ACS Surgery News

SAN DIEGO – Assessment of the trachea and pleura via point-of-care ultrasound is superior to auscultation in determining the exact location of the endotracheal tube, a randomized, single-center study found.

“It’s been reported that about 20% of the time the endotracheal tube is malpositioned,” study author Dr. Davinder S. Ramsingh said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Anesthesiologists. “Most of the time (the tube) is too deep, which can lead to severe complications.”

In a double-blinded, randomized study, Dr. Ramsingh and his associates assessed the accuracy of auscultation vs. point-of-care ultrasound in verifying the correct position of the endotracheal tube (ETT). They enrolled 42 adults who required general anesthesia with ETT and randomized them to right main bronchus, left main bronchus, or tracheal intubation, followed by fiber optically–guided visualization to place the ETT. Next, an anesthesiologist blinded to the ETT exact location used auscultation to assess the location of the ETT, while another anesthesiologist blinded to the ETT exact location used point-of-care ultrasound to assess the location of the ETT. The ultrasound exam consisted of assessing tracheal dilation via standard cuff inflation with air and evaluation of pleural lung sliding, explained Dr. Ramsingh of the department of anesthesiology and perioperative care at the University of California, Irvine.

Dr. Ramsingh reported that in differentiating tracheal versus bronchial intubations, auscultation demonstrated a sensitivity of 66% and a specificity of 59%, while ultrasound demonstrated a sensitivity of 93% and a specificity of 96%. Chi-square comparison showed a statistically significant improvement with ultrasound (P = .0005), while inter-observer agreement of the ultrasound findings was 100%.

Limitations of the study, he said, include the fact that “we don’t know the incidence of malpositioned endotracheal tubes in the operating room and that this study was evaluating patients undergoing elective surgical procedures.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Assessment of the trachea and pleura via point-of-care ultrasound is superior to auscultation in determining the exact location of the endotracheal tube, a randomized, single-center study found.

“It’s been reported that about 20% of the time the endotracheal tube is malpositioned,” study author Dr. Davinder S. Ramsingh said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Anesthesiologists. “Most of the time (the tube) is too deep, which can lead to severe complications.”

In a double-blinded, randomized study, Dr. Ramsingh and his associates assessed the accuracy of auscultation vs. point-of-care ultrasound in verifying the correct position of the endotracheal tube (ETT). They enrolled 42 adults who required general anesthesia with ETT and randomized them to right main bronchus, left main bronchus, or tracheal intubation, followed by fiber optically–guided visualization to place the ETT. Next, an anesthesiologist blinded to the ETT exact location used auscultation to assess the location of the ETT, while another anesthesiologist blinded to the ETT exact location used point-of-care ultrasound to assess the location of the ETT. The ultrasound exam consisted of assessing tracheal dilation via standard cuff inflation with air and evaluation of pleural lung sliding, explained Dr. Ramsingh of the department of anesthesiology and perioperative care at the University of California, Irvine.

Dr. Ramsingh reported that in differentiating tracheal versus bronchial intubations, auscultation demonstrated a sensitivity of 66% and a specificity of 59%, while ultrasound demonstrated a sensitivity of 93% and a specificity of 96%. Chi-square comparison showed a statistically significant improvement with ultrasound (P = .0005), while inter-observer agreement of the ultrasound findings was 100%.

Limitations of the study, he said, include the fact that “we don’t know the incidence of malpositioned endotracheal tubes in the operating room and that this study was evaluating patients undergoing elective surgical procedures.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Assessment of the trachea and pleura via point-of-care ultrasound is superior to auscultation in determining the exact location of the endotracheal tube, a randomized, single-center study found.

“It’s been reported that about 20% of the time the endotracheal tube is malpositioned,” study author Dr. Davinder S. Ramsingh said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Anesthesiologists. “Most of the time (the tube) is too deep, which can lead to severe complications.”

In a double-blinded, randomized study, Dr. Ramsingh and his associates assessed the accuracy of auscultation vs. point-of-care ultrasound in verifying the correct position of the endotracheal tube (ETT). They enrolled 42 adults who required general anesthesia with ETT and randomized them to right main bronchus, left main bronchus, or tracheal intubation, followed by fiber optically–guided visualization to place the ETT. Next, an anesthesiologist blinded to the ETT exact location used auscultation to assess the location of the ETT, while another anesthesiologist blinded to the ETT exact location used point-of-care ultrasound to assess the location of the ETT. The ultrasound exam consisted of assessing tracheal dilation via standard cuff inflation with air and evaluation of pleural lung sliding, explained Dr. Ramsingh of the department of anesthesiology and perioperative care at the University of California, Irvine.

Dr. Ramsingh reported that in differentiating tracheal versus bronchial intubations, auscultation demonstrated a sensitivity of 66% and a specificity of 59%, while ultrasound demonstrated a sensitivity of 93% and a specificity of 96%. Chi-square comparison showed a statistically significant improvement with ultrasound (P = .0005), while inter-observer agreement of the ultrasound findings was 100%.

Limitations of the study, he said, include the fact that “we don’t know the incidence of malpositioned endotracheal tubes in the operating room and that this study was evaluating patients undergoing elective surgical procedures.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

People with osteoarthritis who go on to have a total or partial knee replacement do not appear to have an increased risk of all-cause mortality, but the jury is still out on whether they gain any improvement, a study showed.

In their research published in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases [2016 May 17. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209167], Dr. Devyani Misra of Boston University and colleagues noted that knee replacement (KR) was thought to decrease long-term mortality risk because of the relief from pain and improvement in function that typically comes with surgery. However, studies on the topic had been conflicting, largely because of the challenges associated with studying mortality with KR surgery in observational settings.

©Nandyphotos/Thinkstock

In the current study the research team sought to evaluate the relation of KR to the risk of all-cause mortality among subjects with knee OA, while at the same time giving particular attention to “potential sources of confounding bias that may account for [the] effect of KR on mortality.”

Using patient data from the U.K. primary care electronic database THIN, the investigators compared the risk of mortality among 14,042 subjects who had OA, were aged 50-89 years old, and had had or had not had KR.

They discovered a strong protective effect of KR on all-cause long-term mortality risk, particularly among the adults over 63 years of age.

For example, people who had undergone KR had a 28% lower risk of mortality than did non-KR subjects (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.78).

In the overall propensity score–matched study sample, crude mortality per 1,000 person-years (total person-years) for the KR and non-KR cohorts were 19 (61,015) and 25 (58,294), respectively.

However, despite their best efforts, the researchers said the results showed evidence of residual confounding.

“For example, the observation of improved survival immediately after KR, despite the expectation of potential short-term increased postoperative mortality risk supports the presence of residual confounding,” they wrote.

Another finding suggestive of confounding was that the protective effect was seen only in older patients (over 63) when the authors stratified study participants by age.

“While it is possible that survival benefit seen in older patients with KR is a true effect because it is in this group that greater physical activity is particularly important to survival, more likely it is a result of residual confounding because subject selection is rigorous in this age group due to vulnerability,” the authors wrote.

They concluded that knee replacement “did not appear to be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality.”

“While we cannot rule out that KR may potentially reduce the risk of mortality over the long term, the true extent of that potential benefit is difficult to discern due to confounding by indication in observational studies using administrative data or electronic health records,” they added.

This study was funded by the Arthritis Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship Award, the ACR Rheumatology Research Foundation Investigator Award, and a Boston University scholarship grant.

People with osteoarthritis who go on to have a total or partial knee replacement do not appear to have an increased risk of all-cause mortality, but the jury is still out on whether they gain any improvement, a study showed.

In their research published in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases [2016 May 17. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209167], Dr. Devyani Misra of Boston University and colleagues noted that knee replacement (KR) was thought to decrease long-term mortality risk because of the relief from pain and improvement in function that typically comes with surgery. However, studies on the topic had been conflicting, largely because of the challenges associated with studying mortality with KR surgery in observational settings.

©Nandyphotos/Thinkstock

In the current study the research team sought to evaluate the relation of KR to the risk of all-cause mortality among subjects with knee OA, while at the same time giving particular attention to “potential sources of confounding bias that may account for [the] effect of KR on mortality.”

Using patient data from the U.K. primary care electronic database THIN, the investigators compared the risk of mortality among 14,042 subjects who had OA, were aged 50-89 years old, and had had or had not had KR.

They discovered a strong protective effect of KR on all-cause long-term mortality risk, particularly among the adults over 63 years of age.

For example, people who had undergone KR had a 28% lower risk of mortality than did non-KR subjects (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.78).

In the overall propensity score–matched study sample, crude mortality per 1,000 person-years (total person-years) for the KR and non-KR cohorts were 19 (61,015) and 25 (58,294), respectively.

However, despite their best efforts, the researchers said the results showed evidence of residual confounding.

“For example, the observation of improved survival immediately after KR, despite the expectation of potential short-term increased postoperative mortality risk supports the presence of residual confounding,” they wrote.

Another finding suggestive of confounding was that the protective effect was seen only in older patients (over 63) when the authors stratified study participants by age.

“While it is possible that survival benefit seen in older patients with KR is a true effect because it is in this group that greater physical activity is particularly important to survival, more likely it is a result of residual confounding because subject selection is rigorous in this age group due to vulnerability,” the authors wrote.

They concluded that knee replacement “did not appear to be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality.”

“While we cannot rule out that KR may potentially reduce the risk of mortality over the long term, the true extent of that potential benefit is difficult to discern due to confounding by indication in observational studies using administrative data or electronic health records,” they added.

This study was funded by the Arthritis Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship Award, the ACR Rheumatology Research Foundation Investigator Award, and a Boston University scholarship grant.

People with osteoarthritis who go on to have a total or partial knee replacement do not appear to have an increased risk of all-cause mortality, but the jury is still out on whether they gain any improvement, a study showed.

In their research published in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases [2016 May 17. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209167], Dr. Devyani Misra of Boston University and colleagues noted that knee replacement (KR) was thought to decrease long-term mortality risk because of the relief from pain and improvement in function that typically comes with surgery. However, studies on the topic had been conflicting, largely because of the challenges associated with studying mortality with KR surgery in observational settings.

©Nandyphotos/Thinkstock

In the current study the research team sought to evaluate the relation of KR to the risk of all-cause mortality among subjects with knee OA, while at the same time giving particular attention to “potential sources of confounding bias that may account for [the] effect of KR on mortality.”

Using patient data from the U.K. primary care electronic database THIN, the investigators compared the risk of mortality among 14,042 subjects who had OA, were aged 50-89 years old, and had had or had not had KR.

They discovered a strong protective effect of KR on all-cause long-term mortality risk, particularly among the adults over 63 years of age.

For example, people who had undergone KR had a 28% lower risk of mortality than did non-KR subjects (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.78).

In the overall propensity score–matched study sample, crude mortality per 1,000 person-years (total person-years) for the KR and non-KR cohorts were 19 (61,015) and 25 (58,294), respectively.

However, despite their best efforts, the researchers said the results showed evidence of residual confounding.

“For example, the observation of improved survival immediately after KR, despite the expectation of potential short-term increased postoperative mortality risk supports the presence of residual confounding,” they wrote.

Another finding suggestive of confounding was that the protective effect was seen only in older patients (over 63) when the authors stratified study participants by age.

“While it is possible that survival benefit seen in older patients with KR is a true effect because it is in this group that greater physical activity is particularly important to survival, more likely it is a result of residual confounding because subject selection is rigorous in this age group due to vulnerability,” the authors wrote.

They concluded that knee replacement “did not appear to be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality.”

“While we cannot rule out that KR may potentially reduce the risk of mortality over the long term, the true extent of that potential benefit is difficult to discern due to confounding by indication in observational studies using administrative data or electronic health records,” they added.

This study was funded by the Arthritis Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship Award, the ACR Rheumatology Research Foundation Investigator Award, and a Boston University scholarship grant.

LOS ANGELES – In the clinical experience of Dr. Ian C. Lavery, prevention efforts are the best defense against local recurrence of rectal cancer.

“This means adjuvant treatment, if necessary, neoadjuvant treatment, and a meticulous surgical operation,” Dr. Lavery of the department of colorectal surgery at the Cleveland Clinic said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. “If the circumferential resection margin is negative, the local recurrence rate is 10% or less. If it’s positive, local recurrence goes up to 78%. Even when we attempt to do the perfect total mesorectal excision, local recurrence is in the order of 4%.”

Selective use of radiotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting appears to be reducing the incidence of local recurrence, “certainly in the short term,” he added. “In the long term, I’m not sure we know the true answer to that yet. Using other techniques like washing the rectal stump out, the use of stapling, and en-bloc resection if necessary [can help prevention efforts].”

The incidence of local rectal cancer recurrence is reported to be between 3% and 50%, but neither curative nor palliative treatment is standardized. “When you get local recurrence after a rectal cancer operation, it’s a disaster,” Dr. Lavery said. “It may cause intractable pain, bleeding, perforation, obstruction, and sepsis – all incredibly difficult things to manage.”

Patients who develop a local recurrence of rectal cancer are often asymptomatic. A digital rectal exam (DRE) may or may not identify a recurrence and carcinoembryonic antigen levels are helpful on some occasions. According to Dr. Lavery, optimal surveillance consists of a clinical examination including DRE, endoscopy, blood tests, CT scans, MRI, and PET scans. “If they were all to be done routinely it would increase the detection earlier rather than later,” he said.

CT and MRI appear to be about 85% accurate but both modalities are “very poor at detecting peritoneal disease,” he said. PET scans for recurrent carcinoma have been shown to change the management in 20%-56% of cases (Ann Surg Oncol. 1997 Dec; 4:613-20).

While follow-up of patients who have undergone surgery for local rectal cancer is generally favored, there is no consensus on what the ideal follow-up timeline should be. “In my opinion, the more intensive follow-up is going to be better than the cursory conventional follow-up examination,” Dr. Lavery said. “One of the big reasons for that is the vast majority of recurrences are extraluminal so they may be difficult to feel. Doing endoscopy, you can’t see them if they’re extraluminal.”

The goal in treating recurrent rectal cancer is to improve quality of life, he continued, as the common symptoms include obstruction, pain, bleeding, bowel discharge, or perforation/abscess. Optimal treatment involves striving for tumor-free margins after the operation. “This may require en bloc resection of an adjacent prostate, bladder, lateral pelvic wall,” he said. “But clinically and radiologically, it’s very difficult to identify those patients that have a potentially R0 resection.”

Curative treatment is possible if the recurrence is locally resectable and the patient has minimal comorbidities. “The potential morbidity after the surgery has to be acceptable, considering the severity of the problem that we’re dealing with,” Dr. Lavery noted. “Distant disease also complicates the issue.”

Reasons to avoid resection include rigid tumor fixation, leg lymphedema, major vessel encasement, bilateral ureteric involvement, extensive para-aortic lymph node involvement, and radicular pain. “If you embark on one of these cases, you want to make it at least the first if not the only case of the day,” Dr. Lavery advised. “Anticipate the need for assistance during the operation, but above all, make sure you have optimal exposure to do the surgery.” He reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – In the clinical experience of Dr. Ian C. Lavery, prevention efforts are the best defense against local recurrence of rectal cancer.

“This means adjuvant treatment, if necessary, neoadjuvant treatment, and a meticulous surgical operation,” Dr. Lavery of the department of colorectal surgery at the Cleveland Clinic said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. “If the circumferential resection margin is negative, the local recurrence rate is 10% or less. If it’s positive, local recurrence goes up to 78%. Even when we attempt to do the perfect total mesorectal excision, local recurrence is in the order of 4%.”

Selective use of radiotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting appears to be reducing the incidence of local recurrence, “certainly in the short term,” he added. “In the long term, I’m not sure we know the true answer to that yet. Using other techniques like washing the rectal stump out, the use of stapling, and en-bloc resection if necessary [can help prevention efforts].”

The incidence of local rectal cancer recurrence is reported to be between 3% and 50%, but neither curative nor palliative treatment is standardized. “When you get local recurrence after a rectal cancer operation, it’s a disaster,” Dr. Lavery said. “It may cause intractable pain, bleeding, perforation, obstruction, and sepsis – all incredibly difficult things to manage.”

Patients who develop a local recurrence of rectal cancer are often asymptomatic. A digital rectal exam (DRE) may or may not identify a recurrence and carcinoembryonic antigen levels are helpful on some occasions. According to Dr. Lavery, optimal surveillance consists of a clinical examination including DRE, endoscopy, blood tests, CT scans, MRI, and PET scans. “If they were all to be done routinely it would increase the detection earlier rather than later,” he said.

CT and MRI appear to be about 85% accurate but both modalities are “very poor at detecting peritoneal disease,” he said. PET scans for recurrent carcinoma have been shown to change the management in 20%-56% of cases (Ann Surg Oncol. 1997 Dec; 4:613-20).

While follow-up of patients who have undergone surgery for local rectal cancer is generally favored, there is no consensus on what the ideal follow-up timeline should be. “In my opinion, the more intensive follow-up is going to be better than the cursory conventional follow-up examination,” Dr. Lavery said. “One of the big reasons for that is the vast majority of recurrences are extraluminal so they may be difficult to feel. Doing endoscopy, you can’t see them if they’re extraluminal.”

The goal in treating recurrent rectal cancer is to improve quality of life, he continued, as the common symptoms include obstruction, pain, bleeding, bowel discharge, or perforation/abscess. Optimal treatment involves striving for tumor-free margins after the operation. “This may require en bloc resection of an adjacent prostate, bladder, lateral pelvic wall,” he said. “But clinically and radiologically, it’s very difficult to identify those patients that have a potentially R0 resection.”

Curative treatment is possible if the recurrence is locally resectable and the patient has minimal comorbidities. “The potential morbidity after the surgery has to be acceptable, considering the severity of the problem that we’re dealing with,” Dr. Lavery noted. “Distant disease also complicates the issue.”

Reasons to avoid resection include rigid tumor fixation, leg lymphedema, major vessel encasement, bilateral ureteric involvement, extensive para-aortic lymph node involvement, and radicular pain. “If you embark on one of these cases, you want to make it at least the first if not the only case of the day,” Dr. Lavery advised. “Anticipate the need for assistance during the operation, but above all, make sure you have optimal exposure to do the surgery.” He reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – In the clinical experience of Dr. Ian C. Lavery, prevention efforts are the best defense against local recurrence of rectal cancer.

“This means adjuvant treatment, if necessary, neoadjuvant treatment, and a meticulous surgical operation,” Dr. Lavery of the department of colorectal surgery at the Cleveland Clinic said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. “If the circumferential resection margin is negative, the local recurrence rate is 10% or less. If it’s positive, local recurrence goes up to 78%. Even when we attempt to do the perfect total mesorectal excision, local recurrence is in the order of 4%.”

Selective use of radiotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting appears to be reducing the incidence of local recurrence, “certainly in the short term,” he added. “In the long term, I’m not sure we know the true answer to that yet. Using other techniques like washing the rectal stump out, the use of stapling, and en-bloc resection if necessary [can help prevention efforts].”

The incidence of local rectal cancer recurrence is reported to be between 3% and 50%, but neither curative nor palliative treatment is standardized. “When you get local recurrence after a rectal cancer operation, it’s a disaster,” Dr. Lavery said. “It may cause intractable pain, bleeding, perforation, obstruction, and sepsis – all incredibly difficult things to manage.”

Patients who develop a local recurrence of rectal cancer are often asymptomatic. A digital rectal exam (DRE) may or may not identify a recurrence and carcinoembryonic antigen levels are helpful on some occasions. According to Dr. Lavery, optimal surveillance consists of a clinical examination including DRE, endoscopy, blood tests, CT scans, MRI, and PET scans. “If they were all to be done routinely it would increase the detection earlier rather than later,” he said.

CT and MRI appear to be about 85% accurate but both modalities are “very poor at detecting peritoneal disease,” he said. PET scans for recurrent carcinoma have been shown to change the management in 20%-56% of cases (Ann Surg Oncol. 1997 Dec; 4:613-20).

While follow-up of patients who have undergone surgery for local rectal cancer is generally favored, there is no consensus on what the ideal follow-up timeline should be. “In my opinion, the more intensive follow-up is going to be better than the cursory conventional follow-up examination,” Dr. Lavery said. “One of the big reasons for that is the vast majority of recurrences are extraluminal so they may be difficult to feel. Doing endoscopy, you can’t see them if they’re extraluminal.”

The goal in treating recurrent rectal cancer is to improve quality of life, he continued, as the common symptoms include obstruction, pain, bleeding, bowel discharge, or perforation/abscess. Optimal treatment involves striving for tumor-free margins after the operation. “This may require en bloc resection of an adjacent prostate, bladder, lateral pelvic wall,” he said. “But clinically and radiologically, it’s very difficult to identify those patients that have a potentially R0 resection.”

Curative treatment is possible if the recurrence is locally resectable and the patient has minimal comorbidities. “The potential morbidity after the surgery has to be acceptable, considering the severity of the problem that we’re dealing with,” Dr. Lavery noted. “Distant disease also complicates the issue.”

Reasons to avoid resection include rigid tumor fixation, leg lymphedema, major vessel encasement, bilateral ureteric involvement, extensive para-aortic lymph node involvement, and radicular pain. “If you embark on one of these cases, you want to make it at least the first if not the only case of the day,” Dr. Lavery advised. “Anticipate the need for assistance during the operation, but above all, make sure you have optimal exposure to do the surgery.” He reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – The use of locoregional tissue flaps in combination with abdominoperineal resection was associated with higher rates of perioperative complications, longer hospital stays, and higher total hospital charges, compared with patients who did not undergo tissue flap reconstruction, an analysis of national data showed.

The findings come at a time when closure of perineal wounds with tissue flaps is an increasingly common approach, especially in academic institutions, Dr. Nicole Lopez said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. “The role of selection bias in this [study] is difficult to determine, but I think it’s important that we clarify the utility of this technique before more widespread adoption of the approach,” she said.

According to Dr. Lopez of the department of surgery at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, perineal wound complications can occur in 16%-49% of patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection. Contributing factors include noncollapsible dead space, bacterial contamination, wound characteristics, and patient comorbidities.

In an effort to identify national trends in the use of tissue flaps in patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection for rectal or anal cancer, as well as the effect of this approach on perioperative complications, length of stay, and total hospital charges, Dr. Lopez and her associates used the National Inpatient Sample to identify patients aged 18-80 years who were treated between 2000 and 2013. They excluded patients undergoing nonelective procedures or additional pelvic organ resections. Patients who received a tissue flap were compared with those who did not.

Dr. Lopez reported results from 298 patients who received a tissue flap graft and 12,107 who did not. Variables significantly associated with receiving a tissue flap, compared with not receiving one, were being male (73% vs. 66%, respectively; P =. 01), having anal cancer (32% vs. 11%; P less than .0001), being a smoker (34% vs. 23%; P less than .0001), undergoing the procedure in a large hospital (75% vs. 67%; P = .003), and undergoing the procedure in an urban teaching hospital (89% vs. 53%; P less than .0001).

The researchers also found that the number of concurrent tissue flaps performed rose significantly during the study period, from 0.4% in 2000 to 6% in 2013 (P less than .0001). “This was most noted in teaching institutions, compared with nonteaching institutions,” Dr. Lopez said.

Bivariate analysis revealed that, compared with patients who did not receive tissue flaps, those who did had higher rates of postoperative complications (43% vs. 33%, respectively; P less than .0001), a longer hospital stay (mean of 9 vs. 7 days; P less than .001), and higher total hospital charges (mean of $67,200 vs. $42,300; P less than .001). These trends persisted on multivariate analysis. Specifically, patients who received tissue flaps were 4.14 times more likely to have wound complications, had a length of stay that averaged an additional 2.78 days, and had $28,000 more in total hospital charges.

“The extended duration of the study enables evaluation of trends over time, and this is the first study that analyzes the costs associated with these procedures,” Dr. Lopez said. She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective, nonrandomized design and the potential for selection bias. In addition, the National Inpatient Sample “is susceptible to coding errors, a lack of patient-specific oncologic history, and the inability to assess postdischarge occurrences, since this only looks at inpatient stays.”

Dr. Lopez reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – The use of locoregional tissue flaps in combination with abdominoperineal resection was associated with higher rates of perioperative complications, longer hospital stays, and higher total hospital charges, compared with patients who did not undergo tissue flap reconstruction, an analysis of national data showed.

The findings come at a time when closure of perineal wounds with tissue flaps is an increasingly common approach, especially in academic institutions, Dr. Nicole Lopez said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. “The role of selection bias in this [study] is difficult to determine, but I think it’s important that we clarify the utility of this technique before more widespread adoption of the approach,” she said.

According to Dr. Lopez of the department of surgery at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, perineal wound complications can occur in 16%-49% of patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection. Contributing factors include noncollapsible dead space, bacterial contamination, wound characteristics, and patient comorbidities.

In an effort to identify national trends in the use of tissue flaps in patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection for rectal or anal cancer, as well as the effect of this approach on perioperative complications, length of stay, and total hospital charges, Dr. Lopez and her associates used the National Inpatient Sample to identify patients aged 18-80 years who were treated between 2000 and 2013. They excluded patients undergoing nonelective procedures or additional pelvic organ resections. Patients who received a tissue flap were compared with those who did not.

Dr. Lopez reported results from 298 patients who received a tissue flap graft and 12,107 who did not. Variables significantly associated with receiving a tissue flap, compared with not receiving one, were being male (73% vs. 66%, respectively; P =. 01), having anal cancer (32% vs. 11%; P less than .0001), being a smoker (34% vs. 23%; P less than .0001), undergoing the procedure in a large hospital (75% vs. 67%; P = .003), and undergoing the procedure in an urban teaching hospital (89% vs. 53%; P less than .0001).

The researchers also found that the number of concurrent tissue flaps performed rose significantly during the study period, from 0.4% in 2000 to 6% in 2013 (P less than .0001). “This was most noted in teaching institutions, compared with nonteaching institutions,” Dr. Lopez said.

Bivariate analysis revealed that, compared with patients who did not receive tissue flaps, those who did had higher rates of postoperative complications (43% vs. 33%, respectively; P less than .0001), a longer hospital stay (mean of 9 vs. 7 days; P less than .001), and higher total hospital charges (mean of $67,200 vs. $42,300; P less than .001). These trends persisted on multivariate analysis. Specifically, patients who received tissue flaps were 4.14 times more likely to have wound complications, had a length of stay that averaged an additional 2.78 days, and had $28,000 more in total hospital charges.

“The extended duration of the study enables evaluation of trends over time, and this is the first study that analyzes the costs associated with these procedures,” Dr. Lopez said. She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective, nonrandomized design and the potential for selection bias. In addition, the National Inpatient Sample “is susceptible to coding errors, a lack of patient-specific oncologic history, and the inability to assess postdischarge occurrences, since this only looks at inpatient stays.”

Dr. Lopez reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – The use of locoregional tissue flaps in combination with abdominoperineal resection was associated with higher rates of perioperative complications, longer hospital stays, and higher total hospital charges, compared with patients who did not undergo tissue flap reconstruction, an analysis of national data showed.

The findings come at a time when closure of perineal wounds with tissue flaps is an increasingly common approach, especially in academic institutions, Dr. Nicole Lopez said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. “The role of selection bias in this [study] is difficult to determine, but I think it’s important that we clarify the utility of this technique before more widespread adoption of the approach,” she said.

According to Dr. Lopez of the department of surgery at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, perineal wound complications can occur in 16%-49% of patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection. Contributing factors include noncollapsible dead space, bacterial contamination, wound characteristics, and patient comorbidities.

In an effort to identify national trends in the use of tissue flaps in patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection for rectal or anal cancer, as well as the effect of this approach on perioperative complications, length of stay, and total hospital charges, Dr. Lopez and her associates used the National Inpatient Sample to identify patients aged 18-80 years who were treated between 2000 and 2013. They excluded patients undergoing nonelective procedures or additional pelvic organ resections. Patients who received a tissue flap were compared with those who did not.

Dr. Lopez reported results from 298 patients who received a tissue flap graft and 12,107 who did not. Variables significantly associated with receiving a tissue flap, compared with not receiving one, were being male (73% vs. 66%, respectively; P =. 01), having anal cancer (32% vs. 11%; P less than .0001), being a smoker (34% vs. 23%; P less than .0001), undergoing the procedure in a large hospital (75% vs. 67%; P = .003), and undergoing the procedure in an urban teaching hospital (89% vs. 53%; P less than .0001).

The researchers also found that the number of concurrent tissue flaps performed rose significantly during the study period, from 0.4% in 2000 to 6% in 2013 (P less than .0001). “This was most noted in teaching institutions, compared with nonteaching institutions,” Dr. Lopez said.

Bivariate analysis revealed that, compared with patients who did not receive tissue flaps, those who did had higher rates of postoperative complications (43% vs. 33%, respectively; P less than .0001), a longer hospital stay (mean of 9 vs. 7 days; P less than .001), and higher total hospital charges (mean of $67,200 vs. $42,300; P less than .001). These trends persisted on multivariate analysis. Specifically, patients who received tissue flaps were 4.14 times more likely to have wound complications, had a length of stay that averaged an additional 2.78 days, and had $28,000 more in total hospital charges.

“The extended duration of the study enables evaluation of trends over time, and this is the first study that analyzes the costs associated with these procedures,” Dr. Lopez said. She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective, nonrandomized design and the potential for selection bias. In addition, the National Inpatient Sample “is susceptible to coding errors, a lack of patient-specific oncologic history, and the inability to assess postdischarge occurrences, since this only looks at inpatient stays.”

Dr. Lopez reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – A simple Web-based mobile application (web-app) improved survival time and quality of life of patients with advanced lung cancer, according to a randomized study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study was stopped at the planned interim survival analysis that occurred after 121 evaluable patients because of survival benefit favoring the web-app arm. The application, called Moovcare, allowed patients to report symptoms over time and stay in close touch with their care providers after their initial surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation therapy.

“The 1-year survival was 75% in the Moovcare vs. 49% in the control arm,” said lead author Dr. Fabrice Denis of the Institut Inter-régional de Cancérologie Jean Bernard in LeMans, France, in a press conference.

Dr. Denis identified several reasons why a web-app could be useful in treating patients with lung cancer. Even with more than 1 million lung cancer deaths a year worldwide, there is no standard follow-up, and relapses do not occur on a 3 or 6-month schedule of planned visits. So patients often wait several weeks until their next visit to report symptoms indicative of a relapse. They may also be reluctant to report symptoms because of shame over how they contracted the disease, for example, from smoking. And patients are often hesitant to “bother” the doctor with symptoms between visits. All these reasons can contribute to suboptimal therapy and worse outcomes.

Investigators designed Moovcare to allow patients to report symptoms weekly, facilitating early detection of relapse or dangerous medical conditions and triggering early supportive care. They compared the web-app to a control of usual, nonpersonalized follow-up in a French multicenter prospective, randomized trial.

Patients (n = 121) with stage II/node-positive to stage IV (90% stage III/IV) nonprogressive small cell or non–small cell lung cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to the two arms of the trial. They had to have Internet access, prior experience with email, performance status of 0-2, and an initial symptom score less than 7. Patients could be taking tyrosine kinase inhibitors or on maintenance therapy. Monitoring visits were the same for both groups every 3 months or more frequently. Patients in the control arm received more frequent computed tomographic (CT) imaging than did ones in the web-app arm, and CT scans could be performed at any time in either group based on the investigator’s clinical judgment, or in the case of the web-app, as suggested by patient report in the algorithm.

The median follow up was 9 months. Relapse rates were close to 50% for both groups. The 1-year survival of 75% in the Moovcare to 49% in the control arm gave a 1-year absolute survival increase of 26%. Median survival was 19 months vs. 12 months, a 7-month improvement in median survival for the Moovcare arm. The hazard ratio for death in the web-app arm, compared with the control arm was 0.325 (95% confidence interval, 0.157-0.672; P = .0025).

When they relapsed, 77% of patients in the web-app arm had a good performance status, compared with 33% in the control arm. “This led to 74% of patients receiving optimal therapy in the Moovcare arm vs. 33% in the control arm,” Dr. Denis said. “And the number of imaging [procedures] was reduced by 50% per patient per year.”

Overall quality of life was better in the web-app arm, as assessed using standard quality of life questionnaires.

Moovcare works by having patients or their relatives report 12 symptoms weekly (for example, asthenia, cough, dyspnea, anorexia, etc.) using a smartphone, tablet, or computer. An algorithm analyzes an association of symptoms and triggers email alerts to health care providers if relapse or dangerous medical conditions may be occurring. Providers follow up alerts by phone and schedule visits and imaging. “The sensitivity of the algorithm was high and was validated in two prospective studies,” Dr. Denis said. Sensitivity was 86%-100%.

Moovcare allowed earlier detection of relapse and improved overall survival for three reasons. “It allowed higher performance status at relapse, leading to more optimal therapy for relapsing patients. Dangerous medical conditions were detected earlier and treated earlier. It favored earlier supportive care, which improved quality of life. Less imaging was needed and performed at the right time,” Dr. Denis said.

Patients were monitored on a weekly basis, allowing more personalized care. The Moovcare web-app has been evaluated prospectively in about 300 patients, providing a high level of evidence of its utility in improving outcomes for patients with advanced lung cancer.

Press conference moderator Dr. Patricia Ganz commented that Moovcare is an example of a new way to improve the delivery of high-quality care to patients. “If we had a drug or some new intervention that caused this level of survival benefit, wouldn’t we want to go out and use it?” she asked. “This is a tremendous advance. This is personalized medicine. This is really tailoring it to the patient, and you can see how simple it is to collect this kind of data from the patient and then bring them in in between what would have been a scheduled visit.” She said the app overcomes the barrier of patients putting off reporting symptoms until their next visit or their reluctance to “bother the doctor.”

She said the app alerts the health care team to potential problems and prompts them to “use tests when appropriate, not on a schedule, [which] leads to avoidance of waste in the follow-up of care of our patients.”

CHICAGO – A simple Web-based mobile application (web-app) improved survival time and quality of life of patients with advanced lung cancer, according to a randomized study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study was stopped at the planned interim survival analysis that occurred after 121 evaluable patients because of survival benefit favoring the web-app arm. The application, called Moovcare, allowed patients to report symptoms over time and stay in close touch with their care providers after their initial surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation therapy.

“The 1-year survival was 75% in the Moovcare vs. 49% in the control arm,” said lead author Dr. Fabrice Denis of the Institut Inter-régional de Cancérologie Jean Bernard in LeMans, France, in a press conference.

Dr. Denis identified several reasons why a web-app could be useful in treating patients with lung cancer. Even with more than 1 million lung cancer deaths a year worldwide, there is no standard follow-up, and relapses do not occur on a 3 or 6-month schedule of planned visits. So patients often wait several weeks until their next visit to report symptoms indicative of a relapse. They may also be reluctant to report symptoms because of shame over how they contracted the disease, for example, from smoking. And patients are often hesitant to “bother” the doctor with symptoms between visits. All these reasons can contribute to suboptimal therapy and worse outcomes.

Investigators designed Moovcare to allow patients to report symptoms weekly, facilitating early detection of relapse or dangerous medical conditions and triggering early supportive care. They compared the web-app to a control of usual, nonpersonalized follow-up in a French multicenter prospective, randomized trial.

Patients (n = 121) with stage II/node-positive to stage IV (90% stage III/IV) nonprogressive small cell or non–small cell lung cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to the two arms of the trial. They had to have Internet access, prior experience with email, performance status of 0-2, and an initial symptom score less than 7. Patients could be taking tyrosine kinase inhibitors or on maintenance therapy. Monitoring visits were the same for both groups every 3 months or more frequently. Patients in the control arm received more frequent computed tomographic (CT) imaging than did ones in the web-app arm, and CT scans could be performed at any time in either group based on the investigator’s clinical judgment, or in the case of the web-app, as suggested by patient report in the algorithm.

The median follow up was 9 months. Relapse rates were close to 50% for both groups. The 1-year survival of 75% in the Moovcare to 49% in the control arm gave a 1-year absolute survival increase of 26%. Median survival was 19 months vs. 12 months, a 7-month improvement in median survival for the Moovcare arm. The hazard ratio for death in the web-app arm, compared with the control arm was 0.325 (95% confidence interval, 0.157-0.672; P = .0025).

When they relapsed, 77% of patients in the web-app arm had a good performance status, compared with 33% in the control arm. “This led to 74% of patients receiving optimal therapy in the Moovcare arm vs. 33% in the control arm,” Dr. Denis said. “And the number of imaging [procedures] was reduced by 50% per patient per year.”

Overall quality of life was better in the web-app arm, as assessed using standard quality of life questionnaires.

Moovcare works by having patients or their relatives report 12 symptoms weekly (for example, asthenia, cough, dyspnea, anorexia, etc.) using a smartphone, tablet, or computer. An algorithm analyzes an association of symptoms and triggers email alerts to health care providers if relapse or dangerous medical conditions may be occurring. Providers follow up alerts by phone and schedule visits and imaging. “The sensitivity of the algorithm was high and was validated in two prospective studies,” Dr. Denis said. Sensitivity was 86%-100%.

Moovcare allowed earlier detection of relapse and improved overall survival for three reasons. “It allowed higher performance status at relapse, leading to more optimal therapy for relapsing patients. Dangerous medical conditions were detected earlier and treated earlier. It favored earlier supportive care, which improved quality of life. Less imaging was needed and performed at the right time,” Dr. Denis said.

Patients were monitored on a weekly basis, allowing more personalized care. The Moovcare web-app has been evaluated prospectively in about 300 patients, providing a high level of evidence of its utility in improving outcomes for patients with advanced lung cancer.

Press conference moderator Dr. Patricia Ganz commented that Moovcare is an example of a new way to improve the delivery of high-quality care to patients. “If we had a drug or some new intervention that caused this level of survival benefit, wouldn’t we want to go out and use it?” she asked. “This is a tremendous advance. This is personalized medicine. This is really tailoring it to the patient, and you can see how simple it is to collect this kind of data from the patient and then bring them in in between what would have been a scheduled visit.” She said the app overcomes the barrier of patients putting off reporting symptoms until their next visit or their reluctance to “bother the doctor.”

She said the app alerts the health care team to potential problems and prompts them to “use tests when appropriate, not on a schedule, [which] leads to avoidance of waste in the follow-up of care of our patients.”

CHICAGO – A simple Web-based mobile application (web-app) improved survival time and quality of life of patients with advanced lung cancer, according to a randomized study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study was stopped at the planned interim survival analysis that occurred after 121 evaluable patients because of survival benefit favoring the web-app arm. The application, called Moovcare, allowed patients to report symptoms over time and stay in close touch with their care providers after their initial surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation therapy.

“The 1-year survival was 75% in the Moovcare vs. 49% in the control arm,” said lead author Dr. Fabrice Denis of the Institut Inter-régional de Cancérologie Jean Bernard in LeMans, France, in a press conference.

Dr. Denis identified several reasons why a web-app could be useful in treating patients with lung cancer. Even with more than 1 million lung cancer deaths a year worldwide, there is no standard follow-up, and relapses do not occur on a 3 or 6-month schedule of planned visits. So patients often wait several weeks until their next visit to report symptoms indicative of a relapse. They may also be reluctant to report symptoms because of shame over how they contracted the disease, for example, from smoking. And patients are often hesitant to “bother” the doctor with symptoms between visits. All these reasons can contribute to suboptimal therapy and worse outcomes.

Investigators designed Moovcare to allow patients to report symptoms weekly, facilitating early detection of relapse or dangerous medical conditions and triggering early supportive care. They compared the web-app to a control of usual, nonpersonalized follow-up in a French multicenter prospective, randomized trial.

Patients (n = 121) with stage II/node-positive to stage IV (90% stage III/IV) nonprogressive small cell or non–small cell lung cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to the two arms of the trial. They had to have Internet access, prior experience with email, performance status of 0-2, and an initial symptom score less than 7. Patients could be taking tyrosine kinase inhibitors or on maintenance therapy. Monitoring visits were the same for both groups every 3 months or more frequently. Patients in the control arm received more frequent computed tomographic (CT) imaging than did ones in the web-app arm, and CT scans could be performed at any time in either group based on the investigator’s clinical judgment, or in the case of the web-app, as suggested by patient report in the algorithm.

The median follow up was 9 months. Relapse rates were close to 50% for both groups. The 1-year survival of 75% in the Moovcare to 49% in the control arm gave a 1-year absolute survival increase of 26%. Median survival was 19 months vs. 12 months, a 7-month improvement in median survival for the Moovcare arm. The hazard ratio for death in the web-app arm, compared with the control arm was 0.325 (95% confidence interval, 0.157-0.672; P = .0025).

When they relapsed, 77% of patients in the web-app arm had a good performance status, compared with 33% in the control arm. “This led to 74% of patients receiving optimal therapy in the Moovcare arm vs. 33% in the control arm,” Dr. Denis said. “And the number of imaging [procedures] was reduced by 50% per patient per year.”

Overall quality of life was better in the web-app arm, as assessed using standard quality of life questionnaires.

Moovcare works by having patients or their relatives report 12 symptoms weekly (for example, asthenia, cough, dyspnea, anorexia, etc.) using a smartphone, tablet, or computer. An algorithm analyzes an association of symptoms and triggers email alerts to health care providers if relapse or dangerous medical conditions may be occurring. Providers follow up alerts by phone and schedule visits and imaging. “The sensitivity of the algorithm was high and was validated in two prospective studies,” Dr. Denis said. Sensitivity was 86%-100%.

Moovcare allowed earlier detection of relapse and improved overall survival for three reasons. “It allowed higher performance status at relapse, leading to more optimal therapy for relapsing patients. Dangerous medical conditions were detected earlier and treated earlier. It favored earlier supportive care, which improved quality of life. Less imaging was needed and performed at the right time,” Dr. Denis said.

Patients were monitored on a weekly basis, allowing more personalized care. The Moovcare web-app has been evaluated prospectively in about 300 patients, providing a high level of evidence of its utility in improving outcomes for patients with advanced lung cancer.

Press conference moderator Dr. Patricia Ganz commented that Moovcare is an example of a new way to improve the delivery of high-quality care to patients. “If we had a drug or some new intervention that caused this level of survival benefit, wouldn’t we want to go out and use it?” she asked. “This is a tremendous advance. This is personalized medicine. This is really tailoring it to the patient, and you can see how simple it is to collect this kind of data from the patient and then bring them in in between what would have been a scheduled visit.” She said the app overcomes the barrier of patients putting off reporting symptoms until their next visit or their reluctance to “bother the doctor.”

She said the app alerts the health care team to potential problems and prompts them to “use tests when appropriate, not on a schedule, [which] leads to avoidance of waste in the follow-up of care of our patients.”

CHICAGO – Being targeted for a peer review can be unnerving for physicians, but proper preparation can help doctors smoothly navigate the process and increase their chances for a favorable outcome.

The first step is taking the situation seriously and remaining calm, said Janet L. Pulliam, a Little Rock, Ark.–based attorney who specializes in health law and employment and labor. Next, hire an experienced attorney and refrain from signing anything without consulting counsel, Ms. Pulliam said at a conference held by the American Bar Association. She also suggested that physicians request an individual meeting with each reviewer before the hearing.

“That’s not to be a lobbying meeting; that’s to be a meeting where you simply, one on one, ask someone who is going to be in judgment of you [to] please keep an open mind until they have heard all of the evidence,” Ms. Pulliam said at the meeting. “Trust me, they’ve already had plenty of information provided to them from the [hospital] administration, so that’s not asking any favors.”

If the peer review stems from a patient interaction or treatment decision, review the patient record in question, but don’t change any documentation, she noted. You can always argue during the hearing that the patient record does not adequately illustrate the encounter or that the charting was inaccurate.

Speak up during peer review meetings and ensure that your case is heard, added Elizabeth A. Snelson, a St. Paul, Minn.–based health law attorney who represents medical staffs, medical societies, and other health professionals.

“Not that it’s easy to put a lawyer in a room and tell her to not talk, but the fact of the matter is that the case will be more successful if it’s the doctor who is addressing the panel, which is usually comprised completely of doctors,” Ms. Snelson said.

Educate the committee, Ms. Pulliam advised. Use the opportunity to explain the protocols specific to your specialty and how they may differ from other specialties.

“It’s your time to educate them,” she said. “The physicians on the committee generally, genuinely want to know what they don’t know, and this is the only shot that you’re going to have to tell them.”

Alicia Gallegos/Frontline Medical News

Attend every meeting and be on time. This may sound obvious, but Ms. Pulliam has seen the negative effects a tardy appearance can have on a committee’s perceptions. Making the peer review process a priority and scheduling accordingly is paramount. In addition, ask the hospital for a court reporter to transcribe the hearing. If the hospital refuses, offer to pay for half of the cost, Ms. Pulliam suggested. Accurate documentation is critical and can later be challenged if no record exists. If the hospital declines to share the cost, Ms. Pulliam recommended that doctors foot the entire bill. Make every effort to have a complete transcript, she said.

Be an advocate for a solution when possible, Ms. Pulliam added. Discuss with your attorney potential resolutions, but also know your litigation options. Be prepared to go to court if necessary.

“This is when you need to litigate because procedures and fairness have not been followed in the process,” she said during her presentation. “Courts do allow for equity, declaratory judgments, and injunctions when rights guaranteed to a physician are not followed.”

Knowing those rights and regulations beforehand is key, Ms. Snelson said. States’ peer review laws widely differ. Arkansas law for example, enables physicians to request a hearing officer who is independent and not employed by the hospital and also protects communications by physicians during peer review proceedings. Other states have different features, and some states have nothing regarding peer review on the books, Ms. Snelson said.

“In some states it’s real clear where the peer review requirements are,” she said. “In other states, you really have to go hunting. It could be in the evidence code. It could be all over the place.”

Be aware of appeal rights. Usually, medical staff bylaws allow for an appeal to the governing body of the hospital if a doctor disagrees with a panel’s recommendation. However, sometimes bylaws are silent on appeals, Ms. Snelson said. She noted that the Joint Commission standards refer to peer review hearings and appeals. Thus, if a hospital is accredited by the Joint Commission, and its bylaws do not address appeals, physicians and their attorneys can argue that an appeals process should be in place.

Remember that peer review is not limited to “bad doctors,” and that the process can arise from minor issues, Ms. Snelson said at the meeting.

“Usually when doctors hear ‘peer review,’ they hear ‘discipline,’ ” she said. “[However], It’s not always the ‘bad doctors’; it can be something that is quite minimal that can be escalated. It can be entirely appropriate. What peer review should be is educational ... but sometimes it can be used as a weapon.”

[email protected]

On Twitter @legal_med

CHICAGO – Being targeted for a peer review can be unnerving for physicians, but proper preparation can help doctors smoothly navigate the process and increase their chances for a favorable outcome.

The first step is taking the situation seriously and remaining calm, said Janet L. Pulliam, a Little Rock, Ark.–based attorney who specializes in health law and employment and labor. Next, hire an experienced attorney and refrain from signing anything without consulting counsel, Ms. Pulliam said at a conference held by the American Bar Association. She also suggested that physicians request an individual meeting with each reviewer before the hearing.

“That’s not to be a lobbying meeting; that’s to be a meeting where you simply, one on one, ask someone who is going to be in judgment of you [to] please keep an open mind until they have heard all of the evidence,” Ms. Pulliam said at the meeting. “Trust me, they’ve already had plenty of information provided to them from the [hospital] administration, so that’s not asking any favors.”

If the peer review stems from a patient interaction or treatment decision, review the patient record in question, but don’t change any documentation, she noted. You can always argue during the hearing that the patient record does not adequately illustrate the encounter or that the charting was inaccurate.

Speak up during peer review meetings and ensure that your case is heard, added Elizabeth A. Snelson, a St. Paul, Minn.–based health law attorney who represents medical staffs, medical societies, and other health professionals.

“Not that it’s easy to put a lawyer in a room and tell her to not talk, but the fact of the matter is that the case will be more successful if it’s the doctor who is addressing the panel, which is usually comprised completely of doctors,” Ms. Snelson said.

Educate the committee, Ms. Pulliam advised. Use the opportunity to explain the protocols specific to your specialty and how they may differ from other specialties.

“It’s your time to educate them,” she said. “The physicians on the committee generally, genuinely want to know what they don’t know, and this is the only shot that you’re going to have to tell them.”

Alicia Gallegos/Frontline Medical News

Attend every meeting and be on time. This may sound obvious, but Ms. Pulliam has seen the negative effects a tardy appearance can have on a committee’s perceptions. Making the peer review process a priority and scheduling accordingly is paramount. In addition, ask the hospital for a court reporter to transcribe the hearing. If the hospital refuses, offer to pay for half of the cost, Ms. Pulliam suggested. Accurate documentation is critical and can later be challenged if no record exists. If the hospital declines to share the cost, Ms. Pulliam recommended that doctors foot the entire bill. Make every effort to have a complete transcript, she said.

Be an advocate for a solution when possible, Ms. Pulliam added. Discuss with your attorney potential resolutions, but also know your litigation options. Be prepared to go to court if necessary.

“This is when you need to litigate because procedures and fairness have not been followed in the process,” she said during her presentation. “Courts do allow for equity, declaratory judgments, and injunctions when rights guaranteed to a physician are not followed.”

Knowing those rights and regulations beforehand is key, Ms. Snelson said. States’ peer review laws widely differ. Arkansas law for example, enables physicians to request a hearing officer who is independent and not employed by the hospital and also protects communications by physicians during peer review proceedings. Other states have different features, and some states have nothing regarding peer review on the books, Ms. Snelson said.

“In some states it’s real clear where the peer review requirements are,” she said. “In other states, you really have to go hunting. It could be in the evidence code. It could be all over the place.”

Be aware of appeal rights. Usually, medical staff bylaws allow for an appeal to the governing body of the hospital if a doctor disagrees with a panel’s recommendation. However, sometimes bylaws are silent on appeals, Ms. Snelson said. She noted that the Joint Commission standards refer to peer review hearings and appeals. Thus, if a hospital is accredited by the Joint Commission, and its bylaws do not address appeals, physicians and their attorneys can argue that an appeals process should be in place.

Remember that peer review is not limited to “bad doctors,” and that the process can arise from minor issues, Ms. Snelson said at the meeting.

“Usually when doctors hear ‘peer review,’ they hear ‘discipline,’ ” she said. “[However], It’s not always the ‘bad doctors’; it can be something that is quite minimal that can be escalated. It can be entirely appropriate. What peer review should be is educational ... but sometimes it can be used as a weapon.”

[email protected]

On Twitter @legal_med

CHICAGO – Being targeted for a peer review can be unnerving for physicians, but proper preparation can help doctors smoothly navigate the process and increase their chances for a favorable outcome.

The first step is taking the situation seriously and remaining calm, said Janet L. Pulliam, a Little Rock, Ark.–based attorney who specializes in health law and employment and labor. Next, hire an experienced attorney and refrain from signing anything without consulting counsel, Ms. Pulliam said at a conference held by the American Bar Association. She also suggested that physicians request an individual meeting with each reviewer before the hearing.

“That’s not to be a lobbying meeting; that’s to be a meeting where you simply, one on one, ask someone who is going to be in judgment of you [to] please keep an open mind until they have heard all of the evidence,” Ms. Pulliam said at the meeting. “Trust me, they’ve already had plenty of information provided to them from the [hospital] administration, so that’s not asking any favors.”

If the peer review stems from a patient interaction or treatment decision, review the patient record in question, but don’t change any documentation, she noted. You can always argue during the hearing that the patient record does not adequately illustrate the encounter or that the charting was inaccurate.

Speak up during peer review meetings and ensure that your case is heard, added Elizabeth A. Snelson, a St. Paul, Minn.–based health law attorney who represents medical staffs, medical societies, and other health professionals.

“Not that it’s easy to put a lawyer in a room and tell her to not talk, but the fact of the matter is that the case will be more successful if it’s the doctor who is addressing the panel, which is usually comprised completely of doctors,” Ms. Snelson said.

Educate the committee, Ms. Pulliam advised. Use the opportunity to explain the protocols specific to your specialty and how they may differ from other specialties.

“It’s your time to educate them,” she said. “The physicians on the committee generally, genuinely want to know what they don’t know, and this is the only shot that you’re going to have to tell them.”

Alicia Gallegos/Frontline Medical News

Attend every meeting and be on time. This may sound obvious, but Ms. Pulliam has seen the negative effects a tardy appearance can have on a committee’s perceptions. Making the peer review process a priority and scheduling accordingly is paramount. In addition, ask the hospital for a court reporter to transcribe the hearing. If the hospital refuses, offer to pay for half of the cost, Ms. Pulliam suggested. Accurate documentation is critical and can later be challenged if no record exists. If the hospital declines to share the cost, Ms. Pulliam recommended that doctors foot the entire bill. Make every effort to have a complete transcript, she said.

Be an advocate for a solution when possible, Ms. Pulliam added. Discuss with your attorney potential resolutions, but also know your litigation options. Be prepared to go to court if necessary.

“This is when you need to litigate because procedures and fairness have not been followed in the process,” she said during her presentation. “Courts do allow for equity, declaratory judgments, and injunctions when rights guaranteed to a physician are not followed.”

Knowing those rights and regulations beforehand is key, Ms. Snelson said. States’ peer review laws widely differ. Arkansas law for example, enables physicians to request a hearing officer who is independent and not employed by the hospital and also protects communications by physicians during peer review proceedings. Other states have different features, and some states have nothing regarding peer review on the books, Ms. Snelson said.

“In some states it’s real clear where the peer review requirements are,” she said. “In other states, you really have to go hunting. It could be in the evidence code. It could be all over the place.”

Be aware of appeal rights. Usually, medical staff bylaws allow for an appeal to the governing body of the hospital if a doctor disagrees with a panel’s recommendation. However, sometimes bylaws are silent on appeals, Ms. Snelson said. She noted that the Joint Commission standards refer to peer review hearings and appeals. Thus, if a hospital is accredited by the Joint Commission, and its bylaws do not address appeals, physicians and their attorneys can argue that an appeals process should be in place.

Remember that peer review is not limited to “bad doctors,” and that the process can arise from minor issues, Ms. Snelson said at the meeting.

“Usually when doctors hear ‘peer review,’ they hear ‘discipline,’ ” she said. “[However], It’s not always the ‘bad doctors’; it can be something that is quite minimal that can be escalated. It can be entirely appropriate. What peer review should be is educational ... but sometimes it can be used as a weapon.”

[email protected]

On Twitter @legal_med

LOS ANGELES – The size of anorectal gastrointestinal stroma tumors is the most important determinant of survival following resection, results from an analysis of national data showed.

In addition, preoperative chemotherapy appears to improve survival rate in patients with tumors 5 cm in size or greater.

Anorectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are rare, making up about 3% of all GIST cases, lead study author Dr. Alexander T. Hawkins reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. However, “optimal management remains elusive with questions regarding the role of local excision and the use of preoperative chemotherapy,” said Dr. Hawkins of the section of colon and rectal surgery at Washington University in St. Louis.

In an effort to determine the impact of tumor size, the benefits of using neoadjuvant imatinib, and the impact of a surgical approach, the researchers used the National Cancer Database (NCD) to identify 333 cases of anorectal GIST from 1998 through 2012. The NCD collects data from more than 1,500 cancer centers in the United States, and it’s estimated to account for 70% of all newly diagnosed cases of cancer.

Dr. Alexander Hawkins

The mean age of patients was 62 years, the median tumor size was 4 cm, 47% had a high-grade tumor, six presented with metastatic disease, and the overall 5-year survival rate was 78%. Of the 333 cases, 163 underwent local excision, 158 underwent radical excision, and 12 had no resection data. Of the radical excision cases, 89 had tumors of 5 cm in size or larger, while 69 had tumors of less than 5 cm in size.

Tumors treated with local resection tended to be smaller, compared with those treated by radical resection (a median of 2.5 cm vs. a median of 6.2 cm, respectively; P less than .001). Bivariate analysis revealed that patients who underwent treatment with local resection had a shorter hospital length of stay (a median of 0 vs. 7 days; P less than .001), but similar rates of 30-day readmission (5.5% vs. 4.4%, P = .65), 30-day mortality (0.6% vs. 1.3%, P = .54) and 90-day mortality (1.2% vs. 2.5%, P = .38). The rates of 5-year survival were higher in the local resection group (80.1% vs. 74.1%, P = .04).

Multivariable survival analysis revealed that advanced age (HR, 2.41) and tumor size greater than 5 cm (HR 2.48; P = .004) were associated with increased mortality. When Dr. Hawkins and his associates evaluated the role of chemotherapy, patients who received preoperative chemotherapy had a 5-year survival of 76.7%, compared with 50.4% in those who did not (P = .04). However, in this same group, chemotherapy did not improve the rate of margin-negative resection (80% vs. 78.6%, P = .88).

Dr. Hawkins also reported that, compared with patients who underwent radical resection, those who underwent local resection had lower rates of preoperative chemotherapy (9.2% vs. 25.3%, respectively; P = .0001) and smaller median tumor size (2.5 cm vs. 6.2 cm, P less than .0001). For tumors smaller than 5 cm in size, there was no difference in 5-year survival by surgical approach (82.3% vs. 82.6%, P = .71).

“Size in the most important determinant of survival after resection of anorectal GIST,” Dr. Hawkins concluded. “For smaller tumors, local excision may be an adequate therapy. Perhaps our most important finding is that preoperative chemotherapy appears to result in improved survival for large tumors treated with radical resection.”

Dr. Hawkins reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – The size of anorectal gastrointestinal stroma tumors is the most important determinant of survival following resection, results from an analysis of national data showed.

In addition, preoperative chemotherapy appears to improve survival rate in patients with tumors 5 cm in size or greater.

Anorectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are rare, making up about 3% of all GIST cases, lead study author Dr. Alexander T. Hawkins reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. However, “optimal management remains elusive with questions regarding the role of local excision and the use of preoperative chemotherapy,” said Dr. Hawkins of the section of colon and rectal surgery at Washington University in St. Louis.

In an effort to determine the impact of tumor size, the benefits of using neoadjuvant imatinib, and the impact of a surgical approach, the researchers used the National Cancer Database (NCD) to identify 333 cases of anorectal GIST from 1998 through 2012. The NCD collects data from more than 1,500 cancer centers in the United States, and it’s estimated to account for 70% of all newly diagnosed cases of cancer.

Dr. Alexander Hawkins

The mean age of patients was 62 years, the median tumor size was 4 cm, 47% had a high-grade tumor, six presented with metastatic disease, and the overall 5-year survival rate was 78%. Of the 333 cases, 163 underwent local excision, 158 underwent radical excision, and 12 had no resection data. Of the radical excision cases, 89 had tumors of 5 cm in size or larger, while 69 had tumors of less than 5 cm in size.

Tumors treated with local resection tended to be smaller, compared with those treated by radical resection (a median of 2.5 cm vs. a median of 6.2 cm, respectively; P less than .001). Bivariate analysis revealed that patients who underwent treatment with local resection had a shorter hospital length of stay (a median of 0 vs. 7 days; P less than .001), but similar rates of 30-day readmission (5.5% vs. 4.4%, P = .65), 30-day mortality (0.6% vs. 1.3%, P = .54) and 90-day mortality (1.2% vs. 2.5%, P = .38). The rates of 5-year survival were higher in the local resection group (80.1% vs. 74.1%, P = .04).

Multivariable survival analysis revealed that advanced age (HR, 2.41) and tumor size greater than 5 cm (HR 2.48; P = .004) were associated with increased mortality. When Dr. Hawkins and his associates evaluated the role of chemotherapy, patients who received preoperative chemotherapy had a 5-year survival of 76.7%, compared with 50.4% in those who did not (P = .04). However, in this same group, chemotherapy did not improve the rate of margin-negative resection (80% vs. 78.6%, P = .88).

Dr. Hawkins also reported that, compared with patients who underwent radical resection, those who underwent local resection had lower rates of preoperative chemotherapy (9.2% vs. 25.3%, respectively; P = .0001) and smaller median tumor size (2.5 cm vs. 6.2 cm, P less than .0001). For tumors smaller than 5 cm in size, there was no difference in 5-year survival by surgical approach (82.3% vs. 82.6%, P = .71).

“Size in the most important determinant of survival after resection of anorectal GIST,” Dr. Hawkins concluded. “For smaller tumors, local excision may be an adequate therapy. Perhaps our most important finding is that preoperative chemotherapy appears to result in improved survival for large tumors treated with radical resection.”

Dr. Hawkins reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – The size of anorectal gastrointestinal stroma tumors is the most important determinant of survival following resection, results from an analysis of national data showed.

In addition, preoperative chemotherapy appears to improve survival rate in patients with tumors 5 cm in size or greater.

Anorectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are rare, making up about 3% of all GIST cases, lead study author Dr. Alexander T. Hawkins reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. However, “optimal management remains elusive with questions regarding the role of local excision and the use of preoperative chemotherapy,” said Dr. Hawkins of the section of colon and rectal surgery at Washington University in St. Louis.

In an effort to determine the impact of tumor size, the benefits of using neoadjuvant imatinib, and the impact of a surgical approach, the researchers used the National Cancer Database (NCD) to identify 333 cases of anorectal GIST from 1998 through 2012. The NCD collects data from more than 1,500 cancer centers in the United States, and it’s estimated to account for 70% of all newly diagnosed cases of cancer.

Dr. Alexander Hawkins

The mean age of patients was 62 years, the median tumor size was 4 cm, 47% had a high-grade tumor, six presented with metastatic disease, and the overall 5-year survival rate was 78%. Of the 333 cases, 163 underwent local excision, 158 underwent radical excision, and 12 had no resection data. Of the radical excision cases, 89 had tumors of 5 cm in size or larger, while 69 had tumors of less than 5 cm in size.

Tumors treated with local resection tended to be smaller, compared with those treated by radical resection (a median of 2.5 cm vs. a median of 6.2 cm, respectively; P less than .001). Bivariate analysis revealed that patients who underwent treatment with local resection had a shorter hospital length of stay (a median of 0 vs. 7 days; P less than .001), but similar rates of 30-day readmission (5.5% vs. 4.4%, P = .65), 30-day mortality (0.6% vs. 1.3%, P = .54) and 90-day mortality (1.2% vs. 2.5%, P = .38). The rates of 5-year survival were higher in the local resection group (80.1% vs. 74.1%, P = .04).

Multivariable survival analysis revealed that advanced age (HR, 2.41) and tumor size greater than 5 cm (HR 2.48; P = .004) were associated with increased mortality. When Dr. Hawkins and his associates evaluated the role of chemotherapy, patients who received preoperative chemotherapy had a 5-year survival of 76.7%, compared with 50.4% in those who did not (P = .04). However, in this same group, chemotherapy did not improve the rate of margin-negative resection (80% vs. 78.6%, P = .88).

Dr. Hawkins also reported that, compared with patients who underwent radical resection, those who underwent local resection had lower rates of preoperative chemotherapy (9.2% vs. 25.3%, respectively; P = .0001) and smaller median tumor size (2.5 cm vs. 6.2 cm, P less than .0001). For tumors smaller than 5 cm in size, there was no difference in 5-year survival by surgical approach (82.3% vs. 82.6%, P = .71).

“Size in the most important determinant of survival after resection of anorectal GIST,” Dr. Hawkins concluded. “For smaller tumors, local excision may be an adequate therapy. Perhaps our most important finding is that preoperative chemotherapy appears to result in improved survival for large tumors treated with radical resection.”

Dr. Hawkins reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Adding left atrial appendage excision to pulmonary vein isolation does not reduce the rate of recurrence in persistent atrial fibrillation, according to a Russian investigation.

Eighty-eight patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) were randomized to thoracoscopic pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with bilateral epicardial ganglia ablation and box lesion set of the posterior left atrial wall; 88 others were randomized to that approach plus left atrial appendage (LAA) amputation. After 18 months, 64 out of 87 patients in the LAA-excision group (73.6%) and 61 out of 86 patients (70.9%) in the control group were free from recurrent AF, meaning no episodes greater than 30 seconds (P = .73). Freedom from any atrial arrhythmia after a single procedure with or without follow-up antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) was also similar, with 70.9% in the control and 74.7% in the treatment groups. “Both approaches had excellent” results with no differences in complication rates, but there “was no reduction in AF recurrence when LAA excision was performed,” said investigator Dr. Alexander Romanov of the State Research Institute of Circulation Pathology, Novosibirsk, Russia.

The results are a bit surprising because some previous studies have suggested that electrical isolation of the LAA improves AF ablation success, and surgical excision might be expected to have a similar effect. In many places in the United States, LAA excisions are routine in open heart surgery when patients have AF, to prevent stroke. Guidelines for AF management from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and Heart Rhythm Society published in 2014 give a class IIb recommendation, saying “surgical excision of the left atrial appendage may be considered in patients undergoing cardiac surgery,” with an evidence level of C, meaning there are no data to support the recommendation, only expert consensus (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64[21]:2246-80).

There were no significant differences between the groups; patients were about 60 years old, on average, and more than 80% in both groups had baseline CHADS₂ scores of 0 or 1. All patients had persistent AF for more than a week but no longer than a year; longer-standing cases were excluded, as were patients with prior heart surgeries or catheter ablations. There were no statistically significant differences in operative times or complications. A few patients in each arm needed sternotomies for hemostasis, and one in each arm had a stroke during follow-up. Patients were followed at regular intervals by ECG and Holter monitoring.

AADs were allowed during the blanking period; patients could continue them afterwards for AF recurrence or have endocardial redo ablations; 10 patients in the control group (12%) and 13 in the LAA group (15%) had repeat procedures (P = .55). Most were for right atrial flutter and a few for left atrial flutter. “Only one redo case was for true AF recurrence,” Dr. Romanov said.

The team did not test for exertion intolerance and other potential LAA excision problems.

Dr. Romanov is a speaker for Medtronic, Biosense Webster, and Boston Scientific.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Adding left atrial appendage excision to pulmonary vein isolation does not reduce the rate of recurrence in persistent atrial fibrillation, according to a Russian investigation.

Eighty-eight patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) were randomized to thoracoscopic pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with bilateral epicardial ganglia ablation and box lesion set of the posterior left atrial wall; 88 others were randomized to that approach plus left atrial appendage (LAA) amputation. After 18 months, 64 out of 87 patients in the LAA-excision group (73.6%) and 61 out of 86 patients (70.9%) in the control group were free from recurrent AF, meaning no episodes greater than 30 seconds (P = .73). Freedom from any atrial arrhythmia after a single procedure with or without follow-up antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) was also similar, with 70.9% in the control and 74.7% in the treatment groups. “Both approaches had excellent” results with no differences in complication rates, but there “was no reduction in AF recurrence when LAA excision was performed,” said investigator Dr. Alexander Romanov of the State Research Institute of Circulation Pathology, Novosibirsk, Russia.

The results are a bit surprising because some previous studies have suggested that electrical isolation of the LAA improves AF ablation success, and surgical excision might be expected to have a similar effect. In many places in the United States, LAA excisions are routine in open heart surgery when patients have AF, to prevent stroke. Guidelines for AF management from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and Heart Rhythm Society published in 2014 give a class IIb recommendation, saying “surgical excision of the left atrial appendage may be considered in patients undergoing cardiac surgery,” with an evidence level of C, meaning there are no data to support the recommendation, only expert consensus (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64[21]:2246-80).

There were no significant differences between the groups; patients were about 60 years old, on average, and more than 80% in both groups had baseline CHADS₂ scores of 0 or 1. All patients had persistent AF for more than a week but no longer than a year; longer-standing cases were excluded, as were patients with prior heart surgeries or catheter ablations. There were no statistically significant differences in operative times or complications. A few patients in each arm needed sternotomies for hemostasis, and one in each arm had a stroke during follow-up. Patients were followed at regular intervals by ECG and Holter monitoring.

AADs were allowed during the blanking period; patients could continue them afterwards for AF recurrence or have endocardial redo ablations; 10 patients in the control group (12%) and 13 in the LAA group (15%) had repeat procedures (P = .55). Most were for right atrial flutter and a few for left atrial flutter. “Only one redo case was for true AF recurrence,” Dr. Romanov said.

The team did not test for exertion intolerance and other potential LAA excision problems.

Dr. Romanov is a speaker for Medtronic, Biosense Webster, and Boston Scientific.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Adding left atrial appendage excision to pulmonary vein isolation does not reduce the rate of recurrence in persistent atrial fibrillation, according to a Russian investigation.

Eighty-eight patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) were randomized to thoracoscopic pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with bilateral epicardial ganglia ablation and box lesion set of the posterior left atrial wall; 88 others were randomized to that approach plus left atrial appendage (LAA) amputation. After 18 months, 64 out of 87 patients in the LAA-excision group (73.6%) and 61 out of 86 patients (70.9%) in the control group were free from recurrent AF, meaning no episodes greater than 30 seconds (P = .73). Freedom from any atrial arrhythmia after a single procedure with or without follow-up antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) was also similar, with 70.9% in the control and 74.7% in the treatment groups. “Both approaches had excellent” results with no differences in complication rates, but there “was no reduction in AF recurrence when LAA excision was performed,” said investigator Dr. Alexander Romanov of the State Research Institute of Circulation Pathology, Novosibirsk, Russia.

The results are a bit surprising because some previous studies have suggested that electrical isolation of the LAA improves AF ablation success, and surgical excision might be expected to have a similar effect. In many places in the United States, LAA excisions are routine in open heart surgery when patients have AF, to prevent stroke. Guidelines for AF management from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and Heart Rhythm Society published in 2014 give a class IIb recommendation, saying “surgical excision of the left atrial appendage may be considered in patients undergoing cardiac surgery,” with an evidence level of C, meaning there are no data to support the recommendation, only expert consensus (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64[21]:2246-80).

There were no significant differences between the groups; patients were about 60 years old, on average, and more than 80% in both groups had baseline CHADS₂ scores of 0 or 1. All patients had persistent AF for more than a week but no longer than a year; longer-standing cases were excluded, as were patients with prior heart surgeries or catheter ablations. There were no statistically significant differences in operative times or complications. A few patients in each arm needed sternotomies for hemostasis, and one in each arm had a stroke during follow-up. Patients were followed at regular intervals by ECG and Holter monitoring.

AADs were allowed during the blanking period; patients could continue them afterwards for AF recurrence or have endocardial redo ablations; 10 patients in the control group (12%) and 13 in the LAA group (15%) had repeat procedures (P = .55). Most were for right atrial flutter and a few for left atrial flutter. “Only one redo case was for true AF recurrence,” Dr. Romanov said.

The team did not test for exertion intolerance and other potential LAA excision problems.

Dr. Romanov is a speaker for Medtronic, Biosense Webster, and Boston Scientific.

[email protected]

San Francisco – Same day discharge is generally safe after cardioverter defibrillator implantation for primary prevention, but it doesn’t save money.

Furthermore, guidelines are needed to standardize the practice as it becomes increasingly common in the United States, according to a 25-site investigation.

After implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) procedures, patients were monitored for 3-4 hours, and their devices were checked for proper functioning; 129 patients who were stable at that point were randomized to early discharge and 136 to next day discharge (NDD).

The overall 30-day procedural complication rate was 3.1% in the same day discharge (SDD) group and 1.6% in the NDD group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .37). Three patients in the SDD group developed hematomas that resolved on their own, and one had a cardiac perforation. One NDD patient dislodged a lead and another developed an infection. There were no differences in quality of life measures between the two groups at 30 days.

However, there were also no differences in procedural and perioperative direct costs, which was surprising because saving money is a major driver of SDD, and the most expensive part of ICD implantation is the first 24 hours. Direct per-patient medical costs in the study – estimated by applying hospital cost-to-charge ratios to the Medicare-reported charge – were $31,771 for SDD and $30,437 for NDD, but NDD was more expensive than SDD at several sites. The investigators suspect a flaw in their analysis related to the opaque nature of hospital accounting, and plan to look into the matter further with modeling to identify savings opportunities with SDD.

“We can insert ICDs on an outpatient basis, but this study will be difficult to replicate because clinical practice is moving towards SDD. In view of this, we think professional societies should be thinking of standardizing criteria for SDD; guidelines would help with the adoption of this approach. There are clinicians who are astute and have great clinical judgment, but there are others who need a scoring system. We believe that by using the 270,000 patients in the [American College of Cardiology’s ICD Registry], there is the ability to identify patients who have low periprocedural risk,” said lead investigator Dr. Ranjit Suri, a cardiologist at Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York.

The study excluded patients receiving an ICD for secondary prevention, as well as those on periprocedural heparin and patients who were pacemaker dependent. SDD seemed safe otherwise, but it’s unknown “if our concept of low risk is acceptable to all implanting physicians,” Dr. Suri said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society.

The study groups were well matched. About 75% in each arm were men, and ischemic cardiomyopathy was the leading ICD indication. Patients were amenable to the idea of SDD; the advent of remote monitoring “adds a certain sense of safety” for both patients and physicians, he said.

Dr. Suri is a speaker for Boehringer Ingelheim and St. Jude Medical. He is also a consultant for Biosense Webster and Zoll, and receives research funding from St. Jude.

[email protected]

San Francisco – Same day discharge is generally safe after cardioverter defibrillator implantation for primary prevention, but it doesn’t save money.

Furthermore, guidelines are needed to standardize the practice as it becomes increasingly common in the United States, according to a 25-site investigation.

After implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) procedures, patients were monitored for 3-4 hours, and their devices were checked for proper functioning; 129 patients who were stable at that point were randomized to early discharge and 136 to next day discharge (NDD).

The overall 30-day procedural complication rate was 3.1% in the same day discharge (SDD) group and 1.6% in the NDD group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .37). Three patients in the SDD group developed hematomas that resolved on their own, and one had a cardiac perforation. One NDD patient dislodged a lead and another developed an infection. There were no differences in quality of life measures between the two groups at 30 days.

However, there were also no differences in procedural and perioperative direct costs, which was surprising because saving money is a major driver of SDD, and the most expensive part of ICD implantation is the first 24 hours. Direct per-patient medical costs in the study – estimated by applying hospital cost-to-charge ratios to the Medicare-reported charge – were $31,771 for SDD and $30,437 for NDD, but NDD was more expensive than SDD at several sites. The investigators suspect a flaw in their analysis related to the opaque nature of hospital accounting, and plan to look into the matter further with modeling to identify savings opportunities with SDD.

“We can insert ICDs on an outpatient basis, but this study will be difficult to replicate because clinical practice is moving towards SDD. In view of this, we think professional societies should be thinking of standardizing criteria for SDD; guidelines would help with the adoption of this approach. There are clinicians who are astute and have great clinical judgment, but there are others who need a scoring system. We believe that by using the 270,000 patients in the [American College of Cardiology’s ICD Registry], there is the ability to identify patients who have low periprocedural risk,” said lead investigator Dr. Ranjit Suri, a cardiologist at Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York.

The study excluded patients receiving an ICD for secondary prevention, as well as those on periprocedural heparin and patients who were pacemaker dependent. SDD seemed safe otherwise, but it’s unknown “if our concept of low risk is acceptable to all implanting physicians,” Dr. Suri said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society.

The study groups were well matched. About 75% in each arm were men, and ischemic cardiomyopathy was the leading ICD indication. Patients were amenable to the idea of SDD; the advent of remote monitoring “adds a certain sense of safety” for both patients and physicians, he said.

Dr. Suri is a speaker for Boehringer Ingelheim and St. Jude Medical. He is also a consultant for Biosense Webster and Zoll, and receives research funding from St. Jude.

[email protected]

San Francisco – Same day discharge is generally safe after cardioverter defibrillator implantation for primary prevention, but it doesn’t save money.

Furthermore, guidelines are needed to standardize the practice as it becomes increasingly common in the United States, according to a 25-site investigation.

After implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) procedures, patients were monitored for 3-4 hours, and their devices were checked for proper functioning; 129 patients who were stable at that point were randomized to early discharge and 136 to next day discharge (NDD).

The overall 30-day procedural complication rate was 3.1% in the same day discharge (SDD) group and 1.6% in the NDD group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .37). Three patients in the SDD group developed hematomas that resolved on their own, and one had a cardiac perforation. One NDD patient dislodged a lead and another developed an infection. There were no differences in quality of life measures between the two groups at 30 days.

However, there were also no differences in procedural and perioperative direct costs, which was surprising because saving money is a major driver of SDD, and the most expensive part of ICD implantation is the first 24 hours. Direct per-patient medical costs in the study – estimated by applying hospital cost-to-charge ratios to the Medicare-reported charge – were $31,771 for SDD and $30,437 for NDD, but NDD was more expensive than SDD at several sites. The investigators suspect a flaw in their analysis related to the opaque nature of hospital accounting, and plan to look into the matter further with modeling to identify savings opportunities with SDD.

“We can insert ICDs on an outpatient basis, but this study will be difficult to replicate because clinical practice is moving towards SDD. In view of this, we think professional societies should be thinking of standardizing criteria for SDD; guidelines would help with the adoption of this approach. There are clinicians who are astute and have great clinical judgment, but there are others who need a scoring system. We believe that by using the 270,000 patients in the [American College of Cardiology’s ICD Registry], there is the ability to identify patients who have low periprocedural risk,” said lead investigator Dr. Ranjit Suri, a cardiologist at Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York.

The study excluded patients receiving an ICD for secondary prevention, as well as those on periprocedural heparin and patients who were pacemaker dependent. SDD seemed safe otherwise, but it’s unknown “if our concept of low risk is acceptable to all implanting physicians,” Dr. Suri said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society.

The study groups were well matched. About 75% in each arm were men, and ischemic cardiomyopathy was the leading ICD indication. Patients were amenable to the idea of SDD; the advent of remote monitoring “adds a certain sense of safety” for both patients and physicians, he said.

Dr. Suri is a speaker for Boehringer Ingelheim and St. Jude Medical. He is also a consultant for Biosense Webster and Zoll, and receives research funding from St. Jude.

[email protected]

BALTIMORE – An “introspective” analysis connecting patient outcomes with process changes may lead to significant surgical quality improvement, according to a study presented at the 2016 annual meeting of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery.

The case study detailed the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine’s attempt to identify the metrics used for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons lobectomy ranking, and show how the institution used root cause analysis with “lean” and process improvements to improve outcomes from Jan. 2006 until July 2014 in order to achieve a three star STS ranking.

UAB researchers found that their most common root cause analysis was failure to escalate care. The institution implemented process improvements such as increasing pulmonary rehabilitation prior to surgery, adding a respiratory therapist, eliminating (lean) non-valued steps, favoring stereotactic radiotherapy and segmentectomy instead of lobectomy for marginal patients, and using minimally invasive lobectomy. They ultimately achieved a three-star STS ranking.

Dr. Stephen D. Cassivi, professor of surgery at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a discussant on the paper at AATS 2016, said in an interview that the research was important because it encourages surgeons to discuss and reevaluate quality improvement measures. He noted that early phases of surgical quality improvement was based on process measures, specifically around the idea that if surgeons were attentive to process measures, their outcome measures would improve. But over time, the emphasis on process measures has dissipated in favor of outcomes-focused analysis.

“Now that we have more robust [outcomes] data... we can examine our practices in a more thoughtful, data-driven, evidence-based way,” Dr. Cassivi said. He added that the shift from process measures to outcome measures is important in that surgeons can easily interpret and compare outcomes data across facilities. But he noted that there is a downside: If an institution’s outcome measures are not up to standard, it is sometimes difficult to determine why.

“The current way that the [outcomes] data are reported and processed is not easily interpretable into which processes we need to adapt,” Dr. Cassivi said. “There is still work that needs to be done, but [this paper] is a first step.”

Dr. Cassivi reported no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @richpizzi

BALTIMORE – An “introspective” analysis connecting patient outcomes with process changes may lead to significant surgical quality improvement, according to a study presented at the 2016 annual meeting of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery.

The case study detailed the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine’s attempt to identify the metrics used for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons lobectomy ranking, and show how the institution used root cause analysis with “lean” and process improvements to improve outcomes from Jan. 2006 until July 2014 in order to achieve a three star STS ranking.

UAB researchers found that their most common root cause analysis was failure to escalate care. The institution implemented process improvements such as increasing pulmonary rehabilitation prior to surgery, adding a respiratory therapist, eliminating (lean) non-valued steps, favoring stereotactic radiotherapy and segmentectomy instead of lobectomy for marginal patients, and using minimally invasive lobectomy. They ultimately achieved a three-star STS ranking.

Dr. Stephen D. Cassivi, professor of surgery at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a discussant on the paper at AATS 2016, said in an interview that the research was important because it encourages surgeons to discuss and reevaluate quality improvement measures. He noted that early phases of surgical quality improvement was based on process measures, specifically around the idea that if surgeons were attentive to process measures, their outcome measures would improve. But over time, the emphasis on process measures has dissipated in favor of outcomes-focused analysis.

“Now that we have more robust [outcomes] data... we can examine our practices in a more thoughtful, data-driven, evidence-based way,” Dr. Cassivi said. He added that the shift from process measures to outcome measures is important in that surgeons can easily interpret and compare outcomes data across facilities. But he noted that there is a downside: If an institution’s outcome measures are not up to standard, it is sometimes difficult to determine why.

“The current way that the [outcomes] data are reported and processed is not easily interpretable into which processes we need to adapt,” Dr. Cassivi said. “There is still work that needs to be done, but [this paper] is a first step.”

Dr. Cassivi reported no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @richpizzi

BALTIMORE – An “introspective” analysis connecting patient outcomes with process changes may lead to significant surgical quality improvement, according to a study presented at the 2016 annual meeting of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery.

The case study detailed the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine’s attempt to identify the metrics used for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons lobectomy ranking, and show how the institution used root cause analysis with “lean” and process improvements to improve outcomes from Jan. 2006 until July 2014 in order to achieve a three star STS ranking.

UAB researchers found that their most common root cause analysis was failure to escalate care. The institution implemented process improvements such as increasing pulmonary rehabilitation prior to surgery, adding a respiratory therapist, eliminating (lean) non-valued steps, favoring stereotactic radiotherapy and segmentectomy instead of lobectomy for marginal patients, and using minimally invasive lobectomy. They ultimately achieved a three-star STS ranking.

Dr. Stephen D. Cassivi, professor of surgery at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a discussant on the paper at AATS 2016, said in an interview that the research was important because it encourages surgeons to discuss and reevaluate quality improvement measures. He noted that early phases of surgical quality improvement was based on process measures, specifically around the idea that if surgeons were attentive to process measures, their outcome measures would improve. But over time, the emphasis on process measures has dissipated in favor of outcomes-focused analysis.

“Now that we have more robust [outcomes] data... we can examine our practices in a more thoughtful, data-driven, evidence-based way,” Dr. Cassivi said. He added that the shift from process measures to outcome measures is important in that surgeons can easily interpret and compare outcomes data across facilities. But he noted that there is a downside: If an institution’s outcome measures are not up to standard, it is sometimes difficult to determine why.

“The current way that the [outcomes] data are reported and processed is not easily interpretable into which processes we need to adapt,” Dr. Cassivi said. “There is still work that needs to be done, but [this paper] is a first step.”

Dr. Cassivi reported no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @richpizzi