The United States experience with diagnosing and treating esophageal cancer during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: A retrospective cohort study.

The downstream effects on healthcare delivery during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine how the healthcare environment surrounding the pandemic affected the oncologic care of patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer. This was a retrospective cohort study evaluating patients in the National Cancer Database (2019-2020). Patients with esophageal cancer diagnoses were divided into pre-pandemic (2019) and pandemic (2020) groups. Patient demographics, cancer-related variables, and treatment modalities were compared. Among 26,231 esophageal cancer patients, 14,024 patients (53.5%) were in the pre-pandemic cohort and 12,207 (46.5%) were in the pandemic cohort. After controlling for demographics, patients diagnosed during the pandemic were more likely to have poorly differentiated tumors (odds ratio [OR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.42), pathologic T3 disease compared to T1 (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.02-1.53), positive lymph nodes on pathology (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.14-1.64), and to be pathologic stage IV (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.29-1.76). After controlling for oncologic characteristics, patients diagnosed during the pandemic were more likely to require at least two courses of systemic therapy (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.48-2.14) and to be offered palliative care (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04-1.22). While these patients were offered curative therapy at lower rates, this became non-significant after risk-adjustment (p = .15). The pandemic healthcare environment was associated with significantly increased risk-adjusted rates of patients presenting with advanced esophageal cancer. While this led to significant differences in treatment, most of these differences became non-significant after controlling for oncologic factors.

Anatomic Lung Resection Outcomes After Implementation of a Universal Thoracic ERAS Protocol Across a Diverse Health Care System.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate how implementing a thoracic enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol impacted surgical outcomes after elective anatomic lung resection. BACKGROUND: The effect of implementing the ERAS Society/European Society of Thoracic Surgery thoracic ERAS protocol on postoperative outcomes throughout an entire health care system has not yet been reported. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study within one health care system (January 2019-March, 2023). A thoracic ERAS protocol was implemented on May 1, 2021 for elective anatomic lung resections, and postoperative outcomes were tracked using the electronic health record and Vizient data. The primary outcome was overall morbidity; secondary outcomes included individual complications, length of stay, opioid use, chest tube duration, and total cost. Patients were grouped into pre-ERAS and post-ERAS cohorts. Bivariable comparisons were performed using independent t -test, χ 2 , or Fisher exact tests, and multivariable logistic regression was performed to control for confounders. RESULTS: There were 1007 patients in the cohort; 450 (44.7%) were in the post-ERAS group. Mean age was 66.2 years; most patients were female (65.1%), white (83.8%), had a body mass index between 18.5 and 29.9 (69.7%), and were ASA class 3 (80.6%). Patients in the postimplementation group had lower risk-adjusted rates of any morbidity, respiratory complication, pneumonia, surgical site infection, arrhythmias, infections, opioid usage, ICU use, and shorter postoperative length of stay (all P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative outcomes were improved after the implementation of an evidence-based thoracic ERAS protocol throughout the health care system. This study validates the ERAS Society/European Society of Thoracic Surgery guidelines and demonstrates that simultaneous multihospital implementation can be feasible and effective.

The Effect of Laparoscopic Gastric Ischemic Preconditioning Prior to Esophagectomy on Anastomotic Stricture Rate and Comparison with Esophagectomy-Alone Controls.

