Search

The objective of this study was to determine the demographics and subjective rationale for failure to present for retrieval of patients who had an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placed.Between January 1, 2010, and September 12, 2017, there were 242 patients who had retrievable IVC filters placed. Demographics and indications for filter placement were retrospectively analyzed. All patients who failed to have the filter retrieved were contacted by Institutional Review Board-approved telephone survey to delineate the reason that the filter was not removed.Of 242 patients with IVC filters placed, 53 (22%) patients presented for filter retrieval at Abington-Jefferson Health. Patients who presented for filter retrieval were statistically younger (46 years vs 65 years; P .001). The most common indication for filter placement in both groups was preoperative placement for bariatric surgery, but this percentage was higher in the group that presented for filter retrieval (70% [37/53] in the retrieved group vs 47% [88/189] in the nonretrieved group; P = .018). After telephone survey that reached 146 patients, it was determined that 46 (32%) patients who did not return for filter retrieval were told to keep the filter in place secondary to comorbidities, 28 (19%) did not remember being instructed to follow up for retrieval, and 18 (12%) did not want another procedure. Twenty-four patients were deceased at the time of telephone survey (16%). The remainder of the patients had the filter removed at an outside institution or gave another reason.Our study documented a disappointingly low rate of filter retrieval. Patients with IVC filters who failed to present for retrieval were more likely to be older and frequently did not understand the complications of leaving a filter in place and the need to have the filter retrieved. Patient education should be increased to better capture patients with IVC filters and to improve retrieval rates, but our study showed that a significant percentage of patients do not have filters retrieved because of comorbidities or they do not want another procedure.

Objectives “Enhanced recovery after surgery” (ERAS) protocols use a multisystem approach to target homeostatic physiology via opioid-minimizing analgesia. The aim of this study is to determine if an ERAS protocol for lower extremity bypass surgery improves pain control and decreases narcotics. Methods From July 2020 through June 2021, all patients that underwent infrainguinal lower extremity bypass procedures were subject to the ERAS protocol and compared to a “pre-ERAS” group between June 2016 through May 2020. Preoperatively, ERAS patients were given celecoxib, gabapentin, and acetaminophen while postoperatively they were given standing acetaminophen, gabapentin, ketorolac, and tramadol with as needed use of oxycodone. Pain scores were recorded using a numerical rating pain scale. Demographics, length of stay, 30-day complications, and disposition metrics were recorded. Results There were 50 patients in the ERAS group, compared to 114 before its implementation. The mean age was 70.5 (ERAS group) versus 68.7 (pre-ERAS group) and a majority were male ( P > .05). Enhanced recovery after surgery patients were less likely to have chronic kidney disease ( P = .01). Enhanced recovery after surgery patients had improved length of stay (3.6 ± 2.3 days vs 4.8 ± 3.2 days, ERAS vs pre-ERAS, P = .01). There was no significant difference between groups for the remaining demographics ( P > .05). One patient (2%) in the ERAS group used patient-controlled analgesia, compared to 30 patients (26%) in the pre-ERAS group ( P < .001). Cumulative pain control in the first 12 hours was significantly better in the ERAS group ( P = .05). Pain control at discharge was similar between the 2 groups (3 pain score vs 3 pain score, pre-ERAS vs ERAS, P > .05) Conclusion Our study utilized a multisystem approach to optimize the physiologic stress response to vascular surgery while reducing high potency narcotic use. We show that an ERAS protocol provides noninferior pain control with less potent pain medication and improves the length of stay for patients undergoing infrainguinal bypass surgery.

Introduction: Colorectal cancer screening improved outcomes for patients diagnosed between the age of 45-75. Present life expectancy is beyond this limit, yet there are no guidelines for these ages. We aim to identify outcomes after screening and intervention in patients ≥75 years and correlate with frailty. Materials and Methods: Records between 2011-2019 were queried. Patients ≥75 screened and treated for colorectal cancer were included. Patient demographics, perioperative mortality, age at last colonoscopy and frailty score were calculated. A Modified Frailty Index from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Frailty Index was used. A score of 1 to 11 was calculated based on patient comorbidities. The MFI was assigned from 0 to 11: 0 signified absence of frailty and 11 indicated maximum frailty. Results: 179 patients were identified, 46.3% males. 171(95%) had elective and 8 (5%) had emergent surgery. The average age was 81.8 years. All colonoscopies were performed for symptoms. A modified frailty index was retrospectively calculated; 75% of patients scored between 0 and 2 and 1% scored >6. Conclusion: Older patients who underwent colonoscopy and surgery for symptomatic colon cancer had a low mortality, 2%. The average age was 6.8 years older than the recommended cutoff for colonoscopy screening. Most patients scored 0-2 on the modified frailty index, suggesting that not only are older patients more fit than previously thought, but also able to tolerate colorectal interventions more liberally. Utilizing frailty indices to identify screening patterns beyond 75 years of age might prove beneficial for this patient population. Further studies are recommended. Clinical Practice Points: We know as a medical society that colorectal cancer screening has improved outcomes for patients diagnosed between 45-75 years. However, the average American life expectancy is 82 years and currently there are no guidelines for screening patients ≥75. In our study, we examined 179 patients at our community hospital who had undergone colonoscopy, had a positive screening, and then underwent surgery. The average age of these individuals was 82 years. We went a step further to score these patients using an objective frailty scale. The average score was 0-2 and the average surgical mortality of these patients was ≤ 2%. This showed that although the patients we studied were elderly, the majority were not frail. In the future, clinical practices may start utilizing frailty indices to identify screening patterns in patients ≥75 who could benefit from a colonoscopy and potential surgical cancer resection. In turn, this would lead to more elderly patients undergoing colon cancer screening as well as possible resection of their cancer and potential cure. Ultimately, the main clinical goal with further research would be to establish screening guidelines for patients greater than 75 years of age. Micro abstract: Colorectal cancer screening has improved outcomes for patients diagnosed between 45-75 years. The average American life expectancy is 82. There are no guidelines for screening patients ≥75 years. We examined 179 patients (average age 82) who underwent surgery after a positive colonoscopy and the surgical mortality was ≤ 2%. We found that utilizing frailty indices to identify screening patterns in patients ≥75 could prove beneficial for predicting outcomes after colonoscopy and surgery.

