Search

Background: Failure to rescue after elective surgery is associated with increased healthcare costs. These costs are poorly understood and have not been reported for colorectal surgery. This study aimed to assess the incremental costs of failure to rescue after elective colorectal surgery., Methods: This was a retrospective study of adult patients identified in the National Inpatient Sample from 2016 to 2019 who underwent an elective colectomy or proctectomy. Patients were stratified into 4 groups: uneventful recovery, successfully rescued, failure to rescue, and died without rescue attempts. "Rescue" was defined as admissions with ≥1 procedure code ≥1 day after the initial procedure. The primary outcome was total admission costs., Results: Of 451,490 admissions for elective colorectal resection, 94.6% had an uneventful recovery, 4.8% were successfully rescued, 0.4% were failure to rescue, and 0.3% died without rescue attempts. The median total hospital cost for the uneventful recovery cohort was $16,751 (IQR, $12,611-$23,116), for the successfully rescued cohort was $42,295 (IQR, $27,959-$67,077), for the failure-to-rescue cohort was $53,182 (IQR, $30,852-$95,615), and for the died without attempted rescue cohort was $29,296 (IQR, $19,812-$45,919). When comparing cost quantiles by regression analysis, failure-to-rescue patients had significantly higher costs than the successfully rescued patients for the last 3 quantiles (fifth quantile [90th percentile], $163,963 vs $106,521; P < .001)., Conclusion: Across a nationally representative cohort, the median total hospital costs for patients who failed to be rescued were $10,887 more than for those who were successfully rescued. These findings emphasize the importance of shared decision making and medical futility and highlight opportunities for resource optimization after postoperative complications., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Colectomies are common yet costly, with high surgical-site infection rates. Safety-net hospitals (SNHs) carry a large proportion of uninsured or Medicaid-insured patients, which has been associated with poorer surgical outcomes. Few studies have examined the effect of safety-net burden (SNB) status on colectomy outcomes. We aimed to quantify the independent effects of hospital SNB and surgical site infection (SSI) status on colectomy outcomes, as well as the interaction effect between SSIs and SNB., Methods: We used the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's State Inpatient Databases for California, Florida, New York, Maryland, and Kentucky. We included 459,568 colectomies (2009 to 2014) for analysis, excluding patients age <18 y and rectal cases. The primary and secondary outcomes were inpatient mortality and complications, respectively., Results: Adjusting for patient, procedure, and hospital factors, colectomy patients were more likely to die in-hospital at high-burden SNHs (adjusted OR [aOR]: 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25-1.51, P < 0.001), compared with low SNB hospitals and to experience perioperative complications (aOR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.04-1.20, P < 0.01). Colectomy patients with SSIs also had greater odds of in-hospital mortality (aOR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.83-2.02, P < 0.001) and complications (aOR: 3.65, 95% CI: 3.55-3.75, P < 0.001) compared with those without infections. Patients treated at SNHs who developed a SSI were even more likely to have an additional perioperative complication (aOR: 4.33, 95% CI: 3.98-4.71, P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that colectomy patients at SNHs have poorer outcomes, and for patients with SSIs, this disparity was even more pronounced in the likelihood for a complication. SNB should be recognized as a significant hospital-level factor affecting colectomy outcomes, with SSIs as an important quality metric., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: The effect of operation volume on the outcomes of pancreatic surgery has been a subject of research since the 1990s. In several countries around the world, this has led to the centralization of pancreatic surgery. However, controversy persists as to the benefits of centralization and what the optimal operation volume for pancreatic surgery actually is. This review summarizes the data on the effect of centralization on mortality, complications, hospital facilities used, and costs regarding pancreatic surgery., Materials and Methods: A systematic librarian-assisted search was performed in PubMed covering the years from August 1999 to August 2019. All studies comparing results of open pancreatic resections from high- and low-volume centers were included. In total 44, published articles were analyzed., Results: Studies used a variety of different criteria for high-volume and low-volume centers, which hampers the evaluating of the effect of operation volume. However, mortality in high-volume centers is consistently reported to be lower than in low-volume centers. In addition, failure to rescue critically ill patients is more common in low-volume centers. Cost-effectiveness has also been evaluated in the literature. Length of hospital stay in particular has been reported to be shorter in high-volume centers than in low-volume centers., Conclusion: The effect of centralization on the outcomes of pancreatic surgery has been under active research and the beneficial effect of it is associated especially with better short-term prognosis after surgery.

Background: Pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis are common clinical entities, and the related malpractice suits affect all medical subspecialties. Claims from malpractice litigation were analyzed to understand the demographics of these lawsuits and the common reasons for pursuing litigation., Methods: Cases entered into the Westlaw database from March 5, 1987, to May 31, 2018, were reviewed. Search terms included "pulmonary embolism" and "deep vein thrombosis.", Results: A total of 277 cases were identified. The most frequently identified defendant was an internist (including family practitioner; 33%), followed by an emergency physician (18%), an orthopedic surgeon (16%), and an obstetrician/gynecologist (9%). The most common etiology for pulmonary embolism was prior surgery (41%). The most common allegation was "failure to diagnose and treat" in 62%. Other negligence included the failure to administer prophylactic anticoagulation while in the hospital (18%), failure to prescribe anticoagulation on discharge (8%), failure to administer anticoagulation after diagnosis (8%), and premature discontinuation of anticoagulation (2%). The most frequently claimed injury was death in 222 cases (80%). Verdicts were found for the defendant in 57% of cases and for the plaintiff in 27% and settled in 16%., Conclusions: The most frequently cited negligent act was the failure to give prophylactic anticoagulation, even after discharge. The trends noted in this study may potentially be addressed and therefore prevented by systems-based practice changes. The most common allegation, "failure to diagnose and treat," suggests that first-contact doctors such as emergency physicians and primary care practitioners must maintain a high index of suspicion for deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To estimate the cost of rescue and cost of failure and determine cost-effectiveness of rescue from major complications at high-volume (HV) and low-volume (LV) centers METHODS: Ninety-six thousand one hundred seven patients undergoing liver resection were identified from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) between 2002 and 2011. The incremental cost of rescue and cost of FTR were calculated. Using propensity-matched cohorts, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between HV and LV hospitals., Results: Ninety-six thousand one hundred seven patients were identified in NIS. The overall mortality was 2.3% and was lowest in HV centers (HV 1.4% vs. MV 2.1% vs. LV 2.6%; p < 0.001). Major complications occurred in 14.9% of hepatectomies and were comparable regardless of volume (HV 14.2% vs. MV 14.3% vs. LV 15.4%; p < 0.001). The FTR rate was substantially lower among HV centers (HV 7.7%, MV 11%, LV 12%; p < 0.001). At a willingness to pay benchmark of $50,000 per year of life saved, both HV (ICER = $3296) and MV (ICER = $4182) centers were cost-effective at rescuing patients from a major complication compared to LV hospitals., Conclusion: Not only was FTR less common at HV hospitals, but the management of most major complications was cost-effective at higher volume centers.

Background: A large proportion of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) patients are routinely admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for postoperative observation. In this study, we aimed to describe the factors associated with ICU admission after EVAR and to compare the outcomes and costs associated with ICU vs non-ICU observation., Methods: All patients undergoing elective infrarenal EVAR in the Premier database (2009-2015) were included. Patients were stratified as ICU vs non-ICU admission according to location on postoperative day 0. Both patient-level (sociodemographics, comorbidities) and hospital-level (teaching status, hospital size, geographic location) factors were analyzed using univariate and multivariable logistic regression to determine factors associated with ICU vs non-ICU admission. Overall outcomes and hospital costs were compared between groups., Results: Overall, 8359 patients underwent elective EVAR during the study period, including 4791 (57.3%) ICU and 3568 (42.7%) non-ICU admissions. Patients admitted to ICU were more frequently nonwhite and had more comorbidities, including congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and hypertension, than non-ICU patients (all, P < .03). ICU admissions were more common in small (<300 beds), urban, and nonteaching hospitals and varied greatly depending on surgeon specialty and geographic region (P < .001). A pattern emerged when admission location was clustered by hospital; ICU patients were treated at hospitals where 96.7% (interquartile range, 84.5%-98.9%) of patients were admitted to ICU after EVAR, whereas non-ICU patients were treated at hospitals where only 7.5% (interquartile range, 4.9%-25.8%) were admitted to ICU after EVAR. A multivariable logistic regression model accounting for patient-, operative-, and hospital-level differences had a significantly lower area under the curve for predicting ICU admission after EVAR than a model accounting only for hospital factors (area under the curve, 0.76 vs 0.95; P < .001). The overall rate of adverse events was higher for ICU vs non-ICU patients (16.3% vs 13.7%; P < .001). Failure to rescue (2.9% vs 3.9%; P = .42) and in-hospital mortality (0.4% vs 0.4%; P = .81) were similar between groups. After adjusting for patient and hospital factors as well as for postoperative adverse events, ICU admission after EVAR cost $1475 (95% confidence interval, $768-2183) more than non-ICU admission (P < .001)., Conclusions: Among patients undergoing elective EVAR, postoperative ICU admission is more closely associated with hospital practice patterns than with individual patient risk. Routine ICU admission after EVAR adds significant cost without reducing failure to rescue or in-hospital mortality., (Copyright © 2017 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Data evaluating the financial implications of volume-based referral are lacking. This study sought to compare in-hospital costs for pancreatic surgery by annual hospital volume., Methods: Eleven thousand and eighty-one patients aged ≥18 years undergoing an elective pancreatic resection for cancer were identified using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2002-2011. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to compare length-of-stay (LOS), postoperative morbidity and mortality, failure-to-rescue (FTR), and inpatient costs by annual hospital volume group., Results: Patients undergoing surgery at high-volume hospitals (HVH) demonstrated 23% lower odds (odds ratio [OR] = 0.77, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.63-0.95) of developing a postoperative complication, 59% lower odds of experiencing an LOS > 14 days (OR = 0.41, 95%CI 0.34-0.50), 51% lower odds of postoperative mortality (OR = 0.49, 95%CI 0.34-0.71), and 47% lower odds of FTR (OR = 0.53, 95%CI 0.37-0.76; all p<0.05). The overall mean in-hospital cost was $39,012 (SD = $15,214) with minimal differences observed across hospital volume groups. Rather, postoperative complications (no complication vs. complication $26,686 [SD = $5762] vs. $44,633 [SD = $11,637]) and FTR (rescue vs. FTR $42,413 [SD = $8481] vs. $69,546 [SD = $13,131]) were determinant of higher in-hospital costs. While this pattern was observed at all hospital volume groups, costs varied minimally between hospital volume groups after this stratification., Conclusions: Annual hospital surgical volume was not associated with in-hospital costs among patients undergoing pancreatic surgery.