User login
Official Newspaper of the American College of Surgeons
Session highlights controversies in diverticulitis management
SAN DIEGO – During the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons, a panel of experts discussed a wide range of evolving controversies in the management of complicated diverticulitis.
John Migaly, MD, kicked off the session by exploring the current evidence for laparoscopic lavage versus primary resection for Hinchey III diverticulitis. “Over the past two decades there has been a growing utilization of primary resection and reanastomoses with or without the use of ileostomy,” said Dr. Migaly, director of the general surgery residency program at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “And most recently over the last 5 or 10 years there’s been growing enthusiasm for laparoscopic lavage for Hinchey III diverticulitis. The enthusiasm for this procedure is based on [its accessibility] to all of us who operate on the colon in the acute setting.”
The DILALA trial makes the best case for laparoscopic lavage, “but it doesn’t make a very good one,” he commented. The trial was conducted in nine surgical departments in Sweden and Denmark (Ann Surg. 2016;263[1]:117-22). Hinchey III patients were randomized 1:1 to laparoscopic lavage or the Hartmann procedure. The primary outcome was reoperations within 12 months. An early analysis of the short-term outcomes in 83 patients found similar 30-day and 90-day mortality and morbidity. Its authors concluded that laparoscopic lavage had equivalent morbidity and mortality compared with radical resection, shorter operative time, shorter time in the recovery unit, a shorter hospital stay, but no difference in the rate of reoperation.
“It was found to be safe and feasible,” Dr. Migaly said. One year later, the researchers presented their 12-month outcomes and came to the same conclusions. Limitations of the data are that it was conducted in nine centers “but they enrolled only 83 patients, so it seems underpowered,” he said. “And there was no mention of the incidence of abdominal abscess requiring percutaneous drainage or episodes of diverticulitis. The data seem a little less granular than the LADIES trial.”
The SCANDIV trial is the largest study on the topic to date, a randomized clinical superiority trial conducted at 21 centers in Sweden and Norway (JAMA 2015;314[13]:1364-75). Of the 509 patients screened, 415 were eligible and 199 were enrolled: 101 to laparoscopic lavage, 98 to colon resection. The primary endpoint was severe postoperative complications within 90 days, defined as a Clavien-Dindo score of over 3. The researchers found no difference in major complications nor in 90-day mortality between the two groups. The rate of reoperation was significantly higher in the lavage group, compared with the resection group (20.3% vs. 5.7%, respectively). Four sigmoid cancers were missed in the lavage group and, while the length of operation was significantly shorter in the lavage group, there were no differences between the two groups in hospital length of stay or quality of life.
A meta-analysis of the three randomized controlled trials that Dr. Migaly reviewed concluded that laparoscopic lavage, compared with resection, for Hinchey III diverticulitis increased the rate of total reoperations, the rate of reoperation for infection, and the rate of subsequent percutaneous drainage (J Gastrointest Surg 2017;21[9]:1491-99). A larger, more recent meta-analysis of 589 patients, including the three randomized controlled trials that Dr. Migaly discussed, concluded that laparoscopic lavage patients, compared with resection patients, had three times the risk of persistent peritonitis, intra-abdominal abscess, and emergency reoperative surgery. “Therefore, a reasonable conclusion would be that data at this point does not support the use of laparoscopic lavage,” he said.
The initial procedure of choice for most patients is abscess drainage via CT-guided percutaneous drainage. “There are some patients who are not candidates for percutaneous drainage, [such as] if the abscess is not accessible to the radiologist, if the patient is anticoagulated, and if the patient requires emergent surgical intervention irrespective of the abscess,” said Dr. Maron, a colorectal surgeon who practices at Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston. “There is also a question of cavity size. Most authors in the literature use a cut-off of 3-4 cm.”
The goal is complete drainage of the abscess, and sometimes multiple catheters will be required. One study found that predictors of successful abscess drainage included having a well-defined, unilocular abscess. The success rate fell to 63% for patients who presented with more complex abscesses, including those that were loculated, poorly defined, associated with a fistula, and contained feces or semisolid material (Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40:1009-13).
The 2014 ASCRS Practice Parameters includes the recommendation that elective colectomy should typically be considered after the patient recovers from an episode of complicated diverticulitis, “but some of the data may be calling that into question,” Dr. Maron said. In one series of 18 patients with an abscess treated percutaneously, 11 refused surgery and 7 had significant comorbidity (Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:331-6). Three patients died of a pre-existing condition and 7 of the 15 surviving patients had recurrent diverticulitis. Three underwent surgery and four were treated medically. The authors found no association between long-term failure and abscess location or previous episodes of diverticulitis.
In a larger study, researchers identified 218 patients who were initially treated with intravenous antibiotics and percutaneous drain (Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:622-6). About 10% of the patients required an urgent operation, while most of the other patients underwent elective resection, but 15% of patients did not undergo a subsequent colectomy. “Most of these patients were medically unfit to undergo surgery,” he noted. Abscess location was more commonly paracolic than pelvic. The mean abscess size was 4.2 cm, and the drain was left in for a median of 20 days. The recurrence rate in this series was only 30%, but none of the recurrences required surgery. The authors found that abscesses greater than 5 cm in size were associated with a greater risk of recurrence (P = .003). They concluded that observation after percutaneous drainage is safe in selected patients.
Based on results from this and other more recent studies, Dr. Maron said that it remains unclear whether surgeons should wait and watch or operate after successful percutaneous drainage of diverticular abscess. The data are “not as robust as we’d like … most of these are retrospective studies,” he said. “There’s quite a bit of inherent selection bias, and there is no standardization with regard to length of time of percutaneous drain, rationale for nonoperative management versus elective colectomy. What we do know is that there are some patients who can be managed safely without surgery. Unfortunately, there is no good algorithm I can offer you: Perhaps larger abscesses can portend a higher recurrence. I don’t think we’ll have a good answer to this until we perform a prospective randomized trial. However, we may learn some data from patients managed by peritoneal lavage and drain placement.”
Next, consider how to perform the procedure: laparoscopic or open? “But again, you’re going to look at how stable your patient is, what your skill set is, what equipment is available, and if the patient has had previous abdominal surgeries,” she advised. “In the traditional Hartmann procedure, you resect the perforated segment. You try not to open any tissue planes that you don’t have to. You do just enough so you can bring up a colostomy; you close the rectum or you make a mucous fistula. The problem with this operation is that up to 80% of these patients have their colostomy closed. That is why there is all this controversy. If there is any question, this [procedure] is always the safest option; there’s no anastomosis.”
What about a performing resection and a colorectal anastomosis? This is usually done more commonly in the elective situation, “when things are perfect, when you have healthy tissue,” Dr. Hull said. “If you do it in the emergent situation you have to think to yourself, ‘Could my patient tolerate a leak?’ You won’t want to do this operation on a 72-year-old who’s on steroids for chronic pulmonary disease and has coronary artery disease, because if they had a leak, they’d probably die.”
The third procedural option is to resect bowel (usually sigmoid) with colorectal anastomosis and diversion (loop ileostomy). “This is always my preferred choice,” Dr. Hull said. “I always am thinking, ‘Why can’t I do this?’ The reason is, closure of ileostomy is much easier than a Hartmann reversal, and 90% of these patients get reversed.” In a multicenter trial conducted by Swedish researchers, 62 patients were randomized to Hartmann’s procedure versus primary anastomosis with diverting ileostomy for perforated left-sided diverticulitis (Ann Surg. 2012;256[5]:819-27). The mortality and complications were similar, but the number of patients who got their stoma reversed was significantly less in the Hartmann’s group, compared with the primary anastomosis group (57% vs. 90%, respectively), and the serious complications were much higher in the Hartmann’s group (20% vs. 0). She cited an article from the World Journal of Emergency Surgery as one of the most comprehensive reviews of the subject.
So what is a surgeon to do? For an anastomosis after resection, “consider patient factors: Are they stable?” Dr. Hull said. “What are their comorbid conditions? You have to think, ‘What is my preference? Am I comfortable putting this back together?’ But a primary anastomosis is feasible, even in the acute setting with or without diverting ileostomy. The laparoscopic approach is typically preferred, but if that’s not in your armamentarium, the open [approach] is just fine. You should always perform a leak test. You can also do on table colonic lavage if feasible, especially if you have a large stool burden.”
None of the speakers reported having financial disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – During the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons, a panel of experts discussed a wide range of evolving controversies in the management of complicated diverticulitis.
John Migaly, MD, kicked off the session by exploring the current evidence for laparoscopic lavage versus primary resection for Hinchey III diverticulitis. “Over the past two decades there has been a growing utilization of primary resection and reanastomoses with or without the use of ileostomy,” said Dr. Migaly, director of the general surgery residency program at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “And most recently over the last 5 or 10 years there’s been growing enthusiasm for laparoscopic lavage for Hinchey III diverticulitis. The enthusiasm for this procedure is based on [its accessibility] to all of us who operate on the colon in the acute setting.”
The DILALA trial makes the best case for laparoscopic lavage, “but it doesn’t make a very good one,” he commented. The trial was conducted in nine surgical departments in Sweden and Denmark (Ann Surg. 2016;263[1]:117-22). Hinchey III patients were randomized 1:1 to laparoscopic lavage or the Hartmann procedure. The primary outcome was reoperations within 12 months. An early analysis of the short-term outcomes in 83 patients found similar 30-day and 90-day mortality and morbidity. Its authors concluded that laparoscopic lavage had equivalent morbidity and mortality compared with radical resection, shorter operative time, shorter time in the recovery unit, a shorter hospital stay, but no difference in the rate of reoperation.
“It was found to be safe and feasible,” Dr. Migaly said. One year later, the researchers presented their 12-month outcomes and came to the same conclusions. Limitations of the data are that it was conducted in nine centers “but they enrolled only 83 patients, so it seems underpowered,” he said. “And there was no mention of the incidence of abdominal abscess requiring percutaneous drainage or episodes of diverticulitis. The data seem a little less granular than the LADIES trial.”
The SCANDIV trial is the largest study on the topic to date, a randomized clinical superiority trial conducted at 21 centers in Sweden and Norway (JAMA 2015;314[13]:1364-75). Of the 509 patients screened, 415 were eligible and 199 were enrolled: 101 to laparoscopic lavage, 98 to colon resection. The primary endpoint was severe postoperative complications within 90 days, defined as a Clavien-Dindo score of over 3. The researchers found no difference in major complications nor in 90-day mortality between the two groups. The rate of reoperation was significantly higher in the lavage group, compared with the resection group (20.3% vs. 5.7%, respectively). Four sigmoid cancers were missed in the lavage group and, while the length of operation was significantly shorter in the lavage group, there were no differences between the two groups in hospital length of stay or quality of life.
A meta-analysis of the three randomized controlled trials that Dr. Migaly reviewed concluded that laparoscopic lavage, compared with resection, for Hinchey III diverticulitis increased the rate of total reoperations, the rate of reoperation for infection, and the rate of subsequent percutaneous drainage (J Gastrointest Surg 2017;21[9]:1491-99). A larger, more recent meta-analysis of 589 patients, including the three randomized controlled trials that Dr. Migaly discussed, concluded that laparoscopic lavage patients, compared with resection patients, had three times the risk of persistent peritonitis, intra-abdominal abscess, and emergency reoperative surgery. “Therefore, a reasonable conclusion would be that data at this point does not support the use of laparoscopic lavage,” he said.
The initial procedure of choice for most patients is abscess drainage via CT-guided percutaneous drainage. “There are some patients who are not candidates for percutaneous drainage, [such as] if the abscess is not accessible to the radiologist, if the patient is anticoagulated, and if the patient requires emergent surgical intervention irrespective of the abscess,” said Dr. Maron, a colorectal surgeon who practices at Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston. “There is also a question of cavity size. Most authors in the literature use a cut-off of 3-4 cm.”
The goal is complete drainage of the abscess, and sometimes multiple catheters will be required. One study found that predictors of successful abscess drainage included having a well-defined, unilocular abscess. The success rate fell to 63% for patients who presented with more complex abscesses, including those that were loculated, poorly defined, associated with a fistula, and contained feces or semisolid material (Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40:1009-13).
The 2014 ASCRS Practice Parameters includes the recommendation that elective colectomy should typically be considered after the patient recovers from an episode of complicated diverticulitis, “but some of the data may be calling that into question,” Dr. Maron said. In one series of 18 patients with an abscess treated percutaneously, 11 refused surgery and 7 had significant comorbidity (Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:331-6). Three patients died of a pre-existing condition and 7 of the 15 surviving patients had recurrent diverticulitis. Three underwent surgery and four were treated medically. The authors found no association between long-term failure and abscess location or previous episodes of diverticulitis.
