US medical student perspectives on asian american patient inclusion in medical education: a qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Asian American (AsAm) representation is lacking in conversations surrounding cultural humility in healthcare. We aimed to investigate US medical student perspectives on AsAm patient inclusion in cultural humility training in medical education. METHODS: This qualitative study analyzed free-text responses to an optional, open-ended question presented at the conclusion of an online survey assessing medical student experiences with and perceptions regarding AsAm patients in their medical education. This survey was distributed to a convenience sample of nine US medical schools. Medical students who completed at least one clinical rotation were eligible to participate in the survey. Qualitative analysis of free-text responses was conducted in an iterative process to generate emergent themes. RESULTS: There was a total of 195 optional free-text responses from 688 participants (28%). Motivation to learn about AsAm population included shared identity and desire to better serve the AsAm population in their local community and future careers. Topics of interest included healthcare-related cultural preferences, healthcare delivery strategies, and health disparities for the AsAm population and other minority patients. Students reported that they drew on personal experiences and some pre-clinical or clinical exposures to learn about AsAm patients. Respondents cited the lack of exposure in the medical school curriculum and clinical experiences as the main challenge to learning about AsAm health and provided suggestions for the delivery of this education in their pre-clinical and clinical education. Respondents emphasized that AsAms are treated as a monolith in medical education and healthcare, despite their heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Medical students identified a need and interest for greater inclusion of AsAm topics in medical education on cultural humility and minority health.

Medicare Beneficiaries In Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Increased Telemedicine Use During The COVID-19 Pandemic.

Anticipating a growing need for health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services expanded telemedicine coverage in the United States on March 6, 2020. In this study we used roughly thirty million Medicare fee-for-service claims to quantify outpatient telemedicine use before and after the Medicare telemedicine coverage waiver and to examine the association of telemedicine use with the Area Deprivation Index, a comprehensive measure of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage. Before the waiver, 0.42 percent of patients had at least one outpatient telemedicine visit, with no significant differences between people residing in the most versus the least disadvantaged neighborhoods. With the waiver, 9.97 percent of patients had at least one outpatient telemedicine visit, with the highest odds of utilization seen for people residing in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. After adjustment, our data suggest that the coverage waiver increased access to telemedicine for all Medicare populations, including people residing in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods, although the odds of use were persistently lower with increasing age. Overall, these findings are encouraging, but they illuminate a need for targeted interventions to improve telemedicine access further.

Transcarotid artery revascularization is associated with similar outcomes to carotid endarterectomy regardless of patient risk status.

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenting (CAS), including both transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), reimbursement has been limited to high-risk patients by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) since 2005. We aimed to assess the association of CMS high-risk status with perioperative outcomes for carotid endarterectomy (CEA), TFCAS, and TCAR. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all Vascular Quality Initiative patients who underwent carotid revascularization between 2015 and 2020. Patients were stratified by whether they met CMS CAS criteria, and univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the association of procedure type (CEA, TFCAS, TCAR) with perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: Of 124,531 individuals who underwent carotid revascularization procedures, 91,687 (73.6%) underwent CEA, 17,247 (13.9%) underwent TFCAS, and 15,597 (12.5%) underwent TCAR. Among patients who met the CMS CAS criteria (ie, high-risk patients), the incidence of perioperative stroke was 2.7% for CEA, 3.4% for TFCAS, and 2.4% for TCAR (P < .001). Among standard-risk patients, the incidence of perioperative stroke was 1.7% for CEA, 2.7% for TFCAS, and 1.8% for TCAR (P < .001). After adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, the odds of perioperative stroke were lower for TCAR versus CEA in high-risk patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.99) and similar in standard-risk patients (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.84, 1.31). In contrast, the adjusted odds of perioperative stroke were higher for TFCAS versus CEA in high-risk patients (aOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03-1.46) and standard-risk patients (aOR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.37-1.86). In both populations, TFCAS and TCAR patients had significantly lower odds of myocardial infarction than CEA patients (both P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The perioperative risks associated with CEA, TFCAS, and TCAR in high-risk patients support the current CMS criteria, although the risks associated with each revascularization approach in standard-risk patients suggest that distinguishing TCAR from TFCAS may be warranted.

