Management of Complications Following Lung Resection.

Lung resections are associated with a variety of potential postoperative complications. Not surprisingly, pulmonary complications are most frequent after lung surgery. Cardiac and thromboembolic complications are also important. It is essential that surgeons anticipate the possibility of these complications and take preventative measures whenever possible. When complications do occur, prompt recognition and treatment is required to assure optimal patient outcomes.

Frailty Is Independently Associated With Worse Outcomes After Elective Anatomic Lung Resection.

BACKGROUND: Frailty has been widely recognized as a predictor of postoperative outcomes. Given the paucity of standardized frailty measurements in thoracic procedures, this study aimed to determine the impact of coding-based frailty on clinical outcomes and resource use after anatomic lung resection. METHODS: All adults undergoing elective, anatomic lung resections (segmentectomy, lobectomy, pneumonectomy) from 2005 to 2014 were identified using the National Inpatient Sample. Patients were categorized as either frail or nonfrail on the basis of the presence of any frailty-defining diagnoses defined by the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups. Multivariable models were used to assess the independent association of frailty with in-hospital mortality, nonhome discharge, complications, duration of stay, and costs. RESULTS: Of an estimated 366,357 hospitalizations for elective lung resection during the study period, 4.4% were in frail patients. Patients who underwent pneumonectomy or were treated at low-volume hospitals were more commonly frail. Relative to nonfrail patients, frailty was associated with increased unadjusted mortality (9.1% vs 1.7%; P < .001) and nonhome discharge (44.7% vs 10.5%; P < .001). Frail patients had 3.47 increased adjusted odds of mortality across resection types (95% confidence interval, 2.94 to 4.09). Frailty conferred the greatest increase in mortality, complications, and resource use after pneumonectomy relative to lobectomy or segmentectomy, although significant differences were evident for all 3 operations. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty exhibits a strong association with inferior clinical outcomes and increased resource use after elective lung resection, particularly pneumonectomy. This readily available tool may improve preoperative risk assessment and allow for better selection of treatment modalities for frail patients with pulmonary disorders.

Impact of Hospital Volume on Outcomes of Elective Pneumonectomy in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in surgical technique and perioperative management, pneumonectomy remains associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of annual institutional volume of anatomic lung resections on outcomes after elective pneumonectomy. METHODS: We evaluated all patients who underwent elective pneumonectomy from 2005 to 2014 in the National Inpatient Sample. Patients less than 18 years of age, or with trauma-related diagnoses, mesothelioma, or a nonelective admission were excluded. Hospitals were divided into volume quartiles based on annual institutional anatomic lung resection caseload. We studied the effect of institutional volume on inhospital mortality, complications, and failure to rescue, as well as costs and length of stay. RESULTS: During the study period, an estimated 22,739 patients underwent pneumonectomy, with a reduction in national mortality from 7.9% to 5.5% (P trend = .045). Compared with the highest volume centers, operations performed at the lowest volume hospitals were associated with 1.74 increased odds of mortality (95% confidence interval, 1.14 to 2.66). Despite similar odds of postoperative complications, low volume hospital status was associated with increased failure to rescue rates (18.3% vs 12.7%, P = .024) and adjusted odds of mortality (1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.09 to 2.64) after any complication. CONCLUSIONS: High volume hospital status is strongly associated with reduced mortality and failure to rescue rates after pneumonectomy. Efforts to centralize care or disseminate best practices may lead to improved national outcomes for this high-risk procedure.

Barriers to Accessing Optimal Esophageal Cancer Care for Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Patients.

BACKGROUND: The 5-year survival of patients with low socioeconomic status (SES) and esophageal cancer is significantly lower than that in patients with high SES. It is poorly understood what causes these worse outcomes. We hypothesized that a qualitative approach could elucidate the underlying causes of these differences. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of esophageal cancer were recruited through flyers in regional cancer centers as well as through Facebook advertisements in cancer support groups and newspapers; they participated in a 1-hour semistructured interview or completed an online survey. Patients were stratified into low- and high-SES groups and were surveyed about their health history and access to cancer care. Data were coded into common themes based on participant responses. RESULTS: Eighty patients completed the interviews or surveys, with 38 in the high-SES group and 42 in the low-SES group. There were no clinically significant differences between the groups in comorbidities and cancer staging. Patients with low SES were offered operative treatment at significantly lower rates (19 of 42 [44.7%] versus 29 of 38 [76.3%]; p = 0.0048), had a decreased rate of second opinions (10 of 42 [23.8%] versus 25 of 38 [65.8%]; p = 0.00016), and were more likely to lose their jobs (14 of 42 [33.3%] versus 1 of 38 [2.6%]; p = 0.00044) than their high-SES counterparts. Thematic analysis found that communication difficulties, lack of understanding of treatment, and financial troubles were consistently reported more prominently in the lower-SES groups. Having a facilitator (eg, social worker) improved care by helping patients navigate complex treatments and financial concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Financial and communication barriers exist, which may lead to disparities in cancer outcomes for patients with low SES. There is a critical need for medical advocates to assist patients with limited resources.