In a larger study, researchers identified 218 patients who were initially treated with intravenous antibiotics and percutaneous drain (Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:622-6). About 10% of the patients required an urgent operation, while most of the other patients underwent elective resection, but 15% of patients did not undergo a subsequent colectomy. “Most of these patients were medically unfit to undergo surgery,” he noted. Abscess location was more commonly paracolic than pelvic. The mean abscess size was 4.2 cm, and the drain was left in for a median of 20 days. The recurrence rate in this series was only 30%, but none of the recurrences required surgery. The authors found that abscesses greater than 5 cm in size were associated with a greater risk of recurrence (P = .003). They concluded that observation after percutaneous drainage is safe in selected patients.
Based on results from this and other more recent studies, Dr. Maron said that it remains unclear whether surgeons should wait and watch or operate after successful percutaneous drainage of diverticular abscess. The data are “not as robust as we’d like … most of these are retrospective studies,” he said. “There’s quite a bit of inherent selection bias, and there is no standardization with regard to length of time of percutaneous drain, rationale for nonoperative management versus elective colectomy. What we do know is that there are some patients who can be managed safely without surgery. Unfortunately, there is no good algorithm I can offer you: Perhaps larger abscesses can portend a higher recurrence. I don’t think we’ll have a good answer to this until we perform a prospective randomized trial. However, we may learn some data from patients managed by peritoneal lavage and drain placement.”
Next, consider how to perform the procedure: laparoscopic or open? “But again, you’re going to look at how stable your patient is, what your skill set is, what equipment is available, and if the patient has had previous abdominal surgeries,” she advised. “In the traditional Hartmann procedure, you resect the perforated segment. You try not to open any tissue planes that you don’t have to. You do just enough so you can bring up a colostomy; you close the rectum or you make a mucous fistula. The problem with this operation is that up to 80% of these patients have their colostomy closed. That is why there is all this controversy. If there is any question, this [procedure] is always the safest option; there’s no anastomosis.”
What about a performing resection and a colorectal anastomosis? This is usually done more commonly in the elective situation, “when things are perfect, when you have healthy tissue,” Dr. Hull said. “If you do it in the emergent situation you have to think to yourself, ‘Could my patient tolerate a leak?’ You won’t want to do this operation on a 72-year-old who’s on steroids for chronic pulmonary disease and has coronary artery disease, because if they had a leak, they’d probably die.”
The third procedural option is to resect bowel (usually sigmoid) with colorectal anastomosis and diversion (loop ileostomy). “This is always my preferred choice,” Dr. Hull said. “I always am thinking, ‘Why can’t I do this?’ The reason is, closure of ileostomy is much easier than a Hartmann reversal, and 90% of these patients get reversed.” In a multicenter trial conducted by Swedish researchers, 62 patients were randomized to Hartmann’s procedure versus primary anastomosis with diverting ileostomy for perforated left-sided diverticulitis (Ann Surg. 2012;256[5]:819-27). The mortality and complications were similar, but the number of patients who got their stoma reversed was significantly less in the Hartmann’s group, compared with the primary anastomosis group (57% vs. 90%, respectively), and the serious complications were much higher in the Hartmann’s group (20% vs. 0). She cited an article from the World Journal of Emergency Surgery as one of the most comprehensive reviews of the subject.
So what is a surgeon to do? For an anastomosis after resection, “consider patient factors: Are they stable?” Dr. Hull said. “What are their comorbid conditions? You have to think, ‘What is my preference? Am I comfortable putting this back together?’ But a primary anastomosis is feasible, even in the acute setting with or without diverting ileostomy. The laparoscopic approach is typically preferred, but if that’s not in your armamentarium, the open [approach] is just fine. You should always perform a leak test. You can also do on table colonic lavage if feasible, especially if you have a large stool burden.”
None of the speakers reported having financial disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – During the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons, a panel of experts discussed a wide range of evolving controversies in the management of complicated diverticulitis.
John Migaly, MD, kicked off the session by exploring the current evidence for laparoscopic lavage versus primary resection for Hinchey III diverticulitis. “Over the past two decades there has been a growing utilization of primary resection and reanastomoses with or without the use of ileostomy,” said Dr. Migaly, director of the general surgery residency program at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “And most recently over the last 5 or 10 years there’s been growing enthusiasm for laparoscopic lavage for Hinchey III diverticulitis. The enthusiasm for this procedure is based on [its accessibility] to all of us who operate on the colon in the acute setting.”
The DILALA trial makes the best case for laparoscopic lavage, “but it doesn’t make a very good one,” he commented. The trial was conducted in nine surgical departments in Sweden and Denmark (Ann Surg. 2016;263[1]:117-22). Hinchey III patients were randomized 1:1 to laparoscopic lavage or the Hartmann procedure. The primary outcome was reoperations within 12 months. An early analysis of the short-term outcomes in 83 patients found similar 30-day and 90-day mortality and morbidity. Its authors concluded that laparoscopic lavage had equivalent morbidity and mortality compared with radical resection, shorter operative time, shorter time in the recovery unit, a shorter hospital stay, but no difference in the rate of reoperation.
“It was found to be safe and feasible,” Dr. Migaly said. One year later, the researchers presented their 12-month outcomes and came to the same conclusions. Limitations of the data are that it was conducted in nine centers “but they enrolled only 83 patients, so it seems underpowered,” he said. “And there was no mention of the incidence of abdominal abscess requiring percutaneous drainage or episodes of diverticulitis. The data seem a little less granular than the LADIES trial.”
The SCANDIV trial is the largest study on the topic to date, a randomized clinical superiority trial conducted at 21 centers in Sweden and Norway (JAMA 2015;314[13]:1364-75). Of the 509 patients screened, 415 were eligible and 199 were enrolled: 101 to laparoscopic lavage, 98 to colon resection. The primary endpoint was severe postoperative complications within 90 days, defined as a Clavien-Dindo score of over 3. The researchers found no difference in major complications nor in 90-day mortality between the two groups. The rate of reoperation was significantly higher in the lavage group, compared with the resection group (20.3% vs. 5.7%, respectively). Four sigmoid cancers were missed in the lavage group and, while the length of operation was significantly shorter in the lavage group, there were no differences between the two groups in hospital length of stay or quality of life.
A meta-analysis of the three randomized controlled trials that Dr. Migaly reviewed concluded that laparoscopic lavage, compared with resection, for Hinchey III diverticulitis increased the rate of total reoperations, the rate of reoperation for infection, and the rate of subsequent percutaneous drainage (J Gastrointest Surg 2017;21[9]:1491-99). A larger, more recent meta-analysis of 589 patients, including the three randomized controlled trials that Dr. Migaly discussed, concluded that laparoscopic lavage patients, compared with resection patients, had three times the risk of persistent peritonitis, intra-abdominal abscess, and emergency reoperative surgery. “Therefore, a reasonable conclusion would be that data at this point does not support the use of laparoscopic lavage,” he said.
The initial procedure of choice for most patients is abscess drainage via CT-guided percutaneous drainage. “There are some patients who are not candidates for percutaneous drainage, [such as] if the abscess is not accessible to the radiologist, if the patient is anticoagulated, and if the patient requires emergent surgical intervention irrespective of the abscess,” said Dr. Maron, a colorectal surgeon who practices at Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston. “There is also a question of cavity size. Most authors in the literature use a cut-off of 3-4 cm.”
The goal is complete drainage of the abscess, and sometimes multiple catheters will be required. One study found that predictors of successful abscess drainage included having a well-defined, unilocular abscess. The success rate fell to 63% for patients who presented with more complex abscesses, including those that were loculated, poorly defined, associated with a fistula, and contained feces or semisolid material (Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40:1009-13).
The 2014 ASCRS Practice Parameters includes the recommendation that elective colectomy should typically be considered after the patient recovers from an episode of complicated diverticulitis, “but some of the data may be calling that into question,” Dr. Maron said. In one series of 18 patients with an abscess treated percutaneously, 11 refused surgery and 7 had significant comorbidity (Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:331-6). Three patients died of a pre-existing condition and 7 of the 15 surviving patients had recurrent diverticulitis. Three underwent surgery and four were treated medically. The authors found no association between long-term failure and abscess location or previous episodes of diverticulitis.
In a larger study, researchers identified 218 patients who were initially treated with intravenous antibiotics and percutaneous drain (Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:622-6). About 10% of the patients required an urgent operation, while most of the other patients underwent elective resection, but 15% of patients did not undergo a subsequent colectomy. “Most of these patients were medically unfit to undergo surgery,” he noted. Abscess location was more commonly paracolic than pelvic. The mean abscess size was 4.2 cm, and the drain was left in for a median of 20 days. The recurrence rate in this series was only 30%, but none of the recurrences required surgery. The authors found that abscesses greater than 5 cm in size were associated with a greater risk of recurrence (P = .003). They concluded that observation after percutaneous drainage is safe in selected patients.
Based on results from this and other more recent studies, Dr. Maron said that it remains unclear whether surgeons should wait and watch or operate after successful percutaneous drainage of diverticular abscess. The data are “not as robust as we’d like … most of these are retrospective studies,” he said. “There’s quite a bit of inherent selection bias, and there is no standardization with regard to length of time of percutaneous drain, rationale for nonoperative management versus elective colectomy. What we do know is that there are some patients who can be managed safely without surgery. Unfortunately, there is no good algorithm I can offer you: Perhaps larger abscesses can portend a higher recurrence. I don’t think we’ll have a good answer to this until we perform a prospective randomized trial. However, we may learn some data from patients managed by peritoneal lavage and drain placement.”
Next, consider how to perform the procedure: laparoscopic or open? “But again, you’re going to look at how stable your patient is, what your skill set is, what equipment is available, and if the patient has had previous abdominal surgeries,” she advised. “In the traditional Hartmann procedure, you resect the perforated segment. You try not to open any tissue planes that you don’t have to. You do just enough so you can bring up a colostomy; you close the rectum or you make a mucous fistula. The problem with this operation is that up to 80% of these patients have their colostomy closed. That is why there is all this controversy. If there is any question, this [procedure] is always the safest option; there’s no anastomosis.”
What about a performing resection and a colorectal anastomosis? This is usually done more commonly in the elective situation, “when things are perfect, when you have healthy tissue,” Dr. Hull said. “If you do it in the emergent situation you have to think to yourself, ‘Could my patient tolerate a leak?’ You won’t want to do this operation on a 72-year-old who’s on steroids for chronic pulmonary disease and has coronary artery disease, because if they had a leak, they’d probably die.”
The third procedural option is to resect bowel (usually sigmoid) with colorectal anastomosis and diversion (loop ileostomy). “This is always my preferred choice,” Dr. Hull said. “I always am thinking, ‘Why can’t I do this?’ The reason is, closure of ileostomy is much easier than a Hartmann reversal, and 90% of these patients get reversed.” In a multicenter trial conducted by Swedish researchers, 62 patients were randomized to Hartmann’s procedure versus primary anastomosis with diverting ileostomy for perforated left-sided diverticulitis (Ann Surg. 2012;256[5]:819-27). The mortality and complications were similar, but the number of patients who got their stoma reversed was significantly less in the Hartmann’s group, compared with the primary anastomosis group (57% vs. 90%, respectively), and the serious complications were much higher in the Hartmann’s group (20% vs. 0). She cited an article from the World Journal of Emergency Surgery as one of the most comprehensive reviews of the subject.
So what is a surgeon to do? For an anastomosis after resection, “consider patient factors: Are they stable?” Dr. Hull said. “What are their comorbid conditions? You have to think, ‘What is my preference? Am I comfortable putting this back together?’ But a primary anastomosis is feasible, even in the acute setting with or without diverting ileostomy. The laparoscopic approach is typically preferred, but if that’s not in your armamentarium, the open [approach] is just fine. You should always perform a leak test. You can also do on table colonic lavage if feasible, especially if you have a large stool burden.”
None of the speakers reported having financial disclosures.
AT THE ACS CLINICAL CONGRESS
Federal judge skeptical of claims that dropping subsidies hurts consumers
SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge Monday expressed skepticism that President Donald Trump’s decision to halt certain health law insurance subsidies would cause consumers immediate harm, as California and many other states claim in a lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria said he would issue a ruling in the case Tuesday.
Earlier this month, Trump announced that the administration would stop payments that compensate insurers for discounts given to low-income consumers to help cover their out-of-pocket expenses under policies sold on the Affordable Care Act’s insurance marketplaces. These subsidies are different from the tax credits many consumers get, depending on their income, to pay Obamacare premiums.
The lawsuit was filed by 18 states and the District of Columbia, led by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. It seeks an emergency restraining order compelling the Trump administration to resume the Obamacare payments. Nationwide, cost-sharing payments were expected to total $7 billion this year.
Since assuming office in January, Trump has repeatedly threatened to stop the subsidies, known as cost-sharing reduction payments. But he held off while Republicans in Congress were working to replace the ACA. Republicans have argued that the subsidies are illegal because they have not been approved by Congress and that they amount to a bailout for insurers.
Responding to the uncertainty, a number of states have allowed insurers to raise their premiums. California earlier this month ordered insurers to add a surcharge to some policies next year, to offset the potential loss in federal funding and keep the individual insurance market stable. The 12.4% surcharge was added to silver plans only, the second-least-expensive tier.