BACKGROUND: Benign anastomotic stricture is a recognized complication following esophagectomy. Laparoscopic gastric ischemic preconditioning (LGIP) prior to esophagectomy has been associated with decreased anastomotic leak rates; however, its effect on stricture and the need for subsequent endoscopic intervention is not well studied. METHODS: This was a case-control study at an academic medical center using consecutive patients undergoing oncologic esophagectomies (July 2012-July 2022). Our institution initiated an LGIP protocol on 1 January 2021. The primary outcome was the occurrence of stricture within 1 year of esophagectomy, while secondary outcomes were stricture severity and frequency of interventions within the 6 months following stricture. Bivariable comparisons were performed using Chi-square, Fisher's exact, or Mann-Whitney U tests. Multivariable regression controlling for confounders was performed to generate risk-adjust odds ratios and to identify the independent effect of LGIP. RESULTS: Of 253 esophagectomies, 42 (16.6%) underwent LGIP prior to esophagectomy. There were 45 (17.7%) anastomotic strictures requiring endoscopic intervention, including three patients who underwent LGIP and 42 who did not. Median time to stricture was 144 days. Those who underwent LGIP were significantly less likely to develop anastomotic stricture (7.1% vs. 19.9%; p = 0.048). After controlling for confounders, this difference was no longer significant (odds ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.14-1.82; p = 0.29). Of those who developed stricture, there was a trend toward less severe strictures and decreased need for endoscopic dilation in the LGIP group (all p < 0.20). CONCLUSION: LGIP may reduce the rate and severity of symptomatic anastomotic stricture following esophagectomy. A multi-institutional trial evaluating the effect of LGIP on stricture and other anastomotic complications is warranted.

The deimplementation of laboratory testing in low-risk patients as recommended by the American society of anesthesiologists: An ACS-NSQIP longitudinal analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) published guidelines recommending against routine preoperative laboratory testing for low-risk patients to reduce unnecessary medical expenditures. The aim of this study was to assess the change in routine preoperative laboratory testing in low-risk versus higher-risk patients before and after release of these guidelines. METHODS: The ACS-NSQIP database, 2005-2018, was separated into low-risk versus higher-risk patients based upon a previously published stratification. The guideline implementation date was defined as January 2013. Changes in preoperative laboratory testing over time were compared between low- and higher-risk patients. A difference-in-differences model was applied. The primary outcome included any laboratory test obtained ≤90 days prior to surgery. RESULTS: Of 7,507,991 patients, 972,431 (13.0%) were defined as low-risk and 6,535,560 (87.0%) higher-risk. Use of any preoperative laboratory test declined in low-risk patients from 66.5% before to 59.6% after guidelines, a 6.9 percentage point reduction, versus 93.0%-91.9% in higher-risk patients, a 1.1 percentage point reduction (p < 0.0001, comparing percentage point reductions). After risk-adjustment, the adjusted odds ratio for having any preoperative laboratory test after versus before the guidelines was 0.77 (95% CI 0.76-0.78) in low-risk versus 0.93 (0.92-0.94) in higher-risk patients. In low-risk patients, lack of any preoperative testing was not associated with worse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: While a majority of low-risk patients continue to receive preoperative laboratory testing not recommended by the ASA, there has been a decline after implementation of guidelines. Continued effort should be directed at the deimplementation of routine preoperative laboratory testing for low-risk patients.

Preoperative Prediction of Unplanned Reoperation in a Broad Surgical Population.

INTRODUCTION: Unplanned reoperation is an undesirable outcome with considerable risks and an increasingly assessed quality of care metric. There are no preoperative prediction models for reoperation after an index surgery in a broad surgical population in the literature. The Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS) preoperatively predicts 12 postoperative adverse events using 8 preoperative variables, but its ability to predict unplanned reoperation has not been assessed. This study's objective was to determine whether the SURPAS model could accurately predict unplanned reoperation. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program adult database, 2012-2018. An unplanned reoperation was defined as any unintended operation within 30 d of an initial scheduled operation. The 8-variable SURPAS model and a 29-variable "full" model, incorporating all available American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program nonlaboratory preoperative variables, were developed using multiple logistic regression and compared using discrimination and calibration metrics: C-indices (C), Hosmer-Lemeshow observed-to-expected plots, and Brier scores (BSs). The internal chronological validation of the SURPAS model was conducted using "training" (2012-2017) and "test" (2018) datasets. RESULTS: Of 5,777,108 patients, 162,387 (2.81%) underwent an unplanned reoperation. The SURPAS model's C-index of 0.748 was 99.20% of that for the full model (C = 0.754). Hosmer-Lemeshow plots showed good calibration for both models and BSs were similar (BS = 0.0264, full; BS = 0.0265, SURPAS). Internal chronological validation results were similar for the training (C = 0.749, BS = 0.0268) and test (C = 0.748, BS = 0.0250) datasets. CONCLUSIONS: The SURPAS model accurately predicted unplanned reoperation and was internally validated. Unplanned reoperation can be integrated into the SURPAS tool to provide preoperative risk assessment of this outcome, which could aid patient risk education.

