Survival of Locally Advanced MSI-high Gastric Cancer Patients Treated With Perioperative Chemotherapy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of chemotherapy in patients with microsatellite instability (MSI)-high gastric cancer. BACKGROUND: Although MSI-high gastric cancer is associated with a superior prognosis, recent studies question the benefit of perioperative chemotherapy in this population. METHODS: Locally advanced gastric adenocarcinoma patients who either underwent surgery alone or also received neoadjuvant, perioperative, or adjuvant chemotherapy between 2000 and 2018 were eligible. MSI status, determined by next-generation sequencing or mismatch repair protein immunohistochemistry, was determined in 535 patients. Associations among MSI status, chemotherapy administration, overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival, and disease-free survival were assessed. RESULTS: In 535 patients, 82 (15.3%) had an MSI-high tumor and ∼20% better OS, disease-specific survival, and disease-free survival. Grade 1 (90%-100%) pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy was found in 0 of 40 (0%) MSI-high tumors versus 43 of 274 (16%) MSS. In the MSI-high group, the 3-year OS rate was 79% with chemotherapy versus 88% with surgery alone ( P =0.48). In the MSS group, this was 61% versus 59%, respectively ( P =0.96). After multivariable interaction analyses, patients with MSI-high tumors had superior survival compared with patients with MSS tumors whether given chemotherapy (hazard ratio=0.53, 95% confidence interval: 0.28-0.99) or treated with surgery alone (hazard ratio=0.15, 95% confidence interval: 0.02-1.17). CONCLUSIONS: MSI-high locally advanced gastric cancer was associated with superior survival compared with MSS overall, despite worse pathological chemotherapy response. In patients with MSI-high gastric cancer who received chemotherapy, the survival rate was ∼9% worse compared with surgery alone, but chemotherapy was not significantly associated with survival.

Outcomes of Partial Versus Total Colectomy in Ulcerative Colitis: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Total abdominal colectomy (TAC) with ileostomy is the standard treatment for severe ulcerative colitis (UC). Partial colectomy (PC) with colostomy may present a less morbid treatment option. METHODS: The 2012-19 ACS-NSQIP database was queried to assess 30-day outcomes among patients undergoing TAC versus PC for UC, utilizing propensity score matching (PSM) techniques to account for differences in disease severity, patient selection, and presentation acuity. RESULTS: Before matching (n = 9888), patients undergoing PC were older, had more comorbidities, and experienced higher complication and 30-day mortality rates (P < 0.001). After matching (n = 1846), patients undergoing TAC experienced higher 30-day overall complications (41.9% versus 36.5%, P = 0.017) and serious complications (37.2% versus 31.5%, P = 0.011). Sensitivity analyses of older patients and those undergoing nonemergency surgery demonstrated higher overall rates of complications for patients receiving TAC. However, among patients undergoing emergency surgery only, no differences in complications were seen between the two surgical approaches. CONCLUSIONS: PC with colostomy in the setting of ulcerative colitis has similar 30-day outcomes to TAC with ileostomy. PC may be an acceptable surgical alternative to TAC in select patients. Studies investigating longer-term outcomes are necessary to further investigate this option.

Downstaging of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma With Either Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy Improves Survival.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) or chemoradiation (NAC+XRT) is incorporated into the treatment of localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), often with the goal of downstaging before resection. However, the effect of downstaging on overall survival, particularly the differential effects of NAC and NAC+XRT, remains undefined. This study examined the impact of downstaging from NAC and NAC+XRT on overall survival. METHODS: The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) was queried from 2006 to 2015 for patients with non-metastatic PDAC who received NAC or NAC+XRT. Rates of overall and nodal downstaging, and pathologic complete response (pCR) were assessed. Predictors of downstaging were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. Overall survival (OS) was assessed with Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: The study enrolled 2475 patients (975 NAC and 1500 NAC+XRT patients). Compared with NAC, NAC+XRT was associated with higher rates of overall downstaging (38.3 % vs 23.6 %; p ≤ 0.001), nodal downstaging (16.0 % vs 7.8 %; p ≤ 0.001), and pCR (1.7 % vs 0.7 %; p = 0.041). Receipt of NAC+XRT was independently predictive of overall (odds ratio [OR] 2.28; p < 0.001) and nodal (OR 3.09; p < 0.001) downstaging. Downstaging by either method was associated with improved 5-year OS (30.5 vs 25.2 months; p ≤ 0.001). Downstaging with NAC was associated with an 8-month increase in median OS (33.7 vs 25.6 months; p = 0.005), and downstaging by NAC+XRT was associated with a 5-month increase in median OS (30.0 vs 25.0 months; p = 0.008). Cox regression showed an association of overall downstaging with an 18 % reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82; 95 % confidence interval, 0.71-0.95; p = 0.01) CONCLUSION: Downstaging after neoadjuvant therapies improves survival. The addition of radiation therapy may increase the rate of downstaging without affecting overall oncologic outcomes.