“California is doing a really good job in responding to the termination of [cost-sharing reduction] payments in a way that is avoiding harm for people and actually benefiting people,” said Judge Chhabria.
He said that the vast majority of states have “seen the writing on the wall” and chosen to respond by increasing premiums for silver plans. That, in turn, will force the federal government to give higher tax credits to most consumers, so they won’t feel any financial pinch.
Under intense questioning by the judge, California Deputy Attorney General Gregory Brown acknowledged that California has done a lot to mitigate the harm to consumers. But he said the administration’s actions are destabilizing the exchanges and the individual insurance market, and causing chaos for states and consumers just eight days before enrollment begins Nov. 1.
Some experts and states are concerned jumpy insurers will bolt from the market and leave some regions with minimal or no choices for coverage. However, a bipartisan bill in Congress would restore the cost-sharing subsidies and aims to stabilize the insurance markets. But it’s not clear the bill will muster the support it needs to pass both the Senate and House or whether Trump would sign it.
In California, 1.4 million people buy their own coverage through the state marketplace, and 90 percent receive federal subsidies that reduce what they pay.
During the hearing, Chhabria read from a Covered California press release that predicts how the changes will affect consumers in 2018. It notes that even though silver plan premiums will rise as a result of the surcharge, the federal tax credits will also increase to cover the rise in premiums. That would leave 4 out of 5 consumers with monthly premiums that stay the same or decrease.
The judge also said ruling in favor of the restraining order would mean insurance companies could essentially “double collect” – benefiting from both the premium increases from the surcharge on silver plans and the cost-sharing subsidies.
Brown said a restraining order to resume the cost-sharing payments would bring back the status quo. If insurance companies double collect, the state would compensate by reducing rates down the line, he said.
“We’re not looking to give insurance companies a windfall ... but the stability is important to insurance companies,” he said.
This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.
SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge Monday expressed skepticism that President Donald Trump’s decision to halt certain health law insurance subsidies would cause consumers immediate harm, as California and many other states claim in a lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria said he would issue a ruling in the case Tuesday.
Earlier this month, Trump announced that the administration would stop payments that compensate insurers for discounts given to low-income consumers to help cover their out-of-pocket expenses under policies sold on the Affordable Care Act’s insurance marketplaces. These subsidies are different from the tax credits many consumers get, depending on their income, to pay Obamacare premiums.
The lawsuit was filed by 18 states and the District of Columbia, led by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. It seeks an emergency restraining order compelling the Trump administration to resume the Obamacare payments. Nationwide, cost-sharing payments were expected to total $7 billion this year.
Since assuming office in January, Trump has repeatedly threatened to stop the subsidies, known as cost-sharing reduction payments. But he held off while Republicans in Congress were working to replace the ACA. Republicans have argued that the subsidies are illegal because they have not been approved by Congress and that they amount to a bailout for insurers.
Responding to the uncertainty, a number of states have allowed insurers to raise their premiums. California earlier this month ordered insurers to add a surcharge to some policies next year, to offset the potential loss in federal funding and keep the individual insurance market stable. The 12.4% surcharge was added to silver plans only, the second-least-expensive tier.
“California is doing a really good job in responding to the termination of [cost-sharing reduction] payments in a way that is avoiding harm for people and actually benefiting people,” said Judge Chhabria.
He said that the vast majority of states have “seen the writing on the wall” and chosen to respond by increasing premiums for silver plans. That, in turn, will force the federal government to give higher tax credits to most consumers, so they won’t feel any financial pinch.
Under intense questioning by the judge, California Deputy Attorney General Gregory Brown acknowledged that California has done a lot to mitigate the harm to consumers. But he said the administration’s actions are destabilizing the exchanges and the individual insurance market, and causing chaos for states and consumers just eight days before enrollment begins Nov. 1.
Some experts and states are concerned jumpy insurers will bolt from the market and leave some regions with minimal or no choices for coverage. However, a bipartisan bill in Congress would restore the cost-sharing subsidies and aims to stabilize the insurance markets. But it’s not clear the bill will muster the support it needs to pass both the Senate and House or whether Trump would sign it.
In California, 1.4 million people buy their own coverage through the state marketplace, and 90 percent receive federal subsidies that reduce what they pay.
During the hearing, Chhabria read from a Covered California press release that predicts how the changes will affect consumers in 2018. It notes that even though silver plan premiums will rise as a result of the surcharge, the federal tax credits will also increase to cover the rise in premiums. That would leave 4 out of 5 consumers with monthly premiums that stay the same or decrease.
The judge also said ruling in favor of the restraining order would mean insurance companies could essentially “double collect” – benefiting from both the premium increases from the surcharge on silver plans and the cost-sharing subsidies.
Brown said a restraining order to resume the cost-sharing payments would bring back the status quo. If insurance companies double collect, the state would compensate by reducing rates down the line, he said.
“We’re not looking to give insurance companies a windfall ... but the stability is important to insurance companies,” he said.
This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.
SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge Monday expressed skepticism that President Donald Trump’s decision to halt certain health law insurance subsidies would cause consumers immediate harm, as California and many other states claim in a lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria said he would issue a ruling in the case Tuesday.
Earlier this month, Trump announced that the administration would stop payments that compensate insurers for discounts given to low-income consumers to help cover their out-of-pocket expenses under policies sold on the Affordable Care Act’s insurance marketplaces. These subsidies are different from the tax credits many consumers get, depending on their income, to pay Obamacare premiums.
The lawsuit was filed by 18 states and the District of Columbia, led by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. It seeks an emergency restraining order compelling the Trump administration to resume the Obamacare payments. Nationwide, cost-sharing payments were expected to total $7 billion this year.
Since assuming office in January, Trump has repeatedly threatened to stop the subsidies, known as cost-sharing reduction payments. But he held off while Republicans in Congress were working to replace the ACA. Republicans have argued that the subsidies are illegal because they have not been approved by Congress and that they amount to a bailout for insurers.
Responding to the uncertainty, a number of states have allowed insurers to raise their premiums. California earlier this month ordered insurers to add a surcharge to some policies next year, to offset the potential loss in federal funding and keep the individual insurance market stable. The 12.4% surcharge was added to silver plans only, the second-least-expensive tier.
“California is doing a really good job in responding to the termination of [cost-sharing reduction] payments in a way that is avoiding harm for people and actually benefiting people,” said Judge Chhabria.
He said that the vast majority of states have “seen the writing on the wall” and chosen to respond by increasing premiums for silver plans. That, in turn, will force the federal government to give higher tax credits to most consumers, so they won’t feel any financial pinch.
Under intense questioning by the judge, California Deputy Attorney General Gregory Brown acknowledged that California has done a lot to mitigate the harm to consumers. But he said the administration’s actions are destabilizing the exchanges and the individual insurance market, and causing chaos for states and consumers just eight days before enrollment begins Nov. 1.
Some experts and states are concerned jumpy insurers will bolt from the market and leave some regions with minimal or no choices for coverage. However, a bipartisan bill in Congress would restore the cost-sharing subsidies and aims to stabilize the insurance markets. But it’s not clear the bill will muster the support it needs to pass both the Senate and House or whether Trump would sign it.
In California, 1.4 million people buy their own coverage through the state marketplace, and 90 percent receive federal subsidies that reduce what they pay.
During the hearing, Chhabria read from a Covered California press release that predicts how the changes will affect consumers in 2018. It notes that even though silver plan premiums will rise as a result of the surcharge, the federal tax credits will also increase to cover the rise in premiums. That would leave 4 out of 5 consumers with monthly premiums that stay the same or decrease.
The judge also said ruling in favor of the restraining order would mean insurance companies could essentially “double collect” – benefiting from both the premium increases from the surcharge on silver plans and the cost-sharing subsidies.
Brown said a restraining order to resume the cost-sharing payments would bring back the status quo. If insurance companies double collect, the state would compensate by reducing rates down the line, he said.
“We’re not looking to give insurance companies a windfall ... but the stability is important to insurance companies,” he said.
This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.
Firearms’ injury toll of $3 billion just ‘a drop in the bucket’
SAN DIEGO – The true impact of firearms injuries may be greatly underestimated, according to a study presented at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress.
An analysis released earlier this month estimated that firearms injuries cost nearly $3 billion a year in emergency department and inpatient treatment costs. The real cost is likely to be 10-20 times higher, said the lead author of the study, Faiz Gani, MD, a research fellow with the Johns Hopkins Surgery Center for Outcomes Research, Baltimore.
“This is just a drop in the bucket,” Dr. Gani said in an interview at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons. 
Dr. Gani and his colleagues launched their study (Health Affairs 2017;36[10]:1729-38) to better understand the cost of firearms injuries, including nonfatal and accidental injuries.
Most estimates of the cost of firearm injuries are outdated or focused on states or single trauma centers, he said. “Contemporary [costs] for emergency rooms are unknown,” he said. “Also, the numbers come down and shoot up. It’s important to continually study this.”
The statistics are especially important to surgeons, who handle these injuries. “A lot of times the surgeon is the primary health care provider if the patient is injured severely. It’s important that we as surgeons know what’s going on.”
The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project for the years 2006-2014. They identified 150,930 patients who appeared alive in emergency departments over that period with firearms injuries, and they estimated the total weighted number at 704,916.
They found that the incidence of firearms injury admissions actually fell during 2006-2013 (from 27.9 visits per 100,000 people to 21.5, P < .001) but bumped up by 23.7% to 26.6 during 2013-2014 (P < .001).
Not surprisingly, more men were injured than women: 45.8 firearms-injured men per 100,000 patients presenting at emergency departments, compared with 5.5 firearms-injured women. Assaults (49.5%) and accidents (35.3%) accounted for most cases, followed by attempted suicides (5.3%) and legal intervention (2.4%).
Those who were assaulted had a higher likelihood of being poor, while those who tried to kill themselves were more likely to have the highest incomes among firearms-injured patients.
The average costs of emergency and inpatient care for patients injured by firearms were $5,254 and $95,887, respectively, collectively amounting to about $2.8 billion each year.
Dr. Gani mentioned that the estimation of the cost and impact of firearms injuries don’t account for people who died of firearms injuries before reaching the emergency department, he says, including patients who committed suicide and died at home.
The cost estimates also don’t take follow-up care, rehabilitation, and lifelong disability into account. The surgical portion of the cost is likely to be much higher because the study doesn’t take future surgical procedures into account, he said.
Based on estimates by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the impact of the injuries, Dr. Gani argued that the true annual cost could be 10 or 20 times the nearly $3 billion estimated by the study.
Discussant Elliott R. Haut, MD, FACS, a trauma surgeon at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, agreed that the study estimates of cost and impact estimated in the study represent a small part of a larger toll. Some families and individuals can pay those costs more than once. He recalls hearing from family members of firearm victims who recognize him because they’ve been at the hospital for other shooting incidents. “We’ve all heard someone say, ‘You were here the last time when my brother/cousin/uncle was shot,’ ” he said.
Future research should focus on better understanding the long-term cost of firearm injuries and the influence of socioeconomics and demographics, Dr. Gani said.
Dr. Gani and Dr. Haut reported no relevant disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – The true impact of firearms injuries may be greatly underestimated, according to a study presented at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress.
An analysis released earlier this month estimated that firearms injuries cost nearly $3 billion a year in emergency department and inpatient treatment costs. The real cost is likely to be 10-20 times higher, said the lead author of the study, Faiz Gani, MD, a research fellow with the Johns Hopkins Surgery Center for Outcomes Research, Baltimore.
“This is just a drop in the bucket,” Dr. Gani said in an interview at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.
Dr. Gani and his colleagues launched their study (Health Affairs 2017;36[10]:1729-38) to better understand the cost of firearms injuries, including nonfatal and accidental injuries.
Most estimates of the cost of firearm injuries are outdated or focused on states or single trauma centers, he said. “Contemporary [costs] for emergency rooms are unknown,” he said. “Also, the numbers come down and shoot up. It’s important to continually study this.”
The statistics are especially important to surgeons, who handle these injuries. “A lot of times the surgeon is the primary health care provider if the patient is injured severely. It’s important that we as surgeons know what’s going on.”
The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project for the years 2006-2014. They identified 150,930 patients who appeared alive in emergency departments over that period with firearms injuries, and they estimated the total weighted number at 704,916.
They found that the incidence of firearms injury admissions actually fell during 2006-2013 (from 27.9 visits per 100,000 people to 21.5, P < .001) but bumped up by 23.7% to 26.6 during 2013-2014 (P < .001).
Not surprisingly, more men were injured than women: 45.8 firearms-injured men per 100,000 patients presenting at emergency departments, compared with 5.5 firearms-injured women. Assaults (49.5%) and accidents (35.3%) accounted for most cases, followed by attempted suicides (5.3%) and legal intervention (2.4%).
Those who were assaulted had a higher likelihood of being poor, while those who tried to kill themselves were more likely to have the highest incomes among firearms-injured patients.
The average costs of emergency and inpatient care for patients injured by firearms were $5,254 and $95,887, respectively, collectively amounting to about $2.8 billion each year.
