Operative and Nonoperative Outcomes of Emergency General Surgery Conditions: An Observational Study Using a Novel Instrumental Variable.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of operative versus nonoperative management of emergency general surgery conditions on short-term and long-term outcomes. BACKGROUND: Many emergency general surgery conditions can be managed either operatively or nonoperatively, but high-quality evidence to guide management decisions is scarce. METHODS: We included 507,677 Medicare patients treated for an emergency general surgery condition between July 1, 2015, and June 30, 2018. Operative management was compared with nonoperative management using a preference-based instrumental variable analysis and near-far matching to minimize selection bias and unmeasured confounding. Outcomes were mortality, complications, and readmissions. RESULTS: For hepatopancreaticobiliary conditions, operative management was associated with lower risk of mortality at 30 days [-2.6% (95% confidence interval: -4.0, -1.3)], 90 days [-4.7% (-6.50, -2.8)], and 180 days [-6.4% (-8.5, -4.2)]. Among 56,582 intestinal obstruction patients, operative management was associated with a higher risk of inpatient mortality [2.8% (0.7, 4.9)] but no significant difference thereafter. For upper gastrointestinal conditions, operative management was associated with a 9.7% higher risk of in-hospital mortality (6.4, 13.1), which increased over time. There was a 6.9% higher risk of inpatient mortality (3.6, 10.2) with operative management for colorectal conditions, which increased over time. For general abdominal conditions, operative management was associated with 12.2% increased risk of inpatient mortality (8.7, 15.8). This effect was attenuated at 30 days [8.5% (3.8, 13.2)] and nonsignificant thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of operative emergency general surgery management varied across conditions and over time. For colorectal and upper gastrointestinal conditions, outcomes are superior with nonoperative management, whereas surgery is favored for patients with hepatopancreaticobiliary conditions. For obstructions and general abdominal conditions, results were equivalent overall. These findings may support patients, clinicians, and families making these challenging decisions.

Trauma video review outperforms prospective real-time data collection for study of resuscitative thoracotomy.

BACKGROUND: A major challenge in the study of high-impact, low-frequency procedures in trauma is the lack of accurate data for time-sensitive processes of care. Trauma video review offers a possible solution, allowing investigators to collect extremely granular time-stamped data. Using resuscitative thoracotomy as a model, we compared data collected using review of audiovisual recordings to data prospectively collected in real time with the hypothesis that data collected using video review would be subject to less missingness and bias. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing resuscitative thoracotomy at a single urban academic level 1 trauma center. Key data on the timing and completion of procedural milestones of resuscitative thoracotomy were collected using video review and prospective collection. We used McNemar's test to compare proportions of missing data between the 2 methods and calculated bias in time measurements for prospective collection with respect to video review. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata v. 15.0 (College Station, TX). RESULTS: We included 51 subjects (88% Black, 82% male, 90% injured by gunshot wounds) over the study period. Missingness in resuscitative thoracotomy procedural milestone time measurements ranged from 34% to 63% for prospective collection and 0 to 8% for video review and was less missing for video review for all key variables (P < .001). When not missing, bias in data collected by prospective collection was 10% to 43% compared with data collected by video review. CONCLUSIONS: The data collected using video review have less missingness and bias than prospective collection data collected by trained research assistants. Audiovisual recording should be the gold standard for data collection for the study of time-sensitive processes of care in resuscitation.

Excluded but not forgotten: Veterinary emergency care during emergencies and disasters.

BACKGROUND: Disasters or crises impact humans, pets, and service animals alike. Current preparation at the federal, state, and local level focuses on preserving human life. Hospitals, shelters, and other human care facilities generally make few to no provisions for companion care nor service animal care as part of their disaster management plan. Aban-doned animals have infectious disease, safety and psychologic impact on owners, rescue workers, and those involved in reclamation efforts. Animals working as first responder partners may be injured or exposed to biohazards and require care. DATA SOURCES: English language literature available via PubMed as well as lay press publications on emergency care, veterinary care, disaster management, disasters, biohazards, infection, zoonosis, bond-centered care, prepared-ness, bioethics, and public health. No year restrictions were set. CONCLUSIONS: Human clinician skills share important overlaps with veterinary clinician skills; similar overlaps occur in medical and surgical emergency care. These commonalities offer the potential to craft-specific and disaster or crisis-deployable skills to care for humans, pets (dogs and cats), service animals (dogs and miniature horses) and first-responder partners (dogs) as part of national disaster healthcare preparedness. Such a platform could leverage the skills and resources of the existing US trauma system to underpin such a program.

Measuring Emergency Care Survival: The Implications of Risk Adjusting for Race and Poverty.

