Liver lacerations as a complication of CPR during pregnancy.

AIM: Cardiac arrest in peripartum patients is a rare but devastating event; reported rates in the literature range from 0.019% to 0.0085%. In the general population, a well-described complication of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), liver laceration and injury, is reported at a rate of between 0.5-2.9% after CPR. Liver laceration rate among peripartum patients receiving CPR has not been well-studied. We sought to find the rate of liver lacerations in the peripartum population associated with CPR, with the hypothesis that the rate would be higher than in the general population. METHODS: We identified pregnancies complicated by cardiac arrest by performing a retrospective medical record review from 2011 to 2016 at a single tertiary referral hospital. We then compared the rate of liver lacerations in this group to the rate in the general population as found in the literature. RESULTS: Eleven of 9408 women in the peripartum period suffered cardiac arrest. Return of spontaneous circulation occurred in seven of eleven (64%) women. Three of these seven women suffered clinically significant liver laceration (43%). Overall mortality rate among women suffering cardiac arrest was 82% (9/11).Even after return of spontaneous circulation, the mortality rate was 72%(5/7) including two of three women suffering liver laceration. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a small retrospective study, liver lacerations requiring intervention occurred in 43% of gravidas patients that survived CPR, and is significantly higher than published rates (0.6-2.1%) for the general patient population. Further studies are indicated to determine the incidence of liver injury after peripartum CPR.

Patient Perception of Value in Bundled Payments for Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: A central concern for providers in a bundled payment model is determining how the bundle is distributed. Prior studies have shown that current reimbursement rates are often not aligned with patients' values. While willingness-to-pay (WTP) surveys are perhaps useful in a fee-for-service arrangement to determine overall reimbursement, the percentage of payment distribution might be as or more important in a bundled payment model. METHODS: All patients undergoing primary total joint arthroplasty by a single surgeon were offered participation in a preoperative WTP survey. At a minimum 3 months postoperatively, patients were mailed instructions for an online follow-up survey asking how they would allocate a hypothetical bonus payment. RESULTS: From January through December 2014, 45 patients agreed to participate in the preoperative WTP survey. Twenty patients who were minimum 3 months postoperative also completed the follow-up survey. Patients valued total knee and hip arthroplasty at $28,438 (95% confidence interval [CI]: $20,551-36,324) and $39,479 (95% CI: $27,848-$51,112), respectively. At 3 months postoperatively, patients distributed a hypothetical bonus payment 55.5% to the surgeon (95% CI: 47.8%-63.1%), 38% to the hospital (95% CI: 30.3%-45.7%), and 6.5% (95% CI: -1.2% to 14.2%) to the implant manufacturer (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The data suggest that total joint arthroplasty patients have vastly different perceptions of payment distributions than what actually exists. In contrast to the findings of this study, the true distribution of payments for an episode of care averages 65% to the hospital, 27% to the implant manufacturer, and 8% to the surgeon. While many drivers of payment distribution exist, this study suggests that patients would allocate a larger proportion of a bundled payment to surgeons than is currently disbursed. This finding may also provide a plausible explanation for patients' consistent overestimation of surgeon reimbursements.