Dr. Gani mentioned that the estimation of the cost and impact of firearms injuries don’t account for people who died of firearms injuries before reaching the emergency department, he says, including patients who committed suicide and died at home.
The cost estimates also don’t take follow-up care, rehabilitation, and lifelong disability into account. The surgical portion of the cost is likely to be much higher because the study doesn’t take future surgical procedures into account, he said.
Based on estimates by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the impact of the injuries, Dr. Gani argued that the true annual cost could be 10 or 20 times the nearly $3 billion estimated by the study.
Discussant Elliott R. Haut, MD, FACS, a trauma surgeon at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, agreed that the study estimates of cost and impact estimated in the study represent a small part of a larger toll. Some families and individuals can pay those costs more than once. He recalls hearing from family members of firearm victims who recognize him because they’ve been at the hospital for other shooting incidents. “We’ve all heard someone say, ‘You were here the last time when my brother/cousin/uncle was shot,’ ” he said.
Future research should focus on better understanding the long-term cost of firearm injuries and the influence of socioeconomics and demographics, Dr. Gani said.
Dr. Gani and Dr. Haut reported no relevant disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – The true impact of firearms injuries may be greatly underestimated, according to a study presented at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress.
An analysis released earlier this month estimated that firearms injuries cost nearly $3 billion a year in emergency department and inpatient treatment costs. The real cost is likely to be 10-20 times higher, said the lead author of the study, Faiz Gani, MD, a research fellow with the Johns Hopkins Surgery Center for Outcomes Research, Baltimore.
“This is just a drop in the bucket,” Dr. Gani said in an interview at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.
Dr. Gani and his colleagues launched their study (Health Affairs 2017;36[10]:1729-38) to better understand the cost of firearms injuries, including nonfatal and accidental injuries.
Most estimates of the cost of firearm injuries are outdated or focused on states or single trauma centers, he said. “Contemporary [costs] for emergency rooms are unknown,” he said. “Also, the numbers come down and shoot up. It’s important to continually study this.”
The statistics are especially important to surgeons, who handle these injuries. “A lot of times the surgeon is the primary health care provider if the patient is injured severely. It’s important that we as surgeons know what’s going on.”
The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project for the years 2006-2014. They identified 150,930 patients who appeared alive in emergency departments over that period with firearms injuries, and they estimated the total weighted number at 704,916.
They found that the incidence of firearms injury admissions actually fell during 2006-2013 (from 27.9 visits per 100,000 people to 21.5, P < .001) but bumped up by 23.7% to 26.6 during 2013-2014 (P < .001).
Not surprisingly, more men were injured than women: 45.8 firearms-injured men per 100,000 patients presenting at emergency departments, compared with 5.5 firearms-injured women. Assaults (49.5%) and accidents (35.3%) accounted for most cases, followed by attempted suicides (5.3%) and legal intervention (2.4%).
Those who were assaulted had a higher likelihood of being poor, while those who tried to kill themselves were more likely to have the highest incomes among firearms-injured patients.
The average costs of emergency and inpatient care for patients injured by firearms were $5,254 and $95,887, respectively, collectively amounting to about $2.8 billion each year.
Dr. Gani mentioned that the estimation of the cost and impact of firearms injuries don’t account for people who died of firearms injuries before reaching the emergency department, he says, including patients who committed suicide and died at home.
The cost estimates also don’t take follow-up care, rehabilitation, and lifelong disability into account. The surgical portion of the cost is likely to be much higher because the study doesn’t take future surgical procedures into account, he said.
Based on estimates by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the impact of the injuries, Dr. Gani argued that the true annual cost could be 10 or 20 times the nearly $3 billion estimated by the study.
Discussant Elliott R. Haut, MD, FACS, a trauma surgeon at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, agreed that the study estimates of cost and impact estimated in the study represent a small part of a larger toll. Some families and individuals can pay those costs more than once. He recalls hearing from family members of firearm victims who recognize him because they’ve been at the hospital for other shooting incidents. “We’ve all heard someone say, ‘You were here the last time when my brother/cousin/uncle was shot,’ ” he said.
Future research should focus on better understanding the long-term cost of firearm injuries and the influence of socioeconomics and demographics, Dr. Gani said.
Dr. Gani and Dr. Haut reported no relevant disclosures.
AT THE ACS CLINICAL CONGRESS
VIDEO: Researchers beginning to explore microbiome’s effect on surgical outcomes
SAN DIEGO – Surgery seems to stimulate abrupt changes in both the skin and gut microbiome, which in some patients may increase the risk of surgical-site infections and anastomotic leaks. With that knowledge, researchers are exploring the very first steps toward a presurgical microbiome optimization protocol, Heidi Nelson, MD, FACS, said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.
It’s very early in the journey, said Dr. Nelson, the Fred C. Andersen Professor of Surgery at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. The path is not straightforward because the human microbiome appears to be nearly as individually unique as the human fingerprint, so presurgical protocols might have to be individually tailored to each patient.
Dr. Nelson comoderated a session exploring this topic with John Alverdy, MD, FACS, of the University of Chicago. The panel discussed human and animal studies suggesting that the stress of surgery, when combined with subclinical ischemia and any baseline physiologic stress (chronic illness or radiation, for example), can cause some commensals to begin producing collagenase – a change that endangers even surgically sound anastomoses. The skin microbiome is altered as well, with areas around abdominal incisions beginning to express gut flora, which increase the risk of a surgical-site infection.
Through diet or other presurgical interventions, Dr. Nelson said in a video interview, it might be possible to optimize the microbiome and reduce the chances of some of these occurrences.
She had no financial disclosures.
On Twitter @Alz_Gal
SAN DIEGO – Surgery seems to stimulate abrupt changes in both the skin and gut microbiome, which in some patients may increase the risk of surgical-site infections and anastomotic leaks. With that knowledge, researchers are exploring the very first steps toward a presurgical microbiome optimization protocol, Heidi Nelson, MD, FACS, said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.
It’s very early in the journey, said Dr. Nelson, the Fred C. Andersen Professor of Surgery at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. The path is not straightforward because the human microbiome appears to be nearly as individually unique as the human fingerprint, so presurgical protocols might have to be individually tailored to each patient.
Dr. Nelson comoderated a session exploring this topic with John Alverdy, MD, FACS, of the University of Chicago. The panel discussed human and animal studies suggesting that the stress of surgery, when combined with subclinical ischemia and any baseline physiologic stress (chronic illness or radiation, for example), can cause some commensals to begin producing collagenase – a change that endangers even surgically sound anastomoses. The skin microbiome is altered as well, with areas around abdominal incisions beginning to express gut flora, which increase the risk of a surgical-site infection.
Through diet or other presurgical interventions, Dr. Nelson said in a video interview, it might be possible to optimize the microbiome and reduce the chances of some of these occurrences.
She had no financial disclosures.
On Twitter @Alz_Gal
SAN DIEGO – Surgery seems to stimulate abrupt changes in both the skin and gut microbiome, which in some patients may increase the risk of surgical-site infections and anastomotic leaks. With that knowledge, researchers are exploring the very first steps toward a presurgical microbiome optimization protocol, Heidi Nelson, MD, FACS, said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.
It’s very early in the journey, said Dr. Nelson, the Fred C. Andersen Professor of Surgery at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. The path is not straightforward because the human microbiome appears to be nearly as individually unique as the human fingerprint, so presurgical protocols might have to be individually tailored to each patient.
Dr. Nelson comoderated a session exploring this topic with John Alverdy, MD, FACS, of the University of Chicago. The panel discussed human and animal studies suggesting that the stress of surgery, when combined with subclinical ischemia and any baseline physiologic stress (chronic illness or radiation, for example), can cause some commensals to begin producing collagenase – a change that endangers even surgically sound anastomoses. The skin microbiome is altered as well, with areas around abdominal incisions beginning to express gut flora, which increase the risk of a surgical-site infection.
Through diet or other presurgical interventions, Dr. Nelson said in a video interview, it might be possible to optimize the microbiome and reduce the chances of some of these occurrences.
She had no financial disclosures.
On Twitter @Alz_Gal
AT THE ACS CLINICAL CONGRESS
Nutrition status predicts outcomes in liver transplant
WASHINGTON – Efforts to improve nutritional status prior to transplant may lead to improved patient outcomes and economic benefits after orthotopic liver transplant.
Clinicians at Austin Health, a tertiary health center in Melbourne, reviewed prospectively acquired data on 390 adult patients who underwent orthotopic liver transplant at their institution between January 2009 and June 2016, according to Brooke Chapman, a dietitian on the center’s transplant team.
“Hand-grip strength test is a functional measure of upper-body strength,” Ms. Chapman said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. “It’s quick and cheap and reliable but importantly, it does respond quite readily to changes in nutritional intake and nutrition status.”
Assessments were made as patients were wait listed for liver transplant. Hand-grip strength and subjective global assessment were repeated at the time of transplant.
Patients with fulminant liver failure and those requiring retransplantation were excluded from the final analysis, leaving 321 patients in the cohort. More than two-thirds (69%) were men and the median age was 52 years old. About half of patients had a diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma or hepatitis C infection. The median MELD (Model for Endstage Liver Disease) score was 18, with a range of 6-40, and the median time on the wait list was 140 days.
We saw a “high prevalence of malnutrition in patients undergoing liver transplant and the deterioration in nutritional status despite our best efforts while they are on the waiting list,” Ms. Chapman said.
At baseline, two-thirds of patients were malnourished – either mildly to moderately or severely; by transplantation, 77% were malnourished.
“At assessment, we are prescribing and educating patients on a high-calorie, high-protein diet initially, and we give oral nutrition support therapies,” she said. “We really try to get them to improve oral intake, but for patients who do require more aggressive intervention, we will feed them via nasogastric tube.”
Just over half (55%) of patients fell below the cutoff for sarcopenia on the hand-grip test at baseline and at transplant. More than a quarter of patients (27%) were not able to complete the 6-minute walk test.
“On univariate analysis, we saw malnutrition to be strongly associated with increased ICU and hospital length of stay,” Ms. Chapman noted. Severely malnourished patients spent significantly more time in the ICU than did well-nourished patients – a mean 147 hours vs. 89 hours (P = .001). Mean length of stay also was significantly longer at 40 days vs. 16 days (P = .003).
There was also an increased incidence of infection in severely malnourished patients as compared with well-nourished patients – 55.2% vs. 33.8%, she said.
“Aggressive strategies to combat malnutrition and deconditioning in the pretransplant period may lead to improved outcomes after transplant,” Ms. Chapman concluded.
The study was funded by Austin Health. Ms. Chapman declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
[email protected]
On Twitter @denisefulton
WASHINGTON – Efforts to improve nutritional status prior to transplant may lead to improved patient outcomes and economic benefits after orthotopic liver transplant.
Clinicians at Austin Health, a tertiary health center in Melbourne, reviewed prospectively acquired data on 390 adult patients who underwent orthotopic liver transplant at their institution between January 2009 and June 2016, according to Brooke Chapman, a dietitian on the center’s transplant team.
“Hand-grip strength test is a functional measure of upper-body strength,” Ms. Chapman said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. “It’s quick and cheap and reliable but importantly, it does respond quite readily to changes in nutritional intake and nutrition status.”
Assessments were made as patients were wait listed for liver transplant. Hand-grip strength and subjective global assessment were repeated at the time of transplant.
Patients with fulminant liver failure and those requiring retransplantation were excluded from the final analysis, leaving 321 patients in the cohort. More than two-thirds (69%) were men and the median age was 52 years old. About half of patients had a diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma or hepatitis C infection. The median MELD (Model for Endstage Liver Disease) score was 18, with a range of 6-40, and the median time on the wait list was 140 days.
We saw a “high prevalence of malnutrition in patients undergoing liver transplant and the deterioration in nutritional status despite our best efforts while they are on the waiting list,” Ms. Chapman said.
At baseline, two-thirds of patients were malnourished – either mildly to moderately or severely; by transplantation, 77% were malnourished.
“At assessment, we are prescribing and educating patients on a high-calorie, high-protein diet initially, and we give oral nutrition support therapies,” she said. “We really try to get them to improve oral intake, but for patients who do require more aggressive intervention, we will feed them via nasogastric tube.”
Just over half (55%) of patients fell below the cutoff for sarcopenia on the hand-grip test at baseline and at transplant. More than a quarter of patients (27%) were not able to complete the 6-minute walk test.
“On univariate analysis, we saw malnutrition to be strongly associated with increased ICU and hospital length of stay,” Ms. Chapman noted. Severely malnourished patients spent significantly more time in the ICU than did well-nourished patients – a mean 147 hours vs. 89 hours (P = .001). Mean length of stay also was significantly longer at 40 days vs. 16 days (P = .003).
There was also an increased incidence of infection in severely malnourished patients as compared with well-nourished patients – 55.2% vs. 33.8%, she said.
“Aggressive strategies to combat malnutrition and deconditioning in the pretransplant period may lead to improved outcomes after transplant,” Ms. Chapman concluded.
