Palliative Intervention for Malignant Bowel Obstruction Comes at a Cost: A National Inpatient Study.

Background: Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) due to peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is associated with poor outcomes. Optimal management for palliation remains unclear. This study aims to characterize nonoperative, procedural, and operative management strategies for MBO and evaluate its association with mortality and cost.Materials and Methods: ICD-10 coding identified patient admissions from the 2018 to 2019 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) for MBO with PC from gastrointestinal or ovarian primary cancers. Management was categorized as nonoperative, procedural, or surgical. Multivariate analysis was used to associate treatment with mortality and cost.Results: 356,316 patient admissions were identified, with a mean age of 63 years. Gender, race, and insurance status were similar among groups. Length of stay (LOS) was longest in the surgical group (surgical: 17 days; procedural: 14 days; nonoperative: 7 days; P = .001). In comparison to nonoperative, procedural and surgical patients had statistically higher hospital charges, post-discharge medical needs, palliative care consults, and admission to rehab centers. Mortality was 7% in nonoperative, 9% in procedural, and 8% in surgical (P = .007) groups. In adjusted analyses, older age, palliative care consult, and non-Medicare payer status were associated with higher mortality. Compared to nonoperative, procedural and surgical groups resulted in increased costs (procedural: $17K more; surgical: $30K more).Conclusions: Admissions for procedural and surgical treatment of MBO are associated with increased LOS, hospital costs, and discharge needs. Optimal management remains challenging. Clinicians must examine all options prior to recommending palliative interventions given a trend towards higher resource utilization and mortality.

Factors Predicting Readmission and Mortality in Patients Admitted for Malignant Bowel Obstruction.

INTRODUCTION: Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a common complication of patients with advanced malignancies and has poor prognosis. Currently, there are limited guidelines for MBO management or predicting outcomes for these patients. OBJECTIVE: To identify patient factors associated with readmission and mortality after hospital admission for MBO. PARTICIPANTS: A 5-year retrospective review was performed from 2017 to 2022 at a single tertiary institution to evaluate patients admitted for MBO. All patients had advanced cancer of gastrointestinal or gynecologic primary. Patient demographics, socioeconomic factors, tumor characteristics, and inpatient outcomes were collected. Multivariable analyses were performed to determine variables predicting hospital readmission for recurrent MBO and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: 210 patients were included. Mean age was 61 years, 28% were male, and 19% did not primarily speak English. 35% of patients lived over 50 miles from the hospital. On multivariable analysis, non-English speaking patients exhibited increased risk of readmission for MBO (OR = 2.82, P = .039). Older age was associated with decreased risk for MBO readmission (OR = .96, P = .007). Ascites was associated with increased mortality (OR = 2.17, P = .043). Earlier palliative care (PC) consultation predicted decreased readmission (OR = .24, P < .001) yet increased mortality at 90 days (OR = 3.20, P = .003). CONCLUSION: Patient age, primary language, and PC consult were predictors for MBO readmission, which may impact 90-day mortality. Given the palliative nature of MBO, modifiable factors such as PC consultation and multidisciplinary goals of care discussions should be prioritized in order to reduce readmissions and focus on quality of life (QOL) for this patient population.

Improved Postoperative Pain Management Outcomes After Implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocol for Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC).

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis is promising but has potential for significant morbidity and prolonged hospitalization. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a standardized protocol designed to optimize perioperative care. This study describes trends in epidural and opioid use after implementing ERAS for CRS-HIPEC at a tertiary academic center. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC from January 2020 to September 2023 was conducted. ERAS was implemented in February 2022. Medication and outcomes data were compared before and after ERAS initiation. All opioids were converted to morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). RESULTS: A total of 136 patients underwent CRS-HIPEC: 73 (54%) pre- and 63 (46%) post-ERAS. Epidural usage increased from 63% pre-ERAS to 87% post-ERAS (p = 0.001). Compared with those without epidurals, patients with epidurals had decreased total 7-day oral and intravenous (IV) opioid requirements (45 MME vs. 316 MME; p < 0.001). There was no difference in 7-day opioid totals between pre- and post-ERAS groups. After ERAS, more patients achieved early ambulation (83% vs. 53%; p < 0.001), early diet initiation (81% vs. 25%; p < 0.001), and early return of bowel function (86% vs. 67%; p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: ERAS implementation for CRS-HIPEC was associated with increased epidural use, decreased oral and IV opioid use, and earlier bowel function return. Our study demonstrates that epidural analgesia provides adequate pain control while significantly decreasing oral and IV opioid use, which may promote gastrointestinal recovery postoperatively. These findings support the implementation of an ERAS protocol for effective pain management in patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC.

PIPAC for Gastrointestinal Malignancies.

The peritoneum is a common site of metastases for gastrointestinal tumors that predicts a poor outcome. In addition to decreased survival, peritoneal metastases (PMs) can significantly impact quality of life from the resulting ascites and bowel obstructions. The peritoneum has been a target for regional therapies due to the unique properties of the blood-peritoneum barrier. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) have become accepted treatments for limited-volume peritoneal disease in appendiceal, ovarian, and colorectal malignancies, but there are limitations. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) improves drug distribution and tissue penetration, allowing for a minimally invasive application for patients who are not CRS/HIPEC candidates based on high disease burden. PIPAC is an emerging treatment that may convert the patient to resectable disease, and may increase survival without major morbidity, as indicated by many small studies. In this review, we discuss the rationale and benefits of PIPAC, as well as sentinel papers describing its application for gastric, colorectal, appendiceal, and pancreatobiliary PMs. While no PIPAC device has yet met FDA approval, we discuss next steps needed to incorporate PIPAC into neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment paradigms, as well as palliative settings. Data on active clinical trials using PIPAC are provided.

The Role of Prophylactic and Adjuvant Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) in Prevention of Peritoneal Metastases in Advanced Colorectal Cancer.

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a locoregional therapy that may be combined with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) to treat patients with colorectal cancer and peritoneal metastases (PM). In recent years, three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the role of prophylactic or adjuvant HIPEC in preventing the development of PM in patients with high-risk colorectal cancer: PROPHYLOCHIP and COLOPEC evaluated adjuvant HIPEC, and HIPECT4 studied concurrent HIPEC and CRS. Although PROPHYLOCHIP and COLOPEC were negative trials, a great deal may be learned from their methodology, outcome measures, and patient selection criteria. HIPECT4 is the first RCT to show a clinical benefit of HIPEC in high-risk T4 colorectal cancer, demonstrating improved locoregional disease control with the addition of HIPEC to CRS with no increase in the rate of complications. This review critically examines the strengths and limitations of each major trial and discusses their potential impact on the practice of HIPEC. Several additional ongoing clinical trials also seek to investigate the role of HIPEC in preventing PM in advanced colorectal cancer.

Impact of Successful Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol for Patients Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) are complex operations for the treatment of peritoneal metastases. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are intended to standardize preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative pathways, with the goal of improving patient care. This study describes feasibility and outcomes after implementing an ERAS protocol for CRS/HIPEC at a tertiary academic center. METHODS: A single-institution experience of CRS/HIPEC was reviewed from January 2020 to March 2023. Patients were categorized according to whether they underwent CRS/HIPEC before or after ERAS initiation. Outcomes and protocol adherence were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 115 CRS/HIPEC operations were included-74 before and 41 after ERAS implementation. Median age was younger in the post-ERAS group, whereas sex, comorbidities, peritoneal carcinomatosis index, operation performed, and operative time were similar between groups. The most common primary cancer sites were gynecologic (40%), appendiceal (24%), and colorectal (22%). Adherence to all postoperative ERAS components was 76%. More post-ERAS patients ambulated by postoperative day (POD) 1 (90% vs. 54%; p < 0.001), tolerated liquid diet by POD 2 (88% vs. 32%; p < 0.001), and had foley removed by POD 3 (86% vs. 43%; p < 0.001). There was a trend toward decreased length of stay in the post-ERAS cohort (7 vs. 8 days; p = 0.092), with no difference in major complications, intensive care unit admission, or 30-day readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the heterogeneity of CRS/HIPEC operations, implementing an ERAS protocol for our patients was feasible and resulted in postoperative outcomes and adherence comparable with that of other major abdominal surgeries. This supports the potential for success in ERAS programs for CRS/HIPEC patients.

Improving tracheostomy delivery for trauma and surgical critical care patients: timely trach initiative.

BACKGROUND: Tracheostomy is recommended within 7 days of intubation for patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) or requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation. A quality improvement project aimed to decrease time to tracheostomy to ≤7 days after intubation for eligible patients requiring tracheostomy in the surgical intensive care unit (SICU). LOCAL PROBLEM: From January 2017 to June 2018, approximately 85% of tracheostomies were performed >7 days after intubation. The tracheostomy was placed a median of 10 days after intubation (range: 1-57). METHODS: Quality improvement principles were applied at an American College of Surgeons-verified level I trauma centre to introduce and analyse interventions to improve tracheostomy timing. Using the electronic health record, we analysed changes in tracheostomy timing, hospital length of stay (LOS), ventilator-associated pneumonia and peristomal bleeding rates for three subgroups: patients with TBI, trauma patients and all SICU patients. INTERVENTIONS: In July 2018, an educational roll-out for SICU residents and staff was launched to inform them of potential benefits of early tracheostomy and potential complications, which they should discuss when counselling patient decision-makers. In July 2019, an early tracheostomy workflow targeting patients with head injury was published in an institutional Trauma Guide app. RESULTS: Median time from intubation to tracheostomy decreased for all patients from 14 days (range: 4-57) to 8 days (range: 1-32, p≤0.001), and median hospital LOS decreased from 38 days to 24 days (p<0.001, r=0.35). Median time to tracheostomy decreased significantly for trauma patients after publication of the algorithm (10 days (range: 3-21 days) to 6 days (range: 1-15 days), p=0.03). Among patients with TBI, family meetings were held earlier for patients who underwent early versus late tracheostomy (p=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: We recommend regular educational meetings, enhanced by digitally published guidelines and strategic communication as effective ways to improve tracheostomy timing. These interventions standardised practice and may benefit other institutions.

Facial Fractures Have Similar Outcomes When Managed by Either Otolaryngology or Plastic Surgery: Encounters From a Single Level I Trauma Center.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort. Objective: Traumatic facial fractures (FFs) often require specialty consultation with Plastic Surgery (PS) or Otolaryngology (ENT); however, referral patterns are often non-standardized and institution specific. Therefore, we sought to compare management patterns and outcomes between PS and ENT, hypothesizing no difference in operative rates, complications, or mortality. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with FFs at a single Level I trauma center from 2014 to 2017. Patients were compared by consulting service: PS vs. ENT. Chi-square and Mann-Whitney-U tests were performed. Results: Of the 755 patients with FFs, 378 were consulted by PS and 377 by ENT. There was no difference in demographic data (P > 0.05). Patients managed by ENT received a longer mean course of antibiotics (9.4 vs 7.0 days, P = 0.008) and had a lower rate of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) (9.8% vs. 15.3%, P = 0.017), compared to PS patients. No difference was observed in overall operative rate (15.1% vs. 19.8%), use of computed tomography (CT) imaging (99% vs. 99%), time to surgery (65 vs. 55 hours, P = 0.198), length of stay (LOS) (4 vs. 4 days), 30-day complication rate (10.6% vs. 7.1%), or mortality (4.5% vs. 2.6%) (all P > 0.05). Conclusion: Our study demonstrated similar baseline characteristics, operative rates, complications, and mortality between FFs patients who had consultation by ENT and PS. This supports the practice of allowing both ENT and PS to care for trauma FFs patients, as there appears to be similar standardized care and outcomes. Future studies are needed to evaluate the generalizability of our findings.

Review of Regional Therapies for Gastric Cancer with Peritoneal Metastases.