OBJECTIVES: We determined the impact of including race, ethnicity, and poverty in risk adjustment models for emergency care-sensitive conditions mortality that could be used for hospital pay-for-performance initiatives. We hypothesized that adjusting for race, ethnicity, and poverty would bolster rankings for hospitals that cared for a disproportionate share of nonwhite, Hispanic, or poor patients. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of patients admitted from the emergency department to 157 hospitals in Pennsylvania with trauma, sepsis, stroke, cardiac arrest, and ST-elevation myocardial infarction. We used multivariable logistic regression models to predict in-hospital mortality. We determined the predictive accuracy of adding patient race and ethnicity (dichotomized as non-Hispanic white vs. all other Hispanic or nonwhite patients) and poverty (uninsured, on Medicaid, or lowest income quartile zip code vs. all others) to other patient-level covariates. We then ranked each hospital on observed-to-expected mortality, with and without race, ethnicity, and poverty in the model, and examined characteristics of hospitals with large changes between models. RESULTS: The overall mortality rate among 170,750 inpatients was 6.9%. Mortality was significantly higher for nonwhite and Hispanic patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.19-1.36) and poor patients (aOR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.12-1.31). Adding race, ethnicity, and poverty to the risk adjustment model resulted in a small increase in C-statistic (0.8260 to 0.8265, p = 0.002). No hospitals moved into or out of the highest-performing decile when adjustment for race, ethnicity, and poverty was added, but the three hospitals that moved out of the lowest-performing decile, relative to other hospitals, had significantly more nonwhite and Hispanic patients (68% vs. 11%, p < 0.001) and poor patients (56% vs. 10%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographic risk adjustment of emergency care-sensitive mortality improves apparent performance of some hospitals treating a large number of nonwhite, Hispanic, or poor patients. This may help these hospitals avoid financial penalties in pay-for-performance programs.

Delayed endovascular aortic repair is associated with reduced in-hospital mortality in patients with blunt thoracic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: The traditional approach to stable blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) endorsed by the Society for Vascular Surgery is early (<24 hours) thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Recently, some studies have shown improved mortality in stable BTAI patients repaired in a delayed manner (≥24 hours). However, the indications for use of delayed TEVAR for BTAI are not well characterized, and its overall impact on the patient's survival remains poorly understood. We sought to determine whether delayed TEVAR is associated with a decrease in mortality compared with early TEVAR in this population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with BTAI (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis code 901.0) who underwent TEVAR (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision procedure code 39.73) from 2009 to 2013 using the National Sample Program data set. Missing physiologic data were imputed using chained multiple imputation. Patients were parsed into groups based on the timing of TEVAR (early, <24 hours, vs delayed, ≥24 hours). The χ2, Mann-Whitney, and Fisher exact tests were used to compare baseline characteristics and outcomes of interest between groups. Multivariable logistic regression for mortality was performed that included all variables significant at P ≤ .2 in univariate analyses. RESULTS: A total of 2045 adult patients with BTAI were identified, of whom 534 (26%) underwent TEVAR. Patients with missing data on TEVAR timing were excluded (n = 27), leaving a total of 507 patients for analysis (75% male; 69% white; median age, 40 years [interquartile range, 27-56 years]; median Injury Severity Score [ISS], 34 [interquartile range, 26-41]). Of these, 378 patients underwent early TEVAR and 129 underwent delayed TEVAR. The two groups were similar with regard to age, sex, race, ISS, and presenting physiology. Mortality was 11.9% in the early TEVAR group vs 5.4% in the delayed group, with the early group displaying a higher odds of death (odds ratio, 2.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-5.36; P = .042). After adjustment for age, ISS, and admission physiology, the association between early TEVAR and mortality was preserved (adjusted odds ratio, 2.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-5.67; P = .047). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with current Society for Vascular Surgery recommendations, more BTAI patients underwent early TEVAR than delayed TEVAR during the study period. However, delayed TEVAR was associated with significantly reduced mortality in this population. Together, these findings support a need for critical appraisal and clarification of existing practice guidelines in management of BTAI. Future studies should seek to understand this survival disparity and to determine optimal selection of patients for early vs delayed TEVAR.

Handoffs in the Intensive Care Unit.

Operating room (OR) to intensive care unit (ICU) handoffs are complex and known to be associated with adverse events and patient harm. The authors hypothesized that handoff quality diminishes during nights/weekends and that bedside handoff practices are similar between ICUs of the same health system. Bedside OR-to-ICU handoffs were directly observed in 2 surgical ICUs with different patient volumes. Handoff quality measures were compared within the ICUs on weekdays versus nights/weekends as well as between the high- and moderate-volume ICUs. In the high-volume ICU, transmitter delivery scores were significantly better during off hours, while other measures were not different. High-volume ICU scores were consistently better than those in the moderate-volume ICU. Bedside handoff practices are not worse during off hours and may be better in ICUs used to a higher patient volume. Specific handoff protocols merit evaluation and training to ensure consistent practices in different ICU models and at different times.

Failure to rescue in trauma: Coming to terms with the second term.

INTRODUCTION: The failure to rescue (FTR) rate is the probability of death after a major complication and was defined in elective surgical cohorts. In elective surgery, the precedence rate (proportion of deaths preceded by major complications) approaches 100%, but recent studies in trauma report rates of only 20-25%. We hypothesised that use of high quality data would result precedence rates in higher than those derived from national datasets, and we further sought to characterise the nature of those deaths not preceded by major complications. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from 2006 to 2010 from a single level I trauma centre were used. Patients age >16 years with AIS ≥2 who survived beyond the trauma bay were included. Complications, mortality, FTR, and precedence rates were calculated. Chart abstraction was performed for registry deaths without recorded complications to verify the absence of complications and determine the cause of death, after which outcomes were re-calculated. RESULTS: A total of 8004 patients were included (median age 41 (IQR 25-75), 71% male, 82% blunt, median ISS 10 (IQR 5-18)). Using registry data the precedence rate was 55%, with 132/293 (45%) deaths occurring without antecedent major complications. On chart abstraction, 11/132 (8%) patients recorded in the registry as having no complication prior to death were found to have major complications. Complication and FTR rates after chart abstraction were statistically significantly different than those derived from registry data alone (complications 16.5% vs. 16.3, FTR 12.3 vs.13, p=0.001), but this difference was unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Patients dying without complications predominantly (87%) had neurologic causes of demise. CONCLUSIONS: Use of data with near-complete ascertainment of complications results in precedence rates much higher than those from national datasets. Patients dying without precedent complications at our centre largely succumbed to progression of neurologic injury. Attempts to use FTR to compare quality between centres should be limited to high quality data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III. RETROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY: Outcomes.

Is a Colectomy Always Just a Colectomy? Additional Procedures as a Proxy for Operative Complexity.

BACKGROUND: Studies of surgical outcomes can be confounded by operative complexity. Complexity is difficult to assess from claims data due to the absence of established measures, but information on additional procedures is typically available. We hypothesized that analyzing same-day procedures (SDPs) would provide a useful step toward including operative complexity in risk adjustment. STUDY DESIGN: Colon resections were identified in California, Florida, and New York (2008 to 2011). Same-day procedures were categorized using 6 definitions. In-hospital mortality and postoperative complications were examined. For all outcomes, we developed multivariable logistic regression models to measure the association between the SDP category and outcomes. RESULTS: Rates of SDP were 74.9% total, 69.5% surgical, 31.6% nonsurgical, 36.6% colon, 51.4% abdomen, and 34.3% other for the 215,041 colon resections examined. Mortality was associated with the inclusion of any SDP category in univariate (6.2% vs 1.7%; p < 0.001) and multivariable (odds ratio [OR] = 2.14; 95% CI, 1.99-2.30; p < 0.001) analysis. The association with mortality was high for nonsurgical (OR = 2.36; 95% CI, 2.26-2.46) and other (OR = 2.33; 95% CI, 2.23-2.43) procedures and moderate for surgical (OR = 1.45; 95% CI, 1.37-1.54) and colon (OR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.44-1.57) procedures, but abdominal procedures were not independently associated with mortality (OR = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.06). The total number of SDPs was also associated with higher complication rates. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of complications and mortality associated with colectomy was increased among patients with SDPs and the magnitude of the association was dependent on the type and quantity of additional procedures. Information on SDPs might reflect a component of operative risk not typically captured and should be considered as a candidate variable for risk adjustment when using claims to compare outcomes across large cohorts.

Analgesia for older adults with abdominal or back pain in emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between age and analgesia for emergency department (ED) patients with abdominal or back pain. METHODS: Using a fully electronic medical record, we performed a retrospective cohort study of adults presenting with abdominal or back pain to two urban EDs. To assess differences in analgesia administration and time to analgesia between age groups, we used chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis test respectively. To adjust for potential confounders, we used a generalized linear model with log link and Gaussian error. RESULTS: Of 24,752 subjects (mean age 42 years, 65% female, 69% black, mean triage pain score 7.5), the majority (76%) had abdominal pain and 61% received analgesia. The ≥80 years group (n=722; 3%), compared to the 65-79 years group (n=2,080; 8%) and to the <65 years group (n=21,950; 89%), was more often female (71 vs. 61 vs. 65%), black (72 vs. 65 vs. 69%), and had a lower mean pain score (6.6 vs. 7.1 vs. 7.6). Both older groups were less likely to receive any analgesia (48 vs. 59 vs. 62%, p<0.0001) and the oldest group less likely to receive opiates (35 vs. 47 vs. 44%, p<0.0001). Of those who received analgesia, both older groups waited longer for their medication (123 vs. 113 vs. 94 minutes; p<0.0001). After controlling for potential confounders, patients ≥80 years were 17% less likely than the <65 years group to receive analgesia (95% CI 14-20%). CONCLUSION: Older adults who present to the ED for abdominal or back pain are less likely to receive analgesia and wait significantly longer for pain medication compared to younger adults.