Does Work Relative Value Unit Measure Surgical Complexity for Risk Adjustment of Surgical Outcomes?

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the work relative value unit (workRVU) of a patient's operation can be useful as a measure of surgical complexity for the risk adjustment of surgical outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the American College of Surgeon's National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2005-2018). We examined the associations of workRVU of the patient's primary operation with preoperative patient characteristics and associations with postoperative complications. We performed forward selection multiple logistic regression analysis to determine the predictive importance of workRVU. We then generated prediction models using patient characteristics with and without workRVU and compared c-indexes to assess workRVU's additive predictive value. RESULTS: 7,507,991 operations were included. Patients who were underweight, functionally dependent, transferred from an acute care hospital, had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class or who had medical comorbidities had operations with higher workRVU (all P < 0.0001). The subspecialties with the highest workRVU were neurosurgery (mean = 22.2), thoracic surgery (mean = 21.1), and vascular surgery (mean = 18.8) (P < 0.0001). For all postoperative complications, mean workRVU was higher for patients with the complication than those without (all P < 0.0001). For eight of 12 postoperative complications, workRVU entered the logistic regression models as a predictor variable in the 1st to 4th steps. Addition of workRVU as a preoperative predictive variable improved the c-index of the prediction models. CONCLUSIONS: WorkRVU was associated with sicker patients and patients experiencing postoperative complications and was an important predictor of postoperative complications. When added to a prediction model including patient characteristics, it only marginally improved prediction. This is possibly because workRVU is associated with patient characteristics.

Inpatient Versus Outpatient Surgery: A Comparison of Postoperative Mortality and Morbidity in Elective Operations.

BACKGROUND: Operations performed outpatient offer several benefits. The prevalence of outpatient operations is growing. Consequently, the proportion of patients with multiple comorbidities undergoing outpatient surgery is increasing. We compared 30-day mortality and overall morbidity between outpatient and inpatient elective operations. METHODS: Using the 2005-2018 ACS-NSQIP database, we evaluated trends in percent of hospital outpatient operations performed over time, and the percent of operations done outpatient versus inpatient by CPT code. Patient characteristics were compared for outpatient versus inpatient operations. We compared unadjusted and risk-adjusted 30-day mortality and morbidity for inpatient and outpatient operations. RESULTS: A total of 6,494,298 patients were included. The proportion of outpatient operations increased over time, from 37.8% in 2005 to 48.2% in 2018. We analyzed the 50 most frequent operations performed outpatient versus inpatient 25-75% of the time (n = 1,743,097). Patients having outpatient operations were younger (51.6 vs 54.6 years), female (70.3% vs 67.3%), had fewer comorbidities, and lower ASA class (I-II, 69.3% vs. 59.9%). On both unadjusted and risk-adjusted analysis, 30-day mortality and overall morbidity were less likely in outpatient versus inpatient operations. CONCLUSION: In this large multi-specialty analysis, we found that patients undergoing outpatient surgery had lower risk of 30-day morbidity and mortality than those undergoing the same inpatient operation. Patients having outpatient surgery were generally healthier, suggesting careful patient selection occurred even with increasing outpatient operation frequency. Patients and providers can feel reassured that outpatient operations are a safe, reasonable option for selected patients.

Using the Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System to Define the "High Risk" Surgical Patient.