Preoperative Opioid Dose and Surgical Outcomes in Colorectal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The worsening opioid epidemic has led to an increased number of surgical patients with chronic preoperative opioid use. However, the impact of opioids on perioperative outcomes has yet to be fully elucidated. The purpose of this study was to assess the association between preoperative opioid dose and surgical outcomes among colectomy patients. METHODS: Adult colectomy patients in the IBM MarketScan database (2010-2017) were stratified based on preoperative opioid dose, calculated as the average opioid dose in morphine milligram equivalents (MME) in the 90 days prior to surgery: 0 MME, 1 to 49 MME, and 50 or more MME. The association between preoperative opioid dose and anastomotic leak, the primary outcome of interest, as well as other postoperative complications, was assessed using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Among 45,515 adult colectomy patients, 71.4% did not use opioids (0 MME), 27.4% had an opioid dose between 1 and 49 MME, and 1.2% had an opioid dose at or above 50 MME. Patients with preoperative opioid use exhibited a higher incidence of anastomotic leak (0 MME: 4.8%, 1-49 MME: 5.5%, ≥50 MME: 8.3%; p trend = 0.001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated a dose-response relationship between preoperative opioids and surgical outcomes, as the odds of anastomotic leak worsened with increasing opioid dose (1-49 MME: OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08-1.31, p < 0.001; ≥50 MME: OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.20-2.24, p = 0.002). Similar dose-response relationships were seen after risk-adjustment for lung complications, pneumonia, delirium, and 30-day readmission (p < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Providers should exercise caution when prescribing opioids preoperatively, as increasing doses of preoperative opioids were associated with worse surgical outcomes and higher 30-day readmission among adult colectomy patients.

Association of preoperative vein mapping with hemodialysis access characteristics and outcomes in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative vein mapping before arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or arteriovenous graft (AVG) placement has been debated as a possible method of improving hemodialysis access outcomes for patients. However, high-quality national studies that have addressed this relationship are lacking. Thus, we assessed the association of preoperative vein mapping with hemodialysis access configuration and outcomes. METHODS: In the present cohort study, we analyzed all patients who had undergone AVF or AVG placement with data captured in the Vascular Quality Initiative hemodialysis access dataset from August 2011 to September 2019. The patients were stratified by whether they had undergone preoperative vein mapping. The primary (configuration) outcomes were access type (AVF vs AVG) and location (upper arm vs forearm). The secondary (longitudinal) outcomes were the successful initiation of hemodialysis, maintenance of secondary patency, and the need for reintervention 1 year after the index operation. RESULTS: Overall, 85.6% of the 46,010 included patients had undergone preoperative vein mapping. Of the 46,010 patients, 76.1% and 23.9% had undergone AVF and AVG creation, respectively. AVF creation (77.6% vs 67.3%) and forearm location (54.6% vs 47.3%) were more frequent for the patients who had undergone preoperative vein mapping than for those who had not (P < .001). After adjusting for baseline differences between the groups, preoperative vein mapping was associated with increased odds of receiving an AVF vs AVG (adjusted odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55-1.75) and forearm vs upper arm access (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.16-1.30). The incidence of the loss of secondary patency was lower for patients with preoperative vein mapping (P < .001), and persisted after risk adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative vein mapping was associated with favorable hemodialysis access configurations and outcomes in real-world practice. These data suggest that the use of preoperative vein mapping could improve the likelihood of favorable outcomes for patients requiring hemodialysis access.

Converting laparoscopic colectomies to open is associated with similar outcomes as a planned open approach among Crohn's disease patients.

PURPOSE: There has been a noted reluctance to offer laparoscopic surgery to Crohn's Disease patients due to the potential risks, and high rate, of converting the procedure to open. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between Crohn's Disease patients undergoing a planned open colectomy, to those undergoing a laparoscopic colectomy that was converted to open. METHODS: Crohn's Disease patients undergoing an elective colectomy were identified using the ACS-NSQIP database (2012-2019). Patients were stratified based on operative approach: open, laparoscopic, and laparoscopic converted to open. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the impact of conversion to open on overall and serious postoperative morbidity. RESULTS: Among 8039 elective colectomies, 40.5% were performed open, 46.9% were completed laparoscopically, and 12.6% were converted to open. The conversion rate among all laparoscopic cases was 21.3%. On unadjusted analysis, conversion to open demonstrated similar rates of overall morbidity (P = 0.355) and serious morbidity (P = 0.724) compared to a planned open approach. On multivariable analysis, conversion to open was not associated with increased odds of overall morbidity (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.94-1.30, P = 0.238) or serious morbidity (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.98-1.46, P = 0.074), when compared to an open approach. CONCLUSION: Among Crohn's Disease patients, cases converted from laparoscopic to open exhibited similar outcomes as a planned open approach. Despite the limitations associated with this retrospective study, our findings suggest that laparoscopic surgery may be safely pursued among Crohn's Disease patients, as the risks of conversion are potentially balanced by the benefits of laparoscopic surgery.

