User login
Official Newspaper of the American College of Surgeons
Don't rule out liver transplant grafts from octogenarians
Donors aged 80 years or older are not necessarily inferior for a liver transplantation (LT) graft, compared with young ideal donors (aged 18-39 years), according to an analysis of the perioperative LT period.
While “the potential risks and benefits associated with the use of livers from octogenarian donors must be closely weighed, with careful donor evaluation, selective donor-to-recipient matching and skilled perioperative care, octogenarian grafts do not affect the short-term course of patients undergoing LT,” concluded Gianni Biancofiore, MD, of Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy, and his coauthors (Dig Liver Dis. 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2017.01.149).
Perioperative differences were insubstantial in terms of cardiovascular complications (P = .2), respiratory complications (P = 1.0), coagulopathy (P = .5), and incidence of perfusion syndrome (P = .3). Median ICU length of stay of the two groups was identical (P = .4). No differences in terms of death or retransplant were observed during the ICU stay.
“Accordingly, anesthesiologists and intensivists should not label liver allografts from donors aged 80 years [or older] as ‘unusable’ or ‘high risk’ ” based on age alone, the authors concluded.
The authors declared no sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.
Donors aged 80 years or older are not necessarily inferior for a liver transplantation (LT) graft, compared with young ideal donors (aged 18-39 years), according to an analysis of the perioperative LT period.
While “the potential risks and benefits associated with the use of livers from octogenarian donors must be closely weighed, with careful donor evaluation, selective donor-to-recipient matching and skilled perioperative care, octogenarian grafts do not affect the short-term course of patients undergoing LT,” concluded Gianni Biancofiore, MD, of Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy, and his coauthors (Dig Liver Dis. 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2017.01.149).
Perioperative differences were insubstantial in terms of cardiovascular complications (P = .2), respiratory complications (P = 1.0), coagulopathy (P = .5), and incidence of perfusion syndrome (P = .3). Median ICU length of stay of the two groups was identical (P = .4). No differences in terms of death or retransplant were observed during the ICU stay.
“Accordingly, anesthesiologists and intensivists should not label liver allografts from donors aged 80 years [or older] as ‘unusable’ or ‘high risk’ ” based on age alone, the authors concluded.
The authors declared no sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.
Donors aged 80 years or older are not necessarily inferior for a liver transplantation (LT) graft, compared with young ideal donors (aged 18-39 years), according to an analysis of the perioperative LT period.
While “the potential risks and benefits associated with the use of livers from octogenarian donors must be closely weighed, with careful donor evaluation, selective donor-to-recipient matching and skilled perioperative care, octogenarian grafts do not affect the short-term course of patients undergoing LT,” concluded Gianni Biancofiore, MD, of Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy, and his coauthors (Dig Liver Dis. 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2017.01.149).
Perioperative differences were insubstantial in terms of cardiovascular complications (P = .2), respiratory complications (P = 1.0), coagulopathy (P = .5), and incidence of perfusion syndrome (P = .3). Median ICU length of stay of the two groups was identical (P = .4). No differences in terms of death or retransplant were observed during the ICU stay.
“Accordingly, anesthesiologists and intensivists should not label liver allografts from donors aged 80 years [or older] as ‘unusable’ or ‘high risk’ ” based on age alone, the authors concluded.
The authors declared no sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.
FROM DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
Updated guidelines offer insight into pediatric obesity
Among other things, the guidelines offer new insight into the role of genetics in childhood obesity, provide more extensive guidance regarding bariatric surgery in adolescents, and suggest that measurements of insulin concentrations aren’t useful barometers.
The guidelines also point to research gaps in several areas and call for more studies.
Why issue new guidelines now? “Eight years have passed since the last publication. We did a very thorough job, but there’s been an incredible amount of interest in child obesity, and more information is available,” lead author Dennis M. Styne, MD, professor of pediatrics and the Yocha Dehe endowed chair in pediatric endocrinology at the University of California at Davis, said in an interview. Indeed, recent years have produced hundreds of studies into pediatric obesity, he noted.
The 49-page guidelines are cosponsored by the European Society of Endocrinology and the Pediatric Endocrine Society (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017 March;102[3]:1-49).
Pediatric obesity is of special interest to endocrinologists, Dr. Styne said. “While there’s interest from many specialists now, we are at the forefront of evaluation and treatment of complications like polycystic ovary syndrome, metabolic syndrome, dyslipidemia, and type 2 diabetes.”
The guidelines provide recommendations about a wide variety of obesity-related topics including screening, diagnosis, and treatment. The Endocrine Society commissioned two systematic reviews to support the guidelines: One examined longer randomized controlled trials into medication, surgery, lifestyle, and community-based intervention treatments. The other examined how changing body mass index levels corresponded to cardiometabolic changes.
Several updated areas in the guidelines should be of special interest to endocrinologists: guidance regarding the genetic causes of pediatric obesity, the use of weight-loss medication and surgery, and the roles of insulin tests and breast-feeding, according to Dr. Styne.
In regard to genetics, the guidelines note that research suggests 7% of patients with extreme pediatric obesity “may have rare chromosomal abnormalities and/or highly penetrant genetic mutations that drive their obesity. This percentage is likely to increase with newer methods for genetic testing.”
Dr. Styne calls this finding “remarkable.” As he put it, “we didn’t appreciate that so much in the past.”
The guidelines suggest genetic testing for patients who become obese before the age of 5 years, have a family history of extreme obesity, or show clinical signs of genetic obesity syndromes, especially extreme hyperphagia.
As for the most extreme treatments for the most obese children, the guidelines recommend against weight-loss medication outside of clinical trials and note that “increasing evidence” supports bariatric surgery in teens who haven’t been able to lose enough pounds through lifestyle modification. However, “the use of surgery requires experienced teams with resources for long-term follow-up.”
The guidelines also recommend against measuring serum insulin concentrations as part of pediatric screening for obesity. “A lot of people like to get insulin levels and think it tells them about the future of the child,” Dr. Styne said. “But it doesn’t work very well.”
In another area that reflects new information, the guidelines note that breast-feeding hasn’t been definitively shown to be effective in reducing childhood obesity. “The literature is contradictory,” Dr. Styne said, although he noted that breast-feeding still has many other benefits.
The guidelines point to research gaps in several areas, including the prevention and treatment of pediatric obesity. There’s also “uncharted territory” regarding how to “effectively transition to adult care, with continued necessary monitoring, support, and intervention.”
In regard to the best treatment programs, “we didn’t come up with an answer regarding overall effectiveness,” Dr. Styne said. “School- and community-based programs have promise, but I can’t give you the percentage of success.”
As for the overall picture of pediatric obesity in the United States, “we’re in a better situation than we were 8 years ago,” he said. “Everyone is talking about the problem, and when you talk to families, they’re more aware of it.”
Still, he said, the prevalence of obesity in kids is high, estimated at 17% of those aged 2-19 years in 2014. “That’s not a good place to be,” he said. “We still have to work harder.”
The Endocrine Society funded the guidelines. Dr. Styne reports ownership interests in Teva, Bristol Myers and Organovo. Other authors report various disclosures.
Among other things, the guidelines offer new insight into the role of genetics in childhood obesity, provide more extensive guidance regarding bariatric surgery in adolescents, and suggest that measurements of insulin concentrations aren’t useful barometers.
The guidelines also point to research gaps in several areas and call for more studies.
Why issue new guidelines now? “Eight years have passed since the last publication. We did a very thorough job, but there’s been an incredible amount of interest in child obesity, and more information is available,” lead author Dennis M. Styne, MD, professor of pediatrics and the Yocha Dehe endowed chair in pediatric endocrinology at the University of California at Davis, said in an interview. Indeed, recent years have produced hundreds of studies into pediatric obesity, he noted.
The 49-page guidelines are cosponsored by the European Society of Endocrinology and the Pediatric Endocrine Society (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017 March;102[3]:1-49).
Pediatric obesity is of special interest to endocrinologists, Dr. Styne said. “While there’s interest from many specialists now, we are at the forefront of evaluation and treatment of complications like polycystic ovary syndrome, metabolic syndrome, dyslipidemia, and type 2 diabetes.”
The guidelines provide recommendations about a wide variety of obesity-related topics including screening, diagnosis, and treatment. The Endocrine Society commissioned two systematic reviews to support the guidelines: One examined longer randomized controlled trials into medication, surgery, lifestyle, and community-based intervention treatments. The other examined how changing body mass index levels corresponded to cardiometabolic changes.
Several updated areas in the guidelines should be of special interest to endocrinologists: guidance regarding the genetic causes of pediatric obesity, the use of weight-loss medication and surgery, and the roles of insulin tests and breast-feeding, according to Dr. Styne.
In regard to genetics, the guidelines note that research suggests 7% of patients with extreme pediatric obesity “may have rare chromosomal abnormalities and/or highly penetrant genetic mutations that drive their obesity. This percentage is likely to increase with newer methods for genetic testing.”
Dr. Styne calls this finding “remarkable.” As he put it, “we didn’t appreciate that so much in the past.”
The guidelines suggest genetic testing for patients who become obese before the age of 5 years, have a family history of extreme obesity, or show clinical signs of genetic obesity syndromes, especially extreme hyperphagia.
As for the most extreme treatments for the most obese children, the guidelines recommend against weight-loss medication outside of clinical trials and note that “increasing evidence” supports bariatric surgery in teens who haven’t been able to lose enough pounds through lifestyle modification. However, “the use of surgery requires experienced teams with resources for long-term follow-up.”
The guidelines also recommend against measuring serum insulin concentrations as part of pediatric screening for obesity. “A lot of people like to get insulin levels and think it tells them about the future of the child,” Dr. Styne said. “But it doesn’t work very well.”
In another area that reflects new information, the guidelines note that breast-feeding hasn’t been definitively shown to be effective in reducing childhood obesity. “The literature is contradictory,” Dr. Styne said, although he noted that breast-feeding still has many other benefits.
The guidelines point to research gaps in several areas, including the prevention and treatment of pediatric obesity. There’s also “uncharted territory” regarding how to “effectively transition to adult care, with continued necessary monitoring, support, and intervention.”
In regard to the best treatment programs, “we didn’t come up with an answer regarding overall effectiveness,” Dr. Styne said. “School- and community-based programs have promise, but I can’t give you the percentage of success.”
As for the overall picture of pediatric obesity in the United States, “we’re in a better situation than we were 8 years ago,” he said. “Everyone is talking about the problem, and when you talk to families, they’re more aware of it.”
Still, he said, the prevalence of obesity in kids is high, estimated at 17% of those aged 2-19 years in 2014. “That’s not a good place to be,” he said. “We still have to work harder.”
The Endocrine Society funded the guidelines. Dr. Styne reports ownership interests in Teva, Bristol Myers and Organovo. Other authors report various disclosures.
Among other things, the guidelines offer new insight into the role of genetics in childhood obesity, provide more extensive guidance regarding bariatric surgery in adolescents, and suggest that measurements of insulin concentrations aren’t useful barometers.
The guidelines also point to research gaps in several areas and call for more studies.
Why issue new guidelines now? “Eight years have passed since the last publication. We did a very thorough job, but there’s been an incredible amount of interest in child obesity, and more information is available,” lead author Dennis M. Styne, MD, professor of pediatrics and the Yocha Dehe endowed chair in pediatric endocrinology at the University of California at Davis, said in an interview. Indeed, recent years have produced hundreds of studies into pediatric obesity, he noted.
The 49-page guidelines are cosponsored by the European Society of Endocrinology and the Pediatric Endocrine Society (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017 March;102[3]:1-49).
Pediatric obesity is of special interest to endocrinologists, Dr. Styne said. “While there’s interest from many specialists now, we are at the forefront of evaluation and treatment of complications like polycystic ovary syndrome, metabolic syndrome, dyslipidemia, and type 2 diabetes.”
The guidelines provide recommendations about a wide variety of obesity-related topics including screening, diagnosis, and treatment. The Endocrine Society commissioned two systematic reviews to support the guidelines: One examined longer randomized controlled trials into medication, surgery, lifestyle, and community-based intervention treatments. The other examined how changing body mass index levels corresponded to cardiometabolic changes.
Several updated areas in the guidelines should be of special interest to endocrinologists: guidance regarding the genetic causes of pediatric obesity, the use of weight-loss medication and surgery, and the roles of insulin tests and breast-feeding, according to Dr. Styne.
In regard to genetics, the guidelines note that research suggests 7% of patients with extreme pediatric obesity “may have rare chromosomal abnormalities and/or highly penetrant genetic mutations that drive their obesity. This percentage is likely to increase with newer methods for genetic testing.”
Dr. Styne calls this finding “remarkable.” As he put it, “we didn’t appreciate that so much in the past.”
The guidelines suggest genetic testing for patients who become obese before the age of 5 years, have a family history of extreme obesity, or show clinical signs of genetic obesity syndromes, especially extreme hyperphagia.
As for the most extreme treatments for the most obese children, the guidelines recommend against weight-loss medication outside of clinical trials and note that “increasing evidence” supports bariatric surgery in teens who haven’t been able to lose enough pounds through lifestyle modification. However, “the use of surgery requires experienced teams with resources for long-term follow-up.”
