A Comparison of Clinical and Cost Outcomes After Pancreatectomies at a Safety-net Hospital using a National Registry.

BACKGROUND: Our institution (UFHJ) meets the criteria of both a large, specialized medical center (LSCMC) and a safety-net hospital (AEH). Our aim is to compare pancreatectomy outcomes at UFHJ against other LSCMCs, AEHs, and against institutions that meet criteria for both LSCMC and AEH. In addition, we sought to evaluate differences between LSCMCs and AEHs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pancreatectomies for pancreatic cancer were queried from the Vizient Clinical Data Base (2018 to 2020). Clinical and cost outcomes were compared between UFHJ and LSCMCs, AEHs, and a combined group, respectively. Indices >1 indicated the observed value was greater than the expected national benchmark value. RESULTS: The mean number of pancreatectomy cases performed per institution in the LSCMC group was 12.15, 11.73, and 14.31 in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively. At AEHs, 25.33, 24.56, and 26.37 mean cases per institution per year, respectively. In the combined group of both LSCMCs and AEHs, 8.10, 7.60, and 7.22 mean cases, respectively. At UFHJ, 17, 34, and 39 cases were performed each year, respectively. Length of stay index decreased below national benchmarks at UFHJ (1.08 to 0.82), LSCMCs (0.91 to 0.85), and AEHs (0.94 to 0.93), with an increasing case mix index at UFHJ (3.33 to 4.20) from 2018 to 2020. In contrast, length of stay index increased in the combined group (1.14 to 1.18) and overall was the lowest at LSCMCs (0.89). Mortality index declined at UFHJ (5.07 to 0.00) below national benchmarks compared with LSCMCs (1.23 to 1.29), AEHs (1.19 to 1.45), and the combined group (1.92 to 1.99), and was significantly different between all groups ( P <0.001). Thirty-day re-admissions were lower at UFHJ (6.25% to 10.26%) compared with LSCMCs (17.62% to 16.83%) and AEHs (18.93% to 15.51%), and significantly lower at AEHs compared with LSCMCs ( P <0.001). Notably, 30-day re-admissions were lower at AEHs compared with LSCMCs ( P <0.001) and declined over time and were the lowest in the combined group in 2020 (17.72% to 9.52%). Direct cost index at UFHJ declined (1.00 to 0.67) below the benchmark compared with LSCMCs (0.90 to 0.93), AEHs (1.02 to 1.04), and the combined group (1.02 to 1.10). When comparing LSCMCs and AEHs, there were no significant differences between direct cost percentages ( P =0.56); however, the direct cost index was significantly lower at LSCMCs. CONCLUSION: Pancreatectomy outcomes at our institution have improved over time exceeding national benchmarks and often were significant to LSCMCs, AEHs, and a combined comparator group. In addition, AEHs were able to maintain good quality care when compared with LSCMCs. This study highlights the role that safety-net hospitals can provide high-quality care to a medically vulnerable patient population in the presence of high-case volume.

Long-term survival outcomes of esophageal cancer after minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the long-term overall and disease-free survival and factors associated with overall survival in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing a totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MILE) at a safety-net hospital. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent MILE from September 2013 to November 2017. Overall and disease-free survival were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier estimates, and hazard ratios (HR) were derived from multivariable Cox regression models. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients underwent MILE during the study period. Overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 83.2%, 61.9%, and 55.9%, respectively. Disease-free survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 83.2%, 60.6%, and 47.5%, respectively. Overall survival (p < 0.001) and disease-free survival (p < 0.001) differed across pathological stages. By multivariable analysis, increasing age (HR, 1.06; p = 0.02), decreasing Karnofsky performance status score (HR, 0.94; p = 0.002), presence of stage IV disease (HR, 5.62; p = 0.002), locoregional recurrence (HR, 2.94; p = 0.03), and distant recurrence (HR, 4.78; p < 0.001) were negatively associated with overall survival. Overall survival significantly declined within 2 years and was independently associated with stage IV disease (HR, 3.29; p = 0.04) and distant recurrence (HR, 5.78; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: MILE offers favorable long-term overall and disease-free survival outcomes. Age, Karnofsky performance status score, stage IV, and disease recurrence are shown to be prognostic factors of overall survival. Prospective studies comparing long-term outcomes after different MIE approaches are warranted to validate survival outcomes after MILE.

