CONCLUSION: The operative mortality rate after outpatient surgery has not changed over time. Patients over 80 years with disseminated cancer, decreased functional health status, or increased ASA class should generally be considered for inpatient surgery. However, there might be some circumstances where outpatient surgery could be considered.

Pulmonary metastasectomy is associated with survival after lung-only recurrence in pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: After surgical resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, 14% of patients have lung-only recurrence. We hypothesize that in patients with isolated lung metastases from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, pulmonary metastasectomy offers a survival benefit with minimal additional morbidity after resection. METHODS: This was a single-institution, retrospective study of patients who underwent definitive resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and later developed isolated lung metastases between 2009 and 2021. Patients were included if they carried a diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, underwent pancreatic resection with curative intent, and subsequently developed lung metastases. Patients were excluded if they developed multiple sites of recurrence. RESULTS: We identified 39 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and isolated lung metastases, 14 of whom underwent pulmonary metastasectomy. During the study period, 31 (79%) patients died. Across all patients, there was an overall survival of 45.9 months, a disease-free interval of 22.8 months, and survival after recurrence of 22.5 months. Survival after recurrence was significantly longer in patients who underwent pulmonary metastasectomy than those who did not (30.8 months vs 18.6 months, P < .01). There was no difference in overall survival between groups. However, patients who underwent pulmonary metastasectomy were significantly more likely to be alive 3 years after their diagnosis (100.0% vs 64%, P = .02) and 2 years after recurrence (79% vs 32%, P < .01) than those in who did not undergo pulmonary metastasectomy. No mortalities occurred related to pulmonary metastasectomy, and procedure-related morbidity was 7%. CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent pulmonary metastasectomy for isolated pulmonary pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma metastases had significantly longer survival after recurrence and clinically meaningful survival benefit with minimal additional morbidity after pulmonary resection.

Long-Term Patient-Reported Symptom Improvement and Quality of Life after Transthoracic Diaphragm Plication in Adults.

BACKGROUND: Open and robotic-assisted transthoracic approaches for diaphragm plication are accepted surgical interventions for diaphragm paralysis and eventration. However, long-term patient-reported symptom improvement and quality of life (QOL) remains unclear. STUDY DESIGN: A telephone-based survey was developed focusing on postoperative symptom improvement and QOL. Patients who underwent open or robotic-assisted transthoracic diaphragm plication (2008-2020) across three institutions were invited to participate. Patients who responded and provided consent were surveyed. Likert responses on symptom severity were dichotomized and rates before and after surgery were compared using McNemar's test. RESULTS: Forty-one percent of patients participated (43 of 105 responded, mean age 61.0 years, 67.4% male, 37.2% robotic-assisted surgery), with an average time between surgery and survey of 4.1 ± 3.2 years. Patients reported significant improvement in dyspnea while lying flat (67.4% pre- vs 27.9% postoperative, p < 0.001), dyspnea at rest (55.8% pre- vs 11.6% postoperative, p < 0.001), dyspnea with activity (90.7% pre- vs 55.8% postoperative, p < 0.001), dyspnea while bending over (79.1% pre- vs 34.9% postoperative, p < 0.001), and fatigue (67.4% pre- vs 41.9% postoperative, p = 0.008). There was no statistical improvement in chronic cough. 86% of patients reported improved overall QOL, 79% had increased exercise capacity, and 86% would recommend surgery to a friend with a similar problem. Analysis comparing open and robotic-assisted approaches found no statistically significant differences in symptom improvement or QOL responses between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients report significantly improved dyspneic and fatigue symptoms after transthoracic diaphragm plication, regardless of open or robotic-assisted approach. The majority of patients report improved QOL and exercise capacity.