Operative Approach Does Not Impact Radial Margin Positivity in Distal Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery is attractive for resection of low rectal cancer due to greater dexterity and visualization, but its benefit is poorly understood. We aimed to determine if operative approach impacts radial margin positivity (RMP) and postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection (APR). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program who underwent APR for low rectal cancer from 2016 to 2019. Patients were stratified by operative approach: robotic, laparoscopic, and open APR (R-APR, L-APR, and O-APR). Emergent cases were excluded. The primary outcome was RMP. 30-day postoperative outcomes were also evaluated, using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Among 1,807 patients, 452 (25.0%) underwent R-APR, 474 (26.2%) L-APR, and 881 (48.8%) O-APR. No differences regarding RMP (13.5% R-APR vs. 10.8% L-APR vs. 12.3% O-APR, p = 0.44), distal margin positivity, positive nodes, readmission, or operative time were observed between operative approaches. Adjusted analysis confirmed that operative approach did not predict RMP (p > 0.05 for all). Risk factors for RMP included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification III (ASA I-II ref; OR 1.46, p = 0.039), pT3-4 stage (T0-2 ref, OR 4.02, p < 0.001), pN2 stage (OR 1.98, p = 0.004), disseminated cancer (OR 1.90, p = 0.002), and lack of preoperative radiation (OR 1.98, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: No difference in RMP was observed among R-APR, L-APR, and O-APR. Postoperatively, R-APR yielded greater benefit when compared to O-APR, but was comparable to that of L-APR. Minimally invasive surgery may be an appropriate option and worthy consideration for patients with distal rectal cancer requiring APR.

History of depression is associated with worsened postoperative outcomes following colectomy.

AIM: Depression is a prevalent disorder that is associated with adverse health outcomes, but an understanding of its effect in colorectal surgery remains limited. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of history of depression among patients undergoing colectomy. METHOD: United States patients from Marketscan (2010-2017) who underwent colectomy were included and stratified by whether they had a history of depression within the past year, defined as (1) a diagnosis of depression during the index admission, (2) a diagnosis of depression during any inpatient or (3) outpatient admission within the year, and/or (4) a pharmacy claim for an antidepressant within the year. The primary outcomes were length of stay (LOS) and inpatient hospital charge. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and postoperative complications. Logistic, negative binomial, and quantile regressions were performed. RESULTS: Among 88 981 patients, 21 878 (24.6%) had a history of depression. Compared to those without, patients with a history of depression had significantly longer LOS (IRR = 1.06, 95% CI [1.05, 1.07]), increased inpatient charge (ß = 467, 95% CI [167, 767]), and increased odds of in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.37, 95% CI [1.08, 1.73]) after adjustment. History of depression was also independently associated with increased odds of respiratory complication, pneumonia, and delirium (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: History of depression was prevalent among individuals undergoing colectomy, and associated with greater mortality and inpatient charge, longer LOS, and higher odds of postoperative complication. These findings highlight the impact of depression in colorectal surgery patients and suggest that proper identification and treatment may reduce postoperative morbidity.

