Costs of Care for Operative and Nonoperative Management of Emergency General Surgery Conditions.

OBJECTIVE: Many emergency general surgery (EGS) conditions can be managed operatively or nonoperatively, with outcomes that vary by diagnosis. We hypothesized that operative management would lead to higher in-hospital costs but to cost savings over time. BACKGROUND: EGS conditions account for $28 billion in health care costs in the United States annually. Compared with scheduled surgery, patients who undergo emergency surgery are at increased risk of complications, readmissions, and death, with accompanying costs of care that are up to 50% higher than elective surgery. Our prior work demonstrated that operative management had variable impacts on clinical outcomes depending on the EGS condition. METHODS: This was a nationwide, retrospective study using fee-for-service Medicare claims data. We included patients 65.5 years of age or older with a principal diagnosis for an EGS condition 7/1/2015-6/30/2018. EGS conditions were categorized as: colorectal, general abdominal, hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB), intestinal obstruction, and upper gastrointestinal. We used near-far matching with a preference-based instrumental variable to adjust for confounding and selection bias. Outcomes included Medicare payments for the index hospitalization and at 30, 90, and 180 days. RESULTS: Of 507,677 patients, 30.6% received an operation. For HPB conditions, costs for operative management were initially higher but became equivalent at 90 and 180 days. For all others, operative management was associated with higher inpatient costs, which persisted, though narrowed, over time. Out-of-pocket costs were nearly equivalent for operative and nonoperative management. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with nonoperative management, costs were higher or equivalent for operative management of EGS conditions through 180 days, which could impact decision-making for clinicians, patients, and health systems in situations where clinical outcomes are similar.

Non-English Primary Language: A Growing Population's Access to Cholecystectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To examine access to cholecystectomy and postoperative outcomes among non-English primary-speaking patients. BACKGROUND: The population of U.S. residents with limited English proficiency is growing. Language affects health literacy and is a well-recognized barrier to health care in the United States of America. Historically marginalized communities are at greater risk of requiring emergent gallbladder operations. However, little is known about how primary language affects surgical access and outcomes of common surgical procedures, such as cholecystectomy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients after receipt of cholecystectomy in Michigan, Maryland, and New Jersey utilizing the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database and State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Database (2016-2018). Patients were classified by primary spoken language: English or non-English. The primary outcome was admission type. Secondary outcomes included operative setting, operative approach, in-hospital mortality, postoperative complications, and length of stay. Multivariable logistics and Poisson regression were used to examine outcomes. RESULTS: Among 122,013 patients who underwent cholecystectomy, 91.6% were primarily English speaking and 8.4% were non-English primary language speaking. Primary non-English speaking patients had a higher likelihood of emergent/urgent admissions (odds ratio: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.04-1.44, P = 0.015) and a lower likelihood of having an outpatient operation (odds ratio: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70-0.91, P = 0.0008). There was no difference in the use of a minimally invasive approach or postoperative outcomes based on the primary language spoken. CONCLUSIONS: Non-English primary language speakers were more likely to access cholecystectomy through the emergency department and less likely to receive outpatient cholecystectomy. Barriers to elective surgical presentation for this growing patient population need to be further studied.

Health System Structure: An Opportunity to Address Structural Racism and Discrimination.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the role of hub-and-spoke systems as a factor in structural racism and discrimination. BACKGROUND: Health systems are often organized in a "hub-and-spoke" manner to centralize complex surgical care to 1 high-volume hospital. Although the surgical health care disparities are well described across health care systems, it is not known how they seem across a single system's hospitals. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent 1 of 10 general surgery operations in 12 geographically diverse states (2016-2018) were identified using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's State Inpatient Databases. System status was assigned using the American Hospital Association dataset. Hub designation was assigned in 2 ways: (1) the hospital performing the most complex operations (general hub) or (2) the hospital performing the most of each specific operation (procedure-specific hub). Independent multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the risk-adjusted odds of treatment at hubs by race and ethnicity. RESULTS: We identified 122,236 patients across 133 hospitals in 43 systems. Most patients were White (73.4%), 14.2% were Black, and 12.4% Hispanic. A smaller proportion of Black and Hispanic patient underwent operations at general hubs compared with White patients (B: 59.6% H: 52.0% W: 62.0%, P <0.001). After adjustment, Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to receive care at hub hospitals relative to White patients for common and complex operations (general hub B: odds ratio: 0.88 CI, 0.85, 0.91 H: OR: 0.82 CI, 0.79, 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: When White, Black, and Hispanic patients seek care at hospital systems, Black and Hispanic patients are less likely to receive treatment at hub hospitals. Given the published advantages of high-volume care, this new finding may highlight an opportunity in the pursuit of health equity.