Background and objectives Venous thromboembolisms (VTEs) in patients who have undergone a colorectal cancer operation increases morbidity and mortality, lengthens recovery time, and are costly. The current common standard is a 28-day prophylactic regimen of 40 mg enoxaparin daily. This study aims to examine the variability in prophylaxis discharge prescriptions at one institution, report 30-day postoperative incidence of venous thromboembolisms and bleeding, and to offer a new protocol for VTE prophylaxis in postoperative patients. Methods This retrospective case series occurred at Abington-Jefferson Health Hospital in Abington, PA. The electronic medical record was searched for patients who underwent an operation for colorectal cancer from October 2019 to mid-March 2020 and all discharge prophylaxis regimens were recorded and patient demographics were analyzed. Outcomes were measured by rate of VTEs and postoperative complications such as bleeding, transfusions, re-admission, and intensive care admission in the 30-day postoperative period. Results Eighteen of 57 patients received a medication besides 40 mg of enoxaparin daily. These 18 patients were divided into six different sub-groups of various prophylaxis regimens. No patients developed a venous thromboembolism. Four of 18 patients experienced postoperative bleeding complications. Conclusions Patients with similar pre-operative comorbidities have various venous thromboembolism perioperative prophylaxis regimens prescribed. Despite prescription variations, VTE rates remain negligible. Patients with different comorbid conditions may require alterations to the traditionally prescribed 40 mg enoxaparin daily. Upon discharge, aspirin 81 mg with 40 mg of enoxaparin daily for high-risk patients shows benefits, but requires further investigation.

Background Percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) tube is a preferred option in acute cholecystitis for patients who are high risk for cholecystectomy (CCY). There are no evidence-based guidelines for patient care after PC. We identified the predictors of disease recurrence and successful interval CCY. Methods A retrospective review of 145 PC patients between 2008 and 2016 at a tertiary hospital was performed. Primary outcomes included mortality, readmissions, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), disease recurrence, and interval CCY. Results There were 96 (67%) calculous and 47 (33%) acalculous cholecystitis cases. Seventy-two (49%) had chronic and 73 (51%) had acute prohibitive risks as an indication for PC. There were 54 (37%) periprocedural complications, which most commonly were dislodgements. Twenty-six (18%) patients had a recurrence at a median time of 65 days. Calculous cholecystitis (odds ratio [OR] 3.44, P = 0.038) and purulence in the gallbladder (OR 3.77, P = 0.009) were predictors for recurrence. Forty-one (28%) patients underwent interval CCY. Patients with acute illness were likely to undergo interval CCY (OR 6.67, P = 0.0002). Patients with acalculous cholecystitis had longer hospital LOS (16 versus 8 days) and intensive care unit LOS (2 versus 0 days), and higher readmission rates (OR 2.42, P = 0.02). Thirty-day mortality after PC placement was 9%. Patients receiving interval CCY were noted to have increased survival compared to PC alone. However, this should not be attributed to interval CCY alone in absence of randomization in this study. Conclusions Calculous cholecystitis and purulence in the gallbladder are independent predictors of acute cholecystitis recurrence. Acute illness is a strong predictor of successful interval CCY. The association of interval CCY and prolonged survival in patients with PC as noted in this study should be further assessed in future prospective randomized trials.

Objective Emergency lower extremity embolectomy is a common vascular surgical procedure that has poorly defined outcomes. Our goal was to define the perioperative morbidity for emergency embolectomy and develop a risk prediction model for perioperative mortality. Methods The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement database was queried to identify patients undergoing emergency unilateral and lower extremity embolectomy. Patients with previous critical limb ischemia, bilateral embolectomy, nonemergency indication, and those undergoing concurrent bypass were excluded. Patient characteristics and postoperative morbidity and mortality were analyzed. Multivariate analysis for predictors of mortality was performed, and from this, a risk prediction model was developed to identify preoperative predictors of mortality. Results There were 1749 patients (47.9% male) who met the inclusion criteria. The average age was 68.2 ± 14.8 years. Iliofemoral-popliteal embolectomy was performed in 1231 patients (70.4%), popliteal-tibioperoneal embolectomy in 303 (17.3%), and at both levels in 215 (12.3%). Fasciotomies were performed concurrently with embolectomy in 308 patients (17.6%). The 30-day postoperative mortality was 13.9%. Postoperative complications included myocardial infarction or cardiac arrest (4.7%), pulmonary complications (16.0%), and wound complications (8.2%). The rate of return to the operating room ≤30 days was 25.7%. Hospital length of stay was 9.8 ± 11.5 days, and the 30-day readmission rate was 16.3%. A perioperative mortality risk prediction model based on factors identified in multivariate analysis included age >70 years, male gender, functional dependence, history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, recent myocardial infarction/angina, chronic renal insufficiency, and steroid use. The model showed good discrimination (C = 0.769; 95% confidence interval, 0733-0.806) and calibrated well. Conclusions Emergency lower extremity embolectomy has high morbidity, mortality, and resource utilization. These data provide a benchmark for this complex patient population and may assist in risk stratifying patients, allowing for improved informed consent and goals of care at the time of presentation.