The study was funded by Austin Health. Ms. Chapman declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
[email protected]
On Twitter @denisefulton
WASHINGTON – Efforts to improve nutritional status prior to transplant may lead to improved patient outcomes and economic benefits after orthotopic liver transplant.
Clinicians at Austin Health, a tertiary health center in Melbourne, reviewed prospectively acquired data on 390 adult patients who underwent orthotopic liver transplant at their institution between January 2009 and June 2016, according to Brooke Chapman, a dietitian on the center’s transplant team.
“Hand-grip strength test is a functional measure of upper-body strength,” Ms. Chapman said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. “It’s quick and cheap and reliable but importantly, it does respond quite readily to changes in nutritional intake and nutrition status.”
Assessments were made as patients were wait listed for liver transplant. Hand-grip strength and subjective global assessment were repeated at the time of transplant.
Patients with fulminant liver failure and those requiring retransplantation were excluded from the final analysis, leaving 321 patients in the cohort. More than two-thirds (69%) were men and the median age was 52 years old. About half of patients had a diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma or hepatitis C infection. The median MELD (Model for Endstage Liver Disease) score was 18, with a range of 6-40, and the median time on the wait list was 140 days.
We saw a “high prevalence of malnutrition in patients undergoing liver transplant and the deterioration in nutritional status despite our best efforts while they are on the waiting list,” Ms. Chapman said.
At baseline, two-thirds of patients were malnourished – either mildly to moderately or severely; by transplantation, 77% were malnourished.
“At assessment, we are prescribing and educating patients on a high-calorie, high-protein diet initially, and we give oral nutrition support therapies,” she said. “We really try to get them to improve oral intake, but for patients who do require more aggressive intervention, we will feed them via nasogastric tube.”
Just over half (55%) of patients fell below the cutoff for sarcopenia on the hand-grip test at baseline and at transplant. More than a quarter of patients (27%) were not able to complete the 6-minute walk test.
“On univariate analysis, we saw malnutrition to be strongly associated with increased ICU and hospital length of stay,” Ms. Chapman noted. Severely malnourished patients spent significantly more time in the ICU than did well-nourished patients – a mean 147 hours vs. 89 hours (P = .001). Mean length of stay also was significantly longer at 40 days vs. 16 days (P = .003).
There was also an increased incidence of infection in severely malnourished patients as compared with well-nourished patients – 55.2% vs. 33.8%, she said.
“Aggressive strategies to combat malnutrition and deconditioning in the pretransplant period may lead to improved outcomes after transplant,” Ms. Chapman concluded.
The study was funded by Austin Health. Ms. Chapman declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
[email protected]
On Twitter @denisefulton
AT THE LIVER MEETING 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Severely malnourished patients spent a mean of 147 hours in the ICU vs. 89 hours for well-nourished patients. Mean length of stay also was significantly longer at 40 days vs. 16 days (P = .003).
Data source: Retrospective review of data on 390 adults awaiting liver transplantation between Jan. 2009 and June 2016.
Disclosures: The study was funded by the institutions. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
Post–liver transplant results similar in acute alcoholic hepatitis, stage 1a
WASHINGTON – Patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis (AAH) have similar early post–liver transplant outcomes to those listed with fulminant hepatic failure, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
Patients with severe AAH have high mortality, but many are unable to survive the 6 months of sobriety required to be accepted as liver transplant candidates, said George Cholankeril, MD, of the gastroenterology and hepatology department at Stanford (Calif.) University.
He and his associates studied wait-list mortality and post–liver transplant survival among 1,912 patients listed for either AAH or fulminant hepatic failure on the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry between 2011 and 2016.
A total of 193 patients were listed with AAH, 314 were listed with drug-induced liver injury including acetaminophen (DILI-APAP), and 1,405 were listed as non-DILI patients.
One-year post–liver transplant survival among AAH patients was 93.3%, compared with 87.75% for DILI-APAP patients and 88.4% among non-DILI patients (P less than .001). Survival remained the same among AAH patients 3 years following transplantation, but rates dropped for both the DILI-APAP group (80.8%) and the non-DILI group (81.4%), Dr. Cholankeril reported.
Patients were a median age of 45, 33, and 46 years among the AAH, DILI-APAP, and non-DILI, groups respectively. Patients were majority white among all three groups, with a significantly larger female population among the DILI-APAP group (80.6%) than the AAH (34.7%) or non-DILI (59.4%) groups. Patients in the AAH group had a median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 32, compared with 34 for DILI-APAP and 21 for non-DILI.
AAH patients could potentially see significant improvement with a liver transplant, according to investigators; however, the current standards for candidacy have created treatment barriers.
“Patients with AAH have comparable early post-transplant outcomes to those with hepatic liver failure,” said Dr. Cholankeril. “However, there is no consensus or national guidelines for liver transplantation within this patient population.”
Wait-list trends have already started to shift toward more AAH patient acceptance. The number of AAH patients added to the transplant wait lists increased from 14 in 2011 to 58 in 2016. Investigators also found that the number of liver transplant centers accepting AAH patients to their transplant lists increased from 3 to 26.
Investigators were limited by the variations in protocols for each transplant center, as well as by the inconsistency of pre–liver transplant psychosocial metrics. The diagnostic criteria of AAH through UNOS was also a limitation for investigators, according to Dr. Cholankeril.
Although liver transplantation may be able to help some patients, it is only a small fix for a much larger problem. “This is only a solution for a minority of patients with the rising epidemic of alcoholic intoxication in the U.S.,” he said. “As the increasing mortality trends show alcohol-related mortality, and alcoholic liver disease is a contributor to it, we must recognize alcoholic liver disease remains an orphan disease and there is still an unmet need.”
Dr. Cholankeril reported no relevant financial disclosures.
[email protected]
On Twitter @eaztweets
Transplanting patients with alcohol induced liver disease has been controversial since the earliest days of liver transplantation. Initially some programs were reluctant to transplant patients with a disease that was “self-inflicted” based on an ethical concern about using a scarce resource to save the lives of those whose disease was their own fault, while other patients may die waiting. There was also a concern that transplanting alcoholics would be bad publicity for organ donation and reduce the public’s willingness to donate organs. The highly publicized transplantation of baseball legend and known alcoholic Mickey Mantle in 1995 intensified this debate.
Over time it became clear that the concerns regarding transplanting alcoholics were unfounded. The outcomes were equal or better than for other diseases. Liver transplantation was termed “the ultimate eye opening experience” as serious recidivism turned out to be very uncommon. It was realized that a large percentage of all reasons for seeking medical care can be attributed to self-inflicted harm when one considers cigarette induced malignancy and cardiovascular disease and dietary indiscretion leading to obesity and diabetes. It also became clear that from a practical standpoint prohibiting transplantation of alcoholics simply drove patients to programs that would accept such patients, or caused them and their family to withhold disclosure of alcohol use.
While transplantation of patients with chronic liver disease due to alcohol use has become standard of care, transplanting patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis remains controversial and relatively uncommon. Many programs require a period of abstinence, which is impossible in the setting of acute alcoholic hepatitis. The concern is that it is impossible to discern among actively drinking candidates which ones will be able to achieve sobriety after the transplant. The report by Cholankeril and colleagues documents that the tide is changing. There are increasing numbers of patients being transplanted for acute alcoholic hepatitis, and outcomes are acceptable. However, as the authors point out, the numbers are small and represent a highly selected group of patients. Nevertheless, the pressure on programs to modify rigid abstinence criteria is likely to grow as the evidence accumulates showing selected patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis can do well.
Jeffrey Punch, MD, FACS, is transplant specialist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and on the Editorial Advisory Board of ACS Surgery News.
Transplanting patients with alcohol induced liver disease has been controversial since the earliest days of liver transplantation. Initially some programs were reluctant to transplant patients with a disease that was “self-inflicted” based on an ethical concern about using a scarce resource to save the lives of those whose disease was their own fault, while other patients may die waiting. There was also a concern that transplanting alcoholics would be bad publicity for organ donation and reduce the public’s willingness to donate organs. The highly publicized transplantation of baseball legend and known alcoholic Mickey Mantle in 1995 intensified this debate.
Over time it became clear that the concerns regarding transplanting alcoholics were unfounded. The outcomes were equal or better than for other diseases. Liver transplantation was termed “the ultimate eye opening experience” as serious recidivism turned out to be very uncommon. It was realized that a large percentage of all reasons for seeking medical care can be attributed to self-inflicted harm when one considers cigarette induced malignancy and cardiovascular disease and dietary indiscretion leading to obesity and diabetes. It also became clear that from a practical standpoint prohibiting transplantation of alcoholics simply drove patients to programs that would accept such patients, or caused them and their family to withhold disclosure of alcohol use.
While transplantation of patients with chronic liver disease due to alcohol use has become standard of care, transplanting patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis remains controversial and relatively uncommon. Many programs require a period of abstinence, which is impossible in the setting of acute alcoholic hepatitis. The concern is that it is impossible to discern among actively drinking candidates which ones will be able to achieve sobriety after the transplant. The report by Cholankeril and colleagues documents that the tide is changing. There are increasing numbers of patients being transplanted for acute alcoholic hepatitis, and outcomes are acceptable. However, as the authors point out, the numbers are small and represent a highly selected group of patients. Nevertheless, the pressure on programs to modify rigid abstinence criteria is likely to grow as the evidence accumulates showing selected patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis can do well.
Jeffrey Punch, MD, FACS, is transplant specialist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and on the Editorial Advisory Board of ACS Surgery News.
Transplanting patients with alcohol induced liver disease has been controversial since the earliest days of liver transplantation. Initially some programs were reluctant to transplant patients with a disease that was “self-inflicted” based on an ethical concern about using a scarce resource to save the lives of those whose disease was their own fault, while other patients may die waiting. There was also a concern that transplanting alcoholics would be bad publicity for organ donation and reduce the public’s willingness to donate organs. The highly publicized transplantation of baseball legend and known alcoholic Mickey Mantle in 1995 intensified this debate.
Over time it became clear that the concerns regarding transplanting alcoholics were unfounded. The outcomes were equal or better than for other diseases. Liver transplantation was termed “the ultimate eye opening experience” as serious recidivism turned out to be very uncommon. It was realized that a large percentage of all reasons for seeking medical care can be attributed to self-inflicted harm when one considers cigarette induced malignancy and cardiovascular disease and dietary indiscretion leading to obesity and diabetes. It also became clear that from a practical standpoint prohibiting transplantation of alcoholics simply drove patients to programs that would accept such patients, or caused them and their family to withhold disclosure of alcohol use.
While transplantation of patients with chronic liver disease due to alcohol use has become standard of care, transplanting patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis remains controversial and relatively uncommon. Many programs require a period of abstinence, which is impossible in the setting of acute alcoholic hepatitis. The concern is that it is impossible to discern among actively drinking candidates which ones will be able to achieve sobriety after the transplant. The report by Cholankeril and colleagues documents that the tide is changing. There are increasing numbers of patients being transplanted for acute alcoholic hepatitis, and outcomes are acceptable. However, as the authors point out, the numbers are small and represent a highly selected group of patients. Nevertheless, the pressure on programs to modify rigid abstinence criteria is likely to grow as the evidence accumulates showing selected patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis can do well.
Jeffrey Punch, MD, FACS, is transplant specialist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and on the Editorial Advisory Board of ACS Surgery News.
WASHINGTON – Patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis (AAH) have similar early post–liver transplant outcomes to those listed with fulminant hepatic failure, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
Patients with severe AAH have high mortality, but many are unable to survive the 6 months of sobriety required to be accepted as liver transplant candidates, said George Cholankeril, MD, of the gastroenterology and hepatology department at Stanford (Calif.) University.
He and his associates studied wait-list mortality and post–liver transplant survival among 1,912 patients listed for either AAH or fulminant hepatic failure on the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry between 2011 and 2016.
A total of 193 patients were listed with AAH, 314 were listed with drug-induced liver injury including acetaminophen (DILI-APAP), and 1,405 were listed as non-DILI patients.
One-year post–liver transplant survival among AAH patients was 93.3%, compared with 87.75% for DILI-APAP patients and 88.4% among non-DILI patients (P less than .001). Survival remained the same among AAH patients 3 years following transplantation, but rates dropped for both the DILI-APAP group (80.8%) and the non-DILI group (81.4%), Dr. Cholankeril reported.
Patients were a median age of 45, 33, and 46 years among the AAH, DILI-APAP, and non-DILI, groups respectively. Patients were majority white among all three groups, with a significantly larger female population among the DILI-APAP group (80.6%) than the AAH (34.7%) or non-DILI (59.4%) groups. Patients in the AAH group had a median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 32, compared with 34 for DILI-APAP and 21 for non-DILI.
AAH patients could potentially see significant improvement with a liver transplant, according to investigators; however, the current standards for candidacy have created treatment barriers.
“Patients with AAH have comparable early post-transplant outcomes to those with hepatic liver failure,” said Dr. Cholankeril. “However, there is no consensus or national guidelines for liver transplantation within this patient population.”