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.

Establishing the Essential Role of Household Extenders for Surgeon Wellbeing.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the association between a change in household support during the Covid-19 pandemic and surgeon stress. BACKGROUND: The hours and unpredictability of surgical practice often necessitate the employment of household extenders (eg, child caregivers) to maintain a safe home environment for surgeons and their families. The Covid-19 pandemic destabilized these relationships and provided an opportunity to reflect on the role that household extenders play in a surgical household. METHODS: A multi-institutional telephone survey of surgeons practicing at five geographically diverse academic institutions was conducted (May 15, 2020-June 5, 2020). Surgeons were classified by change in household extenders (HE) during the pandemic (decrease, increase, no change, or none). The primary outcome was self-reported surgeon stress level. Multivariable linear regression was used to examine the relationship between change in HE and surgeon stress, adjusting for training and relationship status, the presence of pets and children in the household, and study site. RESULTS: The majority (182, 54.3%) of surgeons employed HE before the pandemic; 121 (36.1%) reported a decrease in HE during the pandemic, 9 (2.7%) reported an increase, and 52 (15.5%) reported no change. Stress scores varied significantly by change in HE group ( P = 0.016). After controlling for potential confounders, having an increase in HE was associated with a higher stress score (+1.55 points) than having no decrease in HE (P = 0.033), and having a decrease in HE was associated with a higher stress score (+0.96 points) than having no decrease ( P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Household extenders play a vital and complex role in enabling the healthcare workforce to care of the population. Surgeons who experienced a change in household extenders reported the highest stress levels. We suggest that health systems should proactively support surgeons by supporting the household extender workforce.

Analyzing Impact of Multimorbidity on Long-Term Outcomes after Emergency General Surgery: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of multimorbidity on long-term outcomes for older emergency general surgery patients. STUDY DESIGN: Medicare beneficiaries, age 65 and older, who underwent operative management of an emergency general surgery condition were identified using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid claims data. Patients were classified as multimorbid based on the presence of a Qualifying Comorbidity Set (a specific combination of comorbid conditions known to be associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality in the general surgery setting) and compared with those without multimorbidity. Risk-adjusted outcomes through 180 days after discharge from index hospitalization were calculated using linear and logistic regressions. RESULTS: Of 174,891 included patients, 45.5% were identified as multimorbid. Multimorbid patients had higher rates of mortality during index hospitalization (5.9% vs 0.7%, odds ratio [OR] 3.05, p < 0.001) and through 6 months (17.1% vs 3.4%, OR 2.33, p < 0.001) after discharge. Multimorbid patients experienced higher rates of readmission at 1 month (22.9% vs 11.4%, OR 1.48, p < 0.001) and 6 months (38.2% vs 21.2%, OR 1.48, p < 0.001) after discharge, lower rates of discharge to home (42.5% vs 74.2%, OR 0.52, p < 0.001), higher rates of discharge to rehabilitation/nursing facility (28.3% vs 11.3%, OR 1.62, p < 0.001), greater than double the use of home oxygen, walker, wheelchair, bedside commode, and hospital bed (p < 0.001), longer length of index hospitalization (1.33 additional in-patient days, p < 0.001), and higher costs through 6 months ($5,162 additional, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Older, multimorbid patients experience worse outcomes, including survival and independent function, after emergency general surgery than nonmultimorbid patients through 6 months after discharge from index hospitalization. This information is important for setting recovery expectations for high-risk patients to improve shared decision-making.

Surgical Outcomes in Patients With Malignant Small Bowel Obstruction: A National Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: The study objectives were to characterize surgical outcomes for malignant small bowel obstruction (MaSBO) as compared to other small bowel obstructions (SBO) and to develop a prediction model for postoperative mortality for MaSBO. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: MaSBO is a morbid complication of advanced cancers for which the optimal management remains undefined. METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery for MaSBO or SBO were identified from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2005-2017). Outcomes [30-day morbidity, unplanned readmissions, mortality, postoperative length of stay (LOS)] were compared between propensity score-matched MaSBO and SBO patients. An internally validated prediction model for mortality in MaSBO patients was developed. RESULTS: Of 46,706 patients, 1612 (3.5%) had MaSBO. Although MaSBO patients were younger than those with SBO (median 63 vs 65 years, P < 0.001), they were otherwise more clinically complex, including a higher proportion with recent weight loss (22.0% vs 4.0%, P < 0.001), severe hypoalbuminemia (18.6% vs 5.2%, P < 0.001), and cytopenias. After matching (N = 1609/group), MaSBO was associated with increased morbidity [odds ratio (OR) 1.2, P = 0.004], but not readmission (OR 1.1, P = 0.48) or LOS (incidence rate ratio 1.0, P = 0.14). The odds of mortality were significantly higher for MaSBO than SBO (OR 3.3, P < 0.001). A risk-score model predicted postoperative mortality for MaSBO with an optimism-adjusted Brier score of 0.114 and area under the curve of 0.735. Patients in the highest-risk category (11.5% of MaSBO population) had a predicted mortality rate of 39.4%. CONCLUSION: Surgery for MaSBO is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality, necessitating careful patient evaluation before operative intervention.