The guidelines also recommend against measuring serum insulin concentrations as part of pediatric screening for obesity. “A lot of people like to get insulin levels and think it tells them about the future of the child,” Dr. Styne said. “But it doesn’t work very well.”
In another area that reflects new information, the guidelines note that breast-feeding hasn’t been definitively shown to be effective in reducing childhood obesity. “The literature is contradictory,” Dr. Styne said, although he noted that breast-feeding still has many other benefits.
The guidelines point to research gaps in several areas, including the prevention and treatment of pediatric obesity. There’s also “uncharted territory” regarding how to “effectively transition to adult care, with continued necessary monitoring, support, and intervention.”
In regard to the best treatment programs, “we didn’t come up with an answer regarding overall effectiveness,” Dr. Styne said. “School- and community-based programs have promise, but I can’t give you the percentage of success.”
As for the overall picture of pediatric obesity in the United States, “we’re in a better situation than we were 8 years ago,” he said. “Everyone is talking about the problem, and when you talk to families, they’re more aware of it.”
Still, he said, the prevalence of obesity in kids is high, estimated at 17% of those aged 2-19 years in 2014. “That’s not a good place to be,” he said. “We still have to work harder.”
The Endocrine Society funded the guidelines. Dr. Styne reports ownership interests in Teva, Bristol Myers and Organovo. Other authors report various disclosures.
Bowel obstruction surgery complications predicted with risk tool
HOLLYWOOD, FLA. – A three-parameter scoring system predicts which patients are likely to experience complications from surgery for a small bowel obstruction.
The new tool – dubbed FAS (Functional status, American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] classification, and Sepsis) – focuses mostly on preoperative functional status and the presence of preoperative sepsis. It’s as accurate as a time-consuming 10-item Margenthaler system published in 2006, which requires data on blood chemistry, neurologic status, and cardiac and lung function as well as age, sepsis, and preoperative functional measures.
Small bowel obstruction is a common problem, said Dr. Asuzu, who is also a medical student at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Whether to treat conservatively or surgically can be a complex decision. “Conservative treatment avoids postoperative complications, but there is a higher risk of occurrence and a quicker time to recurrence than with surgery. But surgery carries its own risks. If we could identify patients at high risk for complications, then perhaps we could push those patients more toward conservative treatment.”
The Margenthaler scoring system attempted to do just that. It was retrospectively validated in 2,000 patients included in the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (VASQIP) who underwent surgery for small bowel obstruction. The authors examined about 60 clinical factors associated with postsurgical morbidity and mortality, finally settling on 10 that, when scored, accurately predicted 30-day morbidity and mortality.
These factors were:
• History of congestive heart failure
• Neurological deficit or stroke
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• Elevated white cell count
• Preoperative functional health status
• Surgery type
• Preoperative creatinine
• Wound classification
• ASA class
• Age
Dr. Asuzu and his mentor, Kevin Y. Pei, MD, FACS, wanted to come up with a more user-friendly risk assessment tool for patients undergoing open small bowel adhesiolysis. They focused on two measures of preoperative functional status: dependent vs. independent and ASA classification. Another measure – preoperative sepsis – estimated the impact of the patient’s current medical problem.
The tool was tested retrospectively in two independent cohorts extracted from the ACS National Surgery Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP) database. The initial discovery cohort comprised 6,036 patients; the replication cohort, 9,000. These patients had a mean age of 60 years and were relatively healthy, with low rates of congestive obstructive pulmonary disease, renal failure, cancer, bleeding disorders, and ascites. About half were taking antihypertensive medications and 5%, steroids.
Using multivariable regression, the authors developed a scoring system as follows:
• 6 points for each level of preoperative functional status (1 – independent, 2 – partially dependent, 3 – totally dependent)
• 6 points for each level of ASA classification (1 – no disturbance, 2 – mild disturbance, 3 – severe disturbance, 4 – life-threatening disturbance, and 5 – moribund state)
• 4 points for each level of perioperative sepsis (1 – systemic inflammatory response syndrome [SIRS], 2 – sepsis, 3 – septic shock)
In the discovery cohort, the three-item FAS tool was just as accurate as the Margenthaler tool, with an odds ratio of 1.11 vs 1.10 for any complication. The areas under the curve were 0.69 vs. 0.68. These results were virtually identical in the replication cohort.
With a combined total score of 32 as the cutoff, FAS yielded a specificity of 93% for predicting any complication and 92% for any of the six most common complications (ventilator dependence greater than 48 hours, pneumonia, superficial surgical site infection, postoperative sepsis, urinary tract infection, or unplanned intubation) in the replication cohort. The positive predictive value was 50% for any complication and 45% for the six most common complications, and the negative predictive values were 81% and nearly 85%, respectively.
“We are very pleased with how this performs,” Dr. Asuzu said in an interview. “It’s apparent that these three parameters are sufficient to tell us with a high level of specificity which patients could benefit from a more conservative approach. The next step is to prospectively validate it in a single center dataset.”
He said discriminating the most meaningful risk factors plainly showed that preoperative physical status is the best indicator of how well a patient will handle the surgery.
“It turns out that the biggest predictor of you how do after surgery is how you are doing before surgery. We can look at it as the how big the hit is, and the patient’s ability to take that hit. If their ability is already compromised, it’s a sign they might not do well.”
The “functional status” parameter may seem overly simplistic at first glance, he said. “But it really takes into account everything: the gout, the hypertension, the smoking, heart and respiratory and kidney function. All of this plays a role in functional status. I think this is why some of these more complex scores suffer. They’re not clear because there is so much overlap there.”
Dr. Asuzu had no financial disclosures.
[email protected]
On Twitter @Alz_Gal
HOLLYWOOD, FLA. – A three-parameter scoring system predicts which patients are likely to experience complications from surgery for a small bowel obstruction.
The new tool – dubbed FAS (Functional status, American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] classification, and Sepsis) – focuses mostly on preoperative functional status and the presence of preoperative sepsis. It’s as accurate as a time-consuming 10-item Margenthaler system published in 2006, which requires data on blood chemistry, neurologic status, and cardiac and lung function as well as age, sepsis, and preoperative functional measures.
Small bowel obstruction is a common problem, said Dr. Asuzu, who is also a medical student at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Whether to treat conservatively or surgically can be a complex decision. “Conservative treatment avoids postoperative complications, but there is a higher risk of occurrence and a quicker time to recurrence than with surgery. But surgery carries its own risks. If we could identify patients at high risk for complications, then perhaps we could push those patients more toward conservative treatment.”
The Margenthaler scoring system attempted to do just that. It was retrospectively validated in 2,000 patients included in the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (VASQIP) who underwent surgery for small bowel obstruction. The authors examined about 60 clinical factors associated with postsurgical morbidity and mortality, finally settling on 10 that, when scored, accurately predicted 30-day morbidity and mortality.
These factors were:
• History of congestive heart failure
• Neurological deficit or stroke
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• Elevated white cell count
• Preoperative functional health status
• Surgery type
• Preoperative creatinine
• Wound classification
• ASA class
• Age
Dr. Asuzu and his mentor, Kevin Y. Pei, MD, FACS, wanted to come up with a more user-friendly risk assessment tool for patients undergoing open small bowel adhesiolysis. They focused on two measures of preoperative functional status: dependent vs. independent and ASA classification. Another measure – preoperative sepsis – estimated the impact of the patient’s current medical problem.
The tool was tested retrospectively in two independent cohorts extracted from the ACS National Surgery Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP) database. The initial discovery cohort comprised 6,036 patients; the replication cohort, 9,000. These patients had a mean age of 60 years and were relatively healthy, with low rates of congestive obstructive pulmonary disease, renal failure, cancer, bleeding disorders, and ascites. About half were taking antihypertensive medications and 5%, steroids.
Using multivariable regression, the authors developed a scoring system as follows:
• 6 points for each level of preoperative functional status (1 – independent, 2 – partially dependent, 3 – totally dependent)
• 6 points for each level of ASA classification (1 – no disturbance, 2 – mild disturbance, 3 – severe disturbance, 4 – life-threatening disturbance, and 5 – moribund state)
• 4 points for each level of perioperative sepsis (1 – systemic inflammatory response syndrome [SIRS], 2 – sepsis, 3 – septic shock)
In the discovery cohort, the three-item FAS tool was just as accurate as the Margenthaler tool, with an odds ratio of 1.11 vs 1.10 for any complication. The areas under the curve were 0.69 vs. 0.68. These results were virtually identical in the replication cohort.
With a combined total score of 32 as the cutoff, FAS yielded a specificity of 93% for predicting any complication and 92% for any of the six most common complications (ventilator dependence greater than 48 hours, pneumonia, superficial surgical site infection, postoperative sepsis, urinary tract infection, or unplanned intubation) in the replication cohort. The positive predictive value was 50% for any complication and 45% for the six most common complications, and the negative predictive values were 81% and nearly 85%, respectively.
“We are very pleased with how this performs,” Dr. Asuzu said in an interview. “It’s apparent that these three parameters are sufficient to tell us with a high level of specificity which patients could benefit from a more conservative approach. The next step is to prospectively validate it in a single center dataset.”
He said discriminating the most meaningful risk factors plainly showed that preoperative physical status is the best indicator of how well a patient will handle the surgery.
“It turns out that the biggest predictor of you how do after surgery is how you are doing before surgery. We can look at it as the how big the hit is, and the patient’s ability to take that hit. If their ability is already compromised, it’s a sign they might not do well.”
The “functional status” parameter may seem overly simplistic at first glance, he said. “But it really takes into account everything: the gout, the hypertension, the smoking, heart and respiratory and kidney function. All of this plays a role in functional status. I think this is why some of these more complex scores suffer. They’re not clear because there is so much overlap there.”
Dr. Asuzu had no financial disclosures.
[email protected]
On Twitter @Alz_Gal
HOLLYWOOD, FLA. – A three-parameter scoring system predicts which patients are likely to experience complications from surgery for a small bowel obstruction.
The new tool – dubbed FAS (Functional status, American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] classification, and Sepsis) – focuses mostly on preoperative functional status and the presence of preoperative sepsis. It’s as accurate as a time-consuming 10-item Margenthaler system published in 2006, which requires data on blood chemistry, neurologic status, and cardiac and lung function as well as age, sepsis, and preoperative functional measures.
Small bowel obstruction is a common problem, said Dr. Asuzu, who is also a medical student at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Whether to treat conservatively or surgically can be a complex decision. “Conservative treatment avoids postoperative complications, but there is a higher risk of occurrence and a quicker time to recurrence than with surgery. But surgery carries its own risks. If we could identify patients at high risk for complications, then perhaps we could push those patients more toward conservative treatment.”
The Margenthaler scoring system attempted to do just that. It was retrospectively validated in 2,000 patients included in the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (VASQIP) who underwent surgery for small bowel obstruction. The authors examined about 60 clinical factors associated with postsurgical morbidity and mortality, finally settling on 10 that, when scored, accurately predicted 30-day morbidity and mortality.
These factors were:
• History of congestive heart failure
• Neurological deficit or stroke
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• Elevated white cell count
• Preoperative functional health status
• Surgery type
• Preoperative creatinine
• Wound classification
• ASA class
• Age
Dr. Asuzu and his mentor, Kevin Y. Pei, MD, FACS, wanted to come up with a more user-friendly risk assessment tool for patients undergoing open small bowel adhesiolysis. They focused on two measures of preoperative functional status: dependent vs. independent and ASA classification. Another measure – preoperative sepsis – estimated the impact of the patient’s current medical problem.
The tool was tested retrospectively in two independent cohorts extracted from the ACS National Surgery Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP) database. The initial discovery cohort comprised 6,036 patients; the replication cohort, 9,000. These patients had a mean age of 60 years and were relatively healthy, with low rates of congestive obstructive pulmonary disease, renal failure, cancer, bleeding disorders, and ascites. About half were taking antihypertensive medications and 5%, steroids.
Using multivariable regression, the authors developed a scoring system as follows:
• 6 points for each level of preoperative functional status (1 – independent, 2 – partially dependent, 3 – totally dependent)
• 6 points for each level of ASA classification (1 – no disturbance, 2 – mild disturbance, 3 – severe disturbance, 4 – life-threatening disturbance, and 5 – moribund state)
• 4 points for each level of perioperative sepsis (1 – systemic inflammatory response syndrome [SIRS], 2 – sepsis, 3 – septic shock)
In the discovery cohort, the three-item FAS tool was just as accurate as the Margenthaler tool, with an odds ratio of 1.11 vs 1.10 for any complication. The areas under the curve were 0.69 vs. 0.68. These results were virtually identical in the replication cohort.
With a combined total score of 32 as the cutoff, FAS yielded a specificity of 93% for predicting any complication and 92% for any of the six most common complications (ventilator dependence greater than 48 hours, pneumonia, superficial surgical site infection, postoperative sepsis, urinary tract infection, or unplanned intubation) in the replication cohort. The positive predictive value was 50% for any complication and 45% for the six most common complications, and the negative predictive values were 81% and nearly 85%, respectively.
