Venous thromboembolism in benign esophageal surgery patients: potential cost effectiveness of Caprini risk stratification.

BACKGROUND: The Caprini risk assessment model (RAM) stratifies surgical patients for prescription of post-discharge extended heparin prophylaxis to reduce post-operative venous thromboembolism (VTE) events. The average cost for treatment of a VTE event is $15,123. The 30-day post-operative VTE rate after benign esophageal procedures is < 0.8% per the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. We hypothesized that the financial cost of selective extended prophylaxis in patients undergoing surgery for benign esophageal disease would exceed the cost of treating these rare events and therefore use of risk stratification for extended prophylaxis would not be beneficial. METHODS: All patients undergoing operations for benign esophageal pathology from July 2014 to May 2019 were reviewed. Patients designated as moderate or high risk for VTE were prescribed a 10- or 30-day post-operative course of extended prophylaxis with low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH). VTE and adverse bleeding events were recorded for the 60-day post-operative period. The cost of LMWH was provided by the institution pharmacy. RESULTS: Records from 154 patients were eligible for review. Caprini RAM was used for all patients with the following distribution of risk categories: low = 64.9% (100/154); moderate = 31.8% (49/154); and high = 3.2% (5/154). The average cost of extended prophylaxis at discharge for the moderate-risk group was $121.23, while the high-risk group was $446.46. There were no 60-day VTE or adverse bleeding events recorded. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients undergoing surgical therapy were at low risk of post-operative VTE event, with only 35% requiring extended VTE prophylaxis at time of discharge. When compared with the average cost of treatment for a VTE event, the cost of extended prophylaxis per patient in moderate or high-risk groups is substantially lower. In the era of cost-containment, risk stratification and extended prophylaxis may reduce healthcare costs and warrant future investigations.

Type 2 diabetes is associated with failure of non-operative treatment for sternoclavicular joint infection.

BACKGROUND: A standardized treatment algorithm for sternoclavicular joint infection management is lacking in the literature. While major risk factors for sternoclavicular joint infection, including immunosuppression, rheumatoid arthritis, type 2 diabetes, indwelling catheters, and intravenous drug use have been identified, clear association with treatment outcome has not been established. As our safety net hospital treats a patient population with high incidence of intravenous drug use, we sought to identify risk factors associated with failure of non-operative management of sternoclavicular joint infection. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study, reviewing charts of patients diagnosed with sternoclavicular joint infection between January 2001 and December 2017 to collect demographic information as well as clinical risk factors and treatment patterns. A chi-square test was performed to determine any association between clinical variables and management, as well as relation to treatment outcome. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 35 patients with diagnosis of sternoclavicular joint infection and complete follow-up. Intravenous drug use was prevalent, seen in 45.6% (16/35) of subjects, though there was no association with failure of non-operative management (P=0.50). Operative management was the initial treatment for 25.7% (9/35) of subjects and was associated with abscess on presentation (P=0.03). Failure of non-operative management was seen in 26.9% (7/26). Type 2 diabetes was associated with failed initial non-operative management, present in 42.9% (3/7) of patients (P=0.03) experiencing failure. CONCLUSIONS: This study constitutes the largest series of sternoclavicular joint infection with intravenous drug use. While intravenous drug use was not associated with failure of non-operative management, we observed that type 2 diabetes is associated with failure of non-operative management and could be considered in determining management of sternoclavicular joint infection patients.

Metagenomic Analysis Reveals Clinical SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Bacterial or Viral Superinfection and Colonization.

BACKGROUND: More than 2 months separated the initial description of SARS-CoV-2 and discovery of its widespread dissemination in the United States. Despite this lengthy interval, implementation of specific quantitative reverse transcription (qRT)-PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 tests in the US has been slow, and testing is still not widely available. Metagenomic sequencing offers the promise of unbiased detection of emerging pathogens, without requiring prior knowledge of the identity of the responsible agent or its genomic sequence. METHODS: To evaluate metagenomic approaches in the context of the current SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, laboratory-confirmed positive and negative samples from Seattle, WA were evaluated by metagenomic sequencing, with comparison to a 2019 reference genomic database created before the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Within 36 h our results showed clear identification of a novel human Betacoronavirus, closely related to known Betacoronaviruses of bats, in laboratory-proven cases of SARS-CoV-2. A subset of samples also showed superinfection or colonization with human parainfluenza virus 3 or Moraxella species, highlighting the need to test directly for SARS-CoV-2 as opposed to ruling out an infection using a viral respiratory panel. Samples negative for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR were also negative by metagenomic analysis, and positive for Rhinovirus A and C. Unlike targeted SARS-CoV-2 qRT-PCR testing, metagenomic analysis of these SARS-CoV-2 negative samples identified candidate etiological agents for the patients' respiratory symptoms. CONCLUSION: Taken together, these results demonstrate the value of metagenomic analysis in the monitoring and response to this and future viral pandemics.