Opioid Use Disorder is Associated With Complications and Increased Length of Stay After Major Abdominal Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the impact of opioid use disorder (OUD) on perioperative outcomes after major upper abdominal surgeries. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: OUD, defined as dependence/abuse, is a national health epidemic. Its impact on outcomes after major abdominal surgery has not been well characterized. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective esophagectomy, total/partial gastrectomy, major hepatectomy, and pancreatectomy were identified using the National Inpatient Sample (2003-2015). Propensity score matching by baseline characteristics was performed for patients with and without OUD. Outcomes measured were in-hospital complications, mortality, length of stay (LOS), and discharge disposition. RESULTS: Of 376,467 patients, 1096 (0.3%) had OUD. Patients with OUD were younger (mean 53 vs 61 years, P < 0.001) and more often male (55.1% vs 53.2%, P < 0.001), black (15.0% vs 7.6%, P < 0.001), Medicaid beneficiaries (22.0% vs 6.4%, P < 0.001), and in the lowest income quartile (32.6% vs 21.3%, P < 0.001). They also had a higher rate of alcohol (17.2% vs 2.8%, P < 0.001) and nonopioid drug (2.2% vs 0.2%, P = 0.023) dependence/abuse. After matching (N = 1077 OUD, N = 2164 no OUD), OUD was associated with a higher complication rate (52.9% vs 37.3%, P < 0.001), including increased pain [odds ratio (OR) 3.5, P < 0.001], delirium (OR 3.0, P = 0.004), and pulmonary complications (OR 2.0, P = 0.006). Additionally, OUD was associated with increased LOS (mean 12.4 vs 10.6 days, P = 0.015) and nonroutine discharge (OR 1.6, P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality did not differ (OR 2.4, P = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Patients with OUD more frequently experienced complications and increased LOS. Close postoperative monitoring may mitigate adverse outcomes.

An Assessment of Patient, Caregiver, and Clinician Perspectives on the Post-discharge Phase of Care.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to elicit patients', caregivers', and health care providers' perceptions of home recovery to inform care personalization in the learning health system. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Postsurgical care has shifted from the hospital into the home. Daily care responsibilities fall to patients and their caregivers, yet stakeholder concerns in these heterogeneous environments, especially as they relate to racial inequities, are poorly understood. METHODS: Surgical oncology patients, caregivers, and clinicians participated in freelisting; an open-ended interviewing technique used to identify essential elements of a domain. Within 2 weeks after discharge, participants were queried on 5 domains: home independence, social support, pain control, immediate, and overall surgical impact. Salience indices, measures of the most important words of interest, were calculated using Anthropac by domain and group. RESULTS: Forty patients [20 whites and 20 African-Americans (AAs)], 30 caregivers (17 whites and 13 AAs), and 20 providers (8 residents, 4 nurses, 4 nurse practitioners, and 4 attending surgeons) were interviewed. Patients and caregivers attended to the personal recovery experience, whereas providers described activities and individuals associated with recovery. All groups defined surgery as life-changing, with providers and caregivers discussing financial and mortality concerns. Patients shared similar thoughts about social support and self-care ability by race, whereas AA patients described heterogeneous pain management and more hopeful recovery perceptions. AA caregivers expressed more positive responses than white caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: Patients live the day-to-day of recovery, whereas caregivers and clinicians also contemplate more expansive concerns. Incorporating relevant perceptions into traditional clinical outcomes and concepts could enhance the surgical experience for all stakeholders.