BACKGROUND: Defining a "high risk" surgical population remains challenging. Using the Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS), we sought to define "high risk" groups for adverse postoperative outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the 2009-2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. SURPAS calculated probabilities of 12 postoperative adverse events. The Hosmer Lemeshow graphs of deciles of risk and maximum Youden index were compared to define "high risk." RESULTS: Hosmer-Lemeshow plots suggested the "high risk" patient could be defined by the 10th decile of risk. Maximum Youden index found lower cutoff points for defining "high risk" patients and included more patients with events. This resulted in more patients classified as "high risk" and higher number needed to treat to prevent one complication. Some specialties (thoracic, vascular, general) had more "high risk" patients, while others (otolaryngology, plastic) had lower proportions. CONCLUSIONS: SURPAS can define the "high risk" surgical population that may benefit from risk-mitigating interventions.

Associations Between Preoperative Risk, Postoperative Complications, and 30-Day Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidities and postoperative complications increase mortality, making early recognition and management critical. It is useful to understand how they are associated with one another. This study assesses associations between comorbidities, complications, and mortality. METHODS: We calculated associations between comorbidities, complications, and 30-day mortality using the 2012-2018 ACS-NSQIP database. We examined the association between mortality and number of complications which complications were most associated with mortality. RESULTS: 5,777,108 patients were included. 30-day mortality was 0.95%. For most comorbidities or postoperative complications, patients with these had higher mortality than patients without. Having ≥ 1 complication increased mortality risk by 32.5-fold (6.5% vs. 0.2%). Mortality rate significantly increased with increasing number of complications, particularly after two or more complications. Bleeding and sepsis were associated with the most deaths. CONCLUSION: The 30-day mortality rate was < 1% but was 32-fold higher in patients with complications and increased rapidly for patients with ≥ 2 complications. Bleeding and sepsis were the most prominent complications associated with mortality.

Reducing cost and improving operating room efficiency: examination of surgical instrument processing.

BACKGROUND: Operating room efficiency can be compromised because of surgical instrument processing delays. We observed that many instruments in a standardized tray were not routinely used during thyroid and parathyroid surgery at our institution. Our objective was to create a streamlined instrument tray to optimize operative efficiency and cost. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Head and neck surgical instrument trays were evaluated by operating room team leaders. Instruments were identified as either necessary or unnecessary based on use during thyroidectomies and parathyroidectomies. The operating room preparation time, tray weights, number of trays, and number of instruments were recorded for the original and new surgical trays. Cost savings were calculated using estimated reprocessing cost of $0.51 per instrument. RESULTS: Three of 13 head and neck trays were converted to thyroidectomy and parathyroidectomy trays. The starting head and neck surgical set was reduced from two trays with 98 total instruments to one tray with 36 instruments. Tray weight decreased from 27 pounds to 10 pounds. Tray preparation time decreased from 8 min to 3 min. The new tray saved $31.62 ($49.98 to $18.36) per operation in reprocessing costs. Projected annual savings with hospitalwide implementation is over $28,000.00 for instrument processing alone. Unmeasured hospital savings include decreased instrument wear and replacement frequency, quicker operating room setup, and decreased decontamination costs. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing surgical trays can reduce cost, physical strain, preparation time, decontamination time, and processing times, and streamlining trays is an effective strategy for hospitals to reduce costs and increase operating room efficiency.

