Current Perioperative Care in Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Step-by-Step Surgical Roadmap from First Visit to Discharge.

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a mainstay in the management of periampullary tumors. Treatment algorithms increasingly employ a multimodal strategy, which includes neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies. However, the successful treatment of a patient is contingent on the execution of a complex operation, whereby minimizing postoperative complications and optimizing a fast and complete recovery are crucial to the overall success. In this setting, risk reduction and benchmarking the quality of care are essential frameworks through which modern perioperative PD care must be delivered. The postoperative course is primarily influenced by pancreatic fistulas, but other patient- and hospital-associated factors, such as frailty and the ability to rescue from complications, also affect the outcomes. A comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing surgical outcomes allows the clinician to risk stratify the patient, thereby facilitating a frank discussion of the morbidity and mortality of PD. Further, such an understanding allows the clinician to practice based on the most up-to-date evidence. This review intends to provide clinicians with a roadmap to the perioperative PD pathway. We review key considerations in the pre-, intra-, and post-operative periods.

Factors associated with preference of choice of aortic aneurysm repair in the PReference for Open Versus Endovascular repair of AAA (PROVE-AAA) study.

OBJECTIVE: Patients can choose between open repair and endovascular repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). However, the factors associated with patient preference for one repair type over another are not well-characterized. Here we assess the factors associated with preference of choice for open or endovascular AAA repair among veterans exposed to a decision aid to help with choosing surgical treatment. METHODS: Across 12 Veterans Affairs hospitals, veterans received a decision aid covering domains including patient information sources and understanding preference. Veterans were then given a series of surveys at different timepoints examining their preferences for open versus endovascular AAA repair. Questions from the preference survey were used in analyses of patient preference. Results were analyzed using χ2 tests. A logistic regression analysis was performed to assess factors associated with preference for open repair or preference for EVAR. RESULTS: A total of 126 veterans received a decision aid informing them of their treatment choices, after which 121 completed all preference survey questions; five veterans completed only part of the instruments. Overall, veterans who preferred open repair were typically younger (70 years vs 73 years; P = .02), with similar rates of common comorbidities (coronary disease 16% vs 28%; P = .21), and similar aneurysms compared with those who preferred EVAR (6.0 cm vs 5.7 cm; P = .50). Veterans in both preference categories (28% of veterans preferring EVAR, 48% of veterans preferring open repair) reported taking their doctor's advice as the top box response for the single most important factor influencing their decision. When comparing the tradeoff between less invasive surgery and higher risk of long-term complications, more than one-half of veterans preferring EVAR reported invasiveness as more important compared with approximately 1 in 10 of those preferring open repair (53% vs 12%; P < .001). Shorter recovery was an important factor for the EVAR group (74%) and not important in the open repair group (76%) (P = .5). In multivariable analyses, valuing a short hospital stay (odds ratio, 12.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-135.70) and valuing a shorter recovery (odds ratio, 15.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-240.20) were associated with a greater odds of preference for EVAR, whereas finding these characteristics not important was associated with a greater odds of preference for open repair. CONCLUSIONS: When faced with the decision of open repair versus EVAR, veterans who valued a shorter hospital stay and a shorter recovery were more likely to prefer EVAR, whereas those more concerned about long-term complications preferred an open repair. Veterans typically value the advice of their surgeon over their own beliefs and preferences. These findings need to be considered by surgeons as they guide their patients to a shared decision.

The Impact of Work Status and Age in Choosing Type of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

INTRODUCTION: The PReferences for Open Versus Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (PROVE-AAA) trial aimed to determine the efficacy of a validated decision aid to enable better alignment between patient preference and their ultimate repair. We sought to determine the key factors influencing the decision-making of veterans for endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR) or open surgical repair (OSR). METHODS: A total of 235 veterans in the PROVE-AAA trial were asked their information sources regarding repairs, employment status, and preferred intervention. Answers were coded and analyzed using conventional content analysis to generate nonoverlapping themes, then stratified by employment status. RESULTS: Forty-two patients (17.8% of enrollees) provided their source of information for OSR prior to using a decision aid. 81% of retired veterans were greater than 70 y old, while 58% of nonretired veterans were greater than 70 (P = 0.003). The most common information source was from a vascular surgeon/professional or unspecified MD/other health professionals (51.4%), while sources from outside this group made up the remaining 48.5%. The most preferred procedure was EVAR. However, nonretired individuals were more likely to prefer OSR. These data on information source and preferred procedure were similar in patients who provided their source for EVAR. CONCLUSIONS: Veterans in the PROVE-AAA study were more likely to be retired and more likely to rely on information from an unspecified MD/other health professionals for EVAR. Although both retired and nonretired veterans preferred EVAR the most, nonretired veterans were more likely to prefer OSR despite being younger.