A National Comparison of Operative Outcomes of New and Experienced Surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether outcomes achieved by new surgeons are attributable to inexperience or to differences in the context in which care is delivered and patient complexity. BACKGROUND: Although prior studies suggest that new surgeon outcomes are worse than those of experienced surgeons, factors that underlie these phenomena are poorly understood. METHODS: A nationwide observational tapered matching study of outcomes of Medicare patients treated by new and experienced surgeons in 1221 US hospitals (2009-2013). The primary outcome studied is 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were examined. RESULTS: In total, 694,165 patients treated by 8503 experienced surgeons were matched to 68,036 patients treated by 2119 new surgeons working in the same hospitals. New surgeons' patients were older (25.8% aged ≥85 vs 16.3%,P<0.0001) with more emergency admissions (53.9% vs 25.8%,P<0.0001) than experienced surgeons' patients. Patients of new surgeons had a significantly higher baseline 30-day mortality rate compared with patients of experienced surgeons (6.2% vs 4.5%,P<0.0001;OR 1.42 (1.33, 1.52)). The difference remained significant after matching the types of operations performed (6.2% vs 5.1%, P<0.0001; OR 1.24 (1.16, 1.32)) and after further matching on a combination of operation type and emergency admission status (6.2% vs 5.6%, P=0.0007; OR 1.12 (1.05, 1.19)). After matching on operation type, emergency admission status, and patient complexity, the difference between new and experienced surgeons' patients' 30-day mortality became indistinguishable (6.2% vs 5.9%,P=0.2391;OR 1.06 (0.97, 1.16)). CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare beneficiaries, the majority of the differences in outcomes between new and experienced surgeons are related to the context in which care is delivered and patient complexity rather than new surgeon inexperience.

Challenges in obesity and primary aldosteronism: Diagnosis and treatment.

BACKGROUND: Obese patients may have unrecognized primary aldosteronism due to high rates of concomitant hypertension. We hypothesized that obesity impacts the diagnosis and management of patients with primary aldosteronism. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all primary aldosteronism patients (n = 418) who underwent adrenal vein sampling (1997-2017). Patients were classified by body mass index as obese (body mass index ≥35) or nonobese (body mass index <35) and diagnostic evaluation was compared between groups. Within the operative cohort (n = 285), primary outcomes were changes in both blood pressure and antihypertensive medications after adrenalectomy. Secondary outcome was clinical resolution by Primary Aldosteronism Surgery Outcomes criteria. RESULTS: Thirty-five percent of patients were obese. Obese patients were more likely to be male (67.8% vs 56.1%, P = .025), somewhat younger (51.5 vs 54.4 years old, P < .012), and require more preoperative antihypertensive medications (6.7 vs 5.7, P = .04) than nonobese patients. Obese patients had lesser rates of radiologic evidence of adrenal tumors (68.4 vs 77.9%, P = .038) despite similar rates of lateralization on adrenal vein sampling. In the operative subset, obese patients had somewhat smaller tumors on final pathology (1.1 vs 1.5 cm, P = .014) but similar rates of complete and partial clinical resolution (P = 1.000). CONCLUSION: Obese primary aldosteronism patients have lesser rates of localization by imaging, likely due to smaller tumor size, however, experience similar benefit from adrenalectomy.

Duty Hour Reform and the Outcomes of Patients Treated by New Surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to address the controversy surrounding the effects of duty hour reform on new surgeon performance, we analyzed patients treated by new surgeons following the transition to independent practice. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: In 2003, duty hour reform affected all US surgical training programs. Its impact on the performance of new surgeons remains unstudied. METHODS: We studied 30-day mortality among 1,483,074 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing general and orthopedic operations between 1999 and 2003 ("traditional" era) and 2009 and 2013 ("modern" era). The operations were performed by 2762 new surgeons trained before the reform, 2119 new surgeons trained following reform and 15,041 experienced surgeons. We used a difference-in-differences analysis comparing outcomes in matched patients treated by new versus experienced surgeons within each era, controlling for the hospital, operation, and patient risk factors. RESULTS: Traditional era odds of 30-day mortality among matched patients treated by new versus experienced surgeons were significantly elevated [odds ratio (OR) 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.05, 1.22), P < 0.001). The modern era elevated odds of mortality were not significant [OR 1.06; 95% CI (0.97-1.16), P = 0.239]. Relative performance of new and experienced surgeons with respect to 30-day mortality did not appear to change from the traditional era to the modern era [OR 0.93; 95% CI (0.83-1.05), P = 0.233]. There were statistically significant adverse changes over time in relative performance to experienced surgeons in prolonged length of stay [OR 1.08; 95% CI (1.02-1.15), P = 0.015], anesthesia time [9 min; 95% CI (8-10), P < 0.001], and costs [255USD; 95% CI (2-508), P = 0.049]. CONCLUSIONS: Duty hour reform showed no significant effect on 30-day mortality achieved by new surgeons compared to their more experienced colleagues. Patients of new surgeons, however, trained after duty hour reform displayed some increases in the resources needed for their care.