The Effect of Social Vulnerability on Initial Stage and Treatment for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) is a composite metric for social determinants of health. The objective of this study was to determine if SVI influences stage at presentation for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients and subsequent therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: NSCLC patients from our local contribution to the National Cancer Database (2011-2021) were grouped into low SVI (<75 %ile) and high SVI (>75 %ile) cohorts. Demographics, cancer-related variables, and treatment modalities were compared. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to control for the impact of demographics on cancer presentation and for the impact of oncologic variables on treatment outcomes. RESULTS: Of 1,662 NSCLC patients, 435 (26 %) were defined as high SVI. Compared to the 1,227 (74 %) low SVI patients, highly vulnerable patients were more likely to be male (53.3 % vs 46.0 %, p = 0.009), non-White (17.2 % vs 9.7 %, p < 0.0001), have comorbidities (29.4 % vs 23.1 %, p = 0.009) and present at a higher AJCC clinical T, M and overall stage (all p < 0.05). These findings persisted on multivariable analysis, with highly vulnerable patients having 1.5x the odds (95 %CI: 1.23-1.86, p < 0.001) of presenting at more advanced stage. Patients with high SVI were less likely to be recommended for and receive surgery (40.9 % vs 53.2 %, p < 0.001), and this finding persisted after controlling for stage at presentation (OR 1.37, 95 %CI 1.04-1.80). CONCLUSIONS: Highly vulnerable patients present at a more advanced clinical stage and are less likely to be recommended and receive surgery, even after controlling for stage at presentation. Further investigation into these findings is warranted to achieve more equitable oncologic care.

Social vulnerability is associated with higher risk-adjusted rates of postoperative complications in a broad surgical population.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine if an association between Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) and risk-adjusted complications exists in a broad spectrum of surgical patients. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Growing evidence supports the impact of social circumstances on surgical outcomes. SVI is a neighborhood-based measure accounting for sociodemographic factors putting communities at risk. METHODS: This was a multi-hospital, retrospective cohort study including a sample of patients within one healthcare system (2012-2017). Patient addresses were geocoded to determine census tract of residence and estimate SVI. Patients were grouped into low SVI (score<75) and high SVI (score≥75) cohorts. Perioperative variables and postoperative outcomes were tracked and compared using local ACS-NSQIP data. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to generate risk-adjusted odds ratios of postoperative complications in the high SVI cohort. RESULTS: Overall, 31,224 patients from five hospitals were included. Patients with high SVI were more likely to be racial minorities, have 12/18 medical comorbidities, have high ASA class, be functionally dependent, be treated at academic hospitals, and undergo emergency operations (all p â€‹< â€‹0.05). Patients with high SVI had significantly higher rates of 30-day mortality, overall morbidity, respiratory, cardiac and infectious complications, urinary tract infections, postoperative bleeding, non-home discharge, and unplanned readmissions (all p â€‹< â€‹0.05). After risk-adjustment, only the associations between high SVI and mortality and unplanned readmission became non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: High SVI was associated with multiple adverse outcomes even after risk adjustment for preoperative clinical factors. Targeted preventative interventions to mitigate risk of these specific complications should be considered in this high-risk population.

National trends in technique use for esophagectomy: Does primary surgeon specialty matter?

BACKGROUND: Cardiothoracic surgeons and general surgeons (including surgical oncologists) perform most esophagectomies. The purpose of this study was to explore whether specialty-driven differences in surgical techniques and the use of minimally invasive surgical approaches exist and are associated with postoperative outcomes after esophagectomy. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program esophagectomy-targeted participant user file (2016-2018). Patients who underwent esophagectomy were sorted into cardiothoracic and general surgeon cohorts based on surgeon specialty. Perioperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes were compared using the χ2 analysis or independent t test. Multivariable logistic regression controlling for perioperative variables was performed to generate risk-adjusted rates of postoperative outcomes compared by surgical specialty. RESULTS: Of 3,247 patients included, 1,792 (55.2%) underwent esophagectomy by cardiothoracic surgeons and 1,455 (44.5%) by general surgeons as the primary surgeon. Cardiothoracic surgeons were more likely to use traditional minimally invasive surgical (P = .0004) or open approaches (P < .0001) and less likely to use robotic (P = .04) or a hybrid robotic and traditional approaches (P < .0001). Cardiothoracic surgeons performed more Ivor Lewis esophagectomies and fewer transhiatal and McKeown esophagectomies (P < .0001). After risk adjustment, there were no differences in rates of postesophagectomy complications, such as anastomotic leaks or positive margins, between cardiothoracic surgeons and general surgeons (all P > .05). However, cardiothoracic surgeons were more likely than general surgeons to treat anastomotic leaks with surgery rather than procedural interventions (odds ratio = 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.52). CONCLUSION: Cardiothoracic surgeons and general surgeons use minimally invasive surgical subtypes differently when performing esophagectomy. However, there were no risk-adjusted differences in postoperative complications when compared by surgical subspecialty. Esophagectomy is being performed safely by surgeons with different specialties and training pathways.