Reoperative Surgery After Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to identify factors influencing reoperations following minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and associated mortality and hospital costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2013 and 2018, 125 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Outcomes included reoperations, mortality, and hospital costs. Multivariable logistic regression analyses determined factors associated with reoperations. RESULTS: In-hospital reoperations (n=10) were associated with in-hospital mortality (n=3, P<0.01), higher hospital costs (P<0.01), and longer hospital stay (P<0.01). Conversely, reoperations after discharge were not associated with mortality. By multivariable analysis, baseline cardiovascular (P=0.02) and chronic kidney disease (P=0.01) were associated with reoperations. However, anastomotic leaks were not associated with reoperations nor mortality. CONCLUSION: The majority of reoperations occur within 30 days often during index hospitalization. Reoperations were associated with increased in-hospital mortality and hospital costs. Notably, anastomotic leaks did not influence reoperations nor mortality. Efforts to optimize patient baseline comorbidities should be emphasized to minimize reoperations following minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

Improved Quality of Care and Efficiency Do Not Always Mean Cost Recovery After Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to determine the financial impact of clinical complications and outcomes after minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MILE) at a safety-net hospital. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective analysis of consecutive patients undergoing MILE from 2013 to 2018. Postoperative complications were classified by Clavien-Dindo grade and associated total and direct recovered costs were assessed. Direct cost and LOS index were defined as the ratio of observed to expected values (>1 denotes above nationwide expectations). Annual outcomes were based on Medicare fiscal years. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-four patients (99 males, mean age 65.7 ± 9.3) were surgically treated for esophageal malignancy (n = 118) and benign disease (n = 6) by MILE between 2014 and 2018. Mean ICU LOS (5.8 ± 6.6 versus 4.3 ± 6.3 days) and LOS index (1.16 versus 0.76) improved from 2014 to 2018. Both direct cost index (1.03 versus 0.99) and indirect costs (43.4% versus 41.4%) decreased over time. However, direct costs recovered (213.6 to 159.0%) and total costs recovered (119.1 to 92.5%) declined during this period. Clinical complications grade was not associated with total costs recovered (p = 0.69). Extent of recovered expenditure was significantly higher from commercial/private payers as compared to government-sponsored payers (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Improvement in clinical outcomes and efficiency of care are not reflected by annual recovered expenditure. Furthermore, clinical complications do not correlate with the ability to recover hospital spending. Financial recovery was primary payer dependent. Enhanced collaboration with hospital administration may be needed in an effort to maximize financial fidelity in the presence of good quality of care after highly complex procedures.

Managing sepsis: Electronic recognition, rapid response teams, and standardized care save lives.

PURPOSE: Sepsis can lead to poor outcomes when treatment is delayed or inadequate. The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes after initiation of a hospital-wide sepsis alert program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of patients ≥18years treated for sepsis. RESULTS: There were 3917 sepsis admissions: 1929 admissions before, and 1988 in the after phase. Mean age (57.3 vs. 57.1, p=0.94) and Charlson Comorbidity Scores (2.52 vs. 2.47, p=0.35) were similar between groups. Multivariable analyses identified significant reductions in the after phase for odds of death (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.99, p=0.046), mean intensive care unit LOS (2.12days before, 95%CI 1.97, 2.34; 1.95days after, 95%CI 1.75, 2.06; p<0.001), mean overall hospital LOS (11.7days before, 95% CI 10.9, 12.7days; 9.9days after, 95% CI 9.3, 10.6days, p<0.001), odds of mechanical ventilation use (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39, 0.99, p=0.007), and total charges with a savings of $7159 per sepsis admission (p=0.036). There was no reduction in vasopressor use (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75, 0.1.06, p=0.18). CONCLUSION: A hospital-wide program utilizing electronic recognition and RRT intervention resulted in improved outcomes in patients with sepsis.