Expanded analysis for patients with acute cholecystitis indicates outcomes vary based on COVID-19 status and treatment modality.

BACKGROUND: The impact of different phases of COVID-19 infection on outcomes from acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) is not well understood. Therefore, we examined outcomes of acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic, comparing the effect of different treatment modalities and COVID-19 infection status. We hypothesized that patients with acute COVID-19 would have worse outcomes than COVID-negative patients, but there would be no difference between COVID-negative and COVID-recovered patients. METHODS: We used 2020-2023 National COVID Cohort Collaborative data to identify adults with ACC. Treatment (antibiotics-only, cholecystostomy tube, or cholecystectomy) and COVID-19 status (negative, active, or recovered) were collected. Treatment failure of nonoperative managements was noted. Adjusted analysis using a series of generalized linear models controlled for confounders (age, sex, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, severity at presentation, and year) to better assess differences in outcomes among treatment groups, as well as between COVID-19 groups. RESULTS: In total, 32,433 patients (skewed count) were included: 29,749 COVID-negative, 2112 COVID-active, and 572 (skewed count) COVID-recovered. COVID-active had higher rates of sepsis at presentation. COVID-negative more often underwent cholecystectomy. Unadjusted, COVID-active had higher 30-day mortality, 30-day complication, and longer length of stay than COVID-negative and COVID-recovered. Adjusted analysis revealed cholecystectomy carried lower odds of mortality for COVID-active and COVID-negative patients than antibiotics or cholecystostomy. COVID-recovered patients' mortality was unaffected by treatment modality. Treatment failure from antibiotics was more common for COVID-negative patients. CONCLUSION: Acute cholecystitis outcomes are affected by phase of COVID-19 infection and treatment modality. Cholecystectomy does not lead to worse outcomes for COVID-active and COVID-recovered patients than nonoperative treatments; thus, these patients can be considered for cholecystectomy if their physiology is not prohibitive.

The continued financial effect of COVID: Increasing costs for non-elective major lower extremity amputations.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated changes in processes of care, which significantly impacted surgical care. This study evaluated the impact of these changes on patient outcomes and costs for non-elective major lower extremity amputations (LEA). Methods: The 2019-2021 Florida Agency for Health Care Administration database was queried for adult patients who underwent non-elective major LEA. Per-patient inflation-adjusted costs were collected. Patient cohorts were established based on Florida COVID-19 mortality rates: COVID-heavy (CH) included nine months with the highest mortality, COVID-light (CL) included nine months with the lowest mortality, and pre-COVID (PC) included nine months before COVID (2019). Outcomes included in-hospital patient outcomes and hospitalization cost. Results: 6132 patients were included (1957 PC, 2104 CH, and 2071 CL). Compared to PC, there was increased patient acuity at presentation, but morbidity (31%), mortality (4%), and length of stay (median 12 [8-17] days) were unchanged during CH and CL. Additionally, costs significantly increased during the pandemic; median total cost rose 9%, room costs increased by 16%, ICU costs rose by 15%, and operating room costs rose by 15%. When COVID-positive patients were excluded, cost of care was still significantly higher during CH and CL. Conclusions: Despite maintaining pre-pandemic standards, as evidenced by unchanged outcomes, the pandemic led to increased costs for patients undergoing non-elective major LEA. This was likely due to increased patient acuity, resource strain, and supply chain shortages during the pandemic. Key message: While patient outcomes for non-elective major lower extremity amputations remained consistent during the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare costs significantly increased, likely due to increased patient acuity and heightened pressures on resources and supply chains. These findings underscore the need for informed policy changes to mitigate the financial impact on patients and healthcare systems for future public health emergencies.

Transition to Permitless Open Carry and Association with Firearm-Related Suicide.

BACKGROUND: Firearm-related death rates continue to rise in the US. As some states enact more permissive firearm laws, we sought to assess the relationship between a change to permitless open carry (PLOC) and subsequent firearm-related death rates, a currently understudied topic. STUDY DESIGN: Using state-level data from 2013 to 2021, we performed a linear panel analysis using a state fixed-effects model. We examined total firearm-related death, suicide, and homicide rates separately. If a significant association between OC law and death rate was found, we then performed a difference-in-difference (DID) analysis to assess for a causal relationship between changing to PLOC and increased death rate. For significant DID results, we performed confirmatory DID separating firearm and nonfirearm death rates. RESULTS: Nineteen states maintained a no OC or permit-required law, whereas 5 changed to permitless and 26 had a PLOC before 2013. The fixed-effects model indicated more permissive OC law that was associated with increased total firearm-related deaths and suicides. In DID, changing law to PLOC had a significant average treatment effect on the treated of 1.57 (95% CI 1.05 to 2.09) for total suicide rate but no significant average treatment effect for the total firearm-related death rate. Confirmatory DID results found a significant average treatment effect on the treated of 1.18 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.46) for firearm suicide rate. CONCLUSIONS: OC law is associated with total firearm-related death and suicide rates. Based on our DID results, changing to PLOC is indeed strongly associated with increased suicides by firearm.

The downtrending cost of robotic bariatric surgery: a cost analysis of 47,788 bariatric patients.

The surgical robot is assumed to be a fixed, indirect cost. We hypothesized rising volume of robotic bariatric procedures would decrease cost per patient over time. Patients who underwent elective, initial gastric bypass (GB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for morbid obesity were selected from Florida Agency for Health Care Administration database from 2017 to 2021. Inflation-adjusted cost per patient was collected. Cost-over-time ($/patient year) and change in cost-over-time were calculated for open, laparoscopic, and robotic cases. Linear regression on cost generated predictive parameters. Density plots utilizing area under the curve demonstrated cost overlap. Among 76 hospitals, 11,472 bypasses (223 open, 6885 laparoscopic, 4364 robotic) and 36,316 sleeves (26,596 laparoscopic, 9724 robotic) were included. Total cost for robotic was approximately 1.5-fold higher (p < 0.001) than laparoscopic for both procedures. For GB, laparoscopic had lower total ($15,520) and operative ($6497) average cost compared to open (total $17,779; operative $9273) and robotic (total $21,756; operative $10,896). For SG, laparoscopic total cost was significantly less than robotic ($10,691 vs. $16,393). Robotic GB cost-over-time increased until 2021, when there was a large decrease in cost (-$944, compared with 2020). Robotic SG total cost-over time fluctuated, but decreased significantly in 2021 (-$490 compared with 2020). While surgical costs rose significantly in 2020 for bariatric procedures, our study suggests a possible downward trend in robotic bariatric surgery as total and operative costs are decreasing at a higher rate than laparoscopic costs.

Corrigendum to "Association of state-level factors with rate of firearm-related deaths" [Surg. Open Sci. vol. 14 (2023) 114-119].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.sopen.2023.07.011.].

Association of state-level factors with rate of firearm-related deaths.

Background: Over 48,000 people died by firearm in the United States in 2021. Firearm violence has many inciting factors, but the full breadth of associations has not been characterized. We explored several state-level factors including factors not previously studied or insufficiently studied, to determine their association with state firearm-related death rates. Methods: Several state-level factors, including firearm open carry (OC) and concealed carry (CC) laws, state rank, partisan lean, urbanization, poverty rate, anger index, and proportion of college-educated adults, were assessed for association with total firearm-related death rates (TFDR). Secondary outcomes were firearm homicide (FHR) and firearm suicide rates (FSR). Exploratory data analysis with correlation plots and ANOVA was performed. Univariable and multivariable linear regression on the rate of firearm-related deaths was also performed. Results: All 50 states were included. TFDR and FSR were higher in permitless OC and permitless CC states. FHR did not differ based on OC or CC category. Open carry and CC were eliminated in all three regression models due to a lack of significance. Significant factors for each model were: 1) TFDR - partisan lean, urbanization, poverty rate, and state ranking; 2) FHR - poverty rate; 3) FSR - partisan lean and urbanization. Conclusions: Neither open nor concealed carry is associated with firearm-related death rates when socioeconomic factors are concurrently considered. Factors associated with firearm homicide and suicide differ and will likely require separate interventions to reduce firearm-related deaths. Key message: Neither open carry nor concealed carry law are associated with total firearm-related death rate, but poverty rate, urbanization, partisan lean, and state ranking are associated. When analyzing firearm homicide and suicide rates separately, poverty rate is strongly associated with firearm homicide rate, while urbanization and partisan lean are associated with firearm suicide rate.

Nonelective coronary artery bypass graft outcomes are adversely impacted by Coronavirus disease 2019 infection, but not altered processes of care: A National COVID Cohort Collaborative and National Surgery Quality Improvement Program analysis.

Objective: The effects of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and altered processes of care on nonelective coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) outcomes remain unknown. We hypothesized that patients with COVID-19 infection would have longer hospital lengths of stay and greater mortality compared with COVID-negative patients, but that these outcomes would not differ between COVID-negative and pre-COVID controls. Methods: The National COVID Cohort Collaborative 2020-2022 was queried for adult patients undergoing CABG. Patients were divided into COVID-negative, COVID-active, and COVID-convalescent groups. Pre-COVID control patients were drawn from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Adjusted analysis of the 3 COVID groups was performed via generalized linear models. Results: A total of 17,293 patients underwent nonelective CABG, including 16,252 COVID-negative, 127 COVID-active, 367 COVID-convalescent, and 2254 pre-COVID patients. Compared to pre-COVID patients, COVID-negative patients had no difference in mortality, whereas COVID-active patients experienced increased mortality. Mortality and pneumonia were higher in COVID-active patients compared to COVID-negative and COVID-convalescent patients. Adjusted analysis demonstrated that COVID-active patients had higher in-hospital mortality, 30- and 90-day mortality, and pneumonia compared to COVID-negative patients. COVID-convalescent patients had a shorter length of stay but a higher rate of renal impairment. Conclusions: Traditional care processes were altered during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our data show that nonelective CABG in patients with active COVID-19 is associated with significantly increased rates of mortality and pneumonia. The equivalent mortality in COVID-negative and pre-COVID patients suggests that pandemic-associated changes in processes of care did not impact CABG outcomes. Additional research into optimal timing of CABG after COVID infection is warranted.