Timing of recovery of quality of life after robotic anatomic lung resection.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an underreported aspect of surgical recovery. The purpose of our study was to track PROs after robotic anatomic lung to determine the timing to recovery of baseline patient baseline quality of life. This was a prospective cohort study at an academic medical center (4/2021-12/2022). Patients who underwent robotic anatomic lung resection were asked to complete PROMIS-29 surveys at the preoperative clinic visit, postoperative clinic visit, 30 days and 90 days postoperatively via in-person and email-based electronic surveys. The PROPr score, a summary of health-related quality of life, and mental and physical health z-scores were estimated for each patient using published methods and compared by postoperative timing. 75 patients completed the preoperative survey and at least one postoperative survey; 56 completed postoperative clinic surveys, 54 completed 30-day postoperative surveys, and 40 completed 90-day postoperative surveys. All three PROMIS scores decreased between the preoperative and first postoperative visit (all p < 0.05). PROPr scores increased over time but remained significantly worse than baseline by 90 days (-0.08 difference between 90 days and preoperative, p = 0.02). While PROMIS summary z-scores for physical health remained - 0.29 lower at 90 days postoperatively, this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.06). Mental health scores returned to baseline by 90 days postoperatively (p = 0.41). While some PROs returned to baseline by 90 days postoperatively, overall quality-of-life scores remained significantly below preoperative baselines. These findings are important to share with patients during the informed consent process to achieve patient centered care more effectively.

The association between patient preoperative disposition and outcomes after diagnostic lung biopsy.

Background: Surgical diagnostic lung biopsy (DLB) is performed to guide the management of pulmonary disease with unclear etiology. However, the utilization of surgical DLB in critically ill patients remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine if patient preoperative disposition impacts complication rates after DLB. Methods: This was retrospective cohort study using electronic health record (EHR) data at one academic institution [2013-2021]. Patients who underwent DLB were identified using current procedural terminology (CPT) codes and cohorted based on preoperative disposition. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality; secondary outcomes were overall morbidity, individual complications, and changes to medical therapy. Complication rates were compared using chi-squared tests, Fisher's exact tests, or analysis of variance (ANOVA). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to generate risk-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for each complication. Results: Of 285 patients, 238 (83.5%) presented from home, 26 (9.1%) from inpatient floor units, and 21 (7.4%) from intensive care units (ICUs). Patients requiring ICU had the highest 30-day rates of mortality, overall morbidity, and all individual complications (all P<0.05). After risk adjustment, non-ICU inpatients had higher odds of postoperative ventilator use, prolonged ventilation, and ICU need than outpatients (all P<0.05). Preoperative ICU disposition was associated with increased OR of 30-day mortality [OR, 70.92; 95% confidence interval (CI): 5.55-906.32] and overall morbidity (OR, 7.27; 95% CI: 1.93-27.42) compared to patients with other preoperative dispositions. There were no differences in changes to medical therapy between the cohorts. Conclusions: Patients requiring ICU before DLB had significantly higher risk-adjusted rates of mortality and postoperative complications than outpatients and other inpatients. A clear benefit from tissue diagnosis should be defined prior to performing DLB on critically ill patients.