Short-Term Concerns Primarily Determine Patient Preference for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

INTRODUCTION: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair may be performed through open or endovascular approaches, but the factors influencing a patient's repair-type preference are not well characterized. Here we performed a qualitative analysis to better understand factors influencing patient preference within the Preference for Open Versus Endovascular Repair of AAA Trial. METHODS: Open-ended responses regarding primary (n = 21) and secondary (n = 47) factors influencing patient preference underwent qualitative analysis using the constant comparative method with iterative reviews. Codes were used to generate themes and themes grouped into categories, with each step conducted via consensus agreement between three researchers. Relative prevalence of themes were compared to ascertain trends in patient preference. RESULTS: Patient responses regarding both primary and secondary factors fell into four categories: Short-term concerns, long-term concerns, advice & experience, and other. Patients most frequently described short-term concerns (23) as their primary influence, with themes including post-op complications, hospitalization & recovery, and intraoperative concerns. Long-term concerns were more prevalent (20) as secondary factors, which included themes such as survival, and chronic management. The average age of patients voicing only long-term concerns as a primary factor was 11 years younger than those listing only short-term concerns. CONCLUSION: Short-term concerns relating to the procedure and recovery are more often the primary factor influencing patient preference, while long term concerns play a more secondary role. Long-term concerns are more often a primary factor in younger patients. Vascular surgeons should consider this information in shared decision making to reach an optimal outcome.

A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of Patient Education Materials for Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patient education materials are created by professional organizations to inform patients about their disease and its treatment. However, it remains unclear if these materials are appropriate for patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to broadly evaluate the education materials for patients with colorectal cancer. DESIGN: Patient education materials from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the National Cancer Institute, and the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons were assessed quantitatively by using 1) the Flesch-Kincaid readability formula and 2) the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool. The Patient Education Material Assessment Tool scores materials in 2 domains: understandability and actionability. These materials were further evaluated qualitatively via an exploratory focus group with patients and their caregivers (n = 5) and semi-structured interviews with board-certified/eligible colorectal surgeons (n = 10). SETTING: This study was conducted at academic centers and a regional professional society meeting. PARTICIPANTS: The mean patient age was 63. Most surgeons (8/10) practiced in an academic setting, and 4/10 were female. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were reading grade level and domain scores for the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool. Qualitative data were recorded, transcribed, and coded. Themes were generated through data interpretation and data reduction. RESULTS: Materials ranged from 7th to 11th grade reading level. National Comprehensive Cancer Network materials scored highest for understandability (92.2% ± 6.1%, mean ± SD), followed by National Cancer Institute (84.0% ± 6.6%) and American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (82.2% ± 6.3%) materials. Actionability scores varied; the National Comprehensive Cancer Network materials scored 82.5% ± 1.7%, whereas the National Cancer Institute and American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons materials scored 23.3% ± 6.7% and 50.0% ± 8.2%. Critical gaps were identified in the content of these materials. Patients wanted more information about self-care, both emotional and physical. Specifically, patients sought details about postoperative bowel function. Whereas surgeons wanted information about the typical hospital course and recovery, all wanted materials to be customizable. LIMITATIONS: A limited number of materials were reviewed, and patient focus groups were exploratory. CONCLUSIONS: Commonly available printed education materials for colorectal cancer are written at a high reading grade level, vary in their usability, and neglect important details about postoperative recovery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B535. EVALUACIN DE MTODOS MIXTOS DE MATERIALES EDUCATIVOS PARA PACIENTES SOBRE CNCER COLORECTAL: ANTECEDENTES:Los materiales educativos para pacientes son creados por organizaciones profesionales para informar a los pacientes sobre su enfermedad y su tratamiento. Sin embargo, no está claro si estos materiales son apropiados para los pacientes.OBJETIVO:Evaluar ampliamente los materiales para el cáncer colorrectal.DISEÑO:Los materiales educativos para pacientes de la Red Nacional Integral del Cáncer (NCCN), el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer (NCI) y la Sociedad Americana de Cirujanos de Colon y Recto (ASCRS) se evaluaron cuantitativamente utilizando (1) la fórmula de legibilidad de Flesch-Kincaid y (2) la herramienta de evaluación de material educativo para pacientes. La Herramienta de evaluación de materiales educativos para pacientes califica los materiales en dos dominios: comprensibilidad y viabilidad. Estos materiales fueron evaluados cualitativamente a través de un grupo de enfoque exploratorio con pacientes y sus cuidadores (n = 5) y entrevistas semiestructuradas con cirujanos colorrectales certificados o elegibles para certificación por el consejo (n = 10).ESCENARIO:Centros académicos y un encuentro regional de una sociedad profesional.PACIENTES:La edad media de los pacientes fue de 63 años. La mayoría de los cirujanos (8/10) practicaban en un entorno académico, y 4/10 eran mujeres.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Nivel de grado de lectura y puntajes de dominios para la Herramienta de evaluación de materiales educativos para pacientes. Los datos cualitativos se registraron, transcribieron y codificaron. Los temas se generaron mediante la interpretación y la reducción de datos.RESULTADOS:Los materiales variaron desde el nivel de lectura del 7° al 11° grado. Los materiales de la NCCN obtuvieron la puntuación más alta en comprensibilidad (92.2 ± 6.1%, media ± DE), seguidos por los materiales de NCI (84.0 ± 6.6%) y ASCRS (82.2 ± 6.3%). Los puntajes de viabilidad variaron; Los materiales de NCCN obtuvieron una puntuación de 82.5 ± 1.7%, mientras que los materiales de NCI y ASCRS obtuvieron una puntuación de 23.3 ± 6.7% y 50.0 ± 8.2%, respectivamente. Se identificaron lagunas críticas en el contenido de estos materiales. Los pacientes querían más información sobre el autocuidado, tanto emocional como físico. Específicamente, los pacientes buscaron detalles sobre la función intestinal posoperatoria. Mientras que los cirujanos querían información sobre el curso hospitalario típico y la recuperación, y todos querían que los materiales fueran personalizables.LIMITACIONES:Se revisó una cantidad limitada de materiales y los grupos de enfoque de pacientes fueron exploratorios.CONCLUSIONES:Los materiales educativos impresos comúnmente disponibles para el cáncer colorrectal están escritos a un alto nivel de grado de lectura, varían en su usabilidad y omiten detalles importantes sobre la recuperación postoperatoria. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B535.

Restorative reconstruction after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer is associated with significant bowel dysfunction from initial presentation.

BACKGROUND: Patients often desire restorative reconstruction following total mesorectal excision. Reconstruction has become synonymous with providing high-quality rectal cancer care. However, the bowel functional outcomes of restoration from presentation are unknown. We aimed to evaluate the bowel functional effects of rectal cancer treatment from presentation through surveillance. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study from 2014 to 2019 using prospectively collected data. Patients underwent treatment for rectal adenocarcinoma including restorative reconstruction. Patients completed the validated Colorectal Functional Outcome questionnaire during clinic visits (1) at presentation, (2) after neoadjuvant therapy, (3) after restoration of continuity, and (4) at surveillance. Scores range from 0 to 100 with a higher score indicating worse bowel function. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients (age: 62 ±â€¯12 years, 40% female) were included. The mean tumor height was 7 ±â€¯4 cm with 85% symptomatic. Bowel function did not worsen from presentation to after neoadjuvant therapy in Total Colorectal Functional Outcome and most domain scores; there was improvement in frequency and stool-related aspects. Bowel function worsened in all scores from after neoadjuvant to restoration of continuity (mean anastomotic height: 5 ±â€¯2 cm); there were similar findings between presentation and restoration of continuity. At surveillance, there was improvement in most domains compared with restoration of continuity. There remained significant worsening of incontinence, social impact, and need for medication scores at surveillance compared with presentation. CONCLUSION: Restorative reconstruction after total mesorectal excision is associated with significant bowel dysfunction. For some patients, restorative reconstruction may not be high-quality rectal cancer care.

Eliminating Opioids from Breast Conserving Surgery: Perioperative Pain Management Pathway.