“We are very pleased with how this performs,” Dr. Asuzu said in an interview. “It’s apparent that these three parameters are sufficient to tell us with a high level of specificity which patients could benefit from a more conservative approach. The next step is to prospectively validate it in a single center dataset.”
He said discriminating the most meaningful risk factors plainly showed that preoperative physical status is the best indicator of how well a patient will handle the surgery.
“It turns out that the biggest predictor of you how do after surgery is how you are doing before surgery. We can look at it as the how big the hit is, and the patient’s ability to take that hit. If their ability is already compromised, it’s a sign they might not do well.”
The “functional status” parameter may seem overly simplistic at first glance, he said. “But it really takes into account everything: the gout, the hypertension, the smoking, heart and respiratory and kidney function. All of this plays a role in functional status. I think this is why some of these more complex scores suffer. They’re not clear because there is so much overlap there.”
Dr. Asuzu had no financial disclosures.
[email protected]
On Twitter @Alz_Gal
AT THE EAST ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC ASSEMBLY
Key clinical point: A simple, three-item assessment tool predicted complications from small bowel obstruction surgery just as well as a more complex 10-item system.
Major finding: The FAS tool had a specificity of 93% for any complication and 92% for the six most common complications.
Data source: The tool was retrospectively validated in two cohorts comprising more than 15,000 patients.
Disclosures: Dr. Asuzu had no financial disclosures.
Open vs. endovascular for chronic mesenteric ischemia
Chronic mesenteric ischemia is best treated in an open operation.
Chronic mesenteric ischemia is a rare disorder accounting for about 1 out of 100,000 admissions.1 Because of the rarity of this disease, diagnosis is often delayed. Patients are often evaluated for other gastrointestinal diseases and/or malignancies, which in turn contributes to significant delays in diagnosis. Additionally, there are no prospective, randomized trials on which to base decisions regarding treatment; and it is unlikely that such studies will ever be undertaken.
Chronic mesenteric ischemia develops when two or more of the mesenteric vessels (celiac, superior mesenteric [SMA], or inferior mesenteric [IMA]) become occluded or develop severe stenosis. In my experience, patients most often develop occlusion (as opposed to stenosis) of their mesenteric vessels. The atherosclerotic plaque responsible for the disease originates within the aorta and the stenosis/occlusion develops at the vessel origin.
As a whole, these comorbidities would suggest that a more minimally invasive approach would be preferred. Yet, an open operation for chronic mesenteric ischemia should not be discarded as an initial operation.
Endovascular treatment of mesenteric ischemia is not without risk. As in all endovascular procedures there are complications associated with the access vessels. The orientation of the mesenteric vessels as they arise from the aorta often favors an approach from the left arm. The brachial artery is smaller than the femoral artery, and it is more difficult to apply pressure to the brachial artery to control the puncture site. This leads to a higher rate of access site complications including hemorrhage, pseudoaneurysm and thrombosis of the vessel. Bleeding or hematoma formation within the brachial neurovascular sheath can result in significant neurologic dysfunction of the arm and hand. There is risk of stroke, especially when the access vessel is the brachial artery. There are also complications directly related to the endovascular procedure.
Atheroembolism of plaque can result in occlusion of small mesenteric vessels and focal areas of bowel necrosis. Dissection of the mesenteric vessel can occur. Oderich has advocated for the use of a covered stent.2 A covered stent could cover proximal branches, and thus, in theory, the treatment itself could cause bowel ischemia or infarction. Many series that have compared open and endovascular surgery show no difference in early outcomes, but demonstrate early restenosis, decreased primary patency, and decreased assisted primary patency with endovascular treatment as compared with open operations.3-5
Another concern regarding the treatment of mesenteric ischemia is the status of the end organ, the bowel. Successful treatment of mesenteric ischemia cannot only assess the atherosclerotic lesion, but requires the surgeon to be cognizant of the condition of the bowel.
This concern is especially true for acute mesenteric ischemia,6 but the status of the bowel must also be kept in mind for chronic mesenteric ischemia. Unlike the lower extremity where the results of treatment are easily observed by inspection (color, evidence of atheroembolization), palpation (temperature, pulse), and physiologic testing (ABI), the bowel is not accessible. There are no highly accurate tests to determine if the patient has on-going bowel ischemia or has developed infarction. Should a complication occur, physical examination findings and laboratory changes often become apparent late in the course of the disease. As previously noted, these patients are often physiologically compromised and have little reserve and may not survive such complications. An open operation allows visualization of the bowel, before and after revascularization.
Traditional teaching for the surgical treatment of chronic mesenteric ischemia has emphasized that two mesenteric vessels, usually the celiac and SMA, should be revascularized.7,8 Various approaches to revascularization have been suggested including transaortic endarterectomy and an antegrade bifurcated bypass originating from the supraceliac aorta. These operations are effective in restoring flow to the mesenteric circulation, but both of these approaches involve aortic cross-clamping and are physiologically challenging for patients.
There are alternatives for open revascularization of the mesenteric vessels. The infrarenal aorta, iliac vessels, and even renal arteries can be, and have been used as the inflow source. It has been my experience that a bypass graft using an iliac artery (common or external) as the inflow source is well tolerated by patients. I have preferentially used either great saphenous vein or femoral-popliteal vein as the conduit. In many cases, the distal anastomosis is simply the SMA. However, both the celiac and SMA can be revascularized by creating a side-side anastomosis to the SMA and an end-side anastomosis to the common or proper hepatic artery. Such procedures have been durable, providing relief of symptoms and allowing patients to regain weight.9
In reality, I believe that an endovascular approach for the treatment of chronic mesenteric ischemia has a role. Vascular surgeons are uniquely positioned to carefully evaluate each patient and recommend what they feel is most appropriate. I tend to feel that an endovascular approach is less likely to be successful for patients with occluded vessels, especially those with a flush occlusion, and so will preferentially recommend an open operation for these patients. On the other hand, in my practice, I have used an endovascular approach for patients with severe stenosis, and as Dr. Harris states, know that a bypass is always an option should this be unsuccessful or ultimately fail.
References
1. Ann Vasc Surg. 1991;5:403-6
2. J Vasc Surg. 2013;58:1316-23
3. Ann Vasc Surg. 2015:29;934-40
4. World J Gastroenerol. 2013;19:1333-7
5. J Vasc Surg. 2007;45:1162-71
6. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62:767-72
7. J Vasc Surg. 2002:35:853-9
8. Surgery. 1981;90:940-6
9. J Vasc Surg. 2000;32:37-47
Eric Endean, MD, is the director of the aortic center, Gordon L. Hyde Endowed Professor and Chair, and vascular surgery section head, vascular and endovascular surgery at UK HealthCare, University of Kentucky, Lexington. He had no relevant disclosures.
Presenting the case for endovascular intervention
Chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI) is an uncommon, but lethal, problem when left untreated. Before the endovascular era, the only option was open revascularization, which is challenging in this chronically ill, malnourished population with diffuse, systemic, atherosclerotic disease. Morbidity and mortality was relatively high because of the comorbid conditions and chronically ill status of the patients. The first mesenteric bypass was performed in 1958 by Maynard and Shaw.1
Options for open repair include transaortic endarterectomy, antegrade bypass from the supraceliac aorta or distal thoracic aorta, or retrograde bypass from the iliac artery, all of which are major abdominal procedures. Endovascular interventions are now the most commonly performed procedures for CMI in the United States based on national studies.2
Technical success with endovascular interventions can be achieved in well over 90% of patients, and multiple vessels can be treated simultaneously from either a femoral or brachial approach. The primary concern with endovascular interventions has been long-term patency, with restenosis from intimal hyperplasia or thrombosis causing recurrent symptoms in up to 30%-50% at 3-5 years.5-7 However, these rates are based on use of bare metal stents, rather than covered stents. Recent studies8 suggest that stent grafts have markedly improved outcomes over bare metal stents for ostial lesions, decreasing recurrence. Oderich found that freedom from recurrence was 92% with stent grafts as compared with 53% for bare metal stents, with primary patency rates of 92%, at 3 years8, comparable to even the best open bypass results. Schoch first reported the use of covered stents in the mesenteric circulation, and found that no patients developed recurrent stenosis at 2 years.9 Other concerns with endovascular intervention include embolization and dissection, which have not been frequently reported.
Mortality from open surgery ranges from 5% to 15%, with morbidity of 30%-40%.4 Mortality from endovascular intervention is markedly lower, in the range of 3.56% vs. 7.23%.5 Long-term survival is not different between endovascular vs. open repair (69% vs. 65%),4 with the majority of deaths related to cardiac, pulmonary, or malignancy issues. Moghadamyeghaneh, in a review of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, found that open surgery was one of the major predictors for higher morbidity (odds ratio, 5.07) and mortality (OR, 5.13), despite the fact that endovascular patients were older (another risk factor for adverse outcomes) and had more comorbidities in this nonrandomized, real-world study.2
Further, if one considers cost as a metric for decision making, a Markov clinical decision model by Hogendoorn et al suggests an endovascular first approach is preferred, despite the presumed higher rate of recurrence expected with use of bare metal stents, rather than covered stents, utilized for this analysis.10 Clearly, the financial advantage would be even greater for endovascular with the lower rates of recurrence with covered stents more recently reported.
If a patient develops recurrent stenosis after endovascular intervention, open bypass may be considered as an alternate to repeat endovascular intervention, dependent on the nutritional status, life expectancy, and initial intervention undertaken. Alternately, patients who undergo open repair are not immune to restenosis, with a recurrence rate of 10%-20%.11,12 Oderich found that there was a 22% mortality in those treated with repeat open interventions, with a 47% complication rate. Endovascular interventions, however, had a significantly lower rate of complications, 16%, and mortality. For patients with recurrent disease after open revascularization for CMI, the endovascular approach should also be the preferred approach.
Any lesion which is anatomically suitable for endovascular repair should first have an attempt made via this approach, utilizing covered stents. While there is a role for open revascularization, endovascular interventions can be safely performed, with minimal morbidity and mortality, and good long-term patency, even in the sickest patients. Endovascular intervention should be the procedure of choice for chronic mesenteric ischemia and recurrent chronic mesenteric ischemia.
References
1. NEJM. 1958;258:874-8
2. Am Surg. 2015;81:1149-56
3. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 1980;3:43-4
4. Ann Vasc Surg. 2009;23:700-12
5. Ann Vasc Surg. 2013;27:113-22
6. J Vasc Surg. 2011;54:1422-29
7. J Vasc Surg. 2010;51:140-7
8. J Vasc Surg. 2013;58:1316-24
9. JACS. 2001;212:668-75
10. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60;715-25
11. J Vasc Surg. 200;49:1472-9
12. J Vasc Surg. 2007;45:1162-71
Linda Harris, MD, is professor of surgery; chief, division of vascular surgery; program director, vascular surgery residency & fellowship at the State University of New York at Buffalo; and an associate medical editor for Vascular Specialist. She had no relevant disclosures.
Chronic mesenteric ischemia is best treated in an open operation.
Chronic mesenteric ischemia is a rare disorder accounting for about 1 out of 100,000 admissions.1 Because of the rarity of this disease, diagnosis is often delayed. Patients are often evaluated for other gastrointestinal diseases and/or malignancies, which in turn contributes to significant delays in diagnosis. Additionally, there are no prospective, randomized trials on which to base decisions regarding treatment; and it is unlikely that such studies will ever be undertaken.
Chronic mesenteric ischemia develops when two or more of the mesenteric vessels (celiac, superior mesenteric [SMA], or inferior mesenteric [IMA]) become occluded or develop severe stenosis. In my experience, patients most often develop occlusion (as opposed to stenosis) of their mesenteric vessels. The atherosclerotic plaque responsible for the disease originates within the aorta and the stenosis/occlusion develops at the vessel origin.
As a whole, these comorbidities would suggest that a more minimally invasive approach would be preferred. Yet, an open operation for chronic mesenteric ischemia should not be discarded as an initial operation.
Endovascular treatment of mesenteric ischemia is not without risk. As in all endovascular procedures there are complications associated with the access vessels. The orientation of the mesenteric vessels as they arise from the aorta often favors an approach from the left arm. The brachial artery is smaller than the femoral artery, and it is more difficult to apply pressure to the brachial artery to control the puncture site. This leads to a higher rate of access site complications including hemorrhage, pseudoaneurysm and thrombosis of the vessel. Bleeding or hematoma formation within the brachial neurovascular sheath can result in significant neurologic dysfunction of the arm and hand. There is risk of stroke, especially when the access vessel is the brachial artery. There are also complications directly related to the endovascular procedure.
Atheroembolism of plaque can result in occlusion of small mesenteric vessels and focal areas of bowel necrosis. Dissection of the mesenteric vessel can occur. Oderich has advocated for the use of a covered stent.2 A covered stent could cover proximal branches, and thus, in theory, the treatment itself could cause bowel ischemia or infarction. Many series that have compared open and endovascular surgery show no difference in early outcomes, but demonstrate early restenosis, decreased primary patency, and decreased assisted primary patency with endovascular treatment as compared with open operations.3-5
Another concern regarding the treatment of mesenteric ischemia is the status of the end organ, the bowel. Successful treatment of mesenteric ischemia cannot only assess the atherosclerotic lesion, but requires the surgeon to be cognizant of the condition of the bowel.
This concern is especially true for acute mesenteric ischemia,6 but the status of the bowel must also be kept in mind for chronic mesenteric ischemia. Unlike the lower extremity where the results of treatment are easily observed by inspection (color, evidence of atheroembolization), palpation (temperature, pulse), and physiologic testing (ABI), the bowel is not accessible. There are no highly accurate tests to determine if the patient has on-going bowel ischemia or has developed infarction. Should a complication occur, physical examination findings and laboratory changes often become apparent late in the course of the disease. As previously noted, these patients are often physiologically compromised and have little reserve and may not survive such complications. An open operation allows visualization of the bowel, before and after revascularization.
Traditional teaching for the surgical treatment of chronic mesenteric ischemia has emphasized that two mesenteric vessels, usually the celiac and SMA, should be revascularized.7,8 Various approaches to revascularization have been suggested including transaortic endarterectomy and an antegrade bifurcated bypass originating from the supraceliac aorta. These operations are effective in restoring flow to the mesenteric circulation, but both of these approaches involve aortic cross-clamping and are physiologically challenging for patients.
There are alternatives for open revascularization of the mesenteric vessels. The infrarenal aorta, iliac vessels, and even renal arteries can be, and have been used as the inflow source. It has been my experience that a bypass graft using an iliac artery (common or external) as the inflow source is well tolerated by patients. I have preferentially used either great saphenous vein or femoral-popliteal vein as the conduit. In many cases, the distal anastomosis is simply the SMA. However, both the celiac and SMA can be revascularized by creating a side-side anastomosis to the SMA and an end-side anastomosis to the common or proper hepatic artery. Such procedures have been durable, providing relief of symptoms and allowing patients to regain weight.9
In reality, I believe that an endovascular approach for the treatment of chronic mesenteric ischemia has a role. Vascular surgeons are uniquely positioned to carefully evaluate each patient and recommend what they feel is most appropriate. I tend to feel that an endovascular approach is less likely to be successful for patients with occluded vessels, especially those with a flush occlusion, and so will preferentially recommend an open operation for these patients. On the other hand, in my practice, I have used an endovascular approach for patients with severe stenosis, and as Dr. Harris states, know that a bypass is always an option should this be unsuccessful or ultimately fail.
References
1. Ann Vasc Surg. 1991;5:403-6
2. J Vasc Surg. 2013;58:1316-23
3. Ann Vasc Surg. 2015:29;934-40
4. World J Gastroenerol. 2013;19:1333-7
5. J Vasc Surg. 2007;45:1162-71
6. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62:767-72
7. J Vasc Surg. 2002:35:853-9
8. Surgery. 1981;90:940-6
9. J Vasc Surg. 2000;32:37-47
Eric Endean, MD, is the director of the aortic center, Gordon L. Hyde Endowed Professor and Chair, and vascular surgery section head, vascular and endovascular surgery at UK HealthCare, University of Kentucky, Lexington. He had no relevant disclosures.
Presenting the case for endovascular intervention
Chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI) is an uncommon, but lethal, problem when left untreated. Before the endovascular era, the only option was open revascularization, which is challenging in this chronically ill, malnourished population with diffuse, systemic, atherosclerotic disease. Morbidity and mortality was relatively high because of the comorbid conditions and chronically ill status of the patients. The first mesenteric bypass was performed in 1958 by Maynard and Shaw.1
Options for open repair include transaortic endarterectomy, antegrade bypass from the supraceliac aorta or distal thoracic aorta, or retrograde bypass from the iliac artery, all of which are major abdominal procedures. Endovascular interventions are now the most commonly performed procedures for CMI in the United States based on national studies.2
Technical success with endovascular interventions can be achieved in well over 90% of patients, and multiple vessels can be treated simultaneously from either a femoral or brachial approach. The primary concern with endovascular interventions has been long-term patency, with restenosis from intimal hyperplasia or thrombosis causing recurrent symptoms in up to 30%-50% at 3-5 years.5-7 However, these rates are based on use of bare metal stents, rather than covered stents. Recent studies8 suggest that stent grafts have markedly improved outcomes over bare metal stents for ostial lesions, decreasing recurrence. Oderich found that freedom from recurrence was 92% with stent grafts as compared with 53% for bare metal stents, with primary patency rates of 92%, at 3 years8, comparable to even the best open bypass results. Schoch first reported the use of covered stents in the mesenteric circulation, and found that no patients developed recurrent stenosis at 2 years.9 Other concerns with endovascular intervention include embolization and dissection, which have not been frequently reported.
Mortality from open surgery ranges from 5% to 15%, with morbidity of 30%-40%.4 Mortality from endovascular intervention is markedly lower, in the range of 3.56% vs. 7.23%.5 Long-term survival is not different between endovascular vs. open repair (69% vs. 65%),4 with the majority of deaths related to cardiac, pulmonary, or malignancy issues. Moghadamyeghaneh, in a review of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, found that open surgery was one of the major predictors for higher morbidity (odds ratio, 5.07) and mortality (OR, 5.13), despite the fact that endovascular patients were older (another risk factor for adverse outcomes) and had more comorbidities in this nonrandomized, real-world study.2
Further, if one considers cost as a metric for decision making, a Markov clinical decision model by Hogendoorn et al suggests an endovascular first approach is preferred, despite the presumed higher rate of recurrence expected with use of bare metal stents, rather than covered stents, utilized for this analysis.10 Clearly, the financial advantage would be even greater for endovascular with the lower rates of recurrence with covered stents more recently reported.
If a patient develops recurrent stenosis after endovascular intervention, open bypass may be considered as an alternate to repeat endovascular intervention, dependent on the nutritional status, life expectancy, and initial intervention undertaken. Alternately, patients who undergo open repair are not immune to restenosis, with a recurrence rate of 10%-20%.11,12 Oderich found that there was a 22% mortality in those treated with repeat open interventions, with a 47% complication rate. Endovascular interventions, however, had a significantly lower rate of complications, 16%, and mortality. For patients with recurrent disease after open revascularization for CMI, the endovascular approach should also be the preferred approach.
Any lesion which is anatomically suitable for endovascular repair should first have an attempt made via this approach, utilizing covered stents. While there is a role for open revascularization, endovascular interventions can be safely performed, with minimal morbidity and mortality, and good long-term patency, even in the sickest patients. Endovascular intervention should be the procedure of choice for chronic mesenteric ischemia and recurrent chronic mesenteric ischemia.
References
1. NEJM. 1958;258:874-8
2. Am Surg. 2015;81:1149-56
3. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 1980;3:43-4
4. Ann Vasc Surg. 2009;23:700-12
5. Ann Vasc Surg. 2013;27:113-22
6. J Vasc Surg. 2011;54:1422-29
7. J Vasc Surg. 2010;51:140-7
8. J Vasc Surg. 2013;58:1316-24
9. JACS. 2001;212:668-75
10. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60;715-25
11. J Vasc Surg. 200;49:1472-9
12. J Vasc Surg. 2007;45:1162-71
Linda Harris, MD, is professor of surgery; chief, division of vascular surgery; program director, vascular surgery residency & fellowship at the State University of New York at Buffalo; and an associate medical editor for Vascular Specialist. She had no relevant disclosures.
Chronic mesenteric ischemia is best treated in an open operation.
Chronic mesenteric ischemia is a rare disorder accounting for about 1 out of 100,000 admissions.1 Because of the rarity of this disease, diagnosis is often delayed. Patients are often evaluated for other gastrointestinal diseases and/or malignancies, which in turn contributes to significant delays in diagnosis. Additionally, there are no prospective, randomized trials on which to base decisions regarding treatment; and it is unlikely that such studies will ever be undertaken.
Chronic mesenteric ischemia develops when two or more of the mesenteric vessels (celiac, superior mesenteric [SMA], or inferior mesenteric [IMA]) become occluded or develop severe stenosis. In my experience, patients most often develop occlusion (as opposed to stenosis) of their mesenteric vessels. The atherosclerotic plaque responsible for the disease originates within the aorta and the stenosis/occlusion develops at the vessel origin.
As a whole, these comorbidities would suggest that a more minimally invasive approach would be preferred. Yet, an open operation for chronic mesenteric ischemia should not be discarded as an initial operation.
Endovascular treatment of mesenteric ischemia is not without risk. As in all endovascular procedures there are complications associated with the access vessels. The orientation of the mesenteric vessels as they arise from the aorta often favors an approach from the left arm. The brachial artery is smaller than the femoral artery, and it is more difficult to apply pressure to the brachial artery to control the puncture site. This leads to a higher rate of access site complications including hemorrhage, pseudoaneurysm and thrombosis of the vessel. Bleeding or hematoma formation within the brachial neurovascular sheath can result in significant neurologic dysfunction of the arm and hand. There is risk of stroke, especially when the access vessel is the brachial artery. There are also complications directly related to the endovascular procedure.
Atheroembolism of plaque can result in occlusion of small mesenteric vessels and focal areas of bowel necrosis. Dissection of the mesenteric vessel can occur. Oderich has advocated for the use of a covered stent.2 A covered stent could cover proximal branches, and thus, in theory, the treatment itself could cause bowel ischemia or infarction. Many series that have compared open and endovascular surgery show no difference in early outcomes, but demonstrate early restenosis, decreased primary patency, and decreased assisted primary patency with endovascular treatment as compared with open operations.3-5
Another concern regarding the treatment of mesenteric ischemia is the status of the end organ, the bowel. Successful treatment of mesenteric ischemia cannot only assess the atherosclerotic lesion, but requires the surgeon to be cognizant of the condition of the bowel.
This concern is especially true for acute mesenteric ischemia,6 but the status of the bowel must also be kept in mind for chronic mesenteric ischemia. Unlike the lower extremity where the results of treatment are easily observed by inspection (color, evidence of atheroembolization), palpation (temperature, pulse), and physiologic testing (ABI), the bowel is not accessible. There are no highly accurate tests to determine if the patient has on-going bowel ischemia or has developed infarction. Should a complication occur, physical examination findings and laboratory changes often become apparent late in the course of the disease. As previously noted, these patients are often physiologically compromised and have little reserve and may not survive such complications. An open operation allows visualization of the bowel, before and after revascularization.
Traditional teaching for the surgical treatment of chronic mesenteric ischemia has emphasized that two mesenteric vessels, usually the celiac and SMA, should be revascularized.7,8 Various approaches to revascularization have been suggested including transaortic endarterectomy and an antegrade bifurcated bypass originating from the supraceliac aorta. These operations are effective in restoring flow to the mesenteric circulation, but both of these approaches involve aortic cross-clamping and are physiologically challenging for patients.
There are alternatives for open revascularization of the mesenteric vessels. The infrarenal aorta, iliac vessels, and even renal arteries can be, and have been used as the inflow source. It has been my experience that a bypass graft using an iliac artery (common or external) as the inflow source is well tolerated by patients. I have preferentially used either great saphenous vein or femoral-popliteal vein as the conduit. In many cases, the distal anastomosis is simply the SMA. However, both the celiac and SMA can be revascularized by creating a side-side anastomosis to the SMA and an end-side anastomosis to the common or proper hepatic artery. Such procedures have been durable, providing relief of symptoms and allowing patients to regain weight.9
In reality, I believe that an endovascular approach for the treatment of chronic mesenteric ischemia has a role. Vascular surgeons are uniquely positioned to carefully evaluate each patient and recommend what they feel is most appropriate. I tend to feel that an endovascular approach is less likely to be successful for patients with occluded vessels, especially those with a flush occlusion, and so will preferentially recommend an open operation for these patients. On the other hand, in my practice, I have used an endovascular approach for patients with severe stenosis, and as Dr. Harris states, know that a bypass is always an option should this be unsuccessful or ultimately fail.
References
1. Ann Vasc Surg. 1991;5:403-6
2. J Vasc Surg. 2013;58:1316-23
3. Ann Vasc Surg. 2015:29;934-40
4. World J Gastroenerol. 2013;19:1333-7
5. J Vasc Surg. 2007;45:1162-71
6. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62:767-72
7. J Vasc Surg. 2002:35:853-9
8. Surgery. 1981;90:940-6
9. J Vasc Surg. 2000;32:37-47
Eric Endean, MD, is the director of the aortic center, Gordon L. Hyde Endowed Professor and Chair, and vascular surgery section head, vascular and endovascular surgery at UK HealthCare, University of Kentucky, Lexington. He had no relevant disclosures.
Presenting the case for endovascular intervention
Chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI) is an uncommon, but lethal, problem when left untreated. Before the endovascular era, the only option was open revascularization, which is challenging in this chronically ill, malnourished population with diffuse, systemic, atherosclerotic disease. Morbidity and mortality was relatively high because of the comorbid conditions and chronically ill status of the patients. The first mesenteric bypass was performed in 1958 by Maynard and Shaw.1
Options for open repair include transaortic endarterectomy, antegrade bypass from the supraceliac aorta or distal thoracic aorta, or retrograde bypass from the iliac artery, all of which are major abdominal procedures. Endovascular interventions are now the most commonly performed procedures for CMI in the United States based on national studies.2
Technical success with endovascular interventions can be achieved in well over 90% of patients, and multiple vessels can be treated simultaneously from either a femoral or brachial approach. The primary concern with endovascular interventions has been long-term patency, with restenosis from intimal hyperplasia or thrombosis causing recurrent symptoms in up to 30%-50% at 3-5 years.5-7 However, these rates are based on use of bare metal stents, rather than covered stents. Recent studies8 suggest that stent grafts have markedly improved outcomes over bare metal stents for ostial lesions, decreasing recurrence. Oderich found that freedom from recurrence was 92% with stent grafts as compared with 53% for bare metal stents, with primary patency rates of 92%, at 3 years8, comparable to even the best open bypass results. Schoch first reported the use of covered stents in the mesenteric circulation, and found that no patients developed recurrent stenosis at 2 years.9 Other concerns with endovascular intervention include embolization and dissection, which have not been frequently reported.
Mortality from open surgery ranges from 5% to 15%, with morbidity of 30%-40%.4 Mortality from endovascular intervention is markedly lower, in the range of 3.56% vs. 7.23%.5 Long-term survival is not different between endovascular vs. open repair (69% vs. 65%),4 with the majority of deaths related to cardiac, pulmonary, or malignancy issues. Moghadamyeghaneh, in a review of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, found that open surgery was one of the major predictors for higher morbidity (odds ratio, 5.07) and mortality (OR, 5.13), despite the fact that endovascular patients were older (another risk factor for adverse outcomes) and had more comorbidities in this nonrandomized, real-world study.2
Further, if one considers cost as a metric for decision making, a Markov clinical decision model by Hogendoorn et al suggests an endovascular first approach is preferred, despite the presumed higher rate of recurrence expected with use of bare metal stents, rather than covered stents, utilized for this analysis.10 Clearly, the financial advantage would be even greater for endovascular with the lower rates of recurrence with covered stents more recently reported.
If a patient develops recurrent stenosis after endovascular intervention, open bypass may be considered as an alternate to repeat endovascular intervention, dependent on the nutritional status, life expectancy, and initial intervention undertaken. Alternately, patients who undergo open repair are not immune to restenosis, with a recurrence rate of 10%-20%.11,12 Oderich found that there was a 22% mortality in those treated with repeat open interventions, with a 47% complication rate. Endovascular interventions, however, had a significantly lower rate of complications, 16%, and mortality. For patients with recurrent disease after open revascularization for CMI, the endovascular approach should also be the preferred approach.
Any lesion which is anatomically suitable for endovascular repair should first have an attempt made via this approach, utilizing covered stents. While there is a role for open revascularization, endovascular interventions can be safely performed, with minimal morbidity and mortality, and good long-term patency, even in the sickest patients. Endovascular intervention should be the procedure of choice for chronic mesenteric ischemia and recurrent chronic mesenteric ischemia.
References
1. NEJM. 1958;258:874-8
2. Am Surg. 2015;81:1149-56
3. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 1980;3:43-4
4. Ann Vasc Surg. 2009;23:700-12
5. Ann Vasc Surg. 2013;27:113-22
6. J Vasc Surg. 2011;54:1422-29
7. J Vasc Surg. 2010;51:140-7
8. J Vasc Surg. 2013;58:1316-24
9. JACS. 2001;212:668-75
10. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60;715-25
11. J Vasc Surg. 200;49:1472-9
12. J Vasc Surg. 2007;45:1162-71
Linda Harris, MD, is professor of surgery; chief, division of vascular surgery; program director, vascular surgery residency & fellowship at the State University of New York at Buffalo; and an associate medical editor for Vascular Specialist. She had no relevant disclosures.
Perioperative infliximab does not increase serious infection risk
Administration of infliximab within 4 weeks of elective knee or hip arthroplasty did not have any significant effect on patients’ risk of serious infection after surgery, whereas the use of glucocorticoids increased that risk, in an analysis of a Medicare claims database.
“This increased risk with glucocorticoids has been suggested by previous studies [and] although this risk may be related in part to increased disease severity among glucocorticoid treated patients, a direct medication effect is likely. [These data suggest] that prolonged interruptions in infliximab therapy prior to surgery may be counterproductive if higher dose glucocorticoid therapy is used in substitution,” wrote the authors of the new study, led by Michael D. George, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
Dr. George and his colleagues examined data from the U.S. Medicare claims system on 4,288 elective knee or hip arthroplasties in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis who received infliximab within 6 months prior to the operation during 2007-2013 (Arthritis Care Res. 2017 Jan 27. doi: 10.1002/acr.23209).
The patients had to have received infliximab at least three times within a year of their procedure to establish that they were receiving stable therapy over a long-term period. The investigators also looked at oral prednisone, prednisolone, and methylprednisolone prescriptions and used data on average dosing to determine how much was administered to each subject.
“Although previous studies have treated TNF stopping vs. not stopping as a dichotomous exposure based on an arbitrary (and variable) stopping definition, in this study the primary analysis evaluated stop timing as a more general categorical exposure using 4-week intervals (half the standard rheumatoid arthritis dosing interval) to allow better assessment of the optimal stop timing,” the authors explained.
Stopping infliximab within 4 weeks of the operation did not significantly influence the rate of serious infection within 30 days (adjusted odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.60-1.34) and neither did stopping within 4-8 weeks (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.62-1.36) when compared against stopping 8-12 weeks before surgery. Of the 4,288 arthroplasties, 270 serious infections (6.3%) occurred within 30 days of the operation.
There also was no significant difference between stopping within 4 weeks and 8-12 weeks in the rate of prosthetic joint infection within 1 year of the operation (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.52-1.87). Overall, prosthetic joint infection occurred 2.9 times per 100 person-years.
However, glucocorticoid doses of more than 10 mg per day were risky. The odds for a serious infection within 30 days after surgery more than doubled with that level of use (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.30-3.40), while the risk for a prosthetic joint infection within 1 year of the surgery also rose significantly (HR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.30-5.60).
“This is a very well done paper that adds important observational data to our understanding of perioperative medication risk,” Dr. Goodman said.
But the study results will not, at least initially, bring about any changes to the proposed guidelines for perioperative management of patients taking antirheumatic drugs that were described at the 2016 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, she said.
“We were aware of the abstract, which was also presented at the ACR last fall at the time the current perioperative medication management guidelines were presented, and it won’t change guidelines at this point,” said Dr. Goodman, who is one of the lead authors of the proposed guidelines. “[But] I think [the study] could provide important background information to use in a randomized clinical trial to compare infection on [and] not on TNF inhibitors.”
The proposed guidelines conditionally recommend that all biologics should be withheld prior to surgery in patients with inflammatory arthritis, that surgery should be planned for the end of the dosing cycle, and that current daily doses of glucocorticoids, rather than supraphysiologic doses, should be continued in adults with rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, or inflammatory arthritis.
The National Institutes of Health, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the Department of Veterans Affairs funded the study. Dr. George did not report any relevant financial disclosures. Two coauthors disclosed receiving research grants or consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies for unrelated work.
Administration of infliximab within 4 weeks of elective knee or hip arthroplasty did not have any significant effect on patients’ risk of serious infection after surgery, whereas the use of glucocorticoids increased that risk, in an analysis of a Medicare claims database.
“This increased risk with glucocorticoids has been suggested by previous studies [and] although this risk may be related in part to increased disease severity among glucocorticoid treated patients, a direct medication effect is likely. [These data suggest] that prolonged interruptions in infliximab therapy prior to surgery may be counterproductive if higher dose glucocorticoid therapy is used in substitution,” wrote the authors of the new study, led by Michael D. George, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
Dr. George and his colleagues examined data from the U.S. Medicare claims system on 4,288 elective knee or hip arthroplasties in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis who received infliximab within 6 months prior to the operation during 2007-2013 (Arthritis Care Res. 2017 Jan 27. doi: 10.1002/acr.23209).
The patients had to have received infliximab at least three times within a year of their procedure to establish that they were receiving stable therapy over a long-term period. The investigators also looked at oral prednisone, prednisolone, and methylprednisolone prescriptions and used data on average dosing to determine how much was administered to each subject.
“Although previous studies have treated TNF stopping vs. not stopping as a dichotomous exposure based on an arbitrary (and variable) stopping definition, in this study the primary analysis evaluated stop timing as a more general categorical exposure using 4-week intervals (half the standard rheumatoid arthritis dosing interval) to allow better assessment of the optimal stop timing,” the authors explained.
Stopping infliximab within 4 weeks of the operation did not significantly influence the rate of serious infection within 30 days (adjusted odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.60-1.34) and neither did stopping within 4-8 weeks (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.62-1.36) when compared against stopping 8-12 weeks before surgery. Of the 4,288 arthroplasties, 270 serious infections (6.3%) occurred within 30 days of the operation.
There also was no significant difference between stopping within 4 weeks and 8-12 weeks in the rate of prosthetic joint infection within 1 year of the operation (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.52-1.87). Overall, prosthetic joint infection occurred 2.9 times per 100 person-years.
However, glucocorticoid doses of more than 10 mg per day were risky. The odds for a serious infection within 30 days after surgery more than doubled with that level of use (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.30-3.40), while the risk for a prosthetic joint infection within 1 year of the surgery also rose significantly (HR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.30-5.60).
“This is a very well done paper that adds important observational data to our understanding of perioperative medication risk,” Dr. Goodman said.
But the study results will not, at least initially, bring about any changes to the proposed guidelines for perioperative management of patients taking antirheumatic drugs that were described at the 2016 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, she said.
“We were aware of the abstract, which was also presented at the ACR last fall at the time the current perioperative medication management guidelines were presented, and it won’t change guidelines at this point,” said Dr. Goodman, who is one of the lead authors of the proposed guidelines. “[But] I think [the study] could provide important background information to use in a randomized clinical trial to compare infection on [and] not on TNF inhibitors.”
The proposed guidelines conditionally recommend that all biologics should be withheld prior to surgery in patients with inflammatory arthritis, that surgery should be planned for the end of the dosing cycle, and that current daily doses of glucocorticoids, rather than supraphysiologic doses, should be continued in adults with rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, or inflammatory arthritis.
The National Institutes of Health, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the Department of Veterans Affairs funded the study. Dr. George did not report any relevant financial disclosures. Two coauthors disclosed receiving research grants or consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies for unrelated work.
Administration of infliximab within 4 weeks of elective knee or hip arthroplasty did not have any significant effect on patients’ risk of serious infection after surgery, whereas the use of glucocorticoids increased that risk, in an analysis of a Medicare claims database.
“This increased risk with glucocorticoids has been suggested by previous studies [and] although this risk may be related in part to increased disease severity among glucocorticoid treated patients, a direct medication effect is likely. [These data suggest] that prolonged interruptions in infliximab therapy prior to surgery may be counterproductive if higher dose glucocorticoid therapy is used in substitution,” wrote the authors of the new study, led by Michael D. George, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
Dr. George and his colleagues examined data from the U.S. Medicare claims system on 4,288 elective knee or hip arthroplasties in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis who received infliximab within 6 months prior to the operation during 2007-2013 (Arthritis Care Res. 2017 Jan 27. doi: 10.1002/acr.23209).
The patients had to have received infliximab at least three times within a year of their procedure to establish that they were receiving stable therapy over a long-term period. The investigators also looked at oral prednisone, prednisolone, and methylprednisolone prescriptions and used data on average dosing to determine how much was administered to each subject.
“Although previous studies have treated TNF stopping vs. not stopping as a dichotomous exposure based on an arbitrary (and variable) stopping definition, in this study the primary analysis evaluated stop timing as a more general categorical exposure using 4-week intervals (half the standard rheumatoid arthritis dosing interval) to allow better assessment of the optimal stop timing,” the authors explained.
Stopping infliximab within 4 weeks of the operation did not significantly influence the rate of serious infection within 30 days (adjusted odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.60-1.34) and neither did stopping within 4-8 weeks (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.62-1.36) when compared against stopping 8-12 weeks before surgery. Of the 4,288 arthroplasties, 270 serious infections (6.3%) occurred within 30 days of the operation.
There also was no significant difference between stopping within 4 weeks and 8-12 weeks in the rate of prosthetic joint infection within 1 year of the operation (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.52-1.87). Overall, prosthetic joint infection occurred 2.9 times per 100 person-years.
However, glucocorticoid doses of more than 10 mg per day were risky. The odds for a serious infection within 30 days after surgery more than doubled with that level of use (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.30-3.40), while the risk for a prosthetic joint infection within 1 year of the surgery also rose significantly (HR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.30-5.60).
“This is a very well done paper that adds important observational data to our understanding of perioperative medication risk,” Dr. Goodman said.
But the study results will not, at least initially, bring about any changes to the proposed guidelines for perioperative management of patients taking antirheumatic drugs that were described at the 2016 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, she said.
“We were aware of the abstract, which was also presented at the ACR last fall at the time the current perioperative medication management guidelines were presented, and it won’t change guidelines at this point,” said Dr. Goodman, who is one of the lead authors of the proposed guidelines. “[But] I think [the study] could provide important background information to use in a randomized clinical trial to compare infection on [and] not on TNF inhibitors.”
The proposed guidelines conditionally recommend that all biologics should be withheld prior to surgery in patients with inflammatory arthritis, that surgery should be planned for the end of the dosing cycle, and that current daily doses of glucocorticoids, rather than supraphysiologic doses, should be continued in adults with rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, or inflammatory arthritis.
The National Institutes of Health, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the Department of Veterans Affairs funded the study. Dr. George did not report any relevant financial disclosures. Two coauthors disclosed receiving research grants or consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies for unrelated work.
FROM ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Subjects on glucocorticoids had an OR of 2.11 (95% CI 1.30-3.40) for serious infection within 30 days and an HR of 2.70 (95% CI 1.30-5.60) for prosthetic joint infection within 1 year.
Data source: Retrospective cohort study of 4,288 elective knee and hip arthroplasties in Medicare patients with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis during 2007-2013.
Disclosures: The National Institutes of Health, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the Department of Veterans Affairs funded the study. Dr. George did not report any relevant financial disclosures. Two coauthors disclosed receiving research grants or consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies for unrelated work.
Study finds community-hospital lung cancer screening feasible
HOUSTON – Implementing a lung cancer screening program in a community hospital setting is feasible and saves lives, but implementation comes with its share of challenges, results from a single-center analysis demonstrated.
“Deaths from lung cancer surpass mortality of all other malignancies,” Simran Randhawa, MD, said during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. “The majority of lung cancers are found at an advanced stage, and the 5-year overall survival has only marginally improved over the past 40 years, and is approximately 17% according to recent data.
“Most people who die from lung cancer are former smokers,” said Dr. Randhawa, of the Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia. “Former smokers cannot benefit from primary prevention, so this is where lung cancer screening comes into action.”
In 2011, the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) showed a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer death with annual low-dose CT of the chest in high-risk patients. The reduction in mortality by any cause was by 6.7%.
“The number needed to be screened to prevent one death is 320, which may seem like a lot, but it is a very competitive number when compared to mammography or colonoscopy,” Dr. Randhawa said. “Lung cancer screening is also cost effective. It costs about $73,000 per quality adjusted life year, which can be further improved if offered with smoking cessation intervention.”
In October 2013, Einstein Healthcare Network offered a free lung cancer screening program. The purpose of the current study, which was led by Doraid Jarrar, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, was to evaluate the feasibility of establishing a lung cancer screening program in a community hospital system, to identify barriers to adoption, and to benchmark their experience with NLST results.
They promoted the screening program through flyers, radio programs, face-to-face information sessions, and a multidisciplinary lung symposium, prospectively collected data over 12 months, and decided patient eligibility based on NLST criteria. Results were reported using the Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS).
Dr. Randhawa reported results from a total of 278 patients. Their average age was 64 years, 62% were female, 65% were African American, and the average number of pack years was 43.
Most (88%) were diagnosed with Lung-RADS 1 or 2 (negative or benign appearance), 7% were Lung-RADS 3 (probably benign but requiring close follow-up with CT scan), and 5% were Lung-RADS 4 (suspicious with a chance of malignancy).
Of the 11 patients who were diagnosed with Lung-RADS 4, 4 underwent lifesaving lung resection surgery for stage 1 disease, 1 patient was diagnosed with stage 4 disease, and the rest were either benign on follow-up or lost to follow-up.
“On further investigation, we found that 60% of the patients who showed up for the lung cancer screening were referred to us by their primary care physician, 22% had heard about our program through flyers as well as radio advertisements, 2% via Web search, and 1% through newsletters,” Dr. Randhawa said.
At the end of the study period, the researchers distributed a survey to all primary care and referring physicians. About 42% said they referred more than 10 patients in the last year, while 16% made no such referrals. When asked if they knew that lung cancer screening is recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on par with mammography and colonoscopy, 74% said that they knew, but 26% indicated that they were not aware of that fact.
“When asked about any barriers they may have encountered, one physician commented on the lack of time to counsel his patients,” Dr. Randhawa said. “Most of the physicians expressed concerns about precertification [delays] and requirement for prior authorization for lung cancer screening.”
She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size and the fact that the researchers interviewed primary care physicians catering to an underserved population in the community, “which is not comparable to the NLST population,” she said.
“However, [our results] could be potentially more generalizable,” Dr. Randhawa noted. “In the future, we hope that there is evolving technology used for CT screening with reduction in radiation dose, and more accurate biomarkers will be developed to identify patients at highest risk for lung cancer. We aim to save lives through early detection of lung cancer with responsible CT lung screening.”
One of the study authors, Tracy Kane, MD, disclosed being a member of the speakers bureau for AstraZeneca and receiving honoraria from the company. The other researchers reported having no financial disclosures.
HOUSTON – Implementing a lung cancer screening program in a community hospital setting is feasible and saves lives, but implementation comes with its share of challenges, results from a single-center analysis demonstrated.
“Deaths from lung cancer surpass mortality of all other malignancies,” Simran Randhawa, MD, said during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. “The majority of lung cancers are found at an advanced stage, and the 5-year overall survival has only marginally improved over the past 40 years, and is approximately 17% according to recent data.
“Most people who die from lung cancer are former smokers,” said Dr. Randhawa, of the Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia. “Former smokers cannot benefit from primary prevention, so this is where lung cancer screening comes into action.”
In 2011, the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) showed a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer death with annual low-dose CT of the chest in high-risk patients. The reduction in mortality by any cause was by 6.7%.
“The number needed to be screened to prevent one death is 320, which may seem like a lot, but it is a very competitive number when compared to mammography or colonoscopy,” Dr. Randhawa said. “Lung cancer screening is also cost effective. It costs about $73,000 per quality adjusted life year, which can be further improved if offered with smoking cessation intervention.”
In October 2013, Einstein Healthcare Network offered a free lung cancer screening program. The purpose of the current study, which was led by Doraid Jarrar, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, was to evaluate the feasibility of establishing a lung cancer screening program in a community hospital system, to identify barriers to adoption, and to benchmark their experience with NLST results.
They promoted the screening program through flyers, radio programs, face-to-face information sessions, and a multidisciplinary lung symposium, prospectively collected data over 12 months, and decided patient eligibility based on NLST criteria. Results were reported using the Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS).
Dr. Randhawa reported results from a total of 278 patients. Their average age was 64 years, 62% were female, 65% were African American, and the average number of pack years was 43.
Most (88%) were diagnosed with Lung-RADS 1 or 2 (negative or benign appearance), 7% were Lung-RADS 3 (probably benign but requiring close follow-up with CT scan), and 5% were Lung-RADS 4 (suspicious with a chance of malignancy).
Of the 11 patients who were diagnosed with Lung-RADS 4, 4 underwent lifesaving lung resection surgery for stage 1 disease, 1 patient was diagnosed with stage 4 disease, and the rest were either benign on follow-up or lost to follow-up.
“On further investigation, we found that 60% of the patients who showed up for the lung cancer screening were referred to us by their primary care physician, 22% had heard about our program through flyers as well as radio advertisements, 2% via Web search, and 1% through newsletters,” Dr. Randhawa said.
At the end of the study period, the researchers distributed a survey to all primary care and referring physicians. About 42% said they referred more than 10 patients in the last year, while 16% made no such referrals. When asked if they knew that lung cancer screening is recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on par with mammography and colonoscopy, 74% said that they knew, but 26% indicated that they were not aware of that fact.
“When asked about any barriers they may have encountered, one physician commented on the lack of time to counsel his patients,” Dr. Randhawa said. “Most of the physicians expressed concerns about precertification [delays] and requirement for prior authorization for lung cancer screening.”
She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size and the fact that the researchers interviewed primary care physicians catering to an underserved population in the community, “which is not comparable to the NLST population,” she said.
“However, [our results] could be potentially more generalizable,” Dr. Randhawa noted. “In the future, we hope that there is evolving technology used for CT screening with reduction in radiation dose, and more accurate biomarkers will be developed to identify patients at highest risk for lung cancer. We aim to save lives through early detection of lung cancer with responsible CT lung screening.”
One of the study authors, Tracy Kane, MD, disclosed being a member of the speakers bureau for AstraZeneca and receiving honoraria from the company. The other researchers reported having no financial disclosures.
HOUSTON – Implementing a lung cancer screening program in a community hospital setting is feasible and saves lives, but implementation comes with its share of challenges, results from a single-center analysis demonstrated.
“Deaths from lung cancer surpass mortality of all other malignancies,” Simran Randhawa, MD, said during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. “The majority of lung cancers are found at an advanced stage, and the 5-year overall survival has only marginally improved over the past 40 years, and is approximately 17% according to recent data.
“Most people who die from lung cancer are former smokers,” said Dr. Randhawa, of the Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia. “Former smokers cannot benefit from primary prevention, so this is where lung cancer screening comes into action.”
In 2011, the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) showed a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer death with annual low-dose CT of the chest in high-risk patients. The reduction in mortality by any cause was by 6.7%.
“The number needed to be screened to prevent one death is 320, which may seem like a lot, but it is a very competitive number when compared to mammography or colonoscopy,” Dr. Randhawa said. “Lung cancer screening is also cost effective. It costs about $73,000 per quality adjusted life year, which can be further improved if offered with smoking cessation intervention.”
In October 2013, Einstein Healthcare Network offered a free lung cancer screening program. The purpose of the current study, which was led by Doraid Jarrar, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, was to evaluate the feasibility of establishing a lung cancer screening program in a community hospital system, to identify barriers to adoption, and to benchmark their experience with NLST results.
They promoted the screening program through flyers, radio programs, face-to-face information sessions, and a multidisciplinary lung symposium, prospectively collected data over 12 months, and decided patient eligibility based on NLST criteria. Results were reported using the Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS).
Dr. Randhawa reported results from a total of 278 patients. Their average age was 64 years, 62% were female, 65% were African American, and the average number of pack years was 43.
Most (88%) were diagnosed with Lung-RADS 1 or 2 (negative or benign appearance), 7% were Lung-RADS 3 (probably benign but requiring close follow-up with CT scan), and 5% were Lung-RADS 4 (suspicious with a chance of malignancy).
Of the 11 patients who were diagnosed with Lung-RADS 4, 4 underwent lifesaving lung resection surgery for stage 1 disease, 1 patient was diagnosed with stage 4 disease, and the rest were either benign on follow-up or lost to follow-up.
“On further investigation, we found that 60% of the patients who showed up for the lung cancer screening were referred to us by their primary care physician, 22% had heard about our program through flyers as well as radio advertisements, 2% via Web search, and 1% through newsletters,” Dr. Randhawa said.
At the end of the study period, the researchers distributed a survey to all primary care and referring physicians. About 42% said they referred more than 10 patients in the last year, while 16% made no such referrals. When asked if they knew that lung cancer screening is recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on par with mammography and colonoscopy, 74% said that they knew, but 26% indicated that they were not aware of that fact.
“When asked about any barriers they may have encountered, one physician commented on the lack of time to counsel his patients,” Dr. Randhawa said. “Most of the physicians expressed concerns about precertification [delays] and requirement for prior authorization for lung cancer screening.”
She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size and the fact that the researchers interviewed primary care physicians catering to an underserved population in the community, “which is not comparable to the NLST population,” she said.
“However, [our results] could be potentially more generalizable,” Dr. Randhawa noted. “In the future, we hope that there is evolving technology used for CT screening with reduction in radiation dose, and more accurate biomarkers will be developed to identify patients at highest risk for lung cancer. We aim to save lives through early detection of lung cancer with responsible CT lung screening.”
One of the study authors, Tracy Kane, MD, disclosed being a member of the speakers bureau for AstraZeneca and receiving honoraria from the company. The other researchers reported having no financial disclosures.
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Of patients who participated in a community screening program over the course of 1 year, 88% were diagnosed with Lung-RADS 1 or 2, 7% were Lung-RADS 3, and 5% were Lung-RADS 4.
Data source: A 12-month prospective study of 278 patients at risk for lung cancer.
Disclosures: One of the study authors, Tracy Kane, MD, disclosed being a member of the speakers bureau for AstraZeneca and receiving honoraria from the company. The other researchers reported having no financial disclosures.
VIDEO: Public reporting of congenital heart disease outcomes should be easily understood
HOUSTON – Survival statistics, surgeon-specific experience, and complication rates are the types of information most sought by parents of children with congenital heart disease, results from a large survey suggest.
Future efforts in public reporting for congenital heart surgery outcomes should have better methods for presenting the data in a valid, easily interpreted format, explained study investigator Mallory L. Irons, MD, an integrated cardiac surgery resident at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
“We’re doing a good job of public reporting currently, but what we’re doing is not meeting the needs of all of our stakeholders – in this case, the parents of children with congenital heart disease,” Dr. Irons said in an interview at the annual meeting of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. “The optimal public reporting scheme still has yet to be determined.”
Dr. Irons reported having no financial disclosures.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
HOUSTON – Survival statistics, surgeon-specific experience, and complication rates are the types of information most sought by parents of children with congenital heart disease, results from a large survey suggest.
Future efforts in public reporting for congenital heart surgery outcomes should have better methods for presenting the data in a valid, easily interpreted format, explained study investigator Mallory L. Irons, MD, an integrated cardiac surgery resident at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
“We’re doing a good job of public reporting currently, but what we’re doing is not meeting the needs of all of our stakeholders – in this case, the parents of children with congenital heart disease,” Dr. Irons said in an interview at the annual meeting of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. “The optimal public reporting scheme still has yet to be determined.”
Dr. Irons reported having no financial disclosures.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
HOUSTON – Survival statistics, surgeon-specific experience, and complication rates are the types of information most sought by parents of children with congenital heart disease, results from a large survey suggest.
Future efforts in public reporting for congenital heart surgery outcomes should have better methods for presenting the data in a valid, easily interpreted format, explained study investigator Mallory L. Irons, MD, an integrated cardiac surgery resident at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
“We’re doing a good job of public reporting currently, but what we’re doing is not meeting the needs of all of our stakeholders – in this case, the parents of children with congenital heart disease,” Dr. Irons said in an interview at the annual meeting of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. “The optimal public reporting scheme still has yet to be determined.”
Dr. Irons reported having no financial disclosures.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
FROM THE STS ANNUAL MEETING HOUSTON
Our new year’s resolutions
Be at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let every new year find you a better person.
– Benjamin Franklin
Traditionally, the new year is a time for reflection, looking back to review what could have been done better, and looking forward to the opportunity to rectify those inadequacies over the coming year. We thought we would take this opportunity to look at our use of the electronic health record and think about the things we might do over the next year to make our lives easier and our charting better.
Top of our list is a renewed commitment to finish our notes by the end of each session. Too many physicians we know rush through patient hours and then are left with 10-20 notes to finish at the end of the day. Realistically, this is when we least feel like completing notes. Such work encroaches on personal and family time, likely contributes to the burnout that has been increasing among physicians, and is much less likely to accurately represent the encounter than notes completed in real time.
As we have spoken with many of our colleagues, it has become clear to us that many clinicians have learned how to be “just proficient enough” in their use of their EHR; they are not pulling out their hair every 5 minutes in frustration, but they have not taken the extra time and effort that are needed to optimize their productivity. To efficiently use an EHR requires some time spent designing templates and macros to make it easy to repetitively carry out common tasks.
A lot of physicians – particularly physicians over 40 years of age – are still typing their notes with the ol’ two-finger hunt-and-peck technique. This is incredibly time consuming, inefficient, and frustrating.
While many solutions have been proposed, including having a scribe walk around with the doctor, the simplest and easiest to implement is voice transcription. Even though medical transcription software is expensive, the return on investment is large for those who do not type well. After a short period of training on the software, notes are generally of higher quality and are finished considerably faster than when typing. The technology also has the ability to learn the names of frequently used consultants, medications, and procedures, so users don’t even have to type uncommon names or words.
Another area in which we hope to advance over the next year is working more effectively as a team to share the documentation burden. Nurses and medical assistants – within the boundaries of their licensing – can be empowered to document in predefined areas of the chart as much as possible.
For example, given the fact that the prevalence of depression is about twice as high in patients with diabetes as it is in the general population, our medical assistants now screen our diabetes patients with a PHQ-2 depression screen and record the results in the chart. This has been good for our patients, satisfying for our medical assistants, and has offloaded this task from the doctors.
We need to think of more areas where we can facilitate team care and really make everyone – physicians, nurses, front staff, and patients – more satisfied with the care that is being given.
Most EHRs have a reminder function – the ability to prompt a user to follow up on an abnormal x-ray or lab results in case a patient does not come back into the office as recommended. Our sense is that most of us are not using this function. It is worth finding out how to use it and giving it a try.
Patient portals have gained a lot of traction over the past few years. For a little while, we were really making an effort to have patients register, so that currently many (but by far not most) of our patients have signed up. We want to make better use of this fantastic resource.
We say “fantastic” because when we talk to patients (or friends or family) who use the portal, they have shared that it really makes their lives easier. They are able to see their labs, ponder the meaning of their results (perhaps of a slightly high glucose or an LDL cholesterol level), and if they have questions, they can correspond electronically with their care providers. It enhances care and allows us to spend less time on the phone, while giving patients better access to information.
New year’s resolutions are an opportunity for reflection and optimism. As we look back on the past year, we should learn from our experience and approach the year in front of us with greater enthusiasm, in the hope that through that enthusiasm we can continue to grow, be better and healthier, and simply be more like the people we want to be.
The electronic health record affects all of our interactions with patients and colleagues, and, when not used optimally, encroaches into our personal and family lives. It is a perfect place to focus during the new year to enable us to have more productive, effective, and happier times both in the office and at home.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.
Be at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let every new year find you a better person.
– Benjamin Franklin
Traditionally, the new year is a time for reflection, looking back to review what could have been done better, and looking forward to the opportunity to rectify those inadequacies over the coming year. We thought we would take this opportunity to look at our use of the electronic health record and think about the things we might do over the next year to make our lives easier and our charting better.
Top of our list is a renewed commitment to finish our notes by the end of each session. Too many physicians we know rush through patient hours and then are left with 10-20 notes to finish at the end of the day. Realistically, this is when we least feel like completing notes. Such work encroaches on personal and family time, likely contributes to the burnout that has been increasing among physicians, and is much less likely to accurately represent the encounter than notes completed in real time.
As we have spoken with many of our colleagues, it has become clear to us that many clinicians have learned how to be “just proficient enough” in their use of their EHR; they are not pulling out their hair every 5 minutes in frustration, but they have not taken the extra time and effort that are needed to optimize their productivity. To efficiently use an EHR requires some time spent designing templates and macros to make it easy to repetitively carry out common tasks.
A lot of physicians – particularly physicians over 40 years of age – are still typing their notes with the ol’ two-finger hunt-and-peck technique. This is incredibly time consuming, inefficient, and frustrating.
While many solutions have been proposed, including having a scribe walk around with the doctor, the simplest and easiest to implement is voice transcription. Even though medical transcription software is expensive, the return on investment is large for those who do not type well. After a short period of training on the software, notes are generally of higher quality and are finished considerably faster than when typing. The technology also has the ability to learn the names of frequently used consultants, medications, and procedures, so users don’t even have to type uncommon names or words.
Another area in which we hope to advance over the next year is working more effectively as a team to share the documentation burden. Nurses and medical assistants – within the boundaries of their licensing – can be empowered to document in predefined areas of the chart as much as possible.
For example, given the fact that the prevalence of depression is about twice as high in patients with diabetes as it is in the general population, our medical assistants now screen our diabetes patients with a PHQ-2 depression screen and record the results in the chart. This has been good for our patients, satisfying for our medical assistants, and has offloaded this task from the doctors.
We need to think of more areas where we can facilitate team care and really make everyone – physicians, nurses, front staff, and patients – more satisfied with the care that is being given.
Most EHRs have a reminder function – the ability to prompt a user to follow up on an abnormal x-ray or lab results in case a patient does not come back into the office as recommended. Our sense is that most of us are not using this function. It is worth finding out how to use it and giving it a try.
Patient portals have gained a lot of traction over the past few years. For a little while, we were really making an effort to have patients register, so that currently many (but by far not most) of our patients have signed up. We want to make better use of this fantastic resource.
We say “fantastic” because when we talk to patients (or friends or family) who use the portal, they have shared that it really makes their lives easier. They are able to see their labs, ponder the meaning of their results (perhaps of a slightly high glucose or an LDL cholesterol level), and if they have questions, they can correspond electronically with their care providers. It enhances care and allows us to spend less time on the phone, while giving patients better access to information.
New year’s resolutions are an opportunity for reflection and optimism. As we look back on the past year, we should learn from our experience and approach the year in front of us with greater enthusiasm, in the hope that through that enthusiasm we can continue to grow, be better and healthier, and simply be more like the people we want to be.
The electronic health record affects all of our interactions with patients and colleagues, and, when not used optimally, encroaches into our personal and family lives. It is a perfect place to focus during the new year to enable us to have more productive, effective, and happier times both in the office and at home.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.
Be at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let every new year find you a better person.
– Benjamin Franklin
Traditionally, the new year is a time for reflection, looking back to review what could have been done better, and looking forward to the opportunity to rectify those inadequacies over the coming year. We thought we would take this opportunity to look at our use of the electronic health record and think about the things we might do over the next year to make our lives easier and our charting better.
Top of our list is a renewed commitment to finish our notes by the end of each session. Too many physicians we know rush through patient hours and then are left with 10-20 notes to finish at the end of the day. Realistically, this is when we least feel like completing notes. Such work encroaches on personal and family time, likely contributes to the burnout that has been increasing among physicians, and is much less likely to accurately represent the encounter than notes completed in real time.
As we have spoken with many of our colleagues, it has become clear to us that many clinicians have learned how to be “just proficient enough” in their use of their EHR; they are not pulling out their hair every 5 minutes in frustration, but they have not taken the extra time and effort that are needed to optimize their productivity. To efficiently use an EHR requires some time spent designing templates and macros to make it easy to repetitively carry out common tasks.
A lot of physicians – particularly physicians over 40 years of age – are still typing their notes with the ol’ two-finger hunt-and-peck technique. This is incredibly time consuming, inefficient, and frustrating.
While many solutions have been proposed, including having a scribe walk around with the doctor, the simplest and easiest to implement is voice transcription. Even though medical transcription software is expensive, the return on investment is large for those who do not type well. After a short period of training on the software, notes are generally of higher quality and are finished considerably faster than when typing. The technology also has the ability to learn the names of frequently used consultants, medications, and procedures, so users don’t even have to type uncommon names or words.
Another area in which we hope to advance over the next year is working more effectively as a team to share the documentation burden. Nurses and medical assistants – within the boundaries of their licensing – can be empowered to document in predefined areas of the chart as much as possible.
For example, given the fact that the prevalence of depression is about twice as high in patients with diabetes as it is in the general population, our medical assistants now screen our diabetes patients with a PHQ-2 depression screen and record the results in the chart. This has been good for our patients, satisfying for our medical assistants, and has offloaded this task from the doctors.
We need to think of more areas where we can facilitate team care and really make everyone – physicians, nurses, front staff, and patients – more satisfied with the care that is being given.
Most EHRs have a reminder function – the ability to prompt a user to follow up on an abnormal x-ray or lab results in case a patient does not come back into the office as recommended. Our sense is that most of us are not using this function. It is worth finding out how to use it and giving it a try.
Patient portals have gained a lot of traction over the past few years. For a little while, we were really making an effort to have patients register, so that currently many (but by far not most) of our patients have signed up. We want to make better use of this fantastic resource.
We say “fantastic” because when we talk to patients (or friends or family) who use the portal, they have shared that it really makes their lives easier. They are able to see their labs, ponder the meaning of their results (perhaps of a slightly high glucose or an LDL cholesterol level), and if they have questions, they can correspond electronically with their care providers. It enhances care and allows us to spend less time on the phone, while giving patients better access to information.
New year’s resolutions are an opportunity for reflection and optimism. As we look back on the past year, we should learn from our experience and approach the year in front of us with greater enthusiasm, in the hope that through that enthusiasm we can continue to grow, be better and healthier, and simply be more like the people we want to be.
The electronic health record affects all of our interactions with patients and colleagues, and, when not used optimally, encroaches into our personal and family lives. It is a perfect place to focus during the new year to enable us to have more productive, effective, and happier times both in the office and at home.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.
After TAVR, 1 in 10 Medicare patients need permanent pacemaker
HOUSTON – About 1 in 10 Medicare patients require implantation of a permanent pacemaker following transcatheter aortic valve replacement, results from a large analysis showed.
“There is conflicting evidence and some debate over permanent pacemaker placement following transcatheter aortic valve replacement – whether it has a protective or adverse effect, and how often it takes place,” study investigator Fenton H. McCarthy, MD, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.
One recent study found that permanent pacemaker placement within 30 days post TAVR was found in 6.7% of patients undergoing balloon-expanding or self-expanding valve implantation, and is associated with increased mortality and hospitalizations (JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Nov 14;9[21]:2189-2199).
To evaluate the relationship between permanent pacemaker implantation and long-term patient outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing TAVR, Dr. McCarthy, a cardiothoracic surgery fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and his associates used Medicare carrier claims and Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files to identify 14,305 TAVR patients between January 2011 and December 2013.
The researchers used univariate Kaplan survival estimates and multivariable models to analyze survival, readmission and risk factors for pacemaker implantation.
The mean age of the 14,305 TAVR patients studied was 83 years, and 11% received a permanent pacemaker after TAVR. Of these, 9% received the pacemaker at index hospitalization, 1% at 30 days after implant, 0.5% at 90 days after implant, and 1% at 1 year after implant. Patient age of greater than 90 years was a significant predictor of pacemaker placement, with an odds ratio of 1.7 (P less than .01).
Dr. McCarthy and his associates observed that the readmission rates for pacemaker placement and no pacemaker placement at index hospitalization were similar at 30 days (21% vs. 19%, respectively), at 90 days (33% vs. 31%) and at 1 year (43% in both groups of patients).
In addition, Kaplan Meier estimates revealed no significant difference in long-term survival for patients with pacemaker placement within 30 days of TAVR, while multivariate Cox proportional hazard modeling revealed that pacemaker placement is not a predictor of long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 1.03; P = .65).
“This was the largest study to evaluate the question of incidence and effect of permanent pacemaker in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement population in the United States,” Dr. McCarthy said. “The size of our data set and the fact that the Medicare database includes all types of patients, regardless of trial participation, study or registry, is a strength of this study. Some other studies have used different inclusion and exclusion criteria. We used broad inclusion criteria and evaluated patients from as many different centers as possible.”
A key limitation of the study, he said, was that the researchers were unable to determine whether a patient received a balloon-expanding or self-expanding TAVR.
Dr. McCarthy reported having no financial disclosures.
HOUSTON – About 1 in 10 Medicare patients require implantation of a permanent pacemaker following transcatheter aortic valve replacement, results from a large analysis showed.
“There is conflicting evidence and some debate over permanent pacemaker placement following transcatheter aortic valve replacement – whether it has a protective or adverse effect, and how often it takes place,” study investigator Fenton H. McCarthy, MD, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.
One recent study found that permanent pacemaker placement within 30 days post TAVR was found in 6.7% of patients undergoing balloon-expanding or self-expanding valve implantation, and is associated with increased mortality and hospitalizations (JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Nov 14;9[21]:2189-2199).
To evaluate the relationship between permanent pacemaker implantation and long-term patient outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing TAVR, Dr. McCarthy, a cardiothoracic surgery fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and his associates used Medicare carrier claims and Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files to identify 14,305 TAVR patients between January 2011 and December 2013.
The researchers used univariate Kaplan survival estimates and multivariable models to analyze survival, readmission and risk factors for pacemaker implantation.
The mean age of the 14,305 TAVR patients studied was 83 years, and 11% received a permanent pacemaker after TAVR. Of these, 9% received the pacemaker at index hospitalization, 1% at 30 days after implant, 0.5% at 90 days after implant, and 1% at 1 year after implant. Patient age of greater than 90 years was a significant predictor of pacemaker placement, with an odds ratio of 1.7 (P less than .01).
Dr. McCarthy and his associates observed that the readmission rates for pacemaker placement and no pacemaker placement at index hospitalization were similar at 30 days (21% vs. 19%, respectively), at 90 days (33% vs. 31%) and at 1 year (43% in both groups of patients).
In addition, Kaplan Meier estimates revealed no significant difference in long-term survival for patients with pacemaker placement within 30 days of TAVR, while multivariate Cox proportional hazard modeling revealed that pacemaker placement is not a predictor of long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 1.03; P = .65).
“This was the largest study to evaluate the question of incidence and effect of permanent pacemaker in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement population in the United States,” Dr. McCarthy said. “The size of our data set and the fact that the Medicare database includes all types of patients, regardless of trial participation, study or registry, is a strength of this study. Some other studies have used different inclusion and exclusion criteria. We used broad inclusion criteria and evaluated patients from as many different centers as possible.”
A key limitation of the study, he said, was that the researchers were unable to determine whether a patient received a balloon-expanding or self-expanding TAVR.
Dr. McCarthy reported having no financial disclosures.
HOUSTON – About 1 in 10 Medicare patients require implantation of a permanent pacemaker following transcatheter aortic valve replacement, results from a large analysis showed.
“There is conflicting evidence and some debate over permanent pacemaker placement following transcatheter aortic valve replacement – whether it has a protective or adverse effect, and how often it takes place,” study investigator Fenton H. McCarthy, MD, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.
One recent study found that permanent pacemaker placement within 30 days post TAVR was found in 6.7% of patients undergoing balloon-expanding or self-expanding valve implantation, and is associated with increased mortality and hospitalizations (JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Nov 14;9[21]:2189-2199).
To evaluate the relationship between permanent pacemaker implantation and long-term patient outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing TAVR, Dr. McCarthy, a cardiothoracic surgery fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and his associates used Medicare carrier claims and Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files to identify 14,305 TAVR patients between January 2011 and December 2013.
The researchers used univariate Kaplan survival estimates and multivariable models to analyze survival, readmission and risk factors for pacemaker implantation.
The mean age of the 14,305 TAVR patients studied was 83 years, and 11% received a permanent pacemaker after TAVR. Of these, 9% received the pacemaker at index hospitalization, 1% at 30 days after implant, 0.5% at 90 days after implant, and 1% at 1 year after implant. Patient age of greater than 90 years was a significant predictor of pacemaker placement, with an odds ratio of 1.7 (P less than .01).
Dr. McCarthy and his associates observed that the readmission rates for pacemaker placement and no pacemaker placement at index hospitalization were similar at 30 days (21% vs. 19%, respectively), at 90 days (33% vs. 31%) and at 1 year (43% in both groups of patients).
In addition, Kaplan Meier estimates revealed no significant difference in long-term survival for patients with pacemaker placement within 30 days of TAVR, while multivariate Cox proportional hazard modeling revealed that pacemaker placement is not a predictor of long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 1.03; P = .65).
“This was the largest study to evaluate the question of incidence and effect of permanent pacemaker in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement population in the United States,” Dr. McCarthy said. “The size of our data set and the fact that the Medicare database includes all types of patients, regardless of trial participation, study or registry, is a strength of this study. Some other studies have used different inclusion and exclusion criteria. We used broad inclusion criteria and evaluated patients from as many different centers as possible.”
A key limitation of the study, he said, was that the researchers were unable to determine whether a patient received a balloon-expanding or self-expanding TAVR.
Dr. McCarthy reported having no financial disclosures.
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Pacemaker placement is not a predictor of long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 1.03; P = .65).
Data source: A study of 14,305 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent TAVR between January 2011 and December 2013.
Disclosures: Dr. McCarthy reported having no financial disclosures.
Travel ban affects international medical meetings
President Trump’s executive order blocking travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States has landed a damaging blow to global cooperation in scientific research and could impede assemblies of the world’s top medical experts.
“We are offering assistance as needed, and as each unique situation requires,” IAS-USA executive director and president Donna M. Jacobsen said in an interview. “Apart from that, we are establishing a list of individuals who may have contacts at the U.S. embassies, and will seek assistance from them as needed. Also, we are providing a letter documenting the individual as having been vetted as a legitimate scientist or researcher in the field, and having been approved to attend CROI.”
“We are monitoring the situation closely, however, and will offer whatever assistance we can to conference attendees, regardless of their point of origin, to ensure the free exchange of scientific information,” she said.
The travel ban could have detrimental effects on future collaboration between U.S. and international scientists and ultimately endanger the health and well-being of patients, Ms. Jacobsen said.
“Beyond the immediate possible impact on individuals intending to attend CROI who might be directly affected by the ban, there is serious reason for concern that the policy will dissuade other scientists and researchers from traveling to the U.S. in the future overall and sharing their work with colleagues here,” she said in an interview. “Such a response to the U.S. action would needlessly damage our global leadership in science and medicine.”
Thousands of academics from around the world, including physicians, researchers, and professors, have already vowed to boycott U.S.-based conferences until the travel ban is lifted. A Google Docs petition started shortly after the ban was announced has garnered more than 5,000 signatures by professionals acting in solidarity with those affected by the travel restrictions. It’s unclear who started the petition.
The academicians who signed the petition say they will not attend international conferences in the United States until those restricted from participating can rejoin their colleagues and freely share their ideas, said Charles R. Rogers, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
President Trump’s executive order, signed Jan. 27, bars refugees from entering the country for 120 days and bans immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim nations out for 3 months. The countries include Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia.
In a Feb. 1 press conference, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said the president’s intent is to ensure national security and prevent terrorists from entering the country.
“The president has been very clear that his No. 1 goal is not to target any one religion but places and areas where we believe that there is an issue,” Mr. Spicer said. “The president’s No. 1 goal has always been to focus on the safety of America, not the religion. He understands that it’s not a religious problem, it’s a radicalization problem. There’s a big difference between Islam, the religion, and radical Islamic terrorists that come here to seek to do us harm.”
[email protected]
On Twitter @legal_med
President Trump’s executive order blocking travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States has landed a damaging blow to global cooperation in scientific research and could impede assemblies of the world’s top medical experts.
“We are offering assistance as needed, and as each unique situation requires,” IAS-USA executive director and president Donna M. Jacobsen said in an interview. “Apart from that, we are establishing a list of individuals who may have contacts at the U.S. embassies, and will seek assistance from them as needed. Also, we are providing a letter documenting the individual as having been vetted as a legitimate scientist or researcher in the field, and having been approved to attend CROI.”
“We are monitoring the situation closely, however, and will offer whatever assistance we can to conference attendees, regardless of their point of origin, to ensure the free exchange of scientific information,” she said.
The travel ban could have detrimental effects on future collaboration between U.S. and international scientists and ultimately endanger the health and well-being of patients, Ms. Jacobsen said.
“Beyond the immediate possible impact on individuals intending to attend CROI who might be directly affected by the ban, there is serious reason for concern that the policy will dissuade other scientists and researchers from traveling to the U.S. in the future overall and sharing their work with colleagues here,” she said in an interview. “Such a response to the U.S. action would needlessly damage our global leadership in science and medicine.”
Thousands of academics from around the world, including physicians, researchers, and professors, have already vowed to boycott U.S.-based conferences until the travel ban is lifted. A Google Docs petition started shortly after the ban was announced has garnered more than 5,000 signatures by professionals acting in solidarity with those affected by the travel restrictions. It’s unclear who started the petition.
The academicians who signed the petition say they will not attend international conferences in the United States until those restricted from participating can rejoin their colleagues and freely share their ideas, said Charles R. Rogers, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
President Trump’s executive order, signed Jan. 27, bars refugees from entering the country for 120 days and bans immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim nations out for 3 months. The countries include Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia.
In a Feb. 1 press conference, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said the president’s intent is to ensure national security and prevent terrorists from entering the country.
“The president has been very clear that his No. 1 goal is not to target any one religion but places and areas where we believe that there is an issue,” Mr. Spicer said. “The president’s No. 1 goal has always been to focus on the safety of America, not the religion. He understands that it’s not a religious problem, it’s a radicalization problem. There’s a big difference between Islam, the religion, and radical Islamic terrorists that come here to seek to do us harm.”
[email protected]
On Twitter @legal_med
President Trump’s executive order blocking travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States has landed a damaging blow to global cooperation in scientific research and could impede assemblies of the world’s top medical experts.
“We are offering assistance as needed, and as each unique situation requires,” IAS-USA executive director and president Donna M. Jacobsen said in an interview. “Apart from that, we are establishing a list of individuals who may have contacts at the U.S. embassies, and will seek assistance from them as needed. Also, we are providing a letter documenting the individual as having been vetted as a legitimate scientist or researcher in the field, and having been approved to attend CROI.”
“We are monitoring the situation closely, however, and will offer whatever assistance we can to conference attendees, regardless of their point of origin, to ensure the free exchange of scientific information,” she said.
The travel ban could have detrimental effects on future collaboration between U.S. and international scientists and ultimately endanger the health and well-being of patients, Ms. Jacobsen said.
“Beyond the immediate possible impact on individuals intending to attend CROI who might be directly affected by the ban, there is serious reason for concern that the policy will dissuade other scientists and researchers from traveling to the U.S. in the future overall and sharing their work with colleagues here,” she said in an interview. “Such a response to the U.S. action would needlessly damage our global leadership in science and medicine.”
Thousands of academics from around the world, including physicians, researchers, and professors, have already vowed to boycott U.S.-based conferences until the travel ban is lifted. A Google Docs petition started shortly after the ban was announced has garnered more than 5,000 signatures by professionals acting in solidarity with those affected by the travel restrictions. It’s unclear who started the petition.
The academicians who signed the petition say they will not attend international conferences in the United States until those restricted from participating can rejoin their colleagues and freely share their ideas, said Charles R. Rogers, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
President Trump’s executive order, signed Jan. 27, bars refugees from entering the country for 120 days and bans immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim nations out for 3 months. The countries include Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia.
In a Feb. 1 press conference, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said the president’s intent is to ensure national security and prevent terrorists from entering the country.
“The president has been very clear that his No. 1 goal is not to target any one religion but places and areas where we believe that there is an issue,” Mr. Spicer said. “The president’s No. 1 goal has always been to focus on the safety of America, not the religion. He understands that it’s not a religious problem, it’s a radicalization problem. There’s a big difference between Islam, the religion, and radical Islamic terrorists that come here to seek to do us harm.”
[email protected]
On Twitter @legal_med