Gastric cancer carries a poor prognosis and is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Patients with gastric cancer who develop peritoneal metastases have an even more dismal prognosis, with median survival time measured in months. Since studies have demonstrated that systemic chemotherapy has poor penetration into the peritoneum, multimodal treatment with intraperitoneal chemotherapy has been proposed for the treatment of peritoneal metastases and has become the foundation for newer therapeutic techniques and clinical trials. These include heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) with cytoreductive surgery (CRS), which involves the application of heated chemotherapy into the abdomen with or without tumor debulking surgery; normothermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (NIPEC), in which non-heated chemotherapy can be delivered into the abdomen via a peritoneal port allowing for repeat dosing; and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC), a newer technique of pressurized and aerosolized chemotherapy delivered into the abdomen during laparoscopy. Early results with intraperitoneal chemotherapy have shown promise in increasing disease-free and overall survival in select patients. Additionally, there may be a palliative effect of these regional therapies. In this review, we explore and summarize these different intraperitoneal chemotherapy treatment regimens for gastric cancer with peritoneal metastases.

Induction Therapy Is Not Associated With Improved Survival in Large cT4 N0 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancers.

BACKGROUND: The eighth edition of the staging manual for non-small cell lung cancer reclassified tumors >7 cm as stage IIIA (T4 N0); previously, such tumors without nodal disease were considered stage IIB (T3 N0). This study tested the hypothesis that induction chemotherapy for these stage IIIA patients does not improve survival compared with primary surgery. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with non-small cell lung cancer with tumor size >7 cm who underwent surgical resection from 2010 to 2015. Patients with clinically node-positive disease or tumor invasion of major structures were excluded. Patients undergoing induction chemotherapy followed by surgical resection (IC group) were compared with patients undergoing primary surgery (PS group). Propensity score matching was performed. RESULTS: In total, 1610 patients with cT4 N0 disease on the basis of tumor size >7 cm and no tumor invasion underwent surgical resection: 1346 (83.6%) comprised the PS group and 264 (16.4%) the IC group. After propensity score matching, the IC group had a higher rate of pN0 (78.4% vs 66.0%; P < .001) and less lymphovascular invasion (13.9% vs 26.3%; P < .001), but longer postoperative stays (6 days vs 5 days; P < .001) and higher 30-day mortality (3.5% vs 0%; P = .002). Median 5-year survival was similar between the IC and PS groups (53.5% vs 62.2%; P = .075), and IC was not independently associated with survival (hazard ratio, 1.45; P = .146). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cT4 N0 non-small cell lung cancer on the basis of tumor size >7 cm and no tumor invasion of major structures have similar overall survival with either induction chemotherapy or primary surgery. Induction chemotherapy should not be routinely given for this subset of stage IIIA patients.

University Teaching Trauma Centers: Decreased Mortality but Increased Complications.

BACKGROUND: Teaching hospitals are often regarded as excellent institutions with significant resources and prominent academic faculty. However, the involvement of trainees may contribute to higher rates of complications. Conflicting reports exist regarding outcomes between teaching and nonteaching hospitals, and the difference among trauma centers is unknown. We hypothesized that university teaching trauma centers (UTTCs) and nonteaching trauma centers (NTTCs) would have a similar risk of complications and mortality. METHODS: We queried the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010-2016) for adults treated at UTTCs or NTTCs. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the risk of mortality and in-hospital complications, such as respiratory complications (RCs), venous thromboembolisms (VTEs), and infectious complications (ICs). RESULTS: From 895,896 patients, 765,802 (85%) were treated at UTTCs and 130,094 (15%) at NTTCs. After adjusting for covariates, UTTCs were associated with an increased risk of RCs (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, confidence interval (CI) 1.28-1.37, P < 0.001), VTEs (OR 1.17, CI 1.12-1.23, P < 0.001), and ICs (OR 1.56, CI 1.49-1.64, P < 0.001). However, UTTCs were associated with decreased mortality (OR 0.96, CI 0.93-0.99, P = 0.008) compared with NTTCs. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates increased associated risks of RCs, VTEs, and ICs, yet a decreased associated risk of in-hospital mortality for UTTCs when compared with NTTCs. Future studies are needed to identify the underlying causative factors behind these differences.