BACKGROUND: Opioid prescribing guidelines for partial mastectomy (PM) and PM with sentinel lymph node biopsy (PM-SLNB) recommend prescribing anywhere from 0 to 15 oxycodone pills for postoperative pain. We sought to eliminate opioids after breast-conserving surgery. STUDY DESIGN: In January 2017, we implemented a perioperative pathway in which patients received (1) preoperative acetaminophen, (2) pre-incisional bupivacaine skin infiltration, (3) post-excision bupivacaine wound deposition, (4) intraoperative ketorolac, (5) instructions to use both acetaminophen and ibuprofen for postoperative analgesia, and (6) counseling to set the expectation that opioids would not be required. We measured the percentage of patients who received, filled, and used opioid prescriptions. We compared this to historical institutional data from 2016. RESULTS: There were 226 patients (mean age: 62 ± 13 years) who underwent surgery: 50% (114 of 226) underwent PM alone and 50% (112 of 226) PM-SLNB. Twenty-four patients (11%) required opioids in the recovery unit, and 14 (6%) were discharged home with a prescription. Five of the 14 patients (36%) did not fill their prescription. Among the patients who did fill their prescription, only 1 patient used opioids. In addition, 2 (1%) patients had difficulty managing their postoperative pain and were prescribed opioids within 7 days of surgery. Ultimately, 99% (223 of 226) of patients managed their postoperative pain after discharge without opioids. This represents a significant decrease in opioid use after breast conserving surgery, from 40% in 2016 to 1% after pathway implementation, p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: When a multimodal nonopioid pain pathway was implemented, 99% of patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery did not require opioids after discharge.

Five-year reintervention after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Patients who undergo endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVR) remain at risk for reintervention and rupture. We sought to define the 5-year rate of reintervention and rupture after EVR in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). METHODS: We identified all patients in the VQI who underwent EVR from 2003 to 2015. We linked patients in the VQI to Medicare claims for long-term outcomes. We stratified patients on baseline clinical and procedural characteristics to identify those at risk for reintervention. Our primary outcomes were 5-year rates of reintervention and late aneurysm rupture after EVR. We assessed these with Kaplan-Meier survival estimation. RESULTS: We studied 12,911 patients who underwent EVR. The mean age was 75.5 years, 79.9% were male, 3.9% were black, and 89.1% of operations were performed electively. The 5-year rate of reintervention for the entire cohort was 21%, and the 5-year rate of late aneurysm rupture was 3%. Reintervention rates varied across categories of EVR urgency. Patients who underwent EVR electively had the lowest 5-year rate of reintervention at 20%. Those who underwent surgery for symptomatic aneurysms had higher rates of reintervention at 25%. Patients undergoing EVR emergently for rupture had the highest rate of reintervention, 27% at 4 years (log-rank across the three groups, P < .001). Black race and aneurysm size of 6.0 cm or greater were associated with significantly elevated reintervention rates (black, 31% vs white, 20% [log-rank, P < .001]; aneurysm size 6.0 cm or greater, 27% vs all others, <20% [log-rank, P < .001]). There were no significant associations between age or gender and the 5-year rate of reintervention. CONCLUSIONS: More than one in five Medicare patients undergo reintervention within 5 years after EVR in the VQI; late rupture remains low at 3%. Black patients, those with large aneurysms, and those who undergo EVR urgently and emergently have a higher likelihood of adverse outcomes and should be the focus of diligent long-term surveillance.

Patient information sources when facing repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: Shared medical decision making is most important when there are competing options for repair such as in treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). We sought to understand the sources of patients' pre-existing knowledge about AAA to better inform treating physicians about patients' needs for preoperative counseling. METHODS: We performed a multicenter survey of patients facing AAA repair at 20 Veterans Affairs hospitals across the United States as part of the Preferences for Open Versus Endovascular Repair of AAA study. A validated survey instrument was administered to examine the sources of information available and commonly used by patients to learn about their repair options. The survey was administered by study personnel before the patient had any interaction with the vascular surgeon because survey data were collected before the vascular clinic visit. RESULTS: Preliminary analysis of data from 99 patients showed that our cohort was primarily male (99%) and elderly (mean age 73 years). Patients commonly had a history of hypertension (86%), prior myocardial infarction (32%), diabetes (32%), and were overweight (58%). Patients arrived at their surgeon's office appointment with limited information. A majority of patients (52%) reported that they had not talked to their primary care physician at all about their options for AAA repair, and one-half (50%) reported that their view of the different surgical options had not been influenced by anyone. Slightly less than one-half of patients reported that they did not receive any information about open surgical aneurysm repair and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (41% and 37%, respectively). Few patients indicated using the internet as their main source of information about open surgical aneurysm repair and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (10% and 11%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients are commonly referred for AAA repair having little to no information regarding AAA pathology or repair options. Fewer than one in five patients searched the internet or had accessed other sources of information on their own. Most vascular surgeons should assume that patients will present to their first vascular surgery appointment with minimal understanding of the treatment options available to them.

Design of the PReferences for Open Versus Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (PROVE-AAA) Trial.

For patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), randomized trials have found endovascular AAA repair (EVAR) is associated with lower perioperative morbidity and mortality than open surgical repair (OSR). However, OSR has fewer long-term aneurysm-related complications, such as endoleak or late rupture. Patients treated with EVAR and OSR have similar survival rates within two years after surgery, and OSR does not require intensive surveillance. Few have examined if patient preferences are aligned with the type of treatment they receive for their AAA. Although many assume that patients may universally prefer the less-invasive nature of EVAR, our preliminary work suggests that patients who value the lower risk of late complications may prefer OSR. In this study, called The PReferences for Open Versus Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (PROVE-AAA) trial, we describe a cluster-randomized trial to test if a decision aid can better align patients' preferences and their treatment type for AAA. Patients enrolled in the study are candidates for either endovascular or open repair and are followed up at VA hospitals by vascular surgery teams who regularly perform both types of repair. In Aim 1, we will determine patients' preferences for endovascular or open repair and identify domains associated with each repair type. In Aim 2, we will assess alignment between patients' preferences and the repair type elected and then compare the impact of a decision aid on this alignment between the intervention and control groups. This study will help us to accomplish two goals. First, we will better understand the factors that affect patient preference when choosing between EVAR and OSR. Second, we will better understand if a decision aid can help patients be more likely to receive the treatment strategy they prefer for their AAA. Study enrollment began on June 1, 2017. Between June 1, 2017 and November 1, 2018, we have enrolled 178 of a total goal of 240 veterans from 20 VA medical centers and their vascular surgery teams across the country. We anticipate completing enrollment in PROVE-AAA in June 2019, and study analyses will be performed thereafter.

Claims-based surveillance for reintervention after endovascular aneurysm repair among non-Medicare patients.

OBJECTIVE: Many patients who undergo endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVR) also undergo repeat procedures, or reinterventions, to address suboptimal device performance and prevent aneurysm rupture. Quality improvement initiatives measuring reintervention after EVR has focused on fee-for-service Medicare patients. However, because patients aged less than 65 years and those with Medicare Advantage represent an important growing subgroup, we used a novel approach leveraging a state data source that captures patients of all ages and with all types of insurance. METHODS: We identified patients who underwent EVR (2011-2015) within the Vascular Quality Initiative registry and were also listed in the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System all-payer claims database of New York. We linked patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative to their Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System claims file at the patient level with a 96% match rate. We compared outcomes between fee-for-service Medicare eligible, defined as age 65 or older or on dialysis, versus ineligible patients, defined as those younger than 65 and not on dialysis. Our primary outcome was reintervention. We used Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score matching for risk adjustment. RESULTS: We studied 1285 patients with a median follow-up of 16 months (range, 1-57 months). The mean age was 74 years, 79% were male, and 84% of procedures were elective. Nearly one in six patients were not Medicare eligible (14%), and the remainder (86%) were Medicare eligible. Medicare-eligible patients were less likely to be male (77% vs 91%; P < .001), have a history of smoking (79% vs 93%; P < .001), and have a nonelective procedure (15% vs 23%; P = .013). The 3-year Kaplan-Meier rate of reintervention was 21%. We found similar rates of reintervention between Medicare-eligible patients and those who were not (19% vs 20%, log-rank P = .199; unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-1.16). This finding persisted in both the adjusted and propensity-matched analyses (adjusted HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.50-1.34; propensity-matched HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.36-1.37). CONCLUSIONS: Reintervention can be monitored using administrative claims from both Medicare and non-Medicare payers, and serve as an important outcome metric after EVR in patients of all ages. The rate of reintervention seems to be similar between older, Medicare-eligible individuals, and those who are not yet eligible.

A Review of Decision Aids for Patients Considering More Than One Type of Invasive Treatment.

With continuous advances in medicine, patients are faced with several medical or surgical treatment options for their health conditions. Decision aids may be useful in helping patients navigate these options and choose based on their goals and values. We reviewed the literature to identify decision aids and better understand the effect on patient decision-making. We identified 107 decision aids designed to help patients make decisions between medical treatment or screening options; 39 decision aids were used to help patients choose between a medical and surgical treatment, and five were identified that aided patients in deciding between a major open surgical procedure and a less invasive option. Many of the decision aids were used to help patients decide between prostate, colorectal, and breast cancer screening or treatment options. Although most decision aids were not associated with a significant effect on the actual decision made, they were largely associated with increased patient knowledge, decreased decisional conflict, more accurate perception of risks, increased satisfaction with their decision, and no increase in anxiety surrounding their decision. These data identify a gap in use of decision aids in surgical decision-making and highlight the potential to help surgical patients make value-based, knowledgeable decisions regarding their treatment.

