The Characterization of Violent Deaths Among Asian and Pacific Islander Americans.

INTRODUCTION: Health disparities in the Asian and Pacific Islander Americans (APIAs) community have not been well described, unlike non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic communities. However, there has been a rise in violence against the APIA community. This study explores and characterizes violent death by incident (e.g., homicide, suicide), weapon (e.g., firearm, strangulation), and location types among APIAs as they compare with other racial or ethnic groups. METHODS: We used the National Violent Death Reporting System from 2003 to 2018 to characterize violent deaths among APIA and compared them to all other races. We compared these racial categories in two ways. First, we compared all races as a categorical variable that included six non-Hispanic racial categories including "Other or unspecified" and "two or more races. We then created a binary variable of APIA versus All Other Races for analysis. We explored the incident type of death, substance abuse disorders, mental health history, and gang involvement among other variables. We used Chi-square tests for categorical variables and Mann-Whitney U-tests for continuous variables. RESULTS: Overall, APIAs had a unique pattern of violent death. APIAs were more likely to commit suicide (71.74%-62.21%, P<0.001) and less likely to die of homicide than other races (17.56%-24.31%, P<0.001). In the cases of homicide, APIAs were more likely to have their deaths precipitated by another crime (40.87% versus 27.87%, P < 0.001). APIAs were more than twice as likely to die of strangulation than other races (39.93%-18.06%, P<0.001). Conversely, APIAs were less likely to die by firearm than other races (29.69-51.51, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: APIAs have a unique pattern of violence based on analysis of data from the National Violent Death Reporting System. Our data reveal a significant difference in the incident, weapon and location type as compared to Americans of other races, which begs further inquiry into the patterns of change in time and factors that contribute to inter-racial differences in death patterns.

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.

Prioritizing rapid COVID-19 testing in emergency general surgery patients decreases burden of inpatient hospital admission.

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed delivery of emergency general surgery (EGS) and contributed to widespread bed shortages. At our institution, rapid testing is not routinely approved for EGS patients. We examined common EGS conditions (appendicitis and acute cholecystitis), hypothesizing that necessity of testing for COVID-19 significantly delayed operative intervention. Methods: We performed a prepost study to examine a 2-month timeframe, or historical control, prior to COVID-19 testing (January 1, 2020-March 1, 2020) as well as a 2-month timeframe during the COVID-19 era (January 1, 2021-March 1, 2021). We chose conditions that are frequently treated surgically as outpatient or observation status. We examined time for COVID-19 test to result, and associated time to operative intervention (operating room (OR)) and need for admission. Results: Median time to COVID-19 test results was 7.4 hours (IQR 5.8-13.1). For appendectomy, time to surgical consultation or case request did not differ between cohorts. Time to OR after case request was significantly longer (12.5 vs 1.9 hours, p<0.001) and patients more frequently required admission prior to operative intervention if receiving treatment in the COVID-19 timeframe. Similarly, for cholecystectomy there were no differences in time to surgical consultation or case request, but time to OR after case request was longer in the COVID-19 era (21.1 vs 9.0 hours, p<0.001). Conclusion: While COVID-19 positivity rates have declined, the purpose of this study was to reflect on one element of our hospital system's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on our institutional experience, waiting for COVID-19 test results directly impacts time to surgery, as well as the need for admission for a historically outpatient procedure. In the future, if the healthcare system is asked to respond to another pandemic or similar situation, expediting time to OR to eliminate unnecessary time in the hospital and non-critical admissions should be paramount. Level of evidence: Level III, prognostic/epidemiological.

Emergency thoracic surgery patients have worse risk-adjusted outcomes than non-emergency patients.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes for patients undergoing emergency thoracic operations have not been well described. This study was designed to compare postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing emergency versus nonemergency thoracic operations. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2005-2018). We identified patients who underwent emergency thoracic operations using current procedural technology codes. Patients were then sorted into 1 of 4 cohorts: lung and chest wall, hiatal hernia, esophagus, and pericardium. Emergency versus nonemergency outcomes were compared. Univariate logistic regression was performed with "emergency status" as the independent variable and 30-day postoperative outcomes as the dependent variables. Multiple logistic regression models were performed to control for preoperative factors. RESULTS: Of 90,398 thoracic operations analyzed, 4,044 (4.5%) were emergency. Common emergency operations were pericardial window (n = 580, 10.2%), laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair (n = 366, 8.9%), thoracoscopic partial lung decortication (n = 334, 8.1%), thoracoscopic wedge resection (n = 301, 7.3%), thoracoscopic total lung decortication (n = 256, 6.2%), and open repair of hiatal hernia without mesh (n = 254, 6.2%). In all 4 cohorts, 30-day postoperative complications occurred more frequently after emergency surgery. After controlling for patient characteristics, 8 complications were more frequent after emergency lung and chest wall surgery, 5 complications were more frequent after emergency hiatal hernia surgery, and 3 complications were more frequent after emergency pericardium surgery. Risk-adjusted complications were not different after emergency esophageal surgery. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing emergency thoracic operations have worse risk-adjusted outcomes than those undergoing nonemergency thoracic operations. Subset analysis is needed to determine what factors contribute to increased adverse outcomes in specific patient populations.

Tick-tock: Prehospital intubation is associated with longer field time without any survival benefit.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital endotracheal intubation is a debated topic, and few studies have found it beneficial after trauma. A growing body of evidence suggests that prehospital endotracheal intubation is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Our study was designed to compare patients with attempted prehospital endotracheal intubation to those intubated promptly upon emergency department arrival. METHODS: A retrospective review of a single-center trauma research data repository was utilized. Inclusion criteria included age ≥15 years, transport from the scene by ground ambulance, and undergoing prehospital endotracheal intubation attempts or intubation within 10 minutes of emergency department arrival without prior prehospital endotracheal intubation attempt. Propensity score matching was used to minimize differences in baseline characteristics between groups. Standard mean differences are also presented for pre- and post-matching datasets to evaluate for covariate balance. RESULTS: In total, 208 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 95 patients (46%) underwent prehospital endotracheal intubation, which was successful in 47% of cases. A control group of 113 patients (54%) were intubated within 10 minutes of emergency department arrival. We performed propensity score matching between cohorts based on observed differences after univariate analysis and used standard mean differences to estimate covariate balance. After propensity score matching, patients who underwent prehospital endotracheal intubation experienced a longer time on scene as compared with those intubated in the emergency department (9 minutes [interquartile range 6-12] vs 6 minutes [interquartile range 5-9], P < .01) without difference in overall mortality (67% vs 65%, P = 1.00). Rapid sequence intubation was not used in the field; however, it was used for 58% of patients intubated within 10 minutes of emergency department arrival. After matched analysis, patients with a failed prehospital intubation attempt were equally likely to receive rapid sequence intubation during re-intubation in the emergency department as compared with those undergoing a first attempt (n = 13/28, 46% vs n = 28/63, 44%, P = 1.00, standard mean differences 0.04). Among patients with prehospital arrest (n = 98), prehospital endotracheal intubation was associated with shorter time to death (8 minutes [interquartile range 3-17] vs 14 minutes [interquartile range 8-45], P = .008) and longer total transport time (23 minutes [interquartile range 19-31] vs 19 minutes [interquartile range 16-24], P = .006), but there was no difference in observed mortality (n = 29/31, 94% vs n = 30/31, 97%, P = 1.00, standard mean differences = 0.15) after propensity score matching. CONCLUSION: Prehospital providers should prioritize expeditious transport over attempting prehospital endotracheal intubation, as prehospital endotracheal intubation is inconsistently successful, may delay definitive care, and appears to have no survival benefit.

De-implementation of Axillary Dissection in Women Undergoing Mastectomy for Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) was standard treatment for breast cancer with positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) until 2011, when data from the Z11 and AMAROS trials challenged its survival benefit in early stage breast cancer. We assessed the contribution of patient, tumor, and facility factors on cALND use in patients undergoing mastectomy and SLN biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, patients diagnosed from 2012 to 2017 who underwent upfront mastectomy and SLN biopsy with at least one positive SLN were included. A multivariable mixed effects logistic regression model was used to determine the effect of patient, tumor, and facility variables on cALND use. Reference effect measures (REM) were used to compare the contribution of general contextual effects (GCE) to variation in cALND use. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2017, the overall use of cALND decreased from 81.3% to 68.0%. Overall, younger patients, larger tumors, higher grade tumors, and tumors with lymphovascular invasion were more likely to undergo cALND. Facility variables, including higher surgical volume and facility location in the Midwest, were associated with increased use of cALND. However, REM results showed that the contribution of GCE to the variation in cALND use exceeded that of the measured patient, tumor, facility, and time variables. CONCLUSIONS: There was a decrease in cALND use during the study period. However, cALND was frequently performed in women after mastectomy found to have a positive SLN. There is high variability in cALND use, mainly driven by interfacility practice variation rather than specific high-risk patient and/or tumor characteristics.