Breast Imaging Second Opinions Impact Surgical Management.

BACKGROUND: Breast surgeons often see women for second opinions for abnormalities found on breast imaging. For second opinions, these images are submitted for review and interpretation by dedicated breast imagers. This study evaluated the conformity of results among interpretation of imaging submitted from outside hospitals both from tertiary care centers, as well as community programs, in an attempt to evaluate the utility of this practice for the sake of clinical management and resource utilization. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on all breast patients that submitted outside imaging films for the years 2011 to 2013 at Rush University Medical Center (RUMC). The radiologic diagnosis and each patient's proposed management plan was collected and evaluated for concordance between the outside institutions and RUMC. RESULTS: A total of 380 patients who presented for second opinions with an interpretation of outside exams were evaluated. In 47.4 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 42.4-52.4] of cases there was distinct variance in radiologic impression. For 53.5 % (95 % CI 48.4-58.5) of patients, there was a change in recommended management plan, which included recommendations for either additional imaging or need for additional biopsy. In total, this changed the overall surgical management in 27.1 % (95 % CI 22.8-31.9) of cases. In six patients, the reinterpretation of outside imaging detected new malignancies not previously identified. Overall, 83.7 % (95 % CI 79.7-87.1) of patients who submitted imaging from outside institutions chose to complete the remainder of their treatment at RUMC. CONCLUSIONS: The practice of second opinion review changed overall definitive management at our specialty center in more than one in four cases. In addition, the review identified six previously unrecognized malignancies. Given this data, the practice of second opinions and interpretation of outside exams should continue despite the additional resources required.

Utilization of tracheostomy among geriatric trauma patients and association with mortality.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate trends in tracheostomy (TR) utilization among trauma patients over the last decade and explore its impact on mortality among elderly trauma patients. METHODS: Patients 18 years or older with at least 72 h on the ventilator were selected from the National Trauma Databank research datasets 2007 to 2015. Patients were divided into three groups based on age: 18-60, 61-80, and > 80 years and proportions of patients undergoing a TR were depicted. Elderly (> 80 years) were divided into two groups, based on whether they underwent a TR. The primary outcome was mortality. A Cox regression model with a time-dependent variable was utilized to account for survival bias. RESULTS: Over the 9-year study period 284,774 patients met inclusion criteria. Of those, 21,465 (7.5%) were older than 80 years. Elderly patients were significantly less likely to undergo a TR (13.1% vs. 21.5% in the 18-60 years and 20.4% in the 61-80 years group, p < 0.01) and this trend continued throughout the study period. Among the elderly patients, those who underwent TR were more likely to have a severe (AIS ≥ 3) thoracic, abdominal, and/or spinal injury, but not head injury and were less likely to have a history of cerebrovascular accident (5.9% vs. 7.7%, p < 0.01). The overall mortality was significantly higher in elderly patients who did not undergo a TR (46.9% vs. 17.6%, p < 0.01). The adjusted hazard ratio for elderly patients undergoing a TR was 0.36 (adjusted p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In ventilated trauma patients, tracheostomy is less likely to be utilized in the elderly population compared to younger age groups. Amongst the elderly patients, performance of tracheostomy was associated with a significantly higher overall survival. Delaying or avoiding this procedure in the elderly trauma patient predominantly based on age might not be justified. STUDY TYPE: Prognostic/epidemiological. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III or IV.