A comparative analysis of long-term mortality after carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting.

BACKGROUND: The value of carotid intervention is predicated on long-term survival for patients to derive a stroke prevention benefit. Randomized trials report no significant difference in survival after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) vs carotid artery stenting (CAS), whereas observational studies of "real-world" outcomes note that CEA is associated with a survival advantage. Our objective was to examine long-term mortality after CEA vs CAS using a propensity-matched cohort. METHODS: We studied all patients who underwent CEA or CAS within the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2003 to 2013 (CEA, n = 29,235; CAS, n = 4415). Long-term mortality information was obtained by linking patients in the registry to their respective Medicare claims file. We assessed the long-term rate of mortality for CEA and CAS using Kaplan-Meier estimation. We assessed the crude, adjusted, and propensity-matched (total matched pairs, n = 4261) hazard ratio (HR) of mortality for CEA vs CAS using Cox regression. RESULTS: The unadjusted Kaplan-Meier estimated 5-year mortality was 14.0% for CEA and 18.3% for CAS. The crude HR of all-cause mortality for CEA vs CAS was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.81), indicating that patients who underwent CEA were 25% less likely to die before those who underwent CAS. This survival advantage persisted after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidities (adjusted HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.82). This effect was confirmed on a propensity-matched analysis, with an HR of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.69-0.85). Finally, these findings were robust to subanalyses that stratified patients by presenting symptoms and were more pronounced in symptomatic patients (adjusted HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.61-0.79) than in asymptomatic patients (adjusted HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: During the last 15 years, patients who underwent CEA in the Vascular Quality Initiative have a long-term survival advantage over those who underwent CAS in real-world practice. Despite no difference in long-term survival in randomized trials, our observational study demonstrated a survival benefit for CEA that did not diminish with risk adjustment.

A comparison of reintervention rates after endovascular aneurysm repair between the Vascular Quality Initiative registry, Medicare claims, and chart review.

OBJECTIVE: The accurate measurement of reintervention after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is critical during postoperative surveillance. The purpose of this study was to compare reintervention rates after EVAR from three different data sources: the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) alone, VQI linked to Medicare claims (VQI-Medicare), and a "gold standard" of clinical chart review supplemented with telephone interviews. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 729 patients who underwent EVAR at our institution between 2003 and 2013. We excluded patients without follow-up reported to the VQI (n = 68 [9%]) or without Medicare claims information (n = 114 [16%]). All patients in the final analytic cohort (n = 547) had follow-up information available from all three data sources (VQI alone, VQI linked to Medicare, and chart review). We then compared reintervention rates between the three data sources. Our primary end points were the agreement between the three data sources and the Kaplan-Meier estimated rate of reintervention at 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after EVAR. For gold standard assessment, we supplemented chart review with telephone interview as necessary to assess reintervention. RESULTS: VQI data alone identified 12 reintervention events in the first year after EVAR. Chart review confirmed all 12 events and identified 18 additional events not captured by the VQI. VQI-Medicare data successfully identified all 30 of these events within the first year. VQI-Medicare also documented four reinterventions in this time period that did not occur on the basis of patient interview (4/547 [0.7%]). The agreement between chart review and VQI-Medicare data at 1 year was excellent (κ = 0.93). At 3 years, there were 81 (18%) reinterventions detected by VQI-Medicare and 70 (16%) detected by chart review for a sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 96%, and κ of 0.80. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated similar reintervention rates after 3 years between VQI-Medicare and chart review (log-rank, P = .59). CONCLUSIONS: Chart review after EVAR demonstrated a 6% 1-year and 16% 3-year reintervention rate, and almost all (92%) of these events were accurately captured using VQI-Medicare data. Linking VQI data with Medicare claims allows an accurate assessment of reintervention rates after EVAR without labor-intensive physician chart review.

Impact of Autologous Blood Transfusion on Survival and Recurrence among Patients Undergoing Partial Hepatectomy for Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases.