Wait-list trends have already started to shift toward more AAH patient acceptance. The number of AAH patients added to the transplant wait lists increased from 14 in 2011 to 58 in 2016. Investigators also found that the number of liver transplant centers accepting AAH patients to their transplant lists increased from 3 to 26.
Investigators were limited by the variations in protocols for each transplant center, as well as by the inconsistency of pre–liver transplant psychosocial metrics. The diagnostic criteria of AAH through UNOS was also a limitation for investigators, according to Dr. Cholankeril.
Although liver transplantation may be able to help some patients, it is only a small fix for a much larger problem. “This is only a solution for a minority of patients with the rising epidemic of alcoholic intoxication in the U.S.,” he said. “As the increasing mortality trends show alcohol-related mortality, and alcoholic liver disease is a contributor to it, we must recognize alcoholic liver disease remains an orphan disease and there is still an unmet need.”
Dr. Cholankeril reported no relevant financial disclosures.
[email protected]
On Twitter @eaztweets
WASHINGTON – Patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis (AAH) have similar early post–liver transplant outcomes to those listed with fulminant hepatic failure, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
Patients with severe AAH have high mortality, but many are unable to survive the 6 months of sobriety required to be accepted as liver transplant candidates, said George Cholankeril, MD, of the gastroenterology and hepatology department at Stanford (Calif.) University.
He and his associates studied wait-list mortality and post–liver transplant survival among 1,912 patients listed for either AAH or fulminant hepatic failure on the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry between 2011 and 2016.
A total of 193 patients were listed with AAH, 314 were listed with drug-induced liver injury including acetaminophen (DILI-APAP), and 1,405 were listed as non-DILI patients.
One-year post–liver transplant survival among AAH patients was 93.3%, compared with 87.75% for DILI-APAP patients and 88.4% among non-DILI patients (P less than .001). Survival remained the same among AAH patients 3 years following transplantation, but rates dropped for both the DILI-APAP group (80.8%) and the non-DILI group (81.4%), Dr. Cholankeril reported.
Patients were a median age of 45, 33, and 46 years among the AAH, DILI-APAP, and non-DILI, groups respectively. Patients were majority white among all three groups, with a significantly larger female population among the DILI-APAP group (80.6%) than the AAH (34.7%) or non-DILI (59.4%) groups. Patients in the AAH group had a median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 32, compared with 34 for DILI-APAP and 21 for non-DILI.
AAH patients could potentially see significant improvement with a liver transplant, according to investigators; however, the current standards for candidacy have created treatment barriers.
“Patients with AAH have comparable early post-transplant outcomes to those with hepatic liver failure,” said Dr. Cholankeril. “However, there is no consensus or national guidelines for liver transplantation within this patient population.”
Wait-list trends have already started to shift toward more AAH patient acceptance. The number of AAH patients added to the transplant wait lists increased from 14 in 2011 to 58 in 2016. Investigators also found that the number of liver transplant centers accepting AAH patients to their transplant lists increased from 3 to 26.
Investigators were limited by the variations in protocols for each transplant center, as well as by the inconsistency of pre–liver transplant psychosocial metrics. The diagnostic criteria of AAH through UNOS was also a limitation for investigators, according to Dr. Cholankeril.
Although liver transplantation may be able to help some patients, it is only a small fix for a much larger problem. “This is only a solution for a minority of patients with the rising epidemic of alcoholic intoxication in the U.S.,” he said. “As the increasing mortality trends show alcohol-related mortality, and alcoholic liver disease is a contributor to it, we must recognize alcoholic liver disease remains an orphan disease and there is still an unmet need.”
Dr. Cholankeril reported no relevant financial disclosures.
[email protected]
On Twitter @eaztweets
AT THE LIVER MEETING 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Survival 1 and 3 years after liver transplant was comparable in patients with drug-induced liver injury including acetaminophen (P = .10) and significantly higher than other chronic alcoholic liver disease patients (P less that .001).
Data source: Retrospective study of 1,912 liver transplant patients listed for either AAH or status 1A registered on the UNOS registry between 2011 and 2016.
Disclosures: Presenter reported no relevant financial disclosures.
Robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy effective for large tumors
Robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy is a safe and effective way to remove large tumors in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to the abstract of a study scheduled to be presented at the CHEST annual meeting.
The study covers a retrospective analysis of 345 NSCLC patients with tumors who underwent robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy performed by one surgeon from September 2010 through August 2016. The participants were grouped into the following three cohorts: patients with tumors less than 5 cm in diameter, patients with tumors from 5 to 7 cm, and patients with tumors larger than 7 cm. The researchers excluded patients with pulmonary metastases or benign lesions from the study.
Patients with smaller tumors were more likely to have simple lobectomy or lobectomy plus wedge, while patients with larger tumors were more likely to require lobectomy with chest wall resection. Increased tumor size was also associated with increased intraoperative estimated blood loss, skin-to-skin operative time, hospital length of stay, and overall conversion to open lobectomy.
There was no association found between tumor size and increased overall intraoperative or postoperative complications, or in-hospital mortality.
Nirav Patel, MD, FCCP, of the Tampa Bay Sleep Center is scheduled to present his abstract on Sunday Oct. 29th, between 2:15 and 2:30 p.m. in Convention Center – 606. Dr. Patel’s research is part of the Cardiothoracic Surgery session, running from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the CHEST annual meeting.
Robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy is a safe and effective way to remove large tumors in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to the abstract of a study scheduled to be presented at the CHEST annual meeting.
The study covers a retrospective analysis of 345 NSCLC patients with tumors who underwent robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy performed by one surgeon from September 2010 through August 2016. The participants were grouped into the following three cohorts: patients with tumors less than 5 cm in diameter, patients with tumors from 5 to 7 cm, and patients with tumors larger than 7 cm. The researchers excluded patients with pulmonary metastases or benign lesions from the study.
Patients with smaller tumors were more likely to have simple lobectomy or lobectomy plus wedge, while patients with larger tumors were more likely to require lobectomy with chest wall resection. Increased tumor size was also associated with increased intraoperative estimated blood loss, skin-to-skin operative time, hospital length of stay, and overall conversion to open lobectomy.
There was no association found between tumor size and increased overall intraoperative or postoperative complications, or in-hospital mortality.
Nirav Patel, MD, FCCP, of the Tampa Bay Sleep Center is scheduled to present his abstract on Sunday Oct. 29th, between 2:15 and 2:30 p.m. in Convention Center – 606. Dr. Patel’s research is part of the Cardiothoracic Surgery session, running from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the CHEST annual meeting.
Robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy is a safe and effective way to remove large tumors in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to the abstract of a study scheduled to be presented at the CHEST annual meeting.
The study covers a retrospective analysis of 345 NSCLC patients with tumors who underwent robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy performed by one surgeon from September 2010 through August 2016. The participants were grouped into the following three cohorts: patients with tumors less than 5 cm in diameter, patients with tumors from 5 to 7 cm, and patients with tumors larger than 7 cm. The researchers excluded patients with pulmonary metastases or benign lesions from the study.
Patients with smaller tumors were more likely to have simple lobectomy or lobectomy plus wedge, while patients with larger tumors were more likely to require lobectomy with chest wall resection. Increased tumor size was also associated with increased intraoperative estimated blood loss, skin-to-skin operative time, hospital length of stay, and overall conversion to open lobectomy.
There was no association found between tumor size and increased overall intraoperative or postoperative complications, or in-hospital mortality.
Nirav Patel, MD, FCCP, of the Tampa Bay Sleep Center is scheduled to present his abstract on Sunday Oct. 29th, between 2:15 and 2:30 p.m. in Convention Center – 606. Dr. Patel’s research is part of the Cardiothoracic Surgery session, running from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the CHEST annual meeting.
FROM CHEST 2017
RBCs from previously pregnant women linked to increased mortality in men
By contrast, all-cause mortality was not higher in female transplant recipients who received transfusions from previously pregnant females and was not higher in male or female recipients of transfusions from never-pregnant female donors.
The results need to be replicated in prospective trials. “Further research is needed to replicate these findings, determine their clinical significance, and identify the underlying mechanism,” wrote Camila Caram-Deelder, MSc, of the Center for Clinical Transfusion Research, Sanquin Research, Leiden, the Netherlands, and her coauthors (JAMA. 2017;318[15]:1471-78).
The association “may be related to either immunologic phenomena or other mechanisms,” the investigators said. The cause of increased mortality also could be some difference in iron status between the previously pregnant female donors and male donors.
Ms. Caram-Deelder and her associates studied first-time transfusion recipients treated between 2005 and 2015 at six hospitals in the Netherlands. A total of 42,132 patients received 106,641 units of red blood cells. Among this full cohort, 31,118 patients (52% female) received 59,320 units of red blood cells exclusively from one of the three types of donor (88% male, 6% ever-pregnant female, and 6% never-pregnant female) and were followed up for a median of 245 days. During that time, 13% of the cohort died.
For the 14,995 male recipients in the no-donor-mixture cohort, 13% died during follow-up. The hazard ratio for death after 1 additional unit of red blood cells from a never-pregnant female donor, compared with a unit from a male donor, was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.81 to 1.06) for male recipients and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.15) for female recipients. This difference was not significant. Alternatively, for male recipients the HR for death after 1 additional unit of red blood cells from an ever-pregnant female donor, compared with a unit from a male donor, was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.26). The difference was statistically significant (P = .03).
Of the 16,123 female recipients in the no-donor-mixture cohort, 12% died during follow-up. Mortality rates for an ever-pregnant female donor vs. a male donor were 74 and 62 per 1,000 person-years (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.13); for a never-pregnant female donor vs. a male donor, mortality rates were 74 and 62 per 1,000 person-years (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.88-1.15). The difference was not significant.
The highest HRs for death after transfusion of red blood cells from ever-pregnant female donors were observed in male recipients 50 years and younger.
Study funding came from the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports. One investigator in the study reported receiving a speaking fee from Vifor Pharma and serving on the advisory councils of Novartis and Amgen Science.
The provocative finding that men have an increased mortality risk if they receive red blood cell transplants from women with a history of pregnancy could have significant practical implications if proven true in subsequent studies.
Because of the complex methodology of the study, alternative explanations for the association should be considered.
The differences in mortality seem to increase 1 year or more following the transfusion, suggesting that the trigger may be an immunologic mechanism based on maternal immunization to paternal antigens, but until prospective studies confirm that a donor’s sex and pregnancy status are associated with mortality after transplant, “appropriate and conservative use of blood products continues to be the gold standard for safe transfusion.”
Ritchard G. Cable, MD, is with American Red Cross Blood Services, Connecticut Region, Farmington. Gustaf Edgren, MD, PhD, is with the department of hematology at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm. These comments are based on their accompanying editorial (JAMA. 2017 Oct 17;318[15]:1445-7). They reported no financial conflicts of interest.
The provocative finding that men have an increased mortality risk if they receive red blood cell transplants from women with a history of pregnancy could have significant practical implications if proven true in subsequent studies.
Because of the complex methodology of the study, alternative explanations for the association should be considered.
The differences in mortality seem to increase 1 year or more following the transfusion, suggesting that the trigger may be an immunologic mechanism based on maternal immunization to paternal antigens, but until prospective studies confirm that a donor’s sex and pregnancy status are associated with mortality after transplant, “appropriate and conservative use of blood products continues to be the gold standard for safe transfusion.”
Ritchard G. Cable, MD, is with American Red Cross Blood Services, Connecticut Region, Farmington. Gustaf Edgren, MD, PhD, is with the department of hematology at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm. These comments are based on their accompanying editorial (JAMA. 2017 Oct 17;318[15]:1445-7). They reported no financial conflicts of interest.
The provocative finding that men have an increased mortality risk if they receive red blood cell transplants from women with a history of pregnancy could have significant practical implications if proven true in subsequent studies.
Because of the complex methodology of the study, alternative explanations for the association should be considered.
The differences in mortality seem to increase 1 year or more following the transfusion, suggesting that the trigger may be an immunologic mechanism based on maternal immunization to paternal antigens, but until prospective studies confirm that a donor’s sex and pregnancy status are associated with mortality after transplant, “appropriate and conservative use of blood products continues to be the gold standard for safe transfusion.”
Ritchard G. Cable, MD, is with American Red Cross Blood Services, Connecticut Region, Farmington. Gustaf Edgren, MD, PhD, is with the department of hematology at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm. These comments are based on their accompanying editorial (JAMA. 2017 Oct 17;318[15]:1445-7). They reported no financial conflicts of interest.
By contrast, all-cause mortality was not higher in female transplant recipients who received transfusions from previously pregnant females and was not higher in male or female recipients of transfusions from never-pregnant female donors.
The results need to be replicated in prospective trials. “Further research is needed to replicate these findings, determine their clinical significance, and identify the underlying mechanism,” wrote Camila Caram-Deelder, MSc, of the Center for Clinical Transfusion Research, Sanquin Research, Leiden, the Netherlands, and her coauthors (JAMA. 2017;318[15]:1471-78).
The association “may be related to either immunologic phenomena or other mechanisms,” the investigators said. The cause of increased mortality also could be some difference in iron status between the previously pregnant female donors and male donors.
Ms. Caram-Deelder and her associates studied first-time transfusion recipients treated between 2005 and 2015 at six hospitals in the Netherlands. A total of 42,132 patients received 106,641 units of red blood cells. Among this full cohort, 31,118 patients (52% female) received 59,320 units of red blood cells exclusively from one of the three types of donor (88% male, 6% ever-pregnant female, and 6% never-pregnant female) and were followed up for a median of 245 days. During that time, 13% of the cohort died.
For the 14,995 male recipients in the no-donor-mixture cohort, 13% died during follow-up. The hazard ratio for death after 1 additional unit of red blood cells from a never-pregnant female donor, compared with a unit from a male donor, was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.81 to 1.06) for male recipients and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.15) for female recipients. This difference was not significant. Alternatively, for male recipients the HR for death after 1 additional unit of red blood cells from an ever-pregnant female donor, compared with a unit from a male donor, was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.26). The difference was statistically significant (P = .03).
Of the 16,123 female recipients in the no-donor-mixture cohort, 12% died during follow-up. Mortality rates for an ever-pregnant female donor vs. a male donor were 74 and 62 per 1,000 person-years (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.13); for a never-pregnant female donor vs. a male donor, mortality rates were 74 and 62 per 1,000 person-years (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.88-1.15). The difference was not significant.
The highest HRs for death after transfusion of red blood cells from ever-pregnant female donors were observed in male recipients 50 years and younger.
Study funding came from the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports. One investigator in the study reported receiving a speaking fee from Vifor Pharma and serving on the advisory councils of Novartis and Amgen Science.
By contrast, all-cause mortality was not higher in female transplant recipients who received transfusions from previously pregnant females and was not higher in male or female recipients of transfusions from never-pregnant female donors.
The results need to be replicated in prospective trials. “Further research is needed to replicate these findings, determine their clinical significance, and identify the underlying mechanism,” wrote Camila Caram-Deelder, MSc, of the Center for Clinical Transfusion Research, Sanquin Research, Leiden, the Netherlands, and her coauthors (JAMA. 2017;318[15]:1471-78).
The association “may be related to either immunologic phenomena or other mechanisms,” the investigators said. The cause of increased mortality also could be some difference in iron status between the previously pregnant female donors and male donors.
Ms. Caram-Deelder and her associates studied first-time transfusion recipients treated between 2005 and 2015 at six hospitals in the Netherlands. A total of 42,132 patients received 106,641 units of red blood cells. Among this full cohort, 31,118 patients (52% female) received 59,320 units of red blood cells exclusively from one of the three types of donor (88% male, 6% ever-pregnant female, and 6% never-pregnant female) and were followed up for a median of 245 days. During that time, 13% of the cohort died.
For the 14,995 male recipients in the no-donor-mixture cohort, 13% died during follow-up. The hazard ratio for death after 1 additional unit of red blood cells from a never-pregnant female donor, compared with a unit from a male donor, was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.81 to 1.06) for male recipients and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.15) for female recipients. This difference was not significant. Alternatively, for male recipients the HR for death after 1 additional unit of red blood cells from an ever-pregnant female donor, compared with a unit from a male donor, was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.26). The difference was statistically significant (P = .03).
Of the 16,123 female recipients in the no-donor-mixture cohort, 12% died during follow-up. Mortality rates for an ever-pregnant female donor vs. a male donor were 74 and 62 per 1,000 person-years (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.13); for a never-pregnant female donor vs. a male donor, mortality rates were 74 and 62 per 1,000 person-years (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.88-1.15). The difference was not significant.
The highest HRs for death after transfusion of red blood cells from ever-pregnant female donors were observed in male recipients 50 years and younger.
Study funding came from the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports. One investigator in the study reported receiving a speaking fee from Vifor Pharma and serving on the advisory councils of Novartis and Amgen Science.
FROM JAMA
Key clinical point: Receiving a red blood cell transfusion from a female donor with any history of pregnancy was associated with increased mortality in men, but not in women.
Major finding: Among men, all-cause mortality after transfusion from an ever-pregnant female donor vs. a male donor was 101 vs. 80 deaths per 1000 person-years (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.26).
Data source: Retrospective cohort study of 31,118 patients who received red blood cell transfusions exclusively from one of the three types of donor – 88% male, 6% ever-pregnant female, and 6% never-pregnant female – at one of six Dutch hospitals.
Disclosures: Study funding came from the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports. One investigator in the study reported receiving a speaking fee from Vifor Pharma and serving on the advisory councils of Novartis and Amgen Science.
Papillary thyroid microcarcinoma: Is ‘less is more’ the right approach?
Surgeons treated 95% of preoperatively diagnosed cases of papillary thyroid microcarcinoma with total thyroidectomy, compared with only 69% of postoperatively diagnosed cases, in to a single-center retrospective cohort study.
“During the study period, thyroid lobectomy was an acceptable alternative endorsed by the American Thyroid Association,” said Susan C. Pitt, MD, and her associates at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. “Nonetheless, documentation rarely stated that [thyroid lobectomy] was discussed as an option. Whether this finding indicates a true lack of discussion or a deficit in documentation is unclear, but emphasizes the need to improve the quality of the [electronic health record] and capture all elements of shared decision-making.”
Papillary thyroid microcarcinomas (PTMC) measure 1 cm or less, affect up to a third of adults, and explain about half of the recent rise in rates of papillary thyroid cancer, the investigators stated. Most cases are found incidentally and there is no evidence that they contribute to a rise in mortality, which stands at about 0.5 deaths per 100,000 diagnoses of thyroid carcinoma. Accordingly, in 2015, the American Thyroid Association (ATA) endorsed active surveillance and thyroid lobectomy as acceptable management strategies for most patients with PTMC (Thyroid. 2016 Jan 12;26[1]:1-133).
“The pendulum for the ATA guidelines has swung back and forth,” Dr. Pitt said in an interview. “I think the current 2015 ATA guidelines are still controversial – some surgeons and endocrinologists think we have swung too far [in the other direction]. Moving the field from total thyroidectomy to active surveillance is a big jump. Understanding the factors underlying current decisions will help us to implement less extensive management, like lobectomy and active surveillance.”
To do that, Dr. Pitt and her associates reviewed medical records from 125 patients with PTMC treated at the University of Wisconsin between 2008 and 2016. Most of the patients (90%) were white, 85% were female, average age was 50 years, and nearly all had classic or follicular-variant disease. Only 27% of patients underwent thyroid lobectomy; the rest underwent total thyroidectomy. Furthermore, among 19 patients diagnosed preoperatively, 95% underwent total thyroidectomy and 21% had a complication, including one (5%) case of permanent hypocalcemia that less extensive surgery might have avoided (J Surg Res. 2017;218:237-45).
“In all cases, documentation indicated that these preoperatively diagnosed patients followed the surgeon’s recommendation regarding the extent of surgery,” the researchers wrote. Surgeons cited various reasons for recommending total thyroidectomy, including – in about 20% of cases – a belief that it was the recommended treatment.
Only one of the 19 preoperatively diagnosed patients had a documented discussion of thyroid lobectomy, the researchers found.
While physicians might be concerned about recurrence or other “downstream” outcomes of a less-is-more approach to PTMC, Dr. Pitt noted that, in a recent large study, only 3.4% of these tumors metastasized over 10 years (World J Surg. 2010 Jan;34[1]:28-35).
“At the same time, I think that we have a better sense [that] patient-centered outcomes after thyroidectomy, such as health-related quality of life, swallowing, and voice outcomes, can be worse after a total thyroidectomy,” she added.
As surgical and medical therapies expand for PTMC and other nonmalignant diseases, it becomes increasingly vital that surgeons and patients undertake shared decision-making, she said. At the University of Wisconsin, physicians can enter free text in the EHR to document such discussions. She gave an example of how she does that: “‘Total thyroidectomy and lobectomy are both appropriate approaches for Ms. Smith. We discussed these options at length, including X, Y, and Z. Given Mrs. Smith’s (strong) preference to avoid X, we will proceed with a lobectomy.”
In her own practice, Dr. Pitt added, “when I look back at a note, I want to know what the decision was, and why it was made.”
Shared decision-making differs from informed consent by focusing on patient preferences, she noted. “I have used my notes in the operating room to help me decide what to do. I can look back and have a window into our conversation and what an individual patient values.” For PTMC, shared decisions should focus less on cancer risk and more on quality of life and outcomes a year later, she said.
“Patients don’t die from PTMC, and most live longer than the age-matched population. Given the risks of more extensive surgery and our current data on surgical and patient-centered outcomes, I think that thyroid lobectomy should be the initial treatment for most patients with PTMC, and surgeons should help their patients make informed decisions,” Dr. Pitt said.
The National Institutes of Health provided funding. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.
Surgeons treated 95% of preoperatively diagnosed cases of papillary thyroid microcarcinoma with total thyroidectomy, compared with only 69% of postoperatively diagnosed cases, in to a single-center retrospective cohort study.
“During the study period, thyroid lobectomy was an acceptable alternative endorsed by the American Thyroid Association,” said Susan C. Pitt, MD, and her associates at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. “Nonetheless, documentation rarely stated that [thyroid lobectomy] was discussed as an option. Whether this finding indicates a true lack of discussion or a deficit in documentation is unclear, but emphasizes the need to improve the quality of the [electronic health record] and capture all elements of shared decision-making.”
Papillary thyroid microcarcinomas (PTMC) measure 1 cm or less, affect up to a third of adults, and explain about half of the recent rise in rates of papillary thyroid cancer, the investigators stated. Most cases are found incidentally and there is no evidence that they contribute to a rise in mortality, which stands at about 0.5 deaths per 100,000 diagnoses of thyroid carcinoma. Accordingly, in 2015, the American Thyroid Association (ATA) endorsed active surveillance and thyroid lobectomy as acceptable management strategies for most patients with PTMC (Thyroid. 2016 Jan 12;26[1]:1-133).
“The pendulum for the ATA guidelines has swung back and forth,” Dr. Pitt said in an interview. “I think the current 2015 ATA guidelines are still controversial – some surgeons and endocrinologists think we have swung too far [in the other direction]. Moving the field from total thyroidectomy to active surveillance is a big jump. Understanding the factors underlying current decisions will help us to implement less extensive management, like lobectomy and active surveillance.”
To do that, Dr. Pitt and her associates reviewed medical records from 125 patients with PTMC treated at the University of Wisconsin between 2008 and 2016. Most of the patients (90%) were white, 85% were female, average age was 50 years, and nearly all had classic or follicular-variant disease. Only 27% of patients underwent thyroid lobectomy; the rest underwent total thyroidectomy. Furthermore, among 19 patients diagnosed preoperatively, 95% underwent total thyroidectomy and 21% had a complication, including one (5%) case of permanent hypocalcemia that less extensive surgery might have avoided (J Surg Res. 2017;218:237-45).
“In all cases, documentation indicated that these preoperatively diagnosed patients followed the surgeon’s recommendation regarding the extent of surgery,” the researchers wrote. Surgeons cited various reasons for recommending total thyroidectomy, including – in about 20% of cases – a belief that it was the recommended treatment.
Only one of the 19 preoperatively diagnosed patients had a documented discussion of thyroid lobectomy, the researchers found.
While physicians might be concerned about recurrence or other “downstream” outcomes of a less-is-more approach to PTMC, Dr. Pitt noted that, in a recent large study, only 3.4% of these tumors metastasized over 10 years (World J Surg. 2010 Jan;34[1]:28-35).
“At the same time, I think that we have a better sense [that] patient-centered outcomes after thyroidectomy, such as health-related quality of life, swallowing, and voice outcomes, can be worse after a total thyroidectomy,” she added.
As surgical and medical therapies expand for PTMC and other nonmalignant diseases, it becomes increasingly vital that surgeons and patients undertake shared decision-making, she said. At the University of Wisconsin, physicians can enter free text in the EHR to document such discussions. She gave an example of how she does that: “‘Total thyroidectomy and lobectomy are both appropriate approaches for Ms. Smith. We discussed these options at length, including X, Y, and Z. Given Mrs. Smith’s (strong) preference to avoid X, we will proceed with a lobectomy.”
In her own practice, Dr. Pitt added, “when I look back at a note, I want to know what the decision was, and why it was made.”
Shared decision-making differs from informed consent by focusing on patient preferences, she noted. “I have used my notes in the operating room to help me decide what to do. I can look back and have a window into our conversation and what an individual patient values.” For PTMC, shared decisions should focus less on cancer risk and more on quality of life and outcomes a year later, she said.
“Patients don’t die from PTMC, and most live longer than the age-matched population. Given the risks of more extensive surgery and our current data on surgical and patient-centered outcomes, I think that thyroid lobectomy should be the initial treatment for most patients with PTMC, and surgeons should help their patients make informed decisions,” Dr. Pitt said.
The National Institutes of Health provided funding. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.
Surgeons treated 95% of preoperatively diagnosed cases of papillary thyroid microcarcinoma with total thyroidectomy, compared with only 69% of postoperatively diagnosed cases, in to a single-center retrospective cohort study.
“During the study period, thyroid lobectomy was an acceptable alternative endorsed by the American Thyroid Association,” said Susan C. Pitt, MD, and her associates at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. “Nonetheless, documentation rarely stated that [thyroid lobectomy] was discussed as an option. Whether this finding indicates a true lack of discussion or a deficit in documentation is unclear, but emphasizes the need to improve the quality of the [electronic health record] and capture all elements of shared decision-making.”
Papillary thyroid microcarcinomas (PTMC) measure 1 cm or less, affect up to a third of adults, and explain about half of the recent rise in rates of papillary thyroid cancer, the investigators stated. Most cases are found incidentally and there is no evidence that they contribute to a rise in mortality, which stands at about 0.5 deaths per 100,000 diagnoses of thyroid carcinoma. Accordingly, in 2015, the American Thyroid Association (ATA) endorsed active surveillance and thyroid lobectomy as acceptable management strategies for most patients with PTMC (Thyroid. 2016 Jan 12;26[1]:1-133).
“The pendulum for the ATA guidelines has swung back and forth,” Dr. Pitt said in an interview. “I think the current 2015 ATA guidelines are still controversial – some surgeons and endocrinologists think we have swung too far [in the other direction]. Moving the field from total thyroidectomy to active surveillance is a big jump. Understanding the factors underlying current decisions will help us to implement less extensive management, like lobectomy and active surveillance.”
To do that, Dr. Pitt and her associates reviewed medical records from 125 patients with PTMC treated at the University of Wisconsin between 2008 and 2016. Most of the patients (90%) were white, 85% were female, average age was 50 years, and nearly all had classic or follicular-variant disease. Only 27% of patients underwent thyroid lobectomy; the rest underwent total thyroidectomy. Furthermore, among 19 patients diagnosed preoperatively, 95% underwent total thyroidectomy and 21% had a complication, including one (5%) case of permanent hypocalcemia that less extensive surgery might have avoided (J Surg Res. 2017;218:237-45).
“In all cases, documentation indicated that these preoperatively diagnosed patients followed the surgeon’s recommendation regarding the extent of surgery,” the researchers wrote. Surgeons cited various reasons for recommending total thyroidectomy, including – in about 20% of cases – a belief that it was the recommended treatment.
Only one of the 19 preoperatively diagnosed patients had a documented discussion of thyroid lobectomy, the researchers found.
While physicians might be concerned about recurrence or other “downstream” outcomes of a less-is-more approach to PTMC, Dr. Pitt noted that, in a recent large study, only 3.4% of these tumors metastasized over 10 years (World J Surg. 2010 Jan;34[1]:28-35).
“At the same time, I think that we have a better sense [that] patient-centered outcomes after thyroidectomy, such as health-related quality of life, swallowing, and voice outcomes, can be worse after a total thyroidectomy,” she added.
As surgical and medical therapies expand for PTMC and other nonmalignant diseases, it becomes increasingly vital that surgeons and patients undertake shared decision-making, she said. At the University of Wisconsin, physicians can enter free text in the EHR to document such discussions. She gave an example of how she does that: “‘Total thyroidectomy and lobectomy are both appropriate approaches for Ms. Smith. We discussed these options at length, including X, Y, and Z. Given Mrs. Smith’s (strong) preference to avoid X, we will proceed with a lobectomy.”
In her own practice, Dr. Pitt added, “when I look back at a note, I want to know what the decision was, and why it was made.”
Shared decision-making differs from informed consent by focusing on patient preferences, she noted. “I have used my notes in the operating room to help me decide what to do. I can look back and have a window into our conversation and what an individual patient values.” For PTMC, shared decisions should focus less on cancer risk and more on quality of life and outcomes a year later, she said.
“Patients don’t die from PTMC, and most live longer than the age-matched population. Given the risks of more extensive surgery and our current data on surgical and patient-centered outcomes, I think that thyroid lobectomy should be the initial treatment for most patients with PTMC, and surgeons should help their patients make informed decisions,” Dr. Pitt said.
The National Institutes of Health provided funding. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
Key clinical point: Nearly all patients with a preoperative diagnosis of PTMC underwent total thyroidectomy, usually at their surgeon’s recommendation.
Major finding: 95% of preoperatively diagnosed patients underwent total thyroidectomy, versus 69% of those diagnosed postoperatively (P = .02). A discussion of thyroid lobectomy was documented in only one preoperatively diagnosed case.
Data source: A single-center retrospective study of 125 patients with papillary thyroid microcarcinoma.
Disclosures: The National Institutes of Health provided funding. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.
Low risk of bariatric surgery complications in IBD
Bariatric surgery is safe and feasible in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), with a low risk of postoperative complications vs. controls, according to results of a recent cohort study.
Besides a significantly higher risk of perioperative small-bowel obstruction and a 1-day increase in hospital stay, outcomes were comparable between patients with IBD and controls (Obes Surg. 2017 Oct 10. doi: 10.1007/s11695-017-2955-4).
Limitations of the retrospective study, according to the authors, included a potential underestimation of short-term postoperative complications, since the data set used in the study was limited to in-hospital stays and would not include events occurring after discharge.
Nevertheless, “our data show that it is reasonable to carefully proceed with bariatric interventions in obese IBD patients, especially those who are at higher risk of cardiovascular mortality and drastic need for weight reduction, to accrue benefits of weight loss,” wrote Fateh Bazerbachi, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. and his coauthors.
Bariatric surgery is the “most effective solution” for obesity, and “appropriate candidates should not be deprived of this important, potentially life-saving procedure, if the intervention is deemed acceptably safe,” Dr. Bazerbachi and his colleagues noted.
Their cohort study included data for 314,864 adult patients in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample who underwent bariatric surgery between 2011 and 2013. Of that group, 790 patients had underlying IBD (459 Crohn’s disease, 331 ulcerative colitis). Remaining patients made up the comparator group.
The primary outcomes evaluated in the study included risks of systemic and technical complications. Risk of perioperative small-bowel obstruction was significantly higher in the IBD group (adjusted odds ratio, 4.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.2-7.4). However, the rates of other complications were similar between the two groups, data show.
Secondary outcomes in the study included length of hospital stay and mortality. Mean length of hospital stay was 3.4 days for IBD patients, vs. 2.5 days for the comparison group (P = .01), according to the report. Mortality was 0.25% for controls, while no deaths were reported in the IBD group.
In the future, bariatric surgeons may face increasing demand to treat IBD patients, given the increasing prevalence of obesity in the IBD patient population, Dr. Bazerbachi and his colleagues said.
Some surgeons may believe that bariatric intervention is more challenging in IBD patients, in part because of the underlying inflammatory state that might interfere with healing of wounds and recovery of bowel motility, they said. Bariatric surgery, however, can reduce body mass index, which in turn might make future IBD surgeries less challenging.
Another potential advantage is reduction in cardiovascular risk, which is elevated in IBD patients both due to obesity as well as the IBD condition, they added.
“Further studies are certainly needed to examine long-term outcomes of bariatric surgery on IBD and to determine whether cardiovascular mortality is reduced from these interventions in this susceptible cohort of obese IBD patients,” Dr. Bazerbachi and his colleagues wrote.
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest.
Bariatric surgery is safe and feasible in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), with a low risk of postoperative complications vs. controls, according to results of a recent cohort study.
Besides a significantly higher risk of perioperative small-bowel obstruction and a 1-day increase in hospital stay, outcomes were comparable between patients with IBD and controls (Obes Surg. 2017 Oct 10. doi: 10.1007/s11695-017-2955-4).
Limitations of the retrospective study, according to the authors, included a potential underestimation of short-term postoperative complications, since the data set used in the study was limited to in-hospital stays and would not include events occurring after discharge.
Nevertheless, “our data show that it is reasonable to carefully proceed with bariatric interventions in obese IBD patients, especially those who are at higher risk of cardiovascular mortality and drastic need for weight reduction, to accrue benefits of weight loss,” wrote Fateh Bazerbachi, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. and his coauthors.
Bariatric surgery is the “most effective solution” for obesity, and “appropriate candidates should not be deprived of this important, potentially life-saving procedure, if the intervention is deemed acceptably safe,” Dr. Bazerbachi and his colleagues noted.
Their cohort study included data for 314,864 adult patients in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample who underwent bariatric surgery between 2011 and 2013. Of that group, 790 patients had underlying IBD (459 Crohn’s disease, 331 ulcerative colitis). Remaining patients made up the comparator group.
The primary outcomes evaluated in the study included risks of systemic and technical complications. Risk of perioperative small-bowel obstruction was significantly higher in the IBD group (adjusted odds ratio, 4.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.2-7.4). However, the rates of other complications were similar between the two groups, data show.
Secondary outcomes in the study included length of hospital stay and mortality. Mean length of hospital stay was 3.4 days for IBD patients, vs. 2.5 days for the comparison group (P = .01), according to the report. Mortality was 0.25% for controls, while no deaths were reported in the IBD group.
In the future, bariatric surgeons may face increasing demand to treat IBD patients, given the increasing prevalence of obesity in the IBD patient population, Dr. Bazerbachi and his colleagues said.
Some surgeons may believe that bariatric intervention is more challenging in IBD patients, in part because of the underlying inflammatory state that might interfere with healing of wounds and recovery of bowel motility, they said. Bariatric surgery, however, can reduce body mass index, which in turn might make future IBD surgeries less challenging.
Another potential advantage is reduction in cardiovascular risk, which is elevated in IBD patients both due to obesity as well as the IBD condition, they added.
“Further studies are certainly needed to examine long-term outcomes of bariatric surgery on IBD and to determine whether cardiovascular mortality is reduced from these interventions in this susceptible cohort of obese IBD patients,” Dr. Bazerbachi and his colleagues wrote.
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest.
Bariatric surgery is safe and feasible in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), with a low risk of postoperative complications vs. controls, according to results of a recent cohort study.
Besides a significantly higher risk of perioperative small-bowel obstruction and a 1-day increase in hospital stay, outcomes were comparable between patients with IBD and controls (Obes Surg. 2017 Oct 10. doi: 10.1007/s11695-017-2955-4).
Limitations of the retrospective study, according to the authors, included a potential underestimation of short-term postoperative complications, since the data set used in the study was limited to in-hospital stays and would not include events occurring after discharge.
Nevertheless, “our data show that it is reasonable to carefully proceed with bariatric interventions in obese IBD patients, especially those who are at higher risk of cardiovascular mortality and drastic need for weight reduction, to accrue benefits of weight loss,” wrote Fateh Bazerbachi, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. and his coauthors.
Bariatric surgery is the “most effective solution” for obesity, and “appropriate candidates should not be deprived of this important, potentially life-saving procedure, if the intervention is deemed acceptably safe,” Dr. Bazerbachi and his colleagues noted.
Their cohort study included data for 314,864 adult patients in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample who underwent bariatric surgery between 2011 and 2013. Of that group, 790 patients had underlying IBD (459 Crohn’s disease, 331 ulcerative colitis). Remaining patients made up the comparator group.
The primary outcomes evaluated in the study included risks of systemic and technical complications. Risk of perioperative small-bowel obstruction was significantly higher in the IBD group (adjusted odds ratio, 4.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.2-7.4). However, the rates of other complications were similar between the two groups, data show.
Secondary outcomes in the study included length of hospital stay and mortality. Mean length of hospital stay was 3.4 days for IBD patients, vs. 2.5 days for the comparison group (P = .01), according to the report. Mortality was 0.25% for controls, while no deaths were reported in the IBD group.
In the future, bariatric surgeons may face increasing demand to treat IBD patients, given the increasing prevalence of obesity in the IBD patient population, Dr. Bazerbachi and his colleagues said.
Some surgeons may believe that bariatric intervention is more challenging in IBD patients, in part because of the underlying inflammatory state that might interfere with healing of wounds and recovery of bowel motility, they said. Bariatric surgery, however, can reduce body mass index, which in turn might make future IBD surgeries less challenging.
Another potential advantage is reduction in cardiovascular risk, which is elevated in IBD patients both due to obesity as well as the IBD condition, they added.
“Further studies are certainly needed to examine long-term outcomes of bariatric surgery on IBD and to determine whether cardiovascular mortality is reduced from these interventions in this susceptible cohort of obese IBD patients,” Dr. Bazerbachi and his colleagues wrote.
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest.
FROM OBESITY SURGERY
Key clinical point: Watch for perioperative small-bowel obstruction in IBD patients undergoing bariatric surgery.
Major finding: IBD patients had a higher risk of perioperative small bowel obstruction (adjusted odds ratio, 4.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.2-7.4) and a 1-day increase in hospital stay (P = .01), compared with controls.
Data source: Retrospective cohort study of Nationwide Inpatient Sample data including 790 patients with underlying IBD.
Disclosures: The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest.