Search

Laparoscopy is superior to open surgery for elective colectomy, but its role in emergency colectomy remains unclear. Previous studies were small and limited by confounding because surgeons may have selected lower-risk patients for laparoscopy. We therefore studied the effect of attempting laparoscopy for emergency colectomies while adjusting for confounding using multiple techniques in a large, nationwide registry. Using National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data, we identified emergency colectomy cases from 2014 to 2018. We first compared outcomes between patients who underwent laparoscopic versus open surgery, while adjusting for baseline variables using both propensity scores and regression. Next, we performed a negative control exposure analysis. By assuming that the group that converted to open did not benefit from the attempt at laparoscopy, we used the observed benefit to bound the effect of unmeasured confounding. Of 21,453 patients meeting criteria, 3,867 underwent laparoscopy, of which 1,375 converted to open. In both inverse probability of treatment weighting and regression analyses, attempting laparoscopy was associated with improved 30-day mortality, overall morbidity, anastomotic leak, surgical site infection, postoperative septic shock, and length of hospital stay compared with open surgery. These effects were consistent with the lower bounds computed from the converted group. Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal emergencies appears to improve outcomes compared with open surgery. The benefit is observed even after adjusting for both measured and unmeasured confounding using multiple statistical approaches, thus suggesting a benefit not attributable to patient selection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Visit-to-visit variability (VVV) in blood pressure values has been reported in clinical studies. However, little is known about VVV in clinical practice and whether it is associated with patient characteristics in real-world setting. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to quantify VVV in systolic blood pressure (SBP) values in a real-world setting. We included adults (age ≥18 years) with at least 2 outpatient visits between January 1, 2014 and October 31, 2018 from Yale New Haven Health System. Patient-level measures of VVV included SD and coefficient of variation of a given patient's SBP across visits. We calculated patient-level VVV overall and by patient subgroups. We further developed a multilevel regression model to assess the extent to which VVV in SBP was explained by patient characteristics. Results: The study population included 537 218 adults, with a total of 7 721 864 SBP measurements. The mean age was 53.4 (SD 19.0) years, 60.4% were women, 69.4% were non-Hispanic White, and 18.1% were on antihypertensive medications. Patients had a mean body mass index of 28.4 (5.9) kg/m2 and 22.6%, 8.0%, 9.7%, and 5.6% had a history of hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and coronary artery disease, respectively. The mean number of visits per patient was 13.3, over an average period of 2.4 years. The mean (SD) intraindividual SD and coefficient of variation of SBP across visits were 10.6 (5.1) mm Hg and 0.08 (0.04). These measures of blood pressure variation were consistent across patient subgroups defined by demographic characteristics and medical history. In the multivariable linear regression model, only 4% of the variance in absolute standardized difference was attributable to patient characteristics. Conclusions: The VVV in real-world practice poses challenges for management of patients with hypertension based on blood pressure readings in outpatient settings and suggest the need to go beyond episodic clinic evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]