The reduced risk of septic shock/sepsis with laparoscopic surgery among ulcerative colitis patients with preoperative chronic steroid use.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative steroid use has been associated with worse surgical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine whether laparoscopic surgery reduces the risk of septic shock/sepsis among ulcerative colitis patients with preoperative chronic steroid use. METHODS: Patients with ulcerative colitis undergoing a total abdominal colectomy were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database (2005-2019). Patients were stratified based on preoperative chronic steroid use and operative approach (open versus laparoscopic). The primary outcome was septic shock/sepsis. Multivariable regression models were used to assess the association between laparoscopic surgery and rates of septic shock/sepsis among steroid users and non-steroid users in both the elective and emergent settings. RESULTS: Among 8,644 patients undergoing a total abdominal colectomy, 67.1% were steroid users and 32.9% were non-steroid users. Compared with an open approach, elective laparoscopic surgery was associated with lower rates of septic shock/sepsis, albeit with higher readmission rates for both steroid users (15.1% [laparoscopic] vs 12.0% [open], P = .005) and non-steroid users (12.6% [laparoscopic] vs 9.4% [open], P = .019). On adjusted analysis, ulcerative colitis patients with chronic steroid use undergoing an elective laparoscopic total abdominal colectomy demonstrated a reduced risk of septic shock/sepsis compared to open surgery (odds ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.49-0.76, P < .001). Similar findings were seen among chronic steroid users undergoing emergent laparoscopic procedures (odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.31-0.95, P = .031). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a reduced risk of septic shock/sepsis among ulcerative colitis patients with preoperative chronic steroid use, suggesting that minimally invasive surgery may be a promising option among this unique patient population.

Geographical socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with adverse outcomes following major amputation in diabetic patients.

OBJECTIVE: Socioeconomic disadvantage is a known predictor of adverse outcomes and amputation in patients with diabetes. However, its association with outcomes after major amputation has not been described. Here, we aimed to determine the association of geographic socioeconomic disadvantage with 30-day readmission and 1-year reamputation rates among patients with diabetes undergoing major amputation. METHODS: Patients from the Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission Database who underwent major lower extremity amputation with a concurrent diagnosis of diabetes mellitus between 2015 and 2017 were stratified by socioeconomic disadvantage as determined by the area deprivation index (ADI) (ADI1 [least deprived] to ADI4 [most deprived]). The primary outcomes were rates of 30-day readmission and 1-year reamputation, evaluated using multivariable logistic regression models and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. RESULTS: A total of 910 patients were evaluated (66.0% male, 49.2% Black), including 30.9% ADI1 (least deprived), 28.6% ADI2, 19.1% ADI3, and 21.2% ADI4 (most deprived). After adjusting for differences in baseline demographic and clinical factors, the odds of 30-day readmission was similar among ADI groups (P > .05 for all). Independent predictors of 30-day readmission included female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.45), Medicare insurance (vs private insurance; OR, 1.76), and peripheral artery disease (OR, 1.49) (P < .05 for all). The odds of 1-year reamputation was significantly greater among ADI4 (vs ADI1; OR, 1.74), those with a readmission for stump complication or infection/sepsis (OR, 2.65), and those with CHF (OR, 1.53) or PAD (OR, 1.59) (P < .05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Geographic socioeconomic disadvantage is independently associated with 1-year reamputation, but not 30-day readmission, among Maryland patients undergoing a major amputation for diabetes. A directed approach at improving postoperative management of chronic disease progression in socioeconomically deprived patients may be beneficial to reducing long-term morbidity in this high-risk group.

The Global Anatomic Staging System Does Not Predict Limb Based Patency of Tibial Endovascular Interventions.

OBJECTIVE: Anatomic grading systems have historically been poor predictors of patency after endovascular tibial interventions. The Global Vascular Guidelines proposed a new Global Anatomic Staging System (GLASS) to estimate one-year limb-based patency (LBP). The purpose of this study was to determine the association of GLASS with LBP following endovascular tibial interventions. METHODS: We included all patients presenting to our multidisciplinary diabetic limb preservation service between 01/2012 and 8/2020 who underwent first-time endovascular tibial revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Diagnostic angiograms were reviewed to define the preferred target artery pathway and assign a GLASS stage to each treated limb. One-year LBP was calculated and compared across GLASS stages using Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: We performed tibial revascularization in 96 limbs (5.2% rest pain, 56.3% ulcer, 37.5% gangrene), including isolated tibial interventions in 61.5% and tibial + femoropopliteal interventions in 38.5%. 15.6% of limbs were GLASS stage 1, 28.1% were GLASS stage 2, and 56.3% were GLASS stage 3. Overall, one-year LBP was 43.2 ± 6.3%, and did not differ significantly across GLASS stages (P = 0.42). The hazard ratio for failed LBP was 1.94 (95% CI 0.70-5.41) for GLASS stage 2 and 1.49 (95% CI 0.56-3.94) for GLASS stage 3 limbs (versus GLASS stage 1). When analyzed excluding the calcium modifier, LBP remained similar across GLASS stages (P = 0.72). Major amputation was uncommon, occurring in 9.3 ± 3.4% of limbs at one year, and did not significantly differ by GLASS stage (P = 0.98). CONCLUSION: The Global Anatomic Staging System did not predict limb-based patency following tibial endovascular interventions. Given the low major amputation rates in this cohort, anatomic complexity should not preclude endovascular limb salvage efforts below the knee.