BACKGROUND: Autologous transfusion (AT) has long been considered unsafe in major oncologic operations due to a theoretic risk of spreading metastatic disease, however, few data support this assumption. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 147 patients who underwent partial hepatectomy for colorectal cancer metastases at a single institution. Seventy-four patients received AT only and 73 received no transfusion (NT). We compared the overall survival and recurrence-free survival of these groups using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and adjusted hazard ratios. RESULTS: Patients who received AT had greater blood loss, more extensive resections, and longer procedure times. There were no differences in age, sex, proportion colon vs rectal cancer, or Fong Clinical Risk Score. Mean follow-up was 54 months. Median overall survival in the AT group was 59 months compared with 54 months in the NT group (p = 0.69) on log-rank test. No difference in overall survival was noted after adjusting for age, sex, Fong score, type of cancer (colon vs rectal), receipt of neoadjuvant therapy, receipt of adjuvant therapy, extent of resection and blood loss (hazard ratio AT vs NT 0.58; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.11; p = 0.10). Recurrence-free survival was also similar in the AT and NT groups (27% vs 37%; p = 0.22). The adjusted hazard ratio for recurrence-free survival was 0.95 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.65; p = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: Autologous blood transfusion is not associated with an increased recurrence risk or a higher mortality rate. Surgeons performing liver resections for patients with colorectal cancer metastases can safely transfuse filtered autologous blood.

Receipt of sentinel lymph node biopsy for thin melanoma is associated with distance traveled for care.

BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is not routinely recommended for thin melanoma. However, it is considered when high-risk features, clinicopathological, or sociodemographic, are present. It was our objective to evaluate the impact of travel distance on decision-making for SLNB in thin melanoma. METHODS: We used the National Cancer DataBase (1998-2011) to identified patients with thin melanoma (≤1 mm thickness). The primary exposure was distance traveled for care, categorized as short (<12.5 miles), intermediate (12.5-49.9 miles), or long (≥50 miles). The primary outcome was receipt of SLNB. RESULTS: We identified 21 124 cases of thin melanoma; 48.8%, 38.2%, and 13.0% traveled short, intermediate, and long distances, respectively. Overall, SLNB was performed in 32.8% of patients. Traveling farther was associated with a step-wise increase in the likelihood of undergoing a SLNB (P-trend < 0.001). Even after adjusting for patient, disease, and facility factors, we found that patients who traveled an intermediate distance were 18% more likely to undergo a SLNB (OR:1.18; 95%CI: 1.10,1.27), and those who traveled a long distance were 24% more likely (OR:1.24; 95%CI: 1.11,1.39) compared with those who traveled a short distance. CONCLUSIONS: The distance patients travel for surgical care appears to be an independent factor influencing the receipt of SLNB.

Association of Hospital Employee Satisfaction with Patient Safety and Satisfaction within Veterans Affairs Medical Centers.

BACKGROUND: Employee satisfaction is thought to impact performance. However, which aspects of employee satisfaction matter most is unknown. We utilized data from the Veterans Affairs Medical Centers(VAMC) via their Strategic Analytics for Improvement and Learning program to examine the association between organizational satisfaction as well as job-specific satisfaction with measures of patient safety, patient satisfaction, and hospital rating. METHODS: The correlation between employee satisfaction with their organization and with their specific job were examined across indicators of patient care using Pearson and Spearman's correlation. Employee satisfaction data were obtained from the All Employee Survey. RESULTS: We found that employee job-specific satisfaction does not correlate with patient outcomes, whereas higher satisfaction with the organization is associated with improved patient safety (ρ = -0.19, P < .05) and correlates with all aspects of patient satisfaction ("top box" ratings of hospital [r = 0.30, P < 0.005], primary care [r = 0.25, P < 0.005], and specialty care [r = 0.14, P < 0.005]). Further, employees are more satisfied with their job and organization when they work at a VAMC with a higher Star rating. CONCLUSION: Employee organizational satisfaction and job-specific satisfaction are distinct metrics, and it is higher organizational satisfaction that is associated with improved patient care.

Validating Publicly Available Crosswalks for Translating ICD-9 to ICD-10 Diagnosis Codes for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research.

