Use and Outcomes of Dexamethasone in the Management of Malignant Small Bowel Obstruction.

Objective: To describe rates of dexamethasone use in the nonoperative management of malignant small bowel obstruction (mSBO) and their outcomes. Background: mSBO is common in patients with advanced abdominal-pelvic cancers. Management includes prioritizing quality of life and avoiding surgical intervention when possible. The use of dexamethasone to restore bowel function is recommended in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for mSBO. Yet, it is unknown how often dexamethasone is used for mSBO and whether results from nonresearch settings support its use. Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study including unique admissions for mSBO from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021. Dexamethasone use and management outcomes were summarized with descriptive statistics and multiple logistic regression. Results: Among 571 admissions (68% female, mean age 63 years, 85% history of abdominal surgery) that were eligible and initially nonoperative, 26% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 23%-30%] received dexamethasone treatment (69% female, mean age 62 years, 87% history of abdominal surgery). Dexamethasone use by site ranged from 13% to 52%. Among dexamethasone recipients, 13% (95% CI = 9%-20%) subsequently required nonelective surgery during the same admission and 4 dexamethasone-related safety-events were reported. Amongst 421 eligible admissions where dexamethasone was not used, 17% (95% CI = 14%-21%) required nonelective surgery. Overall, the unadjusted odds ratio (OR) for nonelective surgery with dexamethasone use compared to without its use was 0.7 (95% CI = 0.4-1.3). Using multiple logistic regression, OR after adjusting for site, age, sex, history of abdominal surgery, nasogastric tube, and Gastrografin use was 0.6 (95% CI = 0.3-1.1). Conclusion: Dexamethasone was used in about 1 in 4 eligible mSBO admissions with high variability of use between tertiary academic centers. This multicenter retrospective cohort study suggested an association between dexamethasone use and lower rates of nonelective surgery, representing a potential opportunity for quality improvement.

The environmental impact of surgical telemedicine: life cycle assessment of virtual vs. in-person preoperative evaluations for benign foregut disease.

BACKGROUND: Health care accounts for almost 10% of the United States' greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for a loss of 470,000 disability-adjusted life years based on the health effects of climate change. Telemedicine has the potential to decrease health care's carbon footprint by reducing patient travel and clinic-related emissions. At our institution, telemedicine visits for evaluation of benign foregut disease were implemented for patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to estimate the environmental impact of telemedicine usage for these clinic encounters. METHODS: We used life cycle assessment (LCA) to compare greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for an in-person and a telemedicine visit. For in-person visits, travel distances to clinic were retrospectively assessed from 2020 visits as a representative sample, and prospective data were gathered on materials and processes related to in-person clinic visits. Prospective data on the length of telemedicine encounters were collected and environmental impact was calculated for equipment and internet usage. Upper and lower bounds scenarios for emissions were generated for each type of visit. RESULTS: For in-person visits, 145 patient travel distances were recorded with a median [IQR] distance travel distance of 29.5 [13.7, 85.1] miles resulting in 38.22-39.61 carbon dioxide equivalents (kgCO2-eq) emitted. For telemedicine visits, the mean (SD) visit time was 40.6 (17.1) min. Telemedicine GHG emissions ranged from 2.26 to 2.99 kgCO2-eq depending on the device used. An in-person visit resulted in 25 times more GHG emissions compared to a telemedicine visit (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Telemedicine has the potential to decrease health care's carbon footprint. Policy changes to facilitate telemedicine use are needed, as well as increased awareness of potential disparities of and barriers to telemedicine use. Moving toward telemedicine preoperative evaluations in appropriate surgical populations is a purposeful step toward actively addressing our role in health care's large carbon footprint.

The impact of socioeconomic status on telemedicine utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic among surgical clinics at an academic tertiary care center.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused many surgical providers to conduct outpatient evaluations using remote audiovisual conferencing technology (i.e., telemedicine) for the first time in 2020. We describe our year-long institutional experience with telemedicine in several general surgery clinics at an academic tertiary care center and examine the relationship between area-based socioeconomic measures and the likelihood of telemedicine participation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of our outpatient telemedicine utilization among four subspecialty clinics (including two acute care and two elective surgery clinics). Geocoding was used to link patient visit data to area-based socioeconomic measures and a multivariable analysis was performed to examine the relationship between socioeconomic indicators and patient participation in telemedicine. RESULTS: While total outpatient visits per month reached a nadir in April 2020 (65% decrease in patient visits when compared to January 2020), there was a sharp increase in telemedicine utilization during the same month (38% of all visits compared to 0.8% of all visits in the month prior). Higher rates of telemedicine utilization were observed in the two elective surgery clinics (61% and 54%) compared to the two acute care surgery clinics (14% and 9%). A multivariable analysis demonstrated a borderline-significant linear trend (p = 0.07) between decreasing socioeconomic status and decreasing odds of telemedicine participation among elective surgery visits. A sensitivity analysis to examine the reliability of this trend showed similar results. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine has many patient-centered benefits, and this study demonstrates that for certain elective subspecialty clinics, telemedicine may be utilized as the preferred method for surgical consultations. However, to ensure the equitable adoption and advancement of telemedicine services, healthcare providers will need to focus on mitigating the socioeconomic barriers to telemedicine participation.