Knowledge and attitudes of U.S. medical students regarding the care of Asian American patients: a cross-sectional survey study.

BACKGROUND: Asian Americans (AsAm) are a rapidly growing population in the U.S. With this growing population, U.S. healthcare providers must be equipped to provide culturally competent care for AsAm patients. This project surveyed U.S. medical students on their knowledge of and attitudes towards AsAm to assess predictors of readiness to care for AsAm patients. METHOD: This cross-sectional study surveyed medical students who had completed at least one clinical rotation. The survey was distributed online to nine medical schools throughout the U.S. The survey measured self-rated knowledge of, comfort with, cultural competency (CC) towards, and explicit biases towards AsAm patients. The first three domains were analyzed in a multivariate regression model including sociodemographic characteristics and past clinical, curricular, and social experiences with AsAm. Explicit bias questions were reported descriptively. RESULTS: There were 688 respondents. Asian race, AsAm-prevalent hometown, AsAm-related extracurricular activities, Asian language knowledge, and having taken a population health course predicted increased AsAm knowledge. Social interactions with AsAm increased comfort with AsAm patients. Increasing year in medical school, more frequent exposure to AsAm patients on rotations, and prior travel to an Asian country were predictors of increased CC toward AsAm. Importantly, having completed a CC course was a significant predictor in all domains. In terms of explicit bias, students felt that AsAm patients were more compliant than Caucasian patients. Students also believed that Caucasian patients were generally more likely to receive self-perceived "preferred" versus "acceptable" care, but that in their own clinical experiences neither group received preferred care. CONCLUSION: Experience with and exposure to AsAm prior to and during medical school and CC courses may increase medical student knowledge, comfort, and CC with AsAm patients. Standardized and longitudinal CC training, increased simulations with AsAm patients, diverse student recruitment, and support for students to engage in AsAm-related activities and interact with AsAm may improve CC of future physicians towards AsAm patients and possibly other minority populations.

Impact of Treatment Coordination on Overall Survival in Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Rectal cancer treatment is often multimodal, comprising of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. However, the impact of coordination between these modalities is currently unknown. We aimed to assess whether delivery of nonsurgical therapy within same facility as surgery impacts survival in patients with rectal cancer. METHODS: A patient cohort with rectal cancer stages II to IV who received multimodal treatment between 2004 and 2016 from National Cancer Database was retrospectively analyzed. Patients were categorized into three groups: (A) surgery + chemotherapy + radiotherapy at same facility (surgery + 2); (B) surgery + chemotherapy or radiotherapy at same facility (surgery + 1); or (C) only surgery at reporting facility (chemotherapy + radiotherapy elsewhere; surgery + 0). The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS), analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional-hazards models. RESULTS: A total of 44,716 patients (16,985 [37.98%] surgery + 2, 12,317 [27.54%] surgery + 1, and 15,414 [34.47%] surgery + 0) were included. In univariate analysis, we observed that surgery+2 patients had significantly greater 5-year OS compared to surgery + 1 or surgery + 0 patients (5-year OS: 63.46% vs 62.50% vs 61.41%, respectively; P= .002). We observed similar results in multivariable Cox proportional-hazards analysis, with surgery + 0 group demonstrating increased hazard of mortality when compared to surgery + 2 group (HR: 1.09; P< .001). These results held true after stratification by stage for stage II (HR 1.10; P= .022) and stage III (HR 1.12; P< .001) but not for stage IV (P= .474). CONCLUSION: Greater degree of care coordination within the same facility is associated with greater OS in patients with stage II to III rectal cancer. This finding illustrates the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in multimodal rectal cancer therapy.