Lung Cancer Resection at Hospitals With High vs Low Mortality Rates.

IMPORTANCE: Wide variations in mortality rates exist across hospitals following lung cancer resection; however, the factors underlying these differences remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent lung cancer resection at hospitals with very high and very low mortality rates (high-mortality hospitals [HMHs] and low-mortality hospitals [LMHs]) to better understand the factors related to differences in mortality rates after lung cancer resection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this retrospective cohort study, 1279 hospitals that were accredited by the Commission on Cancer were ranked on a composite measure of risk-adjusted mortality following major cancer resections performed from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2006. We collected data from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2007, on 645 lung resections in 18 LMHs and 25 HMHs. After adjusting for patient characteristics, we used hierarchical logistic regression to examine differences in the incidence of complications and "failure-to-rescue" rates (defined as death following a complication). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Rates of adherence to processes of care, incidence of complications, and failure to rescue following complications. RESULTS: Among 645 patients who received lung resections (441 in LMHs and 204 in HMHs), the overall unadjusted mortality rates were 1.6% (n = 7) vs 10.8% (n = 22; P < .001) for LMHs and HMHs, respectively. Following risk adjustment, the difference in mortality rates was attenuated (1.8% vs 8.1%; P < .001) but remained significant. Overall, complication rates were higher in HMHs (23.3% vs 15.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.79; 95% CI, 0.99-3.21), but this difference was not significant. The likelihood of any surgical (aOR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.26-2.00) or cardiopulmonary (aOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.70-2.16) complications was similar between LMHs and HMHs. However, failure-to-rescue rates were significantly higher in HMHs (25.9% vs 8.7%; aOR, 6.55; 95% CI, 1.44-29.88). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Failure-to-rescue rates are higher at HMHs, which may explain the large differences between hospitals in mortality rates following lung cancer resection. This finding emphasizes the need for better understanding of the factors related to complications and their subsequent management.

The quality of surgical care in safety net hospitals: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The quality of surgical care in safety net hospitals (SNHs) is not well understood owing to sparse data that have not yet been analyzed systematically. We hypothesized that on average, SNHs provide a lesser quality of care for surgery patients than non-SNHs. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a systematic review of published literature on quality of surgical care in SNHs in accordance with guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. We searched within the PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus online databases, and included peer-reviewed, English-language, scientific papers published between 1995 and 2013 that analyzed primary or secondary data on ≥1 of the domains of quality (safety, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, patient centeredness, and equity) of surgical care in a US hospital or system that met the Institute of Medicine definition of a SNH. Each article was reviewed independently by ≥2 co-investigators. A data abstraction tool was used to record the eligibility, purpose, design, results, conclusion, and overall quality of each article reviewed. Disagreements over eligibility and data were resolved by group discussion. The main results and conclusions abstracted from the included articles were then analyzed and presented according to the quality domains addressed most clearly by each article. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Our initial search identified 1,556 citations, of which 86 were potentially eligible for inclusion. After complete review and abstraction, only 19 of these studies met all inclusion criteria. SNHs performed significantly worse than non-SNHs in measures of timeliness and patient centeredness. Surgical care in SNHs tended to be less equitable than in non-SNHs. Data on the safety of surgical care in SNHs were inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Although data are limited, there seems to be need for improvement in particular aspects of the quality of surgical care provided in SNHs. Thus, SNHs should be priority settings for future quality improvement interventions in surgery. Such initiatives could have disproportionately greater impact in these lower-performing settings and would address directly any health care disparities among the poor, underserved, and most vulnerable populations in the United States.

