The Indirect Costs of the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: A Case of Severe Malaria in Brooklyn.

Severe malaria due to the infection of Plasmodium falciparum is a critical infection that may lead to multisystem abnormalities if not promptly and adequately treated. We present a case of severe malaria in a patient recently repatriated from Conakry, Guinea, West Africa, marooned during the recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). While the direct costs of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and its indirect effect on neighboring industries have been analyzed, the indirect costs of other ailments in medicine have yet to be fully established. This case explores the ramifications of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on what would otherwise have been routine prophylaxis of malaria in a traveler. Given the pandemic, the healthcare industry has had fundamental changes that have impacted access to healthcare, particularly in the outpatient setting.

Comparison of the Cost of Drug-Eluting Stents versus Bare Metal Stents in the Treatment of Critical Limb Ischemia in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite significant technical advancement in the last decade, the durability of endovascular management of critical limb ischemia (CLI) remains highly debatable. Drug-eluting stents (DESs) are being popularized for the management of CLI after its precedent success in coronary intervention. Initial reports on the durability of DES are promising. However, little is known on the additional cost of this relatively newer technology. The aim of this study is to compare the cost of the traditional bare metal stents (BMSs) to the newly introduced DES in a large cohort of CLI patients. METHODS: Using the Premier database (2009-2015), we identified all patients with CLI undergoing DES and BMS. A multivariable generalized linear model was implemented to examine in-hospital cost adjusting for patients' characteristics, comorbidities, and regional characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 20,702 patients with CLI underwent peripheral artery revascularization using BMS (18,924 [91.41%]) or DES (1,778 [8.6%]). Majority of patients were males (53%) and whites (71%). Patients undergoing BMS were slightly younger (median age [interquartile range]: 70 [62-79] versus 71 [63-80]) and were more likely to be smokers (46% vs. 39%) and have a history of cerebrovascular disease (10% vs. 8%) and chronic pulmonary disease (24.5% vs. 20.9%) as compared with those undergoing DES (all P < 0.05). On the other hand, DES patients had a high prevalence of diabetes (4% vs. 3%) and renal disease (25% vs. 22%) (both P < 0.05). There was also a significant increase in the proportion of patients undergoing DES and a corresponding decrease in BMS (P < 0.001) over the study period. Median total in-hospitalization cost (BMS: $13,342 [8,574 to 21,166], DES: $13,243 [8,560-20,232], P = 0.76) was similar for both approaches. After adjusting for potential confounders, DES was associated with $407 higher cost than BMS (adjusted mean difference [95% confidence interval]: 407 [17 to 798], P = 0.04). In addition, the cost was $672 higher in teaching hospitals, $1,153 higher in Rural areas, and increased in all regions compared with the Midwest (adjusted mean difference [95% confidence interval]-South: $293 [31 to 555], Northeast: $2,006 [1,517 to 2,495], West: $3,312 [2,930 to 3,695], all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of CLI patients, after controlling for potential confounders, we demonstrated that the cost of endovascular revascularization is significantly higher in patients undergoing DES than those undergoing BMS. Regional disparities in cost were also observed. Further studies looking at the long-term durability and costs of DES versus BMS are needed.

Assessment of failure to rescue after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program procedure-targeted data set.

OBJECTIVE: Open aortic repair (OAR) is associated with higher risk of mortality compared with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The aim of this study was to compare failure to rescue (FTR) after major predischarge complications in patients undergoing OAR and EVAR. METHODS: Patients who underwent OAR or EVAR in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program between 2011 and 2015 were selected. Patients with ruptured aneurysm and those with type IV thoracoabdominal aneurysms were excluded. The primary outcome was FTR, defined as 30-day mortality in patients who developed at least one complication during their hospital stay. Univariable and multivariable statistics were used. RESULTS: A total of 9097 patients underwent abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Of those, 3291 (36.2%) had at least one major predischarge complication, 82.5% after OAR (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.9%-84.1%) vs 21.3% after EVAR (95% CI, 20.4%-22.3%; P < .001). Increased FTR was seen after aneurysm rupture, cardiac arrest, septic shock, and acute kidney injury. On multivariable analysis, FTR was not significantly different between OAR and EVAR (adjusted odds ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.61-1.24; P = .44). Propensity score matching and coarsened exact matching showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Although EVAR has fewer complications and lower in-hospital mortality than OAR, FTR after major predischarge complications does not depend on the type of surgical approach. When an in-hospital major complication occurs after EVAR, surgeons should be alert that FTR risk resulting in mortality is similar to that of OAR. Therefore, there is no safety net with EVAR.

Anesthetic type and hospital outcomes after carotid endarterectomy from the Vascular Quality Initiative database.

OBJECTIVE: Studies on the safety of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) under different anesthetic techniques are sometimes contradictory. The aim of this study was to compare real-world outcomes of CEA under general anesthesia (GA) vs regional or local anesthesia (RA/LA). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the Vascular Quality Initiative database (2003-2017) was performed. Primary outcomes included perioperative stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (MI) occurring during the hospital stay. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used. To minimize selection bias and to evaluate comparable groups, patients were matched on baseline variables using coarsened exact matching. RESULTS: Of 75,319 CEA cases, 6684 (8.9%) were performed under RA/LA. These patients were more likely to be older (median age, 72 vs 71 years) and male (62.5% vs 60.2%), with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class (class 3-5, 94.2% vs 93.0%) than those undergoing CEA-GA (all P < .001). CEA-GA had higher crude rates of in-hospital cardiac outcomes including MI mainly diagnosed clinically or on electrocardiography (0.5% vs 0.2%; P = .01), dysrhythmia (1.6% vs 1.2%; P < .001), acute congestive heart failure (CHF; 0.5% vs 0.2%; P < .001), and hemodynamic instability (27.0% vs 20.0%; P < .001) compared with CEA-RA/LA. No difference in perioperative stroke or death was seen between the two groups. On multivariate analysis, CEA-GA was associated with twice the odds of in-hospital MI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-3.59; P = .03), 4 times the odds of acute CHF (aOR, 3.92; 95% CI, 1.84-8.34; P < .001), and 1.5 times the odds of hemodynamic instability (aOR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.44-1.66; P < .001). Patients undergoing CEA-GA had 1.8 times the odds of staying in the hospital for >1 day (aOR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.67-1.93; P < .001). Coarsened exact matching confirmed our results. Risk factors associated with increased cardiac complications (MI and CHF) under GA included female gender, increased age, Medicaid insurance, history of smoking, medical comorbidities (such as hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, and CHF), prior ipsilateral carotid intervention, and urgent/emergent procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing CEA under GA have higher odds of postoperative MI, acute CHF, and hemodynamic instability compared with those undergoing CEA under RA/LA. They are also more likely to stay in the hospital for >1 day. However, the overall risk of cardiac adverse events after CEA was low, which made the differences clinically irrelevant. The choice of anesthesia approach to CEA should be driven by the team's experience and the patient's risk factors and preference.