Impact of Geographic Socioeconomic Disadvantage on Minor Amputation Outcomes in Patients With Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic disadvantage is a known contributor to adverse events and higher admission rates in the diabetic population. However, its impact on outcomes after lower extremity amputation is unclear. We aimed to assess the association of geographic socioeconomic disadvantage with short- and long-term outcomes after minor amputation in patients with diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Geographic socioeconomic disadvantage was determined using the area deprivation index (ADI). All patients from the Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission database (2012-2019) who underwent minor amputation with a concurrent diagnosis of diabetes were included and stratified by the ADI quartile. Associations of the ADI quartile with 30-day readmission and 1-year reamputation were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for baseline differences. RESULTS: A total of 7415 patients with diabetes underwent minor amputation (70.1% male, 38.7% black race), including 28.1% ADI1 (least deprived), 42.8% ADI2, 22.9% ADI3, and 6.2% ADI4 (most deprived). After adjusting for demographic and clinical factors, the odds of 30-day readmission were greater in the intermediate ADI groups than those in the ADI1 group, but not among the most deprived. Adjusted odds of 1-year reamputation were greater among ADI4 than those among ADI1. Kaplan-Meier analysis confirmed a greater likelihood of reamputation with an increasing ADI quartile over a 1-year period (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Geographic socioeconomic disadvantage is independently associated with both short- and long-term outcomes after minor diabetic amputations in Maryland. A targeted approach addressing the health care needs of deprived regions may be beneficial in optimizing postoperative care in this vulnerable population.

Do specific operative approaches and insurance status impact timely access to colorectal cancer care?

INTRODUCTION: The increased use of minimally invasive surgery in the management of colorectal cancer has led to a renewed focus on how certain factors, such as insurance status, impact the equitable distribution of both laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Our goal was to analyze surgical wait times between robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches, and to determine whether insurance status impacts timely access to treatment. METHODS: After IRB approval, adult patients from the National Cancer Database with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer were identified (2010-2016). Patients who underwent radiation therapy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, had wait times of 0 days from diagnosis to surgery, or had metastatic disease were excluded. Primary outcomes were days from cancer diagnosis to surgery and days from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy. Multivariable Poisson regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: Among 324,784 patients, 5.9% underwent robotic, 47.5% laparoscopic, and 46.7% open surgery. Patients undergoing robotic surgery incurred the longest wait times from diagnosis to surgery (29.5 days [robotic] vs. 21.7 [laparoscopic] vs. 17.2 [open], p < 0.001), but the shortest wait times from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy (48.9 days [robotic] vs. 49.9 [laparoscopic] vs. 54.8 [open], p < 0.001). On adjusted analysis, robotic surgery was associated with a 1.46 × longer wait time to surgery (IRR 1.462, 95% CI 1.458-1.467, p < 0.001), but decreased wait time to adjuvant chemotherapy (IRR 0.909, 95% CI 0.905-0.913, p < 0.001) compared to an open approach. Private insurance was associated with decreased wait times to surgery (IRR 0.966, 95% CI 0.962-0.969, p < 0.001) and adjuvant chemotherapy (IRR 0.862, 95% CI 0.858-0.865, p < 0.001) compared to Medicaid. CONCLUSION: Though patients undergoing robotic surgery experienced delays from diagnosis to surgery, they tended to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy sooner compared to those undergoing open or laparoscopic approaches. Private insurance was independently associated not only with access to robotic surgery, but also shorter wait times during all stages of treatment.

What Does a Diagnosis of Depression Mean for Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery?