Strict compliance to a thoracic enhanced recovery after surgery protocol is associated with improved outcomes compared with partial compliance: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Benefits of thoracic enhanced recovery after surgery programs have been described. However, there is ongoing discussion on the importance of full protocol compliance. The objective of this study was to determine whether strict adherence to an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol leads to further improvement in outcomes compared with less strict compliance. METHODS: This was a multihospital prospective cohort study of all consecutive anatomic lung resection patients on the thoracic enhanced recovery after surgery pathway from May 2021 to March 2023, with comparison with a historical control from January 2019 to April 2021. Compliance to 5 key protocol elements was tracked. Patients were grouped into high- and low-compliance cohorts, defined as adherence to 4-5/5 or 0-3/5 elements, respectively. The primary outcome was overall morbidity; secondary outcomes included cardiac, respiratory, and infectious morbidity and length of stay. RESULTS: Of the 960 patients, 429 (44.7%) were enhanced recovery after surgery patients and 531 (55.3%) were in the historical control group. Across all patients, 250 (26.0%) were considered high compliance and 710 (74.0%) were considered low compliance. After adjustment for enhanced recovery after surgery status and confounders, the association between high compliance and improved outcomes persisted for all but infectious morbidity. Compared with low compliance, high compliance was associated with decreased odds of any morbidity (0.41 [95% CI, 0.22-0.77]), cardiac morbidity (0.31 [0.11-0.91]), respiratory morbidity (0.46 [0.23-0.90]) and decreased length of stay (0.38 [0.18-0.87]). CONCLUSION: Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols improve outcomes after anatomic lung resection. Increasing compliance to individual elements (>80%) further improves patient outcomes. Continued efforts should be directed at increasing compliance to individual protocol elements.

Evaluating the implementation of robotic thoracic surgery on a Veterans Administration Hospital.

Robotic thoracic surgery has demonstrated benefits. We aimed to evaluate implementation of a robotic thoracic surgery program on postoperative outcomes at our Veteran's Administration Medical Center (VAMC). We retrospectively reviewed our VAMC database from 2015 to 2021. Patients who underwent surgery with intention to treat lung nodules were included. Primary outcome was patient length of stay (LOS). Patients were grouped by surgical approach and stratified to before and after adoption of robotic surgery. Univariate comparison of postoperative outcomes was performed using Wilcoxon rank sums and chi-squared tests. Multivariate regression was performed to control for ASA class. P values < 0.05 were considered significant. Outcomes of 108 patients were assessed. 63 operations (58%) occurred before and 45 (42%) after robotic surgery implementation. There were no differences in patient preoperative characteristics. More patients underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in the post-implementation era than pre-implementation (85% vs. 42%, p < 0.001). Robotic operations comprised 53% of operations post-implementation. On univariate analysis, patients in the post-implementation era had a shorter LOS vs. pre-implementation, regardless of surgical approach (mean 4.7 vs. 6.0 days, p = 0.04). On multivariate analysis, patients who underwent MIS had a shorter LOS [median 4 days (IQR 2-6 days) vs. 7 days (6-9 days), p < 0.001] and were more likely to be discharged home than to inpatient facilities [OR (95% CI) 13.00 (1.61-104.70), p = 0.02]. Robotic thoracic surgery program implementation at a VAMC decreased patient LOS and increased the likelihood of discharging home. Implementation at other VAMCs may be associated with improvement in some patient outcomes.

The association between obesity and postoperative outcomes in a broad surgical population: A 7-year American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement analysis.

BACKGROUND: The number of obese surgical patients continues to grow, and yet obesity's association with surgical outcomes is not totally clear. This study examined the association between obesity and surgical outcomes across a broad surgical population using a very large sample size. METHODS: This was an analysis of the 2012 to 2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement database, including all patients from 9 surgical specialties (general, gynecology, neurosurgery, orthopedics, otolaryngology, plastics, thoracic, urology, and vascular). Preoperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes were compared by body mass index class (normal weight 18.5-24.9 kg/m2, overweight 25.0-29.9, obese class I 30.0-34.9, obese II 35.0-39.9, obese III ≥40). Adjusted odds ratios were computed for adverse outcomes by body mass index class. RESULTS: A total of 5,572,019 patients were included; 44.6% were obese. Median operative times were marginally higher for obese patients (89 vs 83 minutes, P < .001). Compared to normal weight patients, overweight and obese patients in classes I, II, and III all had higher adjusted odds of developing infection, venous thromboembolism, and renal complications, but they did not exhibit elevated odds of other postoperative complications (mortality, overall morbidity, pulmonary, urinary tract infection, cardiac, bleeding, stroke, unplanned readmission, or discharge not home (except for class III patients). CONCLUSION: Obesity was associated with increased odds of postoperative infection, venous thromboembolism, and renal but not the other American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement complications. Obese patients need to be carefully managed for these complications.

Formative evaluation of the development and implementation of the automated surveillance of postoperative infections tool.

BACKGROUND: The gold standard for detecting postoperative complications uses databases like the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, a multi-centered database based on manual chart review. However, their limitations and costs have led many centers to discontinue participation. Novel techniques to detect postoperative complications must be developed and implemented with surgeon involvement, which is paramount to their adoption. We sought to assess surgeons' opinions of a newly developed postoperative complication detection tool, the Automated Surveillance of Postoperative Infections, within the contextual clinical environment. METHODS: This was a multi-site qualitative formative evaluation of surgeon perceptions of the Automated Surveillance of Postoperative Infections. We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with surgeons and presented the Automated Surveillance of Postoperative Infections concept. Important domains and constructs, as categorized by Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, were identified to support the successful adoption and implementation of the Automated Surveillance of Postoperative Infections. RESULTS: Twenty-four surgeons with 10 surgical subspecialties were interviewed. The following 4 main themes were found: (1) perception of the Automated Surveillance of Postoperative Infections tool-to provide important data that can improve and support clinical outcomes; (2) environment for implementation-description of factors to support or impede implementation; (3) adaptability of the Automated Surveillance of Postoperative Infections-to work with the complexity of surgical cases; and (4) the Automated Surveillance of Postoperative Infections report format and details. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully captured the perspectives and suggestions of surgeons to improve the Automated Surveillance of Postoperative Infections and potential barriers during the initial development phase. Barriers included fear of punitive action from reports and complex surgical cases. Facilitators identified were the need to improve clinical outcomes and organizational support. The results of this formative evaluation will be used to further develop Automated Surveillance of Postoperative Infections, starting with a prototype, the Automated Surveillance of Postoperative Infections 1.0.

Effect of Present at Time of Surgery on Unadjusted and Risk-Adjusted Postoperative Complication Rate.

BACKGROUND: Present at the time of surgery (PATOS) is an important measure to collect in postoperative complication surveillance systems because it may affect a patient's risk of a subsequent complication and the estimation of postoperative complication rates attributed to the healthcare system. The American College of Surgeons (ACS) NSQIP started collecting PATOS data for 8 postoperative complications in 2011, but no one has used these data to quantify how this may affect unadjusted and risk-adjusted postoperative complication rates. STUDY DESIGN: This study was a retrospective observational study of the ACS NSQIP database from 2012 to 2018. PATOS data were analyzed for the 8 postoperative complications of superficial, deep, and organ space surgical site infection; pneumonia; urinary tract infection; ventilator dependence; sepsis; and septic shock. Unadjusted postoperative complication rates were compared ignoring PATOS vs taking PATOS into account. Observed to expected ratios over time were also compared by calculating expected values using multiple logistic regression analyses with complication as the dependent variable and the 28 nonlaboratory preoperative variables in the ACS NSQIP database as the independent variables. RESULTS: In 5,777,108 patients, observed event rates for each outcome were reduced by between 6.1% (superficial surgical site infection) and 52.5% (sepsis) when PATOS was taken into account. The observed to expected ratios were similar each year for all outcomes, except for sepsis and septic shock in the early years. CONCLUSIONS: Taking PATOS into account is important for reporting unadjusted event rates. The effect varied by type of complication-lowest for superficial surgical site infection and highest for sepsis and septic shock. Taking PATOS into account was less important for risk-adjusted outcomes (observed to expected ratios), except for sepsis and septic shock.