Background On October 1, 2015, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services transitioned from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision ( ICD-9) to the ICD, Tenth Revision ( ICD-10) compendium of codes for diagnosis and billing in health care, but translation between the two is often inexact. Here we describe a validated crosswalk to translate ICD-9 codes into ICD-10 codes, with a focus on complications after carotid revascularization and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Methods and Results We devised an 8-step process to derive and validate ICD-10 codes from existing ICD-9 codes. We used publicly available sources, including the General Equivalence Mapping database, to translate ICD-9 codes used in prior work to ICD-10 codes. We defined ICD-10 codes as validated if they were concordant with the initial ICD-9 codes after manual comparison by two physicians. Our primary validation measure was the percent of valid ICD-10 codes out of the total ICD-10 codes obtained during translation. We began with 126 ICD-9 diagnosis codes used for complication identification after carotid revascularization procedures, and 97 ICD-9 codes for complications after endovascular aortic aneurysm procedures. Translation generated 143 ICD-10 codes for carotid revascularization, a 14% increase from the initial 126 codes. Manual comparison demonstrated 98% concordance, with 99% agreement between the reviewers. Similarly, we identified 108 ICD-10 codes for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, an 11% increase from the initial 97 ICD-9 codes. We again noted excellent concordance and agreement (98% and 100%, respectively). Manual review identified 4 ICD-10 codes incorrectly translated from ICD-9 codes for carotid revascularization, and 3 codes incorrectly translated for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Conclusions Algorithms to crosswalk lists of ICD-9 codes to ICD-10 codes can leverage electronic resources to minimize the burden of code translation. However, manual review for code validation may be necessary, with collaboration across institutions for researchers to share their efforts.

Patient Experience of Recovery After Major Leg Amputation for Arterial Disease.

OBJECTIVES: To date, studies of vascular amputees primarily examine quantitative outcomes following limb loss. Less is known about the patient's perspective after major lower limb amputation. Here, we define and describe the postamputation recovery period. METHODS: Qualitative study using purposive, maximum variation sampling on the variables of amputation level and times since surgery. We first conducted structured interviews with 20 participants (median age: 65 years, range: 45-88 years; 85% male; below knee amputation n = 14; above knee amputation n = 6; median time from amputation to interview = 16 months, range: 4-51 months). Findings were validated via a focus group with 5 amputees. Data were coded, analyzed, and interpreted by 2 reviewers. RESULTS: All participants expressed the desire to have an active role in the decision to undergo amputation, even while acknowledging that limb salvage options were exhausted. Following amputation, participants described a 6-month recovery period when they learned to modify daily activities to accommodate their new functional and psychological needs. Participants defined recovery as when they had regained functional independence, which was described as a level of mobility that allowed them to perform daily activities with minimal assistance. Concerns that participants felt were poorly addressed included uncontrolled pain, feeling unprepared to live with an amputation, and questions about prosthetics. Two of the 5 focus group participants stated a preference for amputation earlier in the treatment course. CONCLUSIONS: Postamputation recovery has an early (up to 6 months) and late phase (after 6 months) and concludes when amputees regain what they perceive as independence. Patients desire to participate in amputation decision-making; in this study, some would have preferred amputation earlier in their clinical course. Attention to the domains that impact quality of life, and fostering a shared decision-making process, are opportunities to enhance postamputation recovery.

National trends in open surgical, endovascular, and branched-fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in Medicare patients.

BACKGROUND: Open repair effectively prevents rupture for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and is commonly studied as a metric reflecting hospital and surgeon expertise in cardiovascular care. However, given recent advances in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), such as branched-fenestrated EVAR, it is unknown how commonly open surgical repair is still used in everyday practice. METHODS: We analyzed trends in open AAA repair, EVAR, and branched-fenestrated EVAR for AAA in Medicare beneficiaries from 2003 to 2013. We used Medicare Part B claims to ascertain counts of these repair types annually during the study period. We assessed regional and national trends in characteristics of the patients and procedure volume. RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2013, the total number of AAA repairs performed in fee-for-service Medicare patients declined by 26% from 31,582 to 23,421 (P < .001), after a peak number of 32,540 was performed in 2005 (28% decline since 2005). The number of open AAA repairs steadily declined by a total of 76%, from 20,533 in 2003 to 4916 in 2013 (P < .001). Whereas the number of EVARs increased from 11,049 in 2003 to 19,247 in 2011 (P < .001), it has since declined a total of 15% to only 16,362 repairs in 2013 (P < .001). After its introduction in 2011, the number of branched-fenestrated EVAR cases continuously rose from 335 procedures in 2011 to 2143 procedures in 2013 (P < .001). By 2013, virtually all hospital referral regions in the United States had rates of open AAA repair that would have been in the lowest quintile of volume in 2003. CONCLUSIONS: The number of open AAA repairs fell by nearly 80% during the last decade, whereas traditional EVAR declined slightly and branched-fenestrated EVAR rapidly disseminated into national practice. These results suggest that open AAA repair is now performed too infrequently to be used as a metric in the assessment of hospital and surgeon quality in cardiovascular care. Furthermore, surgical training paradigms will need to reflect the changing dynamics necessary to ensure that surgeons and interventionists can safely perform these high-risk surgical procedures.