Search

Background: Patients with Acute Care Surgery needs (ie, emergency general surgery diagnosis or trauma admission) are at particularly high risk for nonmedical patient-related factors that can be important drivers of healthcare outcomes. These social determinants of health are typically ascertained at the geographic area level (ie, county or neighborhood) rather than at the individual patient level. Recently, the International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision, Tenth Edition created codes to capture health hazards related to patient socioeconomic and psychosocial circumstances. We sought to characterize the impact of these social determinants of health-related codes on perioperative outcomes among patients with acute care surgery needs., Methods: Patients diagnosed between 2017 and 2020 with acute care surgery needs (ie, emergency general surgery diagnosis or a trauma admission) were identified in the California Department of Healthcare Access and information Patient Discharge database. Data on concomitant social determinants of health-related codes (International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision, Tenth Edition Z55-Z65), which designated health hazards related to socioeconomic and psychosocial (socioeconomic and psychosocial, respectively) circumstances, were obtained. After controlling for patient factors, including age, sex, race, payer type, and admitting hospital, the association of socioeconomic and psychosocial codes with perioperative outcomes and hospital disposition was analyzed., Results: Among 483,280 with an acute care surgery admission (emergency general surgery: n = 289,530, 59.9%; trauma: n = 193,705, 40.1%) mean age was 56.5 years (standard deviation: 21.5) and 271,911 (56.3%) individuals were male. Overall, 16,263 (3.4%) patients had a concomitant socioeconomic and psychosocial diagnosis code. The percentage of patients with a concurrent social determinants of health International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision, Tenth Edition diagnosis increased throughout the study period from 2.6% in 2017 to 4.4% in 2020. Patients that were male (odds ratio 1.89; 95% confidence interval 1.82, 1.96), insured by Medicaid (odds ratio 5.43; 95% confidence interval 5.15, 5.72) or self-pay (odds ratio 3.04; 95% confidence interval 2.75, 3.36) all had higher odds of having an social determinants of health International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision, Tenth Edition diagnosis. Black race did not have a significant association with an social determinants of health International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision, Tenth Edition diagnosis (odds ratio 0.99; 95% confidence interval 0.94, 1.04); however, Hispanic (odds ratio 0.44; 95% confidence interval 0.43, 0.46) and Asian (odds ratio 0.40; 95% confidence interval 0.36, 0.44) race/ethnicity was associated with a lower odds of having an social determinants of health International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision, Tenth Edition diagnosis. After controlling for competing risk factors on multivariable analyses, the risk-adjusted probability of hospital postoperative death was 3.1% (95% confidence interval 2.8, 3.4) among patients with a social determinants of health diagnosis versus 5.9% (95% confidence interval 5.9, 6.0) (odds ratio 0.48; 95% confidence interval 0.44, 0.54) among patients without a social determinants of health diagnosis. Risk-adjusted complications were 26.7% (95% confidence interval 26.1, 37.3) among patients with a social determinants of health diagnosis compared with 31.9% (95% confidence interval 31.7, 32.0) (odds ratio 0.74; 95% confidence interval 0.71, 0.77) among patients without a social determinants of health diagnosis., Conclusion: International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision, Tenth Edition social determinants of health code use was low, with only 3.4% of patients having documentation of a socioeconomic and psychosocial circumstance. The presence of an International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision, Tenth Edition social determinants of health code was not associated with greater odds of complications or death; however, it was associated with longer length of stay and higher odds of being discharged to a skilled nursing facility., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Case volume has been associated with improved outcomes for patients undergoing treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma, often with higher hospital expenditures. We sought to define the cost-effectiveness of hepatocellular carcinoma treatment at high-volume centers., Methods: Patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma from 2013 to 2017 were identified from Medicare Standard Analytic Files. High-volume centers were defined as the top decile of facilities performing hepatectomies in a year. A multivariable generalized linear model with gamma distribution and a restricted mean survival time model were used to estimate costs and survival differences relative to high-volume center status. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used to define the additional cost incurred for a 1-year incremental gain in survival., Results: Among 13,666 patients, 8,467 (62.0%) were treated at high-volume centers. Median expenditure was higher ($19,148, interquartile range $15,280-$29,128) among patients treated at high-volume centers versus low-volume centers ($18,209, interquartile range $14,959-$29,752). Despite similar median length-of-stay (6 days, interquartile range 4-9), a slightly higher proportion of patients were discharged to home from high-volume centers (n = 4,903, 57.9%) versus low-volume centers (n = 2,868, 55.2%) (P = .002). A 0.14-year (95% confidence interval 0.06-0.22) (1 month and 3 weeks) survival benefit was associated with an incremental cost of $1,070 (95% confidence interval $749-$1,392) among patients undergoing surgery at high-volume centers. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for treatment at a high-volume center was $7,951 (95% confidence interval $4,236-$21,217) for an additional year of survival, which was below the cost-effective threshold of $21,217., Conclusion: Surgical care at high-volume centers offers the potential to deliver cancer care in a more cost-effective and value-based manner., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: We sought to characterize the impact access to gastroenterologists/hepatologists has on liver transplantation listing, as well as time on the liver transplantation waitlist and post-transplant outcomes., Methods: Liver transplantation registrants aged >18 years between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2019 were identified from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients Standard Analytic Files. The liver transplantation registration ratio was defined as the ratio of liver transplant waitlist registrations in a given county per 1,000 liver-related deaths., Results: A total of 150,679 liver transplantation registrants were included. Access to liver transplantation centers and liver-specific specialty physicians varied markedly throughout the United States. Of note, the liver transplantation registration ratio was lower in counties with poor access to liver-specific care versus counties with adequate access (poor access 137.2, interquartile range 117.8-163.2 vs adequate access 157.6, interquartile range 127.3-192.2, P < .001). Among patients referred for liver transplantation, the cumulative incidence of waitlist mortality and post-transplant graft survival was comparable among patients with poor versus adequate access to liver-specific care (both P > .05). Among liver transplantation recipients living in areas with poor access, after controlling for recipient and donor characteristics, cold ischemic time, and model for end-stage liver disease score, the area deprivation index predicted graft survival (referent, low area deprivation index; medium area deprivation index, hazard ratio 1.52, 95% confidence interval 1.03-12.23; high area deprivation index, 1.45, 95% confidence interval 1.01-12.09, both P < .05)., Conclusion: Poor access to liver-specific care was associated with a reduction in liver transplantation registration, and individuals residing in counties with high social deprivation had worse graft survival among patients living in counties with poor access to liver-specific care., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although systemic postoperative therapy after surgery for colorectal liver metastases is generally recommended, the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy has been debated. We used machine learning to develop a decision tree and define which patients may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy after hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases., Methods: Patients who underwent curative-intent resection for colorectal liver metastases between 2000 and 2020 were identified from an international multi-institutional database. An optimal policy tree analysis was used to determine the optimal assignment of the adjuvant chemotherapy to subgroups of patients for overall survival and recurrence-free survival., Results: Among 1,358 patients who underwent curative-intent resection of colorectal liver metastases, 1,032 (76.0%) received adjuvant chemotherapy. After a median follow-up of 28.7 months (interquartile range 13.7-52.0), 5-year overall survival was 67.5%, and 3-year recurrence-free survival was 52.6%, respectively. Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with better recurrence-free survival (3-year recurrence-free survival: adjuvant chemotherapy, 54.4% vs no adjuvant chemotherapy, 46.8%; P < .001) but no overall survival significant improvement (5-year overall survival: adjuvant chemotherapy, 68.1% vs no adjuvant chemotherapy, 65.7%; P = .15). Patients were randomly allocated into 2 cohorts (training data set, n = 679, testing data set, n = 679). The random forest model demonstrated good performance in predicting counterfactual probabilities of death and recurrence relative to receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy. According to the optimal policy tree, patient demographics, secondary tumor characteristics, and primary tumor characteristics defined the subpopulation that would benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy., Conclusion: A novel artificial intelligence methodology based on patient, primary tumor, and treatment characteristics may help clinicians tailor adjuvant chemotherapy recommendations after colorectal liver metastases resection., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: We sought to characterize the risk of postoperative complications relative to the surgical approach and overall synchronous colorectal liver metastases tumor burden score., Methods: Patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases who underwent curative-intent resection between 2000 and 2020 were identified from an international multi-institutional database. Propensity score matching was employed to control for heterogeneity between the 2 groups. A virtual twins analysis was performed to identify potential subgroups of patients who might benefit more from staged versus simultaneous resection., Results: Among 976 patients who underwent liver resection for synchronous colorectal liver metastases, 589 patients (60.3%) had a staged approach, whereas 387 (39.7%) patients underwent simultaneous resection of the primary tumor and synchronous colorectal liver metastases. After propensity score matching, 295 patients who underwent each surgical approach were analyzed. Overall, the incidence of postoperative complications was 34.1% (n = 201). Among patients with high tumor burden scores, the surgical approach was associated with a higher incidence of postoperative complications; in contrast, among patients with low or medium tumor burden scores, the likelihood of complications did not differ based on the surgical approach. Virtual twins analysis demonstrated that preoperative tumor burden score was important to identify which subgroup of patients benefited most from staged versus simultaneous resection. Simultaneous resection was associated with better outcomes among patients with a tumor burden score <9 and a node-negative right-sided primary tumor; in contrast, staged resection was associated with better outcomes among patients with node-positive left-sided primary tumors and higher tumor burden score., Conclusion: Among patients with high tumor burden scores, simultaneous resection of the primary tumor and liver metastases was associated with an increased incidence of postoperative complications., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Benchmarking is a process of continuous self-evaluation and comparison with best-in-class hospitals to guide quality improvement initiatives. We sought to define global benchmarks relative to liver resection for malignancy and to assess their achievement in hospitals in the United States., Methods: Patients who underwent curative-intent liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, or colorectal or neuroendocrine liver metastases between 2000 and 2019 were identified from an international multi-institutional database. Propensity score matching was conducted to balance baseline characteristics between open and minimally invasive approaches. Best-in-class hospitals were defined relative to the achievement rate of textbook oncologic outcomes and case volume. Benchmark values were established relative to best-in-class institutions. The achievement of benchmark values among hospitals in the National Cancer Database was then assessed., Results: Among 2,624 patients treated at 20 centers, a majority underwent liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 1,609, 61.3%), followed by colorectal liver metastases (n = 650, 24.8%), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (n = 299, 11.4%), and neuroendocrine liver metastases (n = 66, 2.5%). Notably, 1,947 (74.2%) patients achieved a textbook oncologic outcome. After propensity score matching, 6 best-in-class hospitals with the highest textbook oncologic outcome rates (≥75.0%) were identified. Benchmark values were calculated for margin positivity (≤11.7%), 30-day readmission (≤4.1%), 30-day mortality (≤1.6%), minor postoperative complications (≤24.7%), severe complications (≤12.4%), and failure to achieve the textbook oncologic outcome (≤22.8%). Among the National Cancer Database hospitals, global benchmarks for margin positivity, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, severe complications, and textbook oncologic outcome failure were achieved in 62.9%, 27.1%, 12.1%, 7.1%, and 29.3% of centers, respectively., Conclusion: These global benchmarks may help identify hospitals that may benefit from quality improvement initiatives, aiming to improve patient safety and surgical oncologic outcomes., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Familiarity with the surgical work environment has been demonstrated to improve outcomes. We sought to investigate the impact of the rate of fragmented practice on textbook outcomes, a validated composite outcome representing an "optimal" postoperative course., Methods: Patients who underwent a hepatic or pancreatic surgical procedure between 2013 and 2017 were identified from the Medicare Standard Analytic Files. The rate of fragmented practice was defined as the surgeon's volume over the study period relative to the number of facilities practiced at. The association between the rate of fragmented practice and textbook outcomes was assessed using multivariable logistic regression., Results: A total of 37,599 patients were included (pancreatic: n = 23,701, 63.0%; hepatic: n = 13,898, 37.0%). After controlling for relevant characteristics, patients who underwent surgery by surgeons in higher rate of fragmented practice categories had lower odds of achieving a textbook outcome (reference: low rate of fragmented practice; intermediate rate of fragmented practice: odds ratio = 0.88 [95% confidence interval 0.84-0.93]; high rate of fragmented practice: odds ratio = 0.58 [95% confidence interval 0.54-0.61]) (both P < .001). Of note, the adverse effect of a high rate of fragmented practice on the achievement of textbook outcomes remained substantial, regardless of the county-level social vulnerability index [high rate of fragmented practice; low social vulnerability index: odds ratio = 0.58 (95% confidence interval 0.52-0.66); intermediate social vulnerability index: odds ratio = 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.52-0.61); high social vulnerability index: odds ratio = 0.60 (95% confidence interval 0.54-0.68)] (all P < .001). Patients in intermediate and high social vulnerability index counties had 19% and 37% greater odds of undergoing surgery by a high rate of fragmented practice surgeon (reference: low social vulnerability index; intermediate social vulnerability index: odds ratio = 1.19 [95% confidence interval 1.12-1.26]; high social vulnerability index: odds ratio = 1.37 [95% confidence interval 1.28-1.46])., Conclusion: Owing to the impact of the rate of fragmented practice on postoperative outcomes, decreasing fragmentation of care may be an important target for quality initiatives and a means to alleviate social disparities in surgical care., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Socioeconomic status can often dictate access to timely surgical care and postoperative outcomes. We sought to analyze the impact of county-level poverty duration on hepatopancreaticobiliary cancer outcomes., Methods: Patients diagnosed with hepatopancreaticobiliary cancer were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare 2010 to 2015 database linked with county-level poverty from the American Community Survey and the US Department of Agriculture between 1980 to 2010. Counties were categorized as never high-poverty, intermittent high-poverty, and persistent poverty. Hierarchical generalized linear models and accelerated failure time models with Weibull distribution were used to assess diagnosis, treatment, textbook outcomes, and survival., Results: Among 41,077 patients, 1,758 (4.3%) lived in persistent poverty. Counties exposed to greater durations of poverty had increased proportions of non-Hispanic Black patients (never high-poverty: 7.6%, intermittent high-poverty: 20.4%, persistent poverty: 23.2%), uninsured patients (never high-poverty: 0.5%, intermittent high-poverty: 0.5%, persistent poverty: 0.9%), and patients with a rural residence (never high-poverty: 0.6%, intermittent high-poverty: 2.4%, persistent poverty: 11.5%). Individuals residing in persistent poverty had lower odds of undergoing resection (odds ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.66-0.98), achieving textbook outcomes (odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.34-0.84), and increased cancer-specific mortality (hazard ratio 1.07, 95% CI 1.00-1.15) (all P < .05). Non-Hispanic Black patients were less likely to present with early-stage disease (odds ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.79-0.95) and undergo surgical treatment (odds ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.52-0.66) compared to non-Hispanic White patients (both P < .01). Notably, non-Hispanic White patients in persistent poverty were more likely to present with early-stage disease (odds ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.52) and undergo surgery for localized disease (odds ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.74) compared to non-Hispanic Black patients in never high-poverty (both P < .05)., Conclusion: Duration of poverty was associated with lower odds of receipt of surgical treatment, achievement of textbook outcomes, and worse cancer-specific survival. Non-Hispanic Black patients were at particular risk of suboptimal outcomes, highlighting the impact of structural racism independent of socioeconomic status., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The impact of upward economic mobility and race/ethnicity on achieving quality metrics such as textbook outcomes remains ill-defined. As such, we sought to define the impact of race and county-level upward economic mobility on the ability to achieve a textbook outcome among patients undergoing hepatic and pancreatic surgery., Methods: Patients who underwent hepatic or pancreatic procedures between 2013 and 2017 were identified from the Medicare Standard Analytic Files. The primary outcomes of interest were textbook outcome and its components., Results: Among 35,403 patients, 17,923 (50.6%) patients were classified as living in a low upward economic mobility county, whereas 17,480 (49.4%) lived in a high upward economic mobility county. Furthermore, 32,981 (93.1%) patients were White, and 2,422 (6.8%) were Black. Overall, a textbook outcome was achieved in 45.6% of patients (n = 16,139), with textbook outcome most likely in patients from a high upward economic mobility county compared with a low upward economic mobility county (low: 44.6% vs high: 46.6%, P < .001). On multivariable analysis, patients in a low upward economic mobility county had 6% lower odds of achieving a textbook outcome compared with a high upward economic mobility county (odds ratio 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.90-0.98). Furthermore, Black patients were less likely to achieve a textbook outcome (odds ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.84-0.99) and had 17% and 15% higher odds of developing a complication (odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 1.07-1.28) and extended length of stay (odds ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.27), respectively. Within races, White patients in a high upward economic mobility county had 7% higher odds of achieving a textbook outcome compared with White patients in a low upward economic mobility county (odds ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.12), although no such effect was observed in Black patients (odds ratio 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.77-1.15). Furthermore, Black patients in a high upward economic mobility county had similar odds of achieving a textbook outcome compared with White patients in a low upward economic mobility county (odds ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.77-1.09)., Conclusion: These results highlight the differential impact of upward economic mobility and race on postoperative outcomes. Due to the health care implications of socioeconomic status, future policy initiatives should target economic mobility as a means to ensure greater health care equity., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The ability to predict the incidence, timing, and site of recurrence can be beneficial to select surgical candidates and inform appropriate postoperative surveillance. We sought to identify factors associated with risk and timing of recurrence after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma based on differences in tumor burden score., Methods: Patients who underwent curative-intent liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma between 2000 and 2020 were identified from an international multi-institutional database. The incidence, timing, and pattern of recurrence was examined relative to traditional clinicopathological factors, as well as tumor burden score using hazard rates and multivariable analysis., Results: Among 1,994 patients (tumor burden score, low: n = 511, 25.6% vs medium: n = 1,286, 64.5% vs high: n = 197, 9.9%), the incidence of recurrence at 5 years was 50.4% (95% confidence interval 47.9-53.0); risk of recurrence varied relative to hepatocellular carcinoma tumor burden score (low: 36.0% vs medium: 54.4% vs high: 62.5%, P &lt; .001). Although intrahepatic recurrence was much more common in low tumor burden score (low: n = 106, 84.1% vs medium: n = 335, 71.7% vs high: n = 48, 56.5%; P &lt; .001), extrahepatic recurrence was more common in high tumor burden score (low: n = 18, 14.3% vs medium: n = 121, 25.9% vs high: n = 37, 43.5%; P &lt; .001). The peak hazard rate for intrahepatic recurrence among patients with a high tumor burden score was almost double the peak hazard noted among patients with a low tumor burden score (low: 0.047, 42.0 months vs medium: 0.051, 6.6 months vs high: 0.094, 15.0 months). Of note, the patients with high tumor burden score were also more likely to recur earlier (≤24 months) (low: n = 227, 44.4% vs medium: n = 686, 53.3% vs high: n = 144, 73.1%) with multiple tumors (low: n = 50, 36.5% vs medium: n = 271, 56.1% vs high: n = 52, 70.3%) and larger lesions (low: 1.8 [interquartile range 1.2-3.0] cm vs medium: 2.0 [interquartile range 1.3-3.0] cm vs high: 2.5 [interquartile range 1.6-4.4] cm) (all P &lt; .001). On multivariable analysis, high tumor burden score remained independently associated with risk of recurrence (referent, low; medium: hazard ratio = 1.49 [95% confidence interval 1.19-1.88], P = .001; high: hazard ratio = 1.95 [95% confidence interval 1.41-2.69]; P &lt; .001]., Conclusion: Tumor burden score was independently associated with higher risk of recurrence. Patients who underwent resection of high tumor burden score lesions were more likely to recur early with multiple tumors and at an extrahepatic site. Tumor burden score is an important tool in assessing risk, timing, and pattern of recurrence after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)