BACKGROUND: Depression has been linked to increased morbidity and mortality in patients after surgery. The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of documented depression diagnosis on in-hospital postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing colorectal surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients from the National Inpatient Sample (2002-2017) who underwent proctectomies and colectomies were included. The outcomes measured included total hospital charge, length of stay, delirium, wound infection, urinary tract infection (UTI), pneumonia, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, mortality, paralytic ileus, leak, and discharge trends. Multivariable logistic and Poisson regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of the 4,212,125 patients, depression diagnosis was present in 6.72% of patients who underwent colectomy and 6.54% of patients who underwent proctectomy. Regardless of procedure type, patients with depression had higher total hospital charges and greater rates of delirium, wound infection, UTI, leak, and nonroutine discharge, with no difference in length of stay. On adjusted analysis, patients with a depression diagnosis who underwent colectomies had increased risk of delirium (odds ratio (OR) 2.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93-2.32), wound infection (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.03-1.12), UTI (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.10-1.20), paralytic ileus (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.09), and leak (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.30-1.43). Patients who underwent proctectomy showed similar results, with the addition of significantly increased total hospital charges among the depression group. Depression diagnosis was independently associated with lower risk of in-hospital mortality (colectomy OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.53-0.62; proctectomy OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a diagnosis of depression suffer worse in-hospital outcomes but experience lower risk of in-hospital mortality after undergoing colorectal surgery. Further studies are needed to validate and fully understand the driving factors behind this.

Outcomes and Predictors of Wound Healing among Patients with Complex Diabetic Foot Wounds Treated with a Dermal Regeneration Template (Integra).

BACKGROUND: The utility of dermal regeneration templates for treating high-risk diabetic foot wounds is unclear. The authors report wound healing and major amputation outcomes among a cohort of diabetic patients with complex diabetic foot wounds treated in a multidisciplinary setting. METHODS: All patients with complex diabetic foot wounds treated with a dermal regeneration template (March of 2013 to February of 2019) were captured in a prospective institutional database. Wound severity was classified according to the Society for Vascular Surgery Wound, Ischemia, and foot Infection (WIfI) classification system to determine limb salvage prognosis at baseline. Wound healing and major amputation rates were reported using Kaplan-Meier analyses. A stepwise Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify independent characteristics associated with wound healing. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients with 107 complex diabetic foot wounds were treated (mean age, 61.2 ± 3.3 years; 63.5 percent male and 61.2 percent African American). Most diabetic foot wounds were high-risk (wound, ischemia, and foot infection stage 3 or 4, 93.5 percent), corresponding to a predicted 25 to 50 percent risk of major amputation at 1 year. Dermal regeneration template use resulted in successful wound granulation in 66.7 percent of cases, with a mean time to complete wound healing of 198 ± 18 days. Twelve- and 18-month wound healing rates were 79.0 ± 5.0 percent and 93.0 ± 3.3 percent, respectively. Major amputation was required in 11.2 percent of patients. Independent predictors of poor wound healing included lack of bone involvement, higher WIfI stage, and prior dermal regeneration template failure. CONCLUSION: Application of a dermal regeneration template to complex diabetic foot wounds at high risk for major amputation results in good wound healing and excellent limb salvage outcomes among diabetic patients treated in a multidisciplinary setting. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Aggressive Multimodal Treatment and Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Survival.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess patient and demographic factors, treatment trends, and survival outcomes of patients with colorectal cancer with metastasis to the liver, lung, or both sites. Differences remain among national guidelines about the optimal management strategy. METHODS: Adults from the National Cancer Database (2010 to 2015) with a primary diagnosis of colorectal liver, lung, or liver and lung metastases were included and stratified by metastasis site. The primary end point was 5-year overall survival, analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves, log-rank test, and the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Among 82,609 included patients, 70.42% had liver, 8.74% had lung, and 20.85% had simultaneous liver and lung metastases. Treatment with chemotherapy alone was used the most (21.11%), followed by chemotherapy with colorectal radical resection (CRRR) (19.4%), no treatment (14.35%), CRRR alone (9.03%), and chemotherapy with CRRR and liver/lung resection (8.22%). Patients with lung metastasis had significantly better 5-year overall survival rates than the other 2 metastatic groups (15.99%, 16.70%, and 5.51%; p < 0.001), even after stratifying by treatment type and adjusting for other factors. Chemotherapy with CRRR and liver/lung resection was associated with the greatest reduction in mortality risk for all sites in both unadjusted (35.15%, 44.52%, and 20.10%; p < 0.001) and adjusted analyses (hazard ratio 0.42; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.47; p < 0.001; hazard ratio 0.31; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.53; p < 0.001; and hazard ratio 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.01; p = 0.064 for trend), and forgoing treatment or CRRR alone offered the worst overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with metastasis to lung had increased overall survival compared with other sites of metastases, regardless of treatment modality. Combined resection of primary tumor, metastasectomy, and chemotherapy appears to offer the greatest chance of survival.