Postoperative Outcomes Associated with the Timing of Surgery After SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

OBJECTIVE: Examine the association between prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, interval from infection to surgery, and adverse surgical outcomes. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Earlier series have reported worse outcomes for surgery after COVID-19 illness, and these findings have led to routinely deferring surgery seven weeks after infection. METHODS: We created a retrospective cohort of patients from US Veterans Health Administration facilities nationwide, April 2020-September 2022, undergoing surgical procedures. Primary outcomes were 90-day all-cause mortality and 30-day complications. Within surgical procedure groupings, SARS-CoV-2 infected and uninfected patients were matched in a 1:4 ratio. We categorized patients by two-week intervals from SARS-CoV-2 positive test to surgery. Hierarchical multilevel multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between infection to surgery interval versus no infection and primary endpoints. RESULTS: We identified 82,815 veterans undergoing eligible operations (33% general, 27% orthopedic, 13% urologic, 9% vascular), of whom 16,563 (20%) had laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to surgery. The multivariable models demonstrated an association between prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and increased 90-day mortality (odds ratio (OR) 1.42, 95% CI 1.08, 1.86) and complications (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11, 1.57) only for patients having surgery within 14 days of infection. ASA-stratified multivariable models showed that the associations between increased 90-day mortality (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.12, 1.75) and complications (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.34, 2.24) for patients having surgery within 14 days of infection were confined to those with ASA 4-5. CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary surgical cohort, patients with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection only had increased post-operative mortality or complications when they had surgery within 14 days after positive test. These findings support revising timing recommendations between surgery and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Racial disparities in complications following elective colon cancer resection: Impact of laparoscopic versus robotic approaches.

BACKGROUND: We sought to examine differences in outcomes for Black and White patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic colectomy to assess the potential impact of technological advancement. METHODS: We queried the ACS-NSQIP database for elective robotic (RC) and laparoscopic (LC) colectomy for cancer from 2012 to 2020. Outcomes included 30-day mortality and complications. We analyzed the association between outcomes, operative approach, and race using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: We identified 64,460 patients, 80.9% laparoscopic and 19.1% robotic. RC patients were most frequently younger, male, and White, with fewer comorbidities (P â€‹< â€‹0.001). After adjustment, there was no difference in mortality by approach or race. Black patients who underwent LC had higher complications (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.03-1.08, P â€‹= â€‹0.005) than their White LC counterparts and RC patients. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic colectomy was associated with lower rates of complications in minority patients. Further investigation is required to identify the causal pathway that leads to our finding.

The Predictors of Complete Pathologic Response in Rectal Cancer during the Total Neoadjuvant Therapy Era: A Systematic Review.

The modern rectal cancer treatment paradigm offers additional opportunities for organ preservation, most notably via total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) and consideration for a watch-and-wait (WW) surveillance-only approach. A major barrier to widespread implementation of a WW approach to rectal cancer is the potential discordance between a clinical complete response (cCR) and a pathologic complete response (pCR). In the pre-TNT era, the identification of predictors of pCR after neoadjuvant therapy had been previously studied. However, the last meta-analysis to assess the summative evidence on this important treatment decision point predates the acceptance and dissemination of TNT strategies. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess preoperative predictors of pCR after TNT to guide the ideal selection criteria for WW in the current era. An exhaustive literature review was performed and the electronic databases Embase, Ovid, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane were comprehensively searched up to 27 June 2023. Search terms and their combinations included "rectal neoplasms", "total neoadjuvant therapy", and "pathologic complete response". Only studies in English were included. Randomized clinical trials or prospective/retrospective cohort studies of patients with clinical stage 2 or 3 rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent at least 8 weeks of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in addition to chemoradiotherapy with pCR as a measured study outcome were included. In this systematic review, nine studies were reviewed for characteristics positively or negatively associated with pCR or tumor response after TNT. The results were qualitatively grouped into four categories: (1) biochemical factors; (2) clinical factors; (3) patient demographics; and (4) treatment sequence for TNT. The heterogeneity of studies precluded meta-analysis. The level of evidence was low to very low. There is minimal data to support any clinicopathologic factors that either have a negative or positive relationship to pCR and tumor response after TNT. Additional data from long-term trials using TNT is critical to better inform those considering WW approaches following a cCR.

More problems, more money: Identifying and predicting high-cost rescue after colorectal surgery.

Background: Successful rescue after elective surgery is associated with increased healthcare costs, but costs vary widely. Treating all rescue events the same may overlook targeted opportunities for improvement. The purpose of this study was to predict high-cost rescue after elective colorectal surgery. Methods: We identified adult patients in the National Inpatient Sample (2016-2021) who underwent elective colectomy or proctectomy. Rescued patients were defined as those who underwent additional major procedures. Three groups were stratified: 1) uneventful recovery; 2) Low-cost rescue; 3) High-cost rescue. Multivariable Poisson regression was used to identify preoperative clinical predictors of high-cost versus low-cost rescue. Results: We identified 448,590 elective surgeries, and rescued patients composed 4.8 %(21,635) of the total sample. The median increase in costs in rescued patients was $25,544(p < 0.001). Median total inpatient costs were $95,926 in the most expensive rescued versus $34,811 in the less expensive rescued versus $16,751 in the uneventfully discharged(p < 0.001). When comparing the secondary procedures between the less expensive and most expensive rescued groups, the most expensive had an increased proportion of reoperation (73.4 % versus 53.0 %,p < 0.001). When controlling for other factors and stratification by congestive heart failure due to an interaction effect, a reoperation was independently associated with high-cost rescue (RR with CHF = 3.29,95%CI:2.69-4.04; RR without CHF = 2.29,95%CI:1.97-2.67). Conclusions: High-cost rescue after colorectal surgery is associated with disproportionately greater healthcare utilization and reoperation. For cost-conscious care, preemptive strategies that reduce reoperation-related complications can be prioritized.

Clinical outcomes of elective robotic vs laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer utilizing a large national database.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have shown comparable outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic approaches across a range of surgeries; however, these have been limited in size. This study investigates differences in outcomes following robotic (RC) vs laparoscopic (LC) colectomy across several years utilizing a large national database. METHODS: We analyzed data from ACS NSQIP for patients who underwent elective minimally invasive colectomies for colon cancer from 2012 to 2020. Inverse probability weighting with regression adjustment (IPWRA) incorporating demographics, operative factors, and comorbidities was used. Outcomes included mortality, complications, return to the operating room (OR), post-operative length of stay (LOS), operative time, readmission, and anastomotic leak. Secondary analysis was performed to further assess anastomotic leak rate following right and left colectomies. RESULTS: We identified 83,841 patients who underwent elective minimally invasive colectomies: 14,122 (16.8%) RC and 69,719 (83.2%) LC. Patients who underwent RC were younger, more likely to be male, non-Hispanic White, with higher body mass index (BMI) and fewer comorbidities (for all, P < 0.05). After adjustment, there were no differences between RC and LC for 30-day mortality (0.8% vs 0.9% respectively, P = 0.457) or overall complications (16.9% vs 17.2%, P = 0.432). RC was associated with higher return to OR (5.1% vs 3.6%, P < 0.001), lower LOS (4.9 vs 5.1 days, P < 0.001), longer operative time (247 vs 184 min, P < 0.001), and higher rates of readmission (8.8% vs 7.2%, P < 0.001). Anastomotic leak rates were comparable for right-sided RC vs LC (2.1% vs 2.2%, P = 0.713), higher for left-sided LC (2.7%, P < 0.001), and highest for left-sided RC (3.4%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic approach for elective colon cancer resection has similar outcomes to its laparoscopic counterpart. There were no differences in mortality or overall complications, however anastomotic leaks were highest after left RC. Further investigation is imperative to better understand the potential impact of technological advancement such as robotic surgery on patient outcomes.

How Far Is Too Far? Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Regionalized Rectal Cancer Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Regionalized rectal cancer surgery may decrease postoperative and long-term cancer-related mortality. However, the regionalization of care may be an undue burden on patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of regionalized rectal cancer surgery. DESIGN: Tree-based decision analysis. PATIENTS: Patients with stage II/III rectal cancer anatomically suitable for low anterior resection were included. SETTING: Rectal cancer surgery performed at a high-volume regional center rather than the closest hospital available. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental costs ($) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life year) reflected a societal perspective and were time-discounted at 3%. Costs and benefits were combined to produce the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($ per quality-adjusted life year). Multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analysis modeled uncertainty in probabilities, costs, and effectiveness. RESULTS: Regionalized surgery economically dominated local surgery. Regionalized rectal cancer surgery was both less expensive on average ($50,406 versus $65,430 in present-day costs) and produced better long-term outcomes (10.36 versus 9.51 quality-adjusted life years). The total costs and inconvenience of traveling to a regional high-volume center would need to exceed $15,024 per patient to achieve economic breakeven alone or $112,476 per patient to satisfy conventional cost-effectiveness standards. These results were robust on sensitivity analysis and maintained in 94.6% of scenario testing. LIMITATIONS: Decision analysis models are limited to policy level rather than individualized decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Regionalized rectal cancer surgery improves clinical outcomes and reduces total societal costs compared to local surgical care. Prescriptive measures and patient inducements may be needed to expand the role of regionalized surgery for rectal cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C83 . QU TAN LEJOS ES DEMASIADO LEJOS ANLISIS DE COSTOEFECTIVIDAD DE LA CIRUGA DE CNCER DE RECTO REGIONALIZADO: ANTECEDENTES:La cirugía de cáncer de recto regionalizado puede disminuir la mortalidad posoperatoria y a largo plazo relacionada con el cáncer. Sin embargo, la regionalización de la atención puede ser una carga indebida para los pacientes.OBJETIVO:Evaluar la rentabilidad de la cirugía oncológica de recto regionalizada.DISEÑO:Análisis de decisiones basado en árboles.PACIENTES:Pacientes con cáncer de recto en estadio II/III anatómicamente aptos para resección anterior baja.AJUSTE:Cirugía de cáncer rectal realizada en un centro regional de alto volumen en lugar del hospital más cercano disponible.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los costos incrementales ($) y la efectividad (años de vida ajustados por calidad) reflejaron una perspectiva social y se descontaron en el tiempo al 3%. Los costos y los beneficios se combinaron para producir la relación costo-efectividad incremental ($ por año de vida ajustado por calidad). El análisis de sensibilidad probabilístico multivariable modeló la incertidumbre en las probabilidades, los costos y la efectividad.RESULTADOS:La cirugía regionalizada predominó económicamente la cirugía local. La cirugía de cáncer de recto regionalizado fue menos costosa en promedio ($50 406 versus $65 430 en costos actuales) y produjo mejores resultados a largo plazo (10,36 versus 9,51 años de vida ajustados por calidad). Los costos totales y la inconveniencia de viajar a un centro regional de alto volumen necesitarían superar los $15,024 por paciente para alcanzar el punto de equilibrio económico o $112,476 por paciente para satisfacer los estándares convencionales de rentabilidad. Estos resultados fueron sólidos en el análisis de sensibilidad y se mantuvieron en el 94,6% de las pruebas de escenarios.LIMITACIONES:Los modelos de análisis de decisiones se limitan al nivel de políticas en lugar de la toma de decisiones individualizada.CONCLUSIONES:La cirugía de cáncer de recto regionalizada mejora los resultados clínicos y reduce los costos sociales totales en comparación con la atención quirúrgica local. Es posible que se necesiten medidas prescriptivas e incentivos para los pacientes a fin de ampliar el papel de la cirugía regionalizada para el cáncer de recto. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C83 . (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon ).

Targeting Health-Related Social Risks in the Clinical Setting: New Policy Momentum and Practice Considerations.

The federal government is funding a sea change in health care by investing in interventions targeting social determinants of health, which are significant contributors to illness and health inequity. This funding power has encouraged states, professional and accreditation organizations, health care entities, and providers to focus heavily on social determinants. We examine how this shift in focus affects clinical practice in the fields of oncology and emergency medicine, and highlight potential areas of reform.

Cost-Effectiveness of Aspirin for Extended Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis After Major Surgery for Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Venous thromboembolism extended prophylaxis after inflammatory bowel disease surgery remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if adopting an aspirin-based prophylaxis strategy may address current cost-effectiveness limitations. METHODS: A decision analysis model was used to compare costs and outcomes of a reference case patient undergoing inflammatory bowel disease-associated colorectal surgery considered for post-discharge thromboembolism prophylaxis. Low-dose aspirin was compared to an enoxaparin regimen as well as no prophylaxis. Source estimates were obtained from aggregated existing literature. Secondary analysis included out-of-pocket costs. A 10,000-simulation Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis accounted for uncertainty in model estimates. RESULTS: An enoxaparin-based regimen compared to aspirin demonstrated an unfavorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $908,268 per quality-adjusted life year. Sensitivity analysis supported this finding in > 75% of simulated cases; scenarios favoring enoxaparin included those with > 4% post-discharge event rates. Aspirin versus no prophylaxis demonstrated a favorable ratio of $106,601 per quality-adjusted life year. Findings were vulnerable to a post-discharge thromboembolism rate < 1%, aspirin-associated bleeding rate > 1%, median hospital costs of bleeding > 3 × , and decreased efficacy of aspirin (RR > 0.75). The average out-of-pocket cost of choosing an aspirin ePpx strategy increased by $54 per patient versus $708 per patient with enoxaparin. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose aspirin extended prophylaxis following inflammatory bowel disease surgery has a favorable cost-safety profile and may be an attractive alternative approach.

Short- and Long-term Outcomes of Ileal Pouch Anal Anastomosis Construction in Obese Patients With Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND: Obese patients are traditionally considered difficult pouch candidates because of the potential for intraoperative technical difficulty and increased postoperative complications. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of obese versus nonobese patients with ulcerative colitis undergoing an IPAA. DESIGN: This is a retrospectively, propensity score-matched, prospectively collected cohort study. SETTING: This study was conducted at an IBD quaternary referral center. PATIENTS: Patients with ulcerative colitis undergoing IPAA (1990-2018) were included. Obesity was defined as a BMI ≥30 kg/m 2 . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary measures included 30-day complications, long-term anastomotic leak, and pouch failure rate (excision, permanent diversion, revision). RESULTS: Of 3300 patients, 631 (19.1%) were obese (median BMI = 32.4 kg/m 2 ). On univariate analysis, obese patients were more likely to be >50 years old (32.5% versus 22.7%, p < 0.001), ASA class 3 (41.7% versus 27.7%, p < 0.001), have diabetes (8.1% versus 3.3%, p < 0.001), and have had surgery in the biologic era (72.4% versus 66.2%, p = 0.003); they were less likely to have received preoperative steroids (31.2% versus 37.4%, p = 0.004). After a median follow-up of 7 years, 66.7% had completed at least 1 quality-of-life survey. Pouch survival in the matched sample was 99.2% (99.8% nonobese versus 95.4% obese, p = 0.002). After matching and controlling for confounding variables, worse clinical outcomes associated with obesity included global quality of life (relative risk, -0.71; p = 0.002) and long-term pouch failure (HR, 4.24; p = 0.007). Obesity was also independently associated with an additional 27 minutes of operating time ( p < 0.001). There was no association of obesity with the likelihood of developing a postoperative complication, length of stay, or pouch leak. CONCLUSION: Restorative ileoanal pouch surgery in obese patients with ulcerative colitis is associated with a relatively decreased quality of life and increased risk of long-term pouch failure compared with nonobese patients. Obese patients may benefit from focused counseling about these risks before undergoing restorative pouch surgery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B873 . RESULTADOS A CORTO Y LARGO PLAZO EN LA REALIZACIN DEL RESERVORIO ILEAL EN PACIENTES OBESOS CON COLITIS ULCEROSA: ANTECEDENTES:Habitualmente se considera a los obesos como pacientes difíciles para la realización de un reservorio ileal, debido a su alta probabilidad de presentar dificultades técnicas intraoperatoria y aumento de las complicaciones posoperatorias.OBJETIVO:El propósito de este estudio fue comparar los resultados de pacientes con colitis ulcerosa obesos versus no obesos sometidos a un reservorio ileal y anastomosis anal (IPAA).DISEÑO:Este es un estudio de cohorte recopilado prospectivamente, retrospectivo, emparejado por puntajes de propensión.AJUSTE:Este estudio se llevó a cabo en un centro de referencia de cuarto nivel para enfermedades inflamatorias del intestino.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes con colitis ulcerosa sometidos a un reservorio ileal y anastomosis anal (1990-2018). Obesidad definida como un IMC ≥ 30 kg/m2.PRINCIPALES RESULTADO MEDIDOS:Los principales resultados medidos incluyeron complicaciones a los 30 días, fuga anastomótica a largo plazo y tasa de falla del reservorio ileal (escisión, derivación permanente, revisión).RESULTADOS:De 3.300 pacientes, 631 (19,1%) eran obesos (mediana de IMC = 32,4 kg/m2). En el análisis univariado, los pacientes obesos tenían más probabilidades de ser > 50 años (32,5% frente a 22,7%, p < 0,001), clase ASA 3 (41,7% frente a 27,7%, p < 0,001), tener diabetes (8,1% frente a 3,3%, p < 0,001), haberse sometido a cirugía en la era biológica (72,4% frente a 66,2%, p = 0,003), y tenían menos probabilidades de haber recibido esteroides preoperatorios (31,2% frente a 37,4%, p = 0,004). Después de una mediana de seguimiento de 7 años, el 66,7% había completado al menos una encuesta de calidad de vida. La supervivencia de la bolsa en la muestra emparejada fue del 99,2% (99,8% no obesos versus 95,4% obesos, p = 0,002). Después de emparejar y controlar las variables de confusión, los peores resultados clínicos asociados con la obesidad incluyeron la calidad de vida global (RR = -0,71, p = 0,002) y el fracaso de la bolsa a largo plazo (HR = 4,24, p = 0,007). La obesidad también se asoció de forma independiente con 27 minutos adicionales de tiempo quirúrgico ( p < 0,001). No hubo asociación de la obesidad con la probabilidad de desarrollar una complicación posoperatoria, la duración de la estadía o la fuga de la bolsa.CONCLUSIÓNES:La cirugía restauradora del reservorio ileoanal en pacientes obesos con colitis ulcerosa se asocia a una disminución relativa de la calidad de vida y un mayor riesgo de falla del reservorio a largo plazo en comparación con los pacientes no obesos. Los pacientes obesos pueden beneficiarse de un asesoramiento centrado en estos riesgos antes de someterse a una cirugía restauradoracon reservorio ileal y anastomosis anal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B873 . (Traducción-Dr. Rodrigo Azolas ).

Do Cost Limitations of Extended Prophylaxis After Surgery Apply to Ulcerative Colitis Patients?

BACKGROUND: Colorectal surgery patients with ulcerative colitis are at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism. Extended prophylaxis for thromboembolism prevention has been used in colorectal surgery patients, but it has been criticized for its lack of cost-effectiveness. However, the cost-effectiveness of extended prophylaxis for postoperative ulcerative colitis patients may be unique. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of extended prophylaxis in postoperative ulcerative colitis patients. DESIGN: A decision analysis compared costs and benefits in postoperative ulcerative colitis patients with and without extended prophylaxis over a lifetime horizon. SETTING: Assumptions for decision analysis were identified from available literature for a typical ulcerative colitis patient's risk of thrombosis, age at surgery, type of thrombosis, prophylaxis risk reduction, bleeding complications, and mortality. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs ($) and benefits (quality-adjusted life year) reflected a societal perspective and were time-discounted at 3%. Costs and benefits were combined to produce the main outcome measure, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($ per quality-adjusted life year). Multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analysis modeled uncertainty in probabilities, costs, and disutilities. RESULTS: Using reference parameters, the individual expected societal total cost of care was $957 without and $1775 with prophylaxis (not cost-effective; $257,280 per quality-adjusted life year). Preventing a single mortality with prophylaxis would cost $5 million (number needed to treat: 6134 individuals). Adjusting across a range of scenarios upheld these conclusions 77% of the time. With further sensitivity testing, venous thromboembolism cumulative risk (>1.5%) and ePpx regimen pricing (<$299) were the 2 parameters most sensitive to uncertainty. LIMITATIONS: Recommendations of decision analysis methodology are limited to group decision-making, not an individual risk profile. CONCLUSION: Routine ePpx in postoperative ulcerative colitis patients is not cost-effective. This finding is sensitive to higher-than-average rates of venous thromboembolism and low-cost prophylaxis opportunities. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B818. SE APLICAN LAS LIMITACIONES DE COSTOS DE LA PROFILAXIS PROLONGADA DESPUS DE LA CIRUGA A LOS PACIENTES CON COLITIS ULCEROSA: ANTECEDENTES:Los pacientes de cirugía colorrectal con colitis ulcerosa tienen un mayor riesgo de tromboembolismo venoso posoperatorio. La profilaxis extendida para la prevención de la tromboembolia se ha utilizado en pacientes con cirugía colorrectal, aunque ha sido criticada por su falta de rentabilidad. Sin embargo, la rentabilidad de la profilaxis prolongada para los pacientes posoperados con colitis ulcerosa puede ser aceptable.OBJETIVO:Evaluar la rentabilidad de la profilaxis prolongada en pacientes posoperados con colitis ulcerosa.DISEÑO:Un análisis de decisiones comparó los costos y beneficios en pacientes posoperados con colitis ulcerosa con y sin profilaxis prolongada de por vida.AJUSTE:Los supuestos para el análisis de decisiones se identificaron a partir de la literatura disponible para el riesgo de trombosis de un paciente con colitis ulcerosa típica, la edad al momento de la cirugía, el tipo de trombosis, la reducción del riesgo con profilaxis, las complicaciones hemorrágicas y la mortalidad.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los costos ($) y los beneficios (año de vida ajustado por calidad) reflejaron una perspectiva social y se descontaron en el tiempo al 3%. Los costos y los beneficios se combinaron para producir la principal medida de resultado, la relación costo-efectividad incremental ($ por año de vida ajustado por calidad). El análisis de sensibilidad probabilística multivariable modeló la incertidumbre en probabilidades, costos y desutilidades.RESULTADOS:Utilizando parámetros de referencia, el costo total de atención social esperado individual fue de $957 sin profilaxis y $1775 con profilaxis (no rentable; $257,280 por año de vida ajustado por calidad). La prevención de una sola mortalidad con profilaxis costaría $5.0 millones (número necesario a tratar: 6.134 personas). El ajuste en una variedad de escenarios mantuvo estas conclusiones el 77% de las veces. Con más pruebas de sensibilidad, el riesgo acumulado de TEV (>1,5%) y el precio del régimen de ePpx (<$299) fueron los dos parámetros más sensibles a la incertidumbre.LIMITACIONES:Las recomendaciones de la metodología de análisis de decisiones se limitan a la toma de decisiones en grupo, no a un perfil de riesgo individual.CONCLUSIÓN:La profilaxis extendida de rutina en pacientes posoperados con colitis ulcerosa no es rentable. Este hallazgo es sensible a tasas de TEV superiores al promedio y oportunidades de profilaxis de bajo costo. Consulted Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B818. (Traducción-Dr. Felipe Bellolio).

On All Accounts: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Limited Preoperative Optimization Efforts Before Colon Cancer Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Reports suggest that preoperative optimization of a patient's serious comorbidities is associated with a reduction in postoperative complications. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the cost and benefits of preoperative optimization, accounting for total costs associated with postoperative morbidity. DESIGN: This study is a decision tree cost-effectiveness analysis with probabilistic sensitivity analysis (10,000 iterations). SETTING: This is a hypothetical scenario of stage II colon cancer surgery. PATIENT: The simulated 65-year-old patient has left-sided, stage II colon cancer. INTERVENTION: Focused preoperative optimization targets high-risk comorbidities. OUTCOMES: Total discounted (3%) economic costs (US $2018), effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, cost/quality-adjusted life-years gained), and net monetary benefit. RESULTS: We calculated the per individual expected health care sector total cost of preoperative optimization and sequelae to be $12,395 versus $15,638 in those not optimized (net monetary benefit: $1.04 million versus $1.05 million). A nonoptimized patient attained an average 0.02 quality-adjusted life-years less than one optimized. Thus, preoperative optimization was the dominant strategy (lower total costs; higher quality-adjusted life-years). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated 100% of simulations favoring preoperative optimization. The breakeven cost of optimization to remain cost-effective was $6421 per patient. LIMITATIONS: Generalizability must account for the lack of standardization among existing preoperative optimization efforts, and decision analysis methodology provides guidance for the average patient or general population, and is not patient-specific. CONCLUSIONS: Although currently not comprehensively reimbursed, focused preoperative optimization may reduce total costs of care while also reducing complications from colon cancer surgery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B494. EN TODO CASO ANLISIS DE RENTABILIDAD DE LOS ESFUERZOS LIMITADOS DE OPTIMIZACIN PREOPERATORIA ANTES DE LA CIRUGA DE CNCER DE COLON: ANTECEDENTES:Los informes sugieren que la optimización preoperatoria de las comorbilidades graves de un paciente se asocia con una reducción de las complicaciones postoperatorias.OBJETIVO:El propósito de este estudio fue evaluar el costo y los beneficios de la optimización preoperatoria, teniendo en cuenta los costos totales asociados con la morbilidad postoperatoria.DISEÑO:Análisis de costo-efectividad de árbol de decisión con análisis de sensibilidad probabilístico (10,000 iteraciones).AJUSTE ENTORNO CLINICO:Escenario hipotético Cirugía de cáncer de colon en estadio II.PACIENTE:Paciente simulado de 65 años con cáncer de colon en estadio II del lado izquierdo.INTERVENCIÓN:Optimización preoperatoria enfocada dirigida a comorbilidades de alto riesgo.RESULTADOS:Costos económicos totales descontados (3%) (US $ 2018), efectividad (años de vida ajustados por calidad [AVAC]), relación costo-efectividad incremental (ICER, costo / AVAC ganado) y beneficio monetario neto (NMB).RESULTADOS:Calculamos que el costo total esperado por sector de atención médica individual de la optimización preoperatoria y las secuelas es de $ 12,395 versus $ 15,638 en aquellos no optimizados (NMB: $ 1.04 millones versus $ 1.05 millones, respectivamente). Un paciente no optimizado alcanzó un promedio de 0.02 AVAC menos que uno optimizado. Por lo tanto, la optimización preoperatoria fue la estrategia dominante (menores costos totales; mayores AVAC). El análisis de sensibilidad probabilístico demostró que el 100% de las simulaciones favorecían la optimización preoperatoria. El costo de equilibrio de la optimización para seguir siendo rentable fue de $ 6,421 por paciente.LIMITACIONES:La generalización debe tener en cuenta la falta de estandarización entre los esfuerzos de optimización preoperatorios existentes y esa metodología de análisis de decisiones proporciona una guía para el paciente promedio o la población general, no específica del paciente.CONCLUSIONES:Si bien actualmente no se reembolsa de manera integral, la optimización preoperatoria enfocada puede reducir los costos totales de la atención y al mismo tiempo reducir las complicaciones de la cirugía de cáncer de colon. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B494.

Effects of patients' hospital discharge preferences on uptake of clinical decision support.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services identified unplanned hospital readmissions as a critical healthcare quality and cost problem. Improvements in hospital discharge decision-making and post-discharge care are needed to address the problem. Utilization of clinical decision support (CDS) can improve discharge decision-making but little is known about the empirical significance of two opposing problems that can occur: (1) negligible uptake of CDS by providers or (2) over-reliance on CDS and underuse of other information. This paper reports an experiment where, in addition to electronic medical records (EMR), clinical decision-makers are provided subjective reports by standardized patients, or CDS information, or both. Subjective information, reports of being eager or reluctant for discharge, was obtained during examinations of standardized patients, who are regularly employed in medical education, and in our experiment had been given scripts for the experimental treatments. The CDS tool presents discharge recommendations obtained from econometric analysis of data from de-identified EMR of hospital patients. 38 clinical decision-makers in the experiment, who were third and fourth year medical students, discharged eight simulated patient encounters with an average length of stay 8.1 in the CDS supported group and 8.8 days in the control group. When the recommendation was "Discharge," CDS uptake of "Discharge" recommendation was 20% higher for eager than reluctant patients. Compared to discharge decisions in the absence of patient reports: (i) odds of discharging reluctant standardized patients were 67% lower in the CDS-assisted group and 40% lower in the control (no-CDS) group; whereas (ii) odds of discharging eager standardized patients were 75% higher in the control group and similar in CDS-assisted group. These findings indicate that participants were neither ignoring nor over-relying on CDS.

Cost-utility of colorectal cancer screening at 40 years old for average-risk patients.

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing in patients under the age of 50. The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-utility of available screening modalities starting at 40 years in the general population compared to standard screening at 50 years old. A decision tree modeling average-risk of CRC in the United States population was constructed for the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of the five most common and effective CRC screening modalities in average-risk 40-year olds versus deferring screening until 50 years old (standard of care) under a limited societal perspective. All parameters were derived from existing literature. We evaluated the incremental cost-utility ratio of each comparator at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY and included multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analysis. All screening modalities assessed were more cost-effective with increased QALYs than current standard care (no screening until 50). The most favorable intervention by net monetary benefit was flexible sigmoidoscopy ($3284 per person). Flexible sigmoidoscopy, FOBT, and FIT all dominated the current standard of care. Colonoscopy and FIT-DNA were both cost-effective (respectively, $4777 and $11,532 per QALY). The cost-effective favorability of flexible sigmoidoscopy diminished relative to colonoscopy with increasing willingness-to-pay. Regardless of screening modality, CRC screening at 40 years old is cost-effective with increased QALYs compared to current screening initiation at 50 years old, with flexible sigmoidoscopy most preferred. Consideration should be given for a general recommendation to start screening at age 40 for average risk individuals.

Frailer Patients Undergoing Robotic Colectomies for Colon Cancer Experience Increased Complication Rates Compared With Open or Laparoscopic Approaches.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgical techniques are routinely promoted as alternatives to open surgery because of improved outcomes. However, the impact of robotic surgery on certain subsets of the population, such as frail patients, is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to examine the association between frailty and minimally invasive surgical approaches with colon cancer surgery. DESIGN: This is a retrospective study of prospectively collected outcomes data. Thirty-day surgical outcomes were compared by frailty and surgical approach using doubly robust multivariable logistic regression with propensity score weighting, and testing for interaction effects between frailty and surgical approach. SETTING: Patients undergoing an open, laparoscopic, or robotic colectomy for primary colon cancer, 2012 to 2016, were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing a colectomy with an operative indication for primary colon cancer were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were 30-day postoperative complications. RESULTS: After propensity score weighting of patients undergoing colectomy, 33.8% (n = 27,649) underwent an open approach versus 34.3% (n = 28,058) underwent laparoscopic surgery versus 31.9% (n = 26,096) underwent robotic surgery. Robotic (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42-0.69, p < 0.001) and laparoscopic (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.52-0.66, p < 0.001) surgeries were independently associated with decreased rates of major complications. Frailer patients had increased complication rates (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.07-2.25, p = 0.018). When considering the interaction effects between surgical approach and frailty, frailer patients undergoing robotic surgery were more likely to develop a major complication (combined adjusted OR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.34-7.45, p = 0.009) compared with patients undergoing open surgery. LIMITATIONS: Use of the modified Frailty Index as an associative proxy for frailty was a limitation of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Although minimally invasive surgical approaches have decreased postoperative complications, this effect may be reversed in frail patients. These findings challenge the belief that robotic surgery provides a favorable alternative to open surgery in frail patients. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B163. LOS PACIENTES MÁS FRÁGILES SOMETIDOS A COLECTOMÍA ROBÓTICA POR CÁNCER DE COLON EXPERIMENTAN MAYORES TASAS DE COMPLICACIONES EN COMPARACIÓN CON ABORDAJES LAPAROSCÓPICO O ABIERTO: Las técnicas quirúrgicas mínimamente invasivas estan frecuentement promovidas como alternativas a la cirugía abierta debido a sus mejores resultados. Sin embargo, el impacto de la cirugía robótica en ciertos subgrupos de población, como el caso de los pacientes endebles, es poco conocido.El propósito de nuestro estudio fue examinar la asociación entre la fragilidad de los pacientes y el aborgaje quirúrgico mínimamente invasivo para la cirugía de cáncer de colon.Estudio retrospectivo de datos de resultados recolectados prospectivamente. Los resultados quirúrgicos a 30 días se compararon entre fragilidad y abordaje quirúrgico utilizando la regresión logística multivariable doblemente robusta con ponderación de puntaje de propensión y pruebas de efectos de interacción entre fragilidad y abordaje quirúrgico.Los pacientes identificados en la base de datos del Programa Nacional de Mejora de la Calidad Quirúrgica del Colegio Estadounidense de Cirujanos, que fueron sometidos a una colectomía abierta, laparoscópica o robótica por cáncer de colon primario, de 2012 a 2016.Todos aquellos pacientes seleccionados con indicación quirúrgica de cáncer primario de colon que fueron sometidos a una colectomía.Las complicaciones postoperatorias a 30 días.Luego de ponderar el puntaje de propensión de los pacientes colectomizados, el 33.8% (n = 27,649) fué sometido a laparotomía versus el 34.3% (n = 28,058) operados por laparoscopía versus el 31.9% (n = 26,096) operados con tecnica robótica. Las cirugías robóticas (OR 0.53, IC 95% 0.42-0.69, p < 0.001) y laparoscópicas (OR 0.58, IC 95% 0.52-0.66, p < 0.001) se asociaron de forma independiente con una disminución de las tasas de complicaciones mayores. Los pacientes más delicados tenían mayores tasas de complicaciones (OR 1.56, IC 95% 1.07-2.25, p = 0.018). Al considerar los efectos de interacción entre el abordaje quirúrgico y la fragilidad, los pacientes más débiles sometidos a cirugía robótica tenían más probabilidades de desarrollar una complicación mayor (OR ajustado combinado 3.15, IC 95% 1.34-7.45, p = 0.009) en comparación con los pacientes sometidos a cirugía abierta.El uso del índice de fragilidad modificado como apoderado asociativo de la fragilidad.Si bien los abordajes quirúrgicos mínimamente invasivos han disminuido las complicaciones postoperatorias, este efecto puede revertirse en pacientes lábiles. Estos hallazgos desafían la creencia de que la cirugía robótica proporciona una alternativa favorable a la cirugía abierta en pacientes frágiles. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B163. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo).