User login
Just a series of fortunate events?
Building a career in hospital medicine
Residents and junior faculty have frequently asked me how they can attain a position similar to mine, focused on quality and leadership in a health care system. When I was first asked to offer advice on this topic, my response was generally something like, “Heck if I know! I just had a series of lucky accidents to get here!”
Back then, I would recount my career history. I established myself as a clinician educator and associate program director soon after Chief Residency. After that, I would explain, a series of fortunate events and health care trends shaped my career. Evidence-based medicine (EBM), the patient safety movement, a shift to incorporate value (as well as volume) into reimbursement models, and the hospital medicine movement all emerged in interesting and often synergistic ways.
A young SHM organization (then known as NAIP) grew rapidly even while the hospitalist programs I led in Phoenix, then at University of California, San Diego, grew in size and influence. Inevitably, it seemed, I was increasingly involved in quality improvement (QI) efforts, and began to publish and speak about them. Collaborative work with SHM and a number of hospital systems broadened my visibility regionally and nationally. Finally, in 2015, I was recruited away from UC San Diego into a new position, as chief quality officer at UC Davis.
On hearing this history, those seeking my sage advice would look a little confused, and then say something like, “So your advice is that I should get lucky??? Gee, thanks a lot! Really helpful!” (Insert sarcasm here).
The honor of being asked to contribute to the “Legacies” series in The Hospitalist gave me an opportunity to think about this a little differently. No one really wanted to know about how past changes in the health care environment led to my career success. They wanted advice on tools and strategies that will allow them to thrive in an environment of ongoing, disruptive change that is likely only going to accelerate. I now present my upgraded points of advice, intertwined with examples of how SHM positively influenced my career (and could assist yours):
Learn how your hospital works. Hospitalists obviously have an inside track on many aspects of hospital operations, but sometimes remain oblivious to the organizational and committee structure, priorities of hospital leadership, and the mechanism for implementing standardized care. Knowing where to go with new ideas, and the process of implementing protocols, will keep you from hitting political land mines and unintentionally encroaching on someone else’s turf, while aligning your efforts with institutional priorities improves the buy-in and resources available to do the work.
Start small, but think big. Don’t bite off more than you can chew, and make sure your ideas for change work on a small scale before trying to sell the world on them. On the other hand, think big! The care you and others provide is dependent on systems that go far beyond your immediate control. Policies, protocols, standardized order sets, checklists, and an array of other tools can be leveraged to influence care across an entire health system, and in the SHM Mentored Implementation programs, can impact hundreds of hospitals.
Broaden your skills. Commit to learning new skills that can increase your impact and career diversity. Procedural skills; information technology; and EMR, EBM, research, public health, QI, business, leadership, public speaking, advocacy, and telehealth, can all open up a whole world of possibilities when combined with a medical degree. These skills can move you into areas that keep you engaged and excited to go to work.
Engage in mentor/mentee relationships. As an associate program director and clinician-educator, I had a lot of opportunity to mentor residents and fellows. It is so rewarding to watch the mentee grow in experience and skills, and to eventually see many of them assume leadership and mentoring roles themselves. You don’t have to be in a teaching position to act as a mentor (my experience mentoring hospitalists and others in leadership and quality improvement now far surpasses my experience with house staff).
The mentor often benefits as much as the mentee from this relationship. I have been inspired by their passion and dedication, educated by their ideas and innovation, and frequently find I am learning more from them, than they are from me. I have had great experiences in the SHM Mentored Implementation program in the role of mentee and mentor.
Participate in a community. When I first joined NAIP, I was amazed that the giants (Wachter, Nelson, Whitcomb, Holman, Williams, Greeno, Howell, Huddleston, Wellikson, and on and on) were not only approachable, they were warm, friendly, interesting, and extraordinarily welcoming. The ever-expanding and evolving community at SHM continues that tradition and offers a forum to share innovative work, discuss common problems and solutions, contact world experts, or just find an empathetic ear. Working on toolkits and collaborative efforts with this community remains a real highlight of my career, and the source of several lasting friendships. So don’t be shy; step right up; and introduce yourself!
