Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Gynecological Cancer: Machine Learning-Augmented Propensity Score Mortality and Cost Analysis for 383,760 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing number of patients with both coronary artery disease and gynecological cancer, there are no nationally representative studies of mortality and cost effectiveness for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) and this cancer type. METHODS: Backward propagation neural network machine learning supported and propensity score adjusted multivariable regression was conducted for the above outcomes in this case-control study of the 2016 National Inpatient Sample (NIS), the United States' largest all-payer hospitalized dataset. Regression models were fully adjusted for age, race, income, geographic region, cancer metastases, mortality risk, and the likelihood of undergoing PCI (and also with length of stay [LOS] for cost). Analyses were also adjusted for the complex survey design to produce nationally representative estimates. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-based cost effectiveness ratio (CER) analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of the 30,195,722 hospitalized patients meeting criteria, 1.27% had gynecological cancer of whom 0.02% underwent PCI including 0.04% with metastases. In propensity score adjusted regression among all patients, the interaction of PCI and gynecological cancer (vs. not having PCI) significantly reduced mortality (OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.36-0.77; p = 0.001) while increasing LOS (Beta 1.16 days, 95%CI 0.57-1.75; p < 0.001) and total cost (Beta $31,035.46, 95%CI 26758.86-35312.06; p < 0.001). Among gynecological cancer patients, mortality was significantly reduced by PCI (OR 0.58, 95%CI 0.39-0.85; p = 0.006) and being in East North Central, West North Central, South Atlantic, and Mountain regions (all p < 0.03) compared to New England. PCI reduced mortality but not significantly for metastatic patients (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.32-1.71; p = 0.481). Eighteen extra gynecological cancer patients' lives were saved with PCI for a net national cost of $3.18 billion and a CER of $176.50 million per averted death. CONCLUSION: This large propensity score analysis suggests that PCI may cost inefficiently reduce mortality for gynecological cancer patients, amid income and geographic disparities in outcomes.

Recurring pleural effusion secondary to walled-off pancreatic necrosis.

Recurring, exudative, lymphocytic-predominant pleural effusions have not been previously reported in association with walled-off pancreatic necrosis. We present a case of chronic pancreatitis complicated by a large pancreatic fluid collection and recurrent pleural effusion. Endoscopic drainage of the walled-off pancreatic necrosis was the definitive treatment for both fluid collections.

Do Elderly Patients Use Patient-Controlled Analgesia Medication Delivery Systems Correctly?

BACKGROUND: Although prior studies have shown patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) to be appropriate for use by children and adults, no studies have specifically evaluated the ability of elderly patients to use the technology correctly. PURPOSE: To determine whether elderly, postoperative patients can properly use PCA devices. METHODS: Using a descriptive study design, a convenience sample of elderly, postoperative orthopedic patients was observed while using a PCA device and surveyed about the proper use of the device. Participants were observed and surveyed 12 to 20 hours after admission to the postoperative patient care unit. Frequency and amount of analgesic medication administration over the postoperative time period were also recorded. Data were summarized with descriptive statistics and multiple regression analysis was used to determine whether confounding variables explained problems using the PCA device correctly. RESULTS: A total of 58 orthopedic patients were studied during the first day after surgery. Patients had used the PCA device for 16.6 ± 3.0 (mean ±SD) hours at the time of the observation and survey. Virtually all patients correctly identified and depressed the PCA activation button when instructed, knew when to use the PCA device, and who was allowed to depress the PCA button. Slightly more than half of the patients (57%) correctly identified how often they could have PCA medication, with 38% not sure of PCA medication frequency. The PCA medication was requested an average of 23.3 ± 52.7 times during the study period. The majority of the patients (86%) requested PCA medication less than 25% of the times that they could receive PCA medication. All patients in the study had PCA devices programmed to deliver up to 5 doses per hour of PCA medication, yet an average of 11.2 ± 10.8 doses of PCA medication were actually delivered during the entire study period (average 16.6 hours). Average doses of fentanyl and morphine sulfate received by patients were 13.5 µg/hour and 1.0 mg/hour, respectively. CONCLUSION: Elderly patients were very knowledgeable about how to use the PCA device but not about how often they could receive PCA medication. This lack of knowledge may have influenced how often they requested pain medication, because almost 90% of patients received less than 25% of the PCA allowable medication dose. This low usage of PCA medication delivery calls into question the cost-effectiveness of this method of medication delivery for the elderly. Additional studies are needed to verify these findings in other elderly patients.