Management of Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Results of an International Survey of Current Practice.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate surgeon preferences for the management of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). BACKGROUND: Select patients with LAPC may become candidates for curative resection following neoadjuvant therapy, and recent reports of survival are encouraging. Yet the optimal management approach remains unclear. METHODS: An extensive electronic survey was systematically distributed by email to an international cohort of pancreas surgeons. Data collected included practice characteristics, management preferences, attitudes regarding contraindications to surgery, and 6 clinical vignettes of patients that ultimately received a margin negative resection (with detailed videos of post-neoadjuvant imaging) to assess propensity for surgical exploration if resection status is not known. RESULTS: A total of 153 eligible responses were received from 4 continents. Median duration of practice is 12 years (interquartile range 6-20) and 77% work in a university setting. Most surgeons (86%) are considered high volume (>10 resections/yr), 33% offer a minimally-invasive approach, and 50% offer arterial resections in select patients. Most (72%) always recommend neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 65% prefer FOLFIRINOX. Preferences for the duration of chemotherapy varied widely: 39% prefer ≥2 months, 43% prefer ≥4 months, and 11% prefer ≥6 months. Forty-one percent frequently recommend neoadjuvant radiotherapy, and 53% prefer 5 to 6 weeks of chemoradiation. The proportion of surgeons favoring exploration following neoadjuvant varied extensively across 5 vignettes of LAPC, from 14% to 53%. In a vignette of oligometastatic liver metastases, 31% would offer exploration if a favorable therapy response is observed. CONCLUSIONS: In an international cohort of pancreas surgeons, there is substantial variation in management preferences, perceived contraindications to surgery, and the propensity to consider exploration in LAPC. These results emphasize the importance of a robust and nuanced multidisciplinary discussion for each patient, and suggest an evolving concept of "resectability."

Neoadjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Propensity-Matched Analysis of Postoperative Complications Using ACS-NSQIP.

BACKGROUND: The use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is increasing. While there is an association between NAT and improved post-pancreatectomy complication rates in limited patient populations, the strength of the relationship and its applicability to a broader and modern pancreatectomy cohort remains unclear. METHODS: We used the 2014-2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project to evaluate NAT use for PDAC patients undergoing pancreatectomy. We also used propensity score matching techniques to compare 30-day postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) and delayed gastric emptying (DGE), between patients selected for NAT versus upfront surgery. RESULTS: Patients receiving NAT were more likely to undergo vascular resections (33% vs. 16%, p < 0.001), have perioperative transfusions (18% vs. 12%, p < 0.001), and undergo longer procedures. Rates of CR-POPF (6%, vs. 10%, p < 0.001), DGE (11% vs. 13%, p = 0.016), postoperative percutaneous drainage (9% vs. 12%, p < 0.001), and SSI (15% vs. 18%, p < 0.001) were lower for patients selected for NAT. The association of NAT with CR-POPF remained statistically significant (adjusted odds ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.42-0.66) after adjustment for operative technique, gland texture, and need for vascular resection for patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, but not for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Among PDAC patients undergoing resection, selection for NAT is associated with fewer CR-POPFs, postoperative procedural interventions, and infectious complications, particularly for patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. These associations should be considered in discussions of multidisciplinary treatment sequencing for patients with PDAC.

Association of gravity drainage and complications following Whipple: an analysis of the ACS-NSQIP targeted database.

BACKGROUND: The optimal type of operative drainage following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) remains unclear. Our objective is to investigate risk associated with closed drainage techniques (passive [gravity] vs. suction) after PD. METHODS: We assessed operative drainage techniques utilized in patients undergoing PD in the ACS-NSQIP pancreas-targeted database from 2016 to 2018. Using multivariable logistic regression to adjust for characteristics of the patient, procedure, and pancreas, we examined the association between use of gravity drainage and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 9665 patients with drains following PD from 2016 to 2018, of which 12.7% received gravity drainage. 61.0% had a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma or pancreatitis, 26.5% had a duct <3 mm, and 43.5% had a soft or intermediate gland. After multivariable adjustment, gravity drainage was associated with decreased rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio [OR] 0.779, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.653-0.930, p=0.006), delayed gastric emptying (OR 0.830, 95% CI 0.693-0.988, p=0.036), superficial SSI (OR 0.741, 95% CI 0.572-0.959, p=0.023), organ space SSI (OR 0.791, 95% CI 0.658-0.951, p=0.012), and readmission (OR 0.807, 95% CI 0.679-0.958, p=0.014) following PD. CONCLUSIONS: Gravity drainage is independently associated with decreased rates of CR-POPF, DGE, SSI, and readmission following PD. Additional prospective research is necessary to better understand the preferred drainage technique following PD.

Treatment sequencing for simultaneous colorectal liver metastases.

Up to 25% of patients with colorectal cancer present with simultaneous metastases and the liver is frequently the only metastatic site. This review will review treatment sequence planning considerations-including metastatic burden, primary tumor site, chemotherapy response, and ability to perform minimally invasive surgery-for patients with simultaneous resectable colorectal liver metastases. In addition, this review will address conversion chemotherapy, combined vs staged surgeries, and their possible sequences.

Variation in Hospital Thromboprophylaxis Practices for Abdominal Cancer Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Venous thromboembolism remains a prominent cause of morbidity and mortality following cancer surgery. Although evidence-based guidelines recommend major cancer surgery thromboprophylaxis starts before incision and continues at least 7-10 days postoperatively, the extent to which the guidelines are followed is unknown. We assessed variation in thromboprophylaxis practices for abdominal cancer surgery in a regional surgical collaborative. METHODS: We studied abdominal resections for primary gastrointestinal, hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB), and neuroendocrine malignancies in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative from July 2012 to September 2013 (N = 2967 patients in 52 hospitals). We obtained detailed perioperative and postoperative pharmacologic and mechanical thromboprophylaxis information for patients without documented exemptions (e.g., active bleeding, allergy), and compared differences in procedure mix and operative complexity across hospitals based on their perioperative thromboprophylaxis rates. Additionally, we surveyed hospitals to identify variations in perioperative practice and barriers to prophylaxis administration. RESULTS: Overall, 40.4 % of eligible patients had perioperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis for abdominal cancer surgery, and 25.3 % of the highest-risk patients had evidence of inadequate postoperative prophylaxis (under-prophylaxis, either by dose or duration). Hospital perioperative thromboprophylaxis rates ranged from 0 to 96.1 %, and postoperative thromboprophylaxis rates ranged from 73.9 to 100 %. Epidural use was not independently associated with hospital pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis rates. CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than half of patients undergoing abdominal cancer surgery receive perioperative thromboprophylaxis, and there is wide variation in hospital thromboprophylaxis utilization despite strong evidence-based guidelines supporting its use.

Insurance Status and Hospital Payer Mix Are Linked With Variation in Metastatic Site Resection in Patients With Advanced Colorectal Cancers.

BACKGROUND: Despite substantially improved survival with metastatic site resection in colorectal cancers, uptake of aggressive surgical approaches remains low among certain patients. It is unknown whether financial determinants of care, such as insurance status, play a role in this treatment gap. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the effect of insurance status on metastasectomy in patients with advanced colorectal cancers. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: Using the National Cancer Data Base Participant User File, incident cases of colorectal cancer metastatic to the lung and/or liver with diagnosis from 2010 to 2013 were identified. PATIENTS: We identified 42,300 patients in our cohort with a mean age 64 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Controlling for patient, tumor, and hospital characteristics, hierarchical regression was used to examine associations between hospital payer mix and metastatic site resection. Metastatic site resection occurred in 12.3% of all patients. RESULTS: Adjusting for patient and hospital fixed effects, we found that patients who were uninsured or on Medicaid were 38% less likely to undergo metastasectomy (OR = 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56-0.66)). Patients in hospitals with staff treating a high percentage of uninsured patients or patients with Medicaid were less likely to undergo metastasectomy, even after controlling for individual patient insurance status. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective design and the granularity and accuracy of the National Cancer Data Base. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in insurance status and hospital payer mix are associated with differences in rates of metastatic site resection in patients with colorectal cancer that is metastatic to the lung and/or liver. There is a need for improved access to metastatic site resection for individual patients who are uninsured or who have Medicaid insurance, as well as for all patients who seek care at hospitals treating a large proportion of patients who are uninsured or on Medicaid. Remedies for individual patients could include improved access to private insurance through employment or individual plans or improved reimbursement from Medicaid for this procedure. Strategies for patients at low-performing hospitals include selective referral to centers that perform mestastectomy more frequently when appropriate.

Variation in hospital treatment patterns for metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: There are many treatment options for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). However, to the authors' knowledge, national treatment patterns for metastatic CRC, and the stability of hospital treatment patterns over time, have not been well described. METHODS: Data from the 2006 through 2011 National Cancer Data Base were used to study adults with newly diagnosed metastatic CRC (84,161 patients from 1051 hospitals). Using hierarchical models, the authors characterized hospital volume in the use of different treatment modalities (primary site resection, metastatic site resection, chemotherapy, and palliative care). The authors then assessed variation in the receipt of treatment according to the hospitals' relative volume of services used. Finally, the extent to which hospital treatment patterns changed over the past decade was examined. RESULTS: Overall use of volume of services varied widely (5.0% in the hospitals with low volumes of service to 22.3% in the hospitals with high volumes of service). As hospitals' volumes of services increased, adjusted rates of metastatic site surgery (6.6% to 30.8%; P<.001) and multiagent chemotherapy (37.8% to 57.4%; P<.001) use increased, but primary site resection demonstrated little variation (56.8% vs 59.5%; P = .024). It is interesting to note that use of palliative care also increased (8.1% to 11.3%; P = .002). Hospital treatment patterns did not change over time, with hospitals with high volumes of service consistently using more metastatic site resection and multiagent chemotherapy than hospitals with low volumes of service. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in hospital treatment patterns for patients with metastatic CRC, and these patterns have been stable over time. It appears that much of the approach for metastatic CRC treatment depends on the hospital in which the patient presents.

Pancreatic Resection Results in a Statewide Surgical Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: A strong relationship between hospital caseload and adverse outcomes has been demonstrated for pancreatic resections. Participation in regional surgical collaboratives may mitigate this phenomenon. This study sought to investigate changes over time in adverse outcomes after pancreatectomy across hospitals with different caseloads in a statewide surgical collaborative. METHODS: The study investigated patients undergoing pancreatic resection from January 2008 to August 2013 at Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) hospitals (1007 patients in 19 academic and community hospitals). Risk-adjusted rates of major complications, mortality, and failure to rescue were compared between hospitals based on caseloads (low, medium, and high) in early (2008-2010) and later (2011-2013) periods. Finally, the degree to which different complications explained changes in hospital outcome variation was assessed. RESULTS: Adjusted rates of major complications and mortality decreased over time, driven largely by improvements at low-caseload hospitals. In 2008-2010, risk-adjusted major complication rates were higher for low-caseload than for high-caseload hospitals (27.8 vs. 17.8 %; p = 0.02). However, these differences were attenuated in 2011-2013 (22.2 vs. 20.0 %; p = 0.74). Similarly, adjusted mortality rates were higher in low-caseload hospitals in 2008-2010 (6.2 vs. 0.8 %; p = 0.02), but these differences were attenuated in 2011-2013 (3.3 vs. 1.1 %; p = 0.18). Variation in major complications decreased, largely due to decreased variation in "medical" complication rates, with less change in surgical-site complications. CONCLUSION: Participation in regional quality collaboratives by lower-volume hospitals can attenuate the volume-outcome relationship for pancreatic surgery. Continued work in collaboratives with an emphasis on technical and intraoperative aspects of care may improve overall quality of care.

Surgical Referral for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Population-Based Survey.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection is underutilized for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM). Although the causes of underutilization are poorly understood, provider attitudes towards surgical referral may be contributory. We sought to understand medical oncologists' perspectives on referral for CLM. METHODS: Medical oncologists who treat colorectal cancer in the US state of Michigan were surveyed. We characterized respondents' attitudes regarding clinical and tumor-related contraindications to liver resection for CLM, as well as referral and treatment preferences using case-based scenarios. We then evaluated practice characteristics and treatment preferences between physicians. RESULTS: A total of 112 eligible responses were received (46 % response rate). Nearly 40 % of respondents reported having no liver surgeons in their practice area. Commonly perceived contraindications to liver resection included extrahepatic disease (80.3 %), poor performance status (77.7 %), the presence of >4 metastases (62.5 %), bilobar metastases (43.8 %), and metastasis size >5 cm (40.2 %). Compared with high-referring physicians, low-referring physicians were just as likely to refer a patient with very low recurrence risk (89.3 vs. 98.3 %; p = 0.099), but much less likely to refer a patient with moderate risk (0 vs. 82.8 %; p < 0.001). High-referring physicians were more likely to consider resection for scenarios consistent with higher recurrence risk (31.0 vs. 10.7 %; p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We found wide variation in surgical referral patterns for CLM. Many felt that bilobar disease and tumor size were contraindications to liver-directed therapy despite a lack of supporting data. These findings suggest an urgent need to increase dissemination of evidence and guidance regarding management for CLM, perhaps through increased specialist participation in tumor boards.

Multi-institutional assessment of sphincter preservation for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Sphincter-preserving surgery (SPS) has been proposed as a quality measure for rectal cancer surgery. However, previous studies on SPS rates lack critical clinical characteristics, rendering it unclear if variation in SPS rates is due to unmeasured case-mix differences or surgeons' selection criteria. In this context, we investigate the variation in SPS rates at various practice settings. METHODS: Ten hospitals in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative collected rectal cancer-specific data, including tumor location and reasons for non-SPS, of patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery from 2007 to 2012. Hospitals were divided into terciles of SPS rates (frequent, average, and infrequent). Patients were categorized as 'definitely SPS eligible' a priori if they did not have any of the following: sphincter involvement, tumor <6 cm from the anal verge, fecal incontinence, stoma preference, or metastatic disease. Fixed-effects logistic regression was used to evaluate for factors associated with SPS. RESULTS: In total, 329 patients underwent rectal cancer surgery at 10 hospitals (5/10 higher volume, and 6/10 major teaching). Overall, 72 % had SPS (range by hospital 47-91 %). Patient and tumor characteristics were similar between hospital terciles. On multivariable analysis, only hospital ID, younger age, and tumor location were associated with SPS, but not sex, race, body mass index, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage, preoperative radiation, or American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class. Analysis of the 181 (55 %) 'definitely-eligible' patients revealed an SPS rate of 90 % (65-100 %). CONCLUSIONS: SPS rates vary by hospital, even after accounting for clinical characteristics using detailed chart review. These data suggest missed opportunities for SPS, and refute the general hypothesis that hospital variation in previous studies is due to unmeasured case-mix differences.

Reliability of surgical outcomes for predicting future hospital performance.

BACKGROUND: Because of small sample sizes and low event rates, risk-adjusted surgical outcomes often do not meet reliability benchmarks for distinguishing hospital performance. Nonetheless, it is unclear whether these measures may still be useful for predicting future hospital surgical performance. METHODS: We used national Medicare data to analyze patients undergoing colectomy from 2007 to 2010 (n=462,959 patients). We first quantified 2007-2008 outcome reliability (ability to differentiate quality differences) and ranked hospitals based on their 2007-2008 risk-adjusted outcome rates. To assess the ability of adjusted outcomes to predict true performance, we evaluated future (2009-2010) outcomes across quintiles of past performance. We then systematically sampled 2007-2008 cases to evaluate performance prediction when hospitals' past performance was measured with progressively lower reliability levels. RESULTS: Outcomes in 2007-2008 were good predictors of outcomes in the next 2 years (2009-2010), but predictive strength depended upon reliability. With progressive sampling of 2007-2008 caseloads, outcome reliability and predictive strength decreased. With 100% sampling of 2007-2008 caseloads, the worst versus best hospital quintile based on past performance had 1.52 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.44-1.60] times the odds of mortality and 1.50 (95% CI, 1.44-1.56) times the odds of complications in 2009-2010. With 10% sampling, outcome reliability was well below commonly accepted benchmarks, but the worst quintile of hospitals in 2007-2008 still had 1.12 (95% CI, 1.06-1.19) times the odds of mortality and 1.16 (95% CI, 1.11-1.21) times the odds of complications in 2009-2010 compared with the best quintile of hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Even at very low reliability levels, risk-adjusted outcome measures may distinguish best and worst hospitals' surgical performance. This study suggests that commonly accepted reliability thresholds may be too high, especially in the context of selective referral.

Complication rates of ostomy surgery are high and vary significantly between hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Ostomy surgery is common and has traditionally been associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality, suggesting an important target for quality improvement. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work was to evaluate the variation in outcomes after ostomy creation surgery within Michigan to identify targets for quality improvement. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The study took place within the 34-hospital Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative. PATIENTS: Patients included were those undergoing ostomy creation surgery between 2006 and 2011. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We evaluated hospital morbidity and mortality rates after risk adjustment (age, comorbidities, emergency vs elective, and procedure type). RESULTS: A total of 4250 patients underwent ostomy creation surgery; 3866 procedures (91.0%) were open and 384 (9.0%) were laparoscopic. Unadjusted morbidity and mortality rates were 43.9% and 10.7%. Unadjusted morbidity rates for specific procedures ranged from 32.7% for ostomy-creation-only procedures to 47.8% for Hartmann procedures. Risk-adjusted morbidity rates varied significantly between hospitals, ranging from 31.2% (95% CI, 18.4-43.9) to 60.8% (95% CI, 48.9-72.6). There were 5 statistically significant high-outlier hospitals and 3 statistically significant low-outlier hospitals for risk-adjusted morbidity. The pattern of complication types was similar between high- and low-outlier hospitals. Case volume, operative duration, and use of laparoscopic surgery did not explain the variation in morbidity rates across hospitals. LIMITATIONS: This work was limited by its retrospective study design, by unmeasured variation in case severity, and by our inability to differentiate between colostomies and ileostomies because of the use of Current Procedural Terminology codes. CONCLUSIONS: Morbidity and mortality rates for modern ostomy surgery are high. Although this type of surgery has received little attention in healthcare policy, these data reveal that it is both common and uncommonly morbid. Variation in hospital performance provides an opportunity to identify quality improvement practices that could be disseminated among hospitals.

Improving mortality following emergent surgery in older patients requires focus on complication rescue.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a hospital's ability to rescue patients from major complications underlies variation in outcomes for elderly patients undergoing emergent surgery. BACKGROUND: Perioperative mortality rates in elderly patients undergoing emergent general/vascular operations are high and vary widely across Michigan hospitals. METHODS: We identified 23,224 patients undergoing emergent general/vascular surgical procedures at 41 hospitals within the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative between 2006 and 2011. Hospitals were ranked by risk- and reliability-adjusted 30-day mortality rates and grouped into tertiles. We stratified patients by age (<75 and ≥75 years). Risk-adjusted major complication and failure-to-rescue (ie, mortality after major complication) rates were determined for each tertile of hospital mortality. RESULTS: Risk-adjusted mortality rates in elderly patients varied 2-fold across all hospitals. Complication rates correlated poorly with mortality. Failure-to-rescue rates, however, were markedly higher in high-mortality hospitals (29% lowest tertile vs 41% highest tertile; P < 0.01). When compared with younger patients, overall failure-to-rescue rates were almost 2-fold greater in the elderly (36.1% ≥75 vs 18.7% <75; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A hospital's failure to rescue patients from major complications seems to underlie the variation in mortality rates across Michigan hospitals after emergent surgery. Although higher failure-to-rescue rates in the elderly may signify their diminished physiological reserve for surviving critical illness, the wide variation across hospitals also highlights the importance of systems aimed at the early recognition and effective management of major complications in this vulnerable population.

Abdominal aortic calcification and surgical outcomes in patients with no known cardiovascular risk factors.

INTRODUCTION: In the setting of cardiovascular (CV) risk evaluation before major elective surgery, current risk assessment tools are relatively poor for discriminating among patients. For example, patients with clinical CV risk factors can be clearly identified; but among those without appreciated clinical CV risk, there may be a subset with stigmata of CV disease noted during the preoperative radiographic evaluation. Our study evaluated the relationship between abdominal aortic (AA) calcification measured on preoperative computed tomography (CT) imaging and surgical complications in patients undergoing general elective and vascular surgery. We hypothesized that patients with no known CV risk factors but significant aortic calcification on preoperative imaging will have inferior surgical outcomes. METHODS: The study group included 1180 patients from the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) database who underwent major general or vascular elective surgery between 2006 and 2009 and who had a CT scan of the abdomen specifically for preoperative planning. AA calcification was measured using novel analytic morphomic techniques and reported as a percentage of the total wall area containing calcification. Patients were divided into cohorts by clinical CV risk and extent of AA calcification. Univariate analysis was used to compare postoperative morbidity between patient cohorts. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to compare continuous AA calcification with overall morbidity in patients with no clinical CV risk factors. RESULTS: AA calcification was strongly skewed to the right (53.5% had no AA calcification) and was significantly correlated with age (ρ = 0.43, P < 0.001). Unadjusted univariate analysis of morbidity showed no significant differences in complication rates between patients in the clinical CV risk and significant AA calcification (no known CV risk factor) categories. The clinical CV risk (P < 0.001) and significant AA calcification without CV risk factors (P = 0.009) populations both had significantly more infectious and overall complications than patients with no AA calcification and no clinical CV risk. Multivariate logistic regression confirmed that AA calcification was a significant predictor of morbidity in patients with no clinical CV risk factors (odds ratio = 1.35, P = 0.017). DISCUSSION: This study suggests that AA calcification may be related to progression of CV disease and surgical outcomes. A better understanding of the complex interaction of patient physiology with overall ability to recover from major surgery, using novel approaches such as analytic morphomics, has great potential to improve risk stratification and patient selection.

Association between sarcopenia and the risk of serious infection among adults undergoing liver transplantation.

Although sarcopenia (muscle loss) is associated with increased mortality after liver transplantation, its influence on other complications is less well understood. We examined the association between sarcopenia and the risk of severe posttransplant infections among adult liver transplant recipients. By calculating the total psoas area (TPA) on preoperative computed tomography scans, we assessed sarcopenia among 207 liver transplant recipients. The presence or absence of a severe posttransplant infection was determined by a review of the medical chart. The influence of posttransplant infections on overall survival was also assessed. We identified 196 episodes of severe infections among 111 patients. Fifty-six patients had more than 1 infection. The median time to the development of an infection was 27 days (interquartile range = 13-62 days). When the patients were grouped by TPA tertiles, patients in the lowest tertile had a greater than 4-fold higher chance of developing a severe infection in comparison with patients in the highest tertile (odds ratio = 4.6, 95% confidence interval = 2.25-9.53). In a multivariate analysis, recipient age (hazard ratio = 1.04, P = 0.02), pretransplant TPA (hazard ratio = 0.38, P < 0.01), and pretransplant total bilirubin level (hazard ratio = 1.05, P = 0.02) were independently associated with the risk of developing severe infections. Patients with severe posttransplant infections had worse 1-year survival than patients without infections (76% versus 92%, P = 0.003). In conclusion, among patients undergoing liver transplantation, a lower TPA was associated with a heightened risk for posttransplant infectious complications and mortality. Future efforts should focus on approaches for assessing and mitigating vulnerability in patients undergoing transplantation.

Morbidity and Mortality of Non-pancreatectomy operations for pancreatic cancer: An ACS-NSQIP analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with pancreas cancer may undergo palliative gastrointestinal or biliary bypass. Recent comparisons of post-operative outcomes following such procedures are lacking. METHODS: We analyzed patients undergoing exploration, gastrojejunostomy, biliary bypass or double bypass for pancreatic cancer using data from the 2005-2019 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. We compared 30-day mortality and complications across procedures and over time periods (2005-10, 2011-14, 2015-19) using multivariable regression models. Factors associated with postoperative mortality were identified. RESULTS: Of 43,525 patients undergoing surgery with a postoperative diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, 5572 met inclusion criteria. Palliative operations included 1037 gastrojejunostomies, 792 biliary bypasses, 650 double bypasses, and 3093 explorations. The proportion of biliary and double bypass procedures decreased from 2005-10 to 2015-19. Gastrojejunostomy had higher 30-day mortality rate (11.5%) than other operations (p < 0.001). Adjusted 30-day mortality rates remained stable over time (7.8% vs 6.3%, p = 0.095), while rates of serious complications decreased over time (23.2% vs 17.1%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Palliative bypass for pancreatic cancer has not become safer over time, and 30-day mortality and complications remain high.