Avoid my past mistakes (this might be a long list). Random things you should try to avoid.
- Tribalism – It is natural to be protective of your hospitalist group, and to focus on the injustices heaped upon you from (insert favorite punching bag here, e.g., ED, orthopedists, cardiologists, nursing staff, evil administration penny pinchers, etc). While some of those injustices might be real, tribalism, defensiveness, and circling the wagons generally only makes things worse. Sit down face to face, learn a little bit about the opposing tribe (both about their work, and about them as people), and see how much more fun and productive work can be.
- Storming out of a meeting with the CMO and CEO, slamming the door, etc. – not productive. Administrative leaders are doing their own juggling act and are generally well intentioned and doing the best they can. Respect that, argue your case, but if things don’t pan out, shake their hand, and live to fight another day.
- Using e-mail (evil-mail) to resolve conflict – And if you’re a young whippersnapper, don’t use Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, or other social media to address conflict either!
- Forgetting to put patients first – Frame decisions for your group around what best serves your patients, not your doctors. Long term, this gives your group credibility and will serve the hospitalists better as well. SHM does this on a large scale with their advocacy efforts, resulting in more credibility and influence on Capitol Hill.
Make time for friends, family, fitness, fun, and reflection. A sense of humor and an occasional laugh when dealing with ill patients, hospital medicine politics, and the EMR all day provides resilience, as does taking the time to foster self-awareness and insight into your own weaknesses, strengths, and how you react to different stressors. A little bit of exercise and time with family and friends can go a long way towards improving your outlook, work, and life in general, while reducing burnout. Oh yeah, it’s also a good idea to choose a great life partner as well. Thanks Michelle!
Dr. Maynard is chief quality officer, University of California Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, Calif.
Building a career in hospital medicine
Building a career in hospital medicine
Residents and junior faculty have frequently asked me how they can attain a position similar to mine, focused on quality and leadership in a health care system. When I was first asked to offer advice on this topic, my response was generally something like, “Heck if I know! I just had a series of lucky accidents to get here!”
Back then, I would recount my career history. I established myself as a clinician educator and associate program director soon after Chief Residency. After that, I would explain, a series of fortunate events and health care trends shaped my career. Evidence-based medicine (EBM), the patient safety movement, a shift to incorporate value (as well as volume) into reimbursement models, and the hospital medicine movement all emerged in interesting and often synergistic ways.
A young SHM organization (then known as NAIP) grew rapidly even while the hospitalist programs I led in Phoenix, then at University of California, San Diego, grew in size and influence. Inevitably, it seemed, I was increasingly involved in quality improvement (QI) efforts, and began to publish and speak about them. Collaborative work with SHM and a number of hospital systems broadened my visibility regionally and nationally. Finally, in 2015, I was recruited away from UC San Diego into a new position, as chief quality officer at UC Davis.
On hearing this history, those seeking my sage advice would look a little confused, and then say something like, “So your advice is that I should get lucky??? Gee, thanks a lot! Really helpful!” (Insert sarcasm here).
The honor of being asked to contribute to the “Legacies” series in The Hospitalist gave me an opportunity to think about this a little differently. No one really wanted to know about how past changes in the health care environment led to my career success. They wanted advice on tools and strategies that will allow them to thrive in an environment of ongoing, disruptive change that is likely only going to accelerate. I now present my upgraded points of advice, intertwined with examples of how SHM positively influenced my career (and could assist yours):
Learn how your hospital works. Hospitalists obviously have an inside track on many aspects of hospital operations, but sometimes remain oblivious to the organizational and committee structure, priorities of hospital leadership, and the mechanism for implementing standardized care. Knowing where to go with new ideas, and the process of implementing protocols, will keep you from hitting political land mines and unintentionally encroaching on someone else’s turf, while aligning your efforts with institutional priorities improves the buy-in and resources available to do the work.
Start small, but think big. Don’t bite off more than you can chew, and make sure your ideas for change work on a small scale before trying to sell the world on them. On the other hand, think big! The care you and others provide is dependent on systems that go far beyond your immediate control. Policies, protocols, standardized order sets, checklists, and an array of other tools can be leveraged to influence care across an entire health system, and in the SHM Mentored Implementation programs, can impact hundreds of hospitals.
Broaden your skills. Commit to learning new skills that can increase your impact and career diversity. Procedural skills; information technology; and EMR, EBM, research, public health, QI, business, leadership, public speaking, advocacy, and telehealth, can all open up a whole world of possibilities when combined with a medical degree. These skills can move you into areas that keep you engaged and excited to go to work.
Engage in mentor/mentee relationships. As an associate program director and clinician-educator, I had a lot of opportunity to mentor residents and fellows. It is so rewarding to watch the mentee grow in experience and skills, and to eventually see many of them assume leadership and mentoring roles themselves. You don’t have to be in a teaching position to act as a mentor (my experience mentoring hospitalists and others in leadership and quality improvement now far surpasses my experience with house staff).
The mentor often benefits as much as the mentee from this relationship. I have been inspired by their passion and dedication, educated by their ideas and innovation, and frequently find I am learning more from them, than they are from me. I have had great experiences in the SHM Mentored Implementation program in the role of mentee and mentor.
Participate in a community. When I first joined NAIP, I was amazed that the giants (Wachter, Nelson, Whitcomb, Holman, Williams, Greeno, Howell, Huddleston, Wellikson, and on and on) were not only approachable, they were warm, friendly, interesting, and extraordinarily welcoming. The ever-expanding and evolving community at SHM continues that tradition and offers a forum to share innovative work, discuss common problems and solutions, contact world experts, or just find an empathetic ear. Working on toolkits and collaborative efforts with this community remains a real highlight of my career, and the source of several lasting friendships. So don’t be shy; step right up; and introduce yourself!
Avoid my past mistakes (this might be a long list). Random things you should try to avoid.
- Tribalism – It is natural to be protective of your hospitalist group, and to focus on the injustices heaped upon you from (insert favorite punching bag here, e.g., ED, orthopedists, cardiologists, nursing staff, evil administration penny pinchers, etc). While some of those injustices might be real, tribalism, defensiveness, and circling the wagons generally only makes things worse. Sit down face to face, learn a little bit about the opposing tribe (both about their work, and about them as people), and see how much more fun and productive work can be.
- Storming out of a meeting with the CMO and CEO, slamming the door, etc. – not productive. Administrative leaders are doing their own juggling act and are generally well intentioned and doing the best they can. Respect that, argue your case, but if things don’t pan out, shake their hand, and live to fight another day.
- Using e-mail (evil-mail) to resolve conflict – And if you’re a young whippersnapper, don’t use Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, or other social media to address conflict either!
- Forgetting to put patients first – Frame decisions for your group around what best serves your patients, not your doctors. Long term, this gives your group credibility and will serve the hospitalists better as well. SHM does this on a large scale with their advocacy efforts, resulting in more credibility and influence on Capitol Hill.
Make time for friends, family, fitness, fun, and reflection. A sense of humor and an occasional laugh when dealing with ill patients, hospital medicine politics, and the EMR all day provides resilience, as does taking the time to foster self-awareness and insight into your own weaknesses, strengths, and how you react to different stressors. A little bit of exercise and time with family and friends can go a long way towards improving your outlook, work, and life in general, while reducing burnout. Oh yeah, it’s also a good idea to choose a great life partner as well. Thanks Michelle!
Dr. Maynard is chief quality officer, University of California Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, Calif.
Residents and junior faculty have frequently asked me how they can attain a position similar to mine, focused on quality and leadership in a health care system. When I was first asked to offer advice on this topic, my response was generally something like, “Heck if I know! I just had a series of lucky accidents to get here!”
Back then, I would recount my career history. I established myself as a clinician educator and associate program director soon after Chief Residency. After that, I would explain, a series of fortunate events and health care trends shaped my career. Evidence-based medicine (EBM), the patient safety movement, a shift to incorporate value (as well as volume) into reimbursement models, and the hospital medicine movement all emerged in interesting and often synergistic ways.
A young SHM organization (then known as NAIP) grew rapidly even while the hospitalist programs I led in Phoenix, then at University of California, San Diego, grew in size and influence. Inevitably, it seemed, I was increasingly involved in quality improvement (QI) efforts, and began to publish and speak about them. Collaborative work with SHM and a number of hospital systems broadened my visibility regionally and nationally. Finally, in 2015, I was recruited away from UC San Diego into a new position, as chief quality officer at UC Davis.
On hearing this history, those seeking my sage advice would look a little confused, and then say something like, “So your advice is that I should get lucky??? Gee, thanks a lot! Really helpful!” (Insert sarcasm here).
The honor of being asked to contribute to the “Legacies” series in The Hospitalist gave me an opportunity to think about this a little differently. No one really wanted to know about how past changes in the health care environment led to my career success. They wanted advice on tools and strategies that will allow them to thrive in an environment of ongoing, disruptive change that is likely only going to accelerate. I now present my upgraded points of advice, intertwined with examples of how SHM positively influenced my career (and could assist yours):
Learn how your hospital works. Hospitalists obviously have an inside track on many aspects of hospital operations, but sometimes remain oblivious to the organizational and committee structure, priorities of hospital leadership, and the mechanism for implementing standardized care. Knowing where to go with new ideas, and the process of implementing protocols, will keep you from hitting political land mines and unintentionally encroaching on someone else’s turf, while aligning your efforts with institutional priorities improves the buy-in and resources available to do the work.
Start small, but think big. Don’t bite off more than you can chew, and make sure your ideas for change work on a small scale before trying to sell the world on them. On the other hand, think big! The care you and others provide is dependent on systems that go far beyond your immediate control. Policies, protocols, standardized order sets, checklists, and an array of other tools can be leveraged to influence care across an entire health system, and in the SHM Mentored Implementation programs, can impact hundreds of hospitals.
Broaden your skills. Commit to learning new skills that can increase your impact and career diversity. Procedural skills; information technology; and EMR, EBM, research, public health, QI, business, leadership, public speaking, advocacy, and telehealth, can all open up a whole world of possibilities when combined with a medical degree. These skills can move you into areas that keep you engaged and excited to go to work.
Engage in mentor/mentee relationships. As an associate program director and clinician-educator, I had a lot of opportunity to mentor residents and fellows. It is so rewarding to watch the mentee grow in experience and skills, and to eventually see many of them assume leadership and mentoring roles themselves. You don’t have to be in a teaching position to act as a mentor (my experience mentoring hospitalists and others in leadership and quality improvement now far surpasses my experience with house staff).
The mentor often benefits as much as the mentee from this relationship. I have been inspired by their passion and dedication, educated by their ideas and innovation, and frequently find I am learning more from them, than they are from me. I have had great experiences in the SHM Mentored Implementation program in the role of mentee and mentor.
Participate in a community. When I first joined NAIP, I was amazed that the giants (Wachter, Nelson, Whitcomb, Holman, Williams, Greeno, Howell, Huddleston, Wellikson, and on and on) were not only approachable, they were warm, friendly, interesting, and extraordinarily welcoming. The ever-expanding and evolving community at SHM continues that tradition and offers a forum to share innovative work, discuss common problems and solutions, contact world experts, or just find an empathetic ear. Working on toolkits and collaborative efforts with this community remains a real highlight of my career, and the source of several lasting friendships. So don’t be shy; step right up; and introduce yourself!
Avoid my past mistakes (this might be a long list). Random things you should try to avoid.
- Tribalism – It is natural to be protective of your hospitalist group, and to focus on the injustices heaped upon you from (insert favorite punching bag here, e.g., ED, orthopedists, cardiologists, nursing staff, evil administration penny pinchers, etc). While some of those injustices might be real, tribalism, defensiveness, and circling the wagons generally only makes things worse. Sit down face to face, learn a little bit about the opposing tribe (both about their work, and about them as people), and see how much more fun and productive work can be.
- Storming out of a meeting with the CMO and CEO, slamming the door, etc. – not productive. Administrative leaders are doing their own juggling act and are generally well intentioned and doing the best they can. Respect that, argue your case, but if things don’t pan out, shake their hand, and live to fight another day.
- Using e-mail (evil-mail) to resolve conflict – And if you’re a young whippersnapper, don’t use Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, or other social media to address conflict either!
- Forgetting to put patients first – Frame decisions for your group around what best serves your patients, not your doctors. Long term, this gives your group credibility and will serve the hospitalists better as well. SHM does this on a large scale with their advocacy efforts, resulting in more credibility and influence on Capitol Hill.
Make time for friends, family, fitness, fun, and reflection. A sense of humor and an occasional laugh when dealing with ill patients, hospital medicine politics, and the EMR all day provides resilience, as does taking the time to foster self-awareness and insight into your own weaknesses, strengths, and how you react to different stressors. A little bit of exercise and time with family and friends can go a long way towards improving your outlook, work, and life in general, while reducing burnout. Oh yeah, it’s also a good idea to choose a great life partner as well. Thanks Michelle!
Dr. Maynard is chief quality officer, University of California Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, Calif.
Most measles cases in 25 years prompts government pleas to vaccinate
The updated figure adds 9 cases to the previous tally of 695 cases as of April 24, when the CDC announced that the number of cases in 2019 had surpassed the total for any year since the disease was considered effectively eliminated from the country in 2000.
Cases have been reported in 22 states, with the largest outbreaks in Washington and New York. The outbreak in Washington, which included 72 cases, was declared over last week. Two outbreaks in New York, however, are the largest and longest-lasting measles outbreaks since the disease was considered eliminated, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. The longer they continue, the “greater the chance that measles will again gain a foothold in the United States,” she said at CDC telebriefing on measles.
The outbreaks are linked to travelers who are exposed to measles abroad and bring it to the United States. The disease then may spread, especially in communities with high rates of unvaccinated people. “A significant factor contributing to the outbreaks in New York is misinformation in the communities about the safety of the measles/mumps/rubella vaccine,” according to the CDC.
National Infant Immunization Week
Until last week, 2014 – with 667 measles cases – had been the year with the most cases since the disease was effectively eliminated. The last time the United States had more measles cases was in 1994, when there were 963 cases for the year.
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, also at the telebriefing, pointed out that 1994 also was the year that the United States first observed National Infant Immunization Week, which is April 27–May 4 this year. The CDC is marking the 25th anniversary of the annual observance, which highlights “the importance of protecting infants from vaccine-preventable diseases” and celebrates “the achievements of immunization programs in promoting healthy communities,” Secretary Azar said.
Message to health care providers
CDC director Robert Redfield Jr., MD, noted that measles has “no treatment, no cure, and no way to predict how bad a case will be.”
Some patients may have mild symptoms, whereas others may have serious complications such as pneumonia or encephalitis. In 2019, 3% of the patients with measles have developed pneumonia, he said. No patients have died.
Dr. Redfield, a virologist, noted that the CDC is recommending that children aged 6-12 months receive 1 dose of the measles vaccine if traveling abroad.
“As CDC director and as a physician, I have and continue to wholeheartedly advocate for infant immunization,” he said in a statement. “More importantly, as a father and grandfather I have ensured all of my children and grandchildren are vaccinated on the recommended schedule. Vaccines are safe. Vaccines do not cause autism. Vaccine-preventable diseases are dangerous.”
More than 94% of parents vaccinate their children, Dr. Redfield added. “CDC is working to reach the small percentage of vaccine-hesitant individuals so they too understand the importance of vaccines. It is imperative that we correct misinformation and reassure fearful parents so they protect their children from illnesses with long-lasting health impacts.”
About 1.3%, or 100,000 children, in the United States under 2 years old have not been vaccinated, he said.
“I call upon health care providers to encourage parents and expectant parents to vaccinate their children for their own protection and to avoid the spread of vaccine-preventable diseases within their families and communities,” he said. “We must join together as a nation to once again eliminate measles and prevent future disease outbreaks.”
The CDC has a complete list of clinical recommendations for health care providers on its website.
The president weighs in
President Donald Trump said that children should receive vaccinations – his first public comment about vaccines since his inauguration. Previously, he had questioned the safety of vaccines.
Asked by reporters about the measles outbreaks and his message for parents about having their kids vaccinated, he said: “They have to get the shot. The vaccinations are so important. This is really going around now. They have to get their shots.”
The updated figure adds 9 cases to the previous tally of 695 cases as of April 24, when the CDC announced that the number of cases in 2019 had surpassed the total for any year since the disease was considered effectively eliminated from the country in 2000.
Cases have been reported in 22 states, with the largest outbreaks in Washington and New York. The outbreak in Washington, which included 72 cases, was declared over last week. Two outbreaks in New York, however, are the largest and longest-lasting measles outbreaks since the disease was considered eliminated, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. The longer they continue, the “greater the chance that measles will again gain a foothold in the United States,” she said at CDC telebriefing on measles.
The outbreaks are linked to travelers who are exposed to measles abroad and bring it to the United States. The disease then may spread, especially in communities with high rates of unvaccinated people. “A significant factor contributing to the outbreaks in New York is misinformation in the communities about the safety of the measles/mumps/rubella vaccine,” according to the CDC.
National Infant Immunization Week
Until last week, 2014 – with 667 measles cases – had been the year with the most cases since the disease was effectively eliminated. The last time the United States had more measles cases was in 1994, when there were 963 cases for the year.
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, also at the telebriefing, pointed out that 1994 also was the year that the United States first observed National Infant Immunization Week, which is April 27–May 4 this year. The CDC is marking the 25th anniversary of the annual observance, which highlights “the importance of protecting infants from vaccine-preventable diseases” and celebrates “the achievements of immunization programs in promoting healthy communities,” Secretary Azar said.
Message to health care providers
CDC director Robert Redfield Jr., MD, noted that measles has “no treatment, no cure, and no way to predict how bad a case will be.”
Some patients may have mild symptoms, whereas others may have serious complications such as pneumonia or encephalitis. In 2019, 3% of the patients with measles have developed pneumonia, he said. No patients have died.
Dr. Redfield, a virologist, noted that the CDC is recommending that children aged 6-12 months receive 1 dose of the measles vaccine if traveling abroad.
“As CDC director and as a physician, I have and continue to wholeheartedly advocate for infant immunization,” he said in a statement. “More importantly, as a father and grandfather I have ensured all of my children and grandchildren are vaccinated on the recommended schedule. Vaccines are safe. Vaccines do not cause autism. Vaccine-preventable diseases are dangerous.”
More than 94% of parents vaccinate their children, Dr. Redfield added. “CDC is working to reach the small percentage of vaccine-hesitant individuals so they too understand the importance of vaccines. It is imperative that we correct misinformation and reassure fearful parents so they protect their children from illnesses with long-lasting health impacts.”
About 1.3%, or 100,000 children, in the United States under 2 years old have not been vaccinated, he said.
“I call upon health care providers to encourage parents and expectant parents to vaccinate their children for their own protection and to avoid the spread of vaccine-preventable diseases within their families and communities,” he said. “We must join together as a nation to once again eliminate measles and prevent future disease outbreaks.”
The CDC has a complete list of clinical recommendations for health care providers on its website.
The president weighs in
President Donald Trump said that children should receive vaccinations – his first public comment about vaccines since his inauguration. Previously, he had questioned the safety of vaccines.
Asked by reporters about the measles outbreaks and his message for parents about having their kids vaccinated, he said: “They have to get the shot. The vaccinations are so important. This is really going around now. They have to get