Extreme hyponatremia as a risk factor for early mortality after liver transplantation in the MELD-sodium era.

The impact of hyponatremia on waitlist and post-transplant outcomes following the implementation of MELD-Na-based liver allocation remains unclear. We investigated waitlist and postliver transplant (LT) outcomes in patients with hyponatremia before and after implementing MELD-Na-based allocation. Adult patients registered for a primary LT between 2009 and 2021 were identified in the OPTN/UNOS database. Two eras were defined; pre-MELD-Na and post-MELD-Na. Extreme hyponatremia was defined as a serum sodium concentration ≤120 mEq/l. Ninety-day waitlist outcomes and post-LT survival were compared using Fine-Gray proportional hazard and mixed-effects Cox proportional hazard models. A total of 118 487 patients were eligible (n = 64 940: pre-MELD-Na; n = 53 547: post-MELD-Na). In the pre-MELD-Na era, extreme hyponatremia at listing was associated with an increased risk of 90-day waitlist mortality ([ref: 135-145] HR: 3.80; 95% CI: 2.97-4.87; P < 0.001) and higher transplant probability (HR: 1.67; 95% CI: 1.38-2.01; P < 0.001). In the post-MELD-Na era, patients with extreme hyponatremia had a proportionally lower relative risk of waitlist mortality (HR: 2.27; 95% CI 1.60-3.23; P < 0.001) and proportionally higher transplant probability (HR: 2.12; 95% CI 1.76-2.55; P < 0.001) as patients with normal serum sodium levels (135-145). Extreme hyponatremia was associated with a higher risk of 90, 180, and 365-day post-LT survival compared to patients with normal serum sodium levels. With the introduction of MELD-Na-based allocation, waitlist outcomes have improved in patients with extreme hyponatremia but they continue to have worse short-term post-LT survival.

The Affordable Care Act and emergency department use by low acuity patients in a US hospital.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is one of the biggest healthcare reforms in US history. A key issue is the ACAs effect on low acuity, potentially primary care patients. This study evaluates the effect of the ACA on low acuity patients seen in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This is an age-period-cohort analysis for a community hospital ED in Michigan, from 2009 to 2015. Patients were stratified by age, year seen, emergency severity index (ESI) and insurance status. Data were compared between before and after ACA along with descriptive statistics, Chi-square and Student t-tests. The primary outcome was the change in ED usage by low acuity. Patients > 65 were used as a temporal control. RESULTS: 305,350 ED visits were analyzed. ED visits with ESI 4/5 increased from 11.9% to 14.8%. Patients < 19 years increased from 25.5% to 34.3% (p = .0026). Ages 19-25 increased from 16.3% to 19.7% (p = 0.0515). Ages 26-64 increased from 11% to 14.9% (p = 0.0129). Ages > 65 increased from 5.1% to 6.5%. Patients < 65 showed a decreased uninsured rate from 12.30% to 6.28% (p < 0.0001). Comparatively, for age > 65: uninsured rate remained the same 0.46% to 0.49%. CONCLUSION: Low acuity ED visits increased with the ACA reform in conjunction with a more insured population.

Disparities in access to cancer surgery after Medicaid expansion.

INTRODUCTION: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded Medicaid eligibility to persons with income up to 138% of the federal poverty line. We investigated how Medicaid expansion (ME) impacted the access to cancer-specific surgical care in the US. METHODS: We used a nationwide population-based database (SEER) to identify patients with the 8 most prevalent cancers between 2007 and 2015. Adjusted difference-in-differences (DiD) and multivariate regression were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1,008,074 patients were included. Patients post-ME were diagnosed at an earlier stage (pre-ME, 27.6%; post-ME, 31.1%; P < 0.001), and lack of insurance coverage decreased from 5.5% to 2.6% (P < 0.001). Lower-SES population had improved access to surgical care (attributable benefit +3.18%; P < 0.001). ME was an independent predictor of access-to-surgery (OR, 1.45; P < 0.001), whereas African-American and Hispanic race were negative predictive factors. CONCLUSION: After ME, the population without insurance coverage decreased. This was associated with earlier cancer diagnosis and improved access to surgery in patients from economically disadvantaged communities.

Perioperative and oncological outcomes of abdominoperineal resection in the prone position vs the classic lithotomy position: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study is a systematic review with meta-analysis designed to compare the perioperative and oncological outcomes of the abdominoperineal resection (APR) carried out in the prone jack-knife position (P-APR) vs the classic lithotomy position (C-APR). METHODS: We conducted an electronic search through PubMed utilizing the PRISMA guidelines. We included all randomized and nonrandomized studies which allowed for comparative analysis between the two groups. Research that focused on and analyzed the extralevator abdominal excision were excluded. Pooled variables and number of events were analyzed using the random-effect model. RESULTS: The final analysis included seven nonrandomized retrospective cohorts encompassing 1663 patients. P-APR was associated with decreased operative time (OT) (DM, -43.8 minutes; P < 0.01) and estimated blood loss (EBL) (DM, 86.9 mL; P < 0.01). There were no observed differences regarding perineal wound infections (PWI) (odds ratio [OR], 0.36; P = 0.18), intraoperative perforation of rectum (IOP) (OR, 0.98; P = 0.97), circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity (OR, 1.02; P = 0.98) or 5-year LR (OR, 1.00; P = 0.99). CONCLUSION: The prone approach for APR is associated with decreased EBL and OT, although not with any change in the incidence of PWI or IOP. Moreover, surgical positioning per se does not appear to affect the CRM positivity rates or LR rate.