Differences in perioperative care at low- and high-mortality hospitals with cancer surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate adherence to perioperative processes of care associated with major cancer resections. BACKGROUND: Mortality rates associated with major cancer resections vary across hospitals. Because mechanisms underlying such variations are not well-established, we studied adherence to perioperative care processes. METHODS: There were 1,279 hospitals participating in the National Cancer DataBase (2005-2006) ranked on a composite measure of mortality for bladder, colon, esophagus, stomach, lung, and pancreas cancer operations. We sampled hospitals from among those with the lowest and highest mortality rates, with 19 low-mortality hospitals [(LMHs), risk-adjusted mortality rate of 2.84 %] and 30 high-mortality hospitals [(HMHs), risk-adjusted mortality rate of 7.37 %]. We then conducted onsite chart reviews. Using logistic regression, we examined differences in perioperative care, adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics. RESULTS: Compared to LMHs, HMHs were less likely to use prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism, either preoperative or postoperatively [adjusted relative risk (aRR) 0.74, 95 % CI 0.50-0.92 and aRR 0.80, 95 % CI 0.56-0.93, respectively]. The two hospital groups were indistinguishable with respect to processes aimed at preventing surgical site infections, such as the use of antibiotics prior to incision (aRR, 0.99, 95 % CI 0.90-1.04), and processes intended to prevent cardiac events, including the use of ß-blockers (1.00, 95 % CI 0.81-1.14). HMHs were significantly less likely to use epidurals (aRR, 0.57, 95 % CI 0.32-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: HMHs and LMHs differ in several aspects of perioperative care. These areas may represent opportunities for improving cancer surgery quality at hospitals with high mortality.

Racial disparities in esophageal cancer outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in outcomes have been documented among patients with esophageal cancer. The purpose of this study is to identify mechanisms for ethnicity/race-related differences in the use of cancer-directed surgery and mortality. METHODS: Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program were used to evaluate non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white and Hispanic patients diagnosed with non-metastatic esophageal cancer (squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma) from 2003-2008. Age, marital status, stage, histology and location were examined as predictors of receipt of surgery and mortality in multivariate analyses. RESULTS: A total of 6,737 patient files (84 % white, 10 % black, 6 % Hispanic) were analyzed. Black and Hispanic patients were more likely than whites to have squamous cell carcinoma (86 vs. 41 vs. 26 %, respectively; p < 0.001) and lesions in the midesophagus (58 vs. 38 vs. 26 %, respectively; p < 0.001). Blacks and Hispanics were less likely to undergo esophagectomy (adjusted odds ratio 0.48, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.39-0.60 and 0.71, 95 % CI 0.56-0.90]. We noted significant variations in esophagectomy rates among patients with midesophageal cancers; 15 % of blacks underwent esophagectomy compared to 22 % of Hispanics and 29 % of whites (p < 0.001). Black and Hispanic patients had a higher unadjusted risk of mortality (hazard ratio 1.38, 95 % CI 1.25-1.52 and 1.20, 95 % CI 1.05-1.37). However, differences in mortality were no longer significant after adjusting for receipt of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities in esophageal cancer outcomes are associated with the lower use of cancer-directed surgery. To decrease disparities in mortality it will be necessary to understand and target underlying causes of lower surgery rates in nonwhite patients and develop interventions, especially for midesophageal cancers.

Racial disparities in surgical resection and survival among elderly patients with poor prognosis cancer.

BACKGROUND: Reports indicate that black patients have lower survival after the diagnosis of a poor prognosis cancer, compared with white patients. We explored the extent to which this disparity is attributable to the underuse of surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program and Medicare database, we identified 57,364 patients, ages 65 years and older, with a new diagnosis of nonmetastatic liver, lung, pancreatic, and esophageal cancer, from 2000 to 2005. We evaluated racial differences in resection rates after adjustment for patient, tumor, and hospital characteristics using hierarchical logistic regression. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess racial differences in survival after adjusting for patient, tumor, and hospital characteristics, and receipt of surgery. RESULTS: Compared with white patients, black patients were less likely to undergo surgery for liver (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29-0.83), lung (aOR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.69), pancreas (aOR = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.41-0.70), and esophagus cancers (aOR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42-0.99). Hospitals varied in their surgery rates among patients with potentially resectable disease. However, resection rates were consistently lower for black patients, regardless of the resection rate of the treating hospital. Although there were no racial differences in overall survival with liver and esophageal cancer, black patients experienced poorer survival for lung (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00-1.10) and pancreas cancer (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.30). In both instances, there were no residual racial disparities in overall survival after adjusting for use of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Black patients are less likely to undergo surgery after diagnosis of a poor prognosis cancer. Our findings suggest that surgery is an important predictor of overall mortality, and that efforts to reduce racial disparities will require stakeholders to gain a better understanding of why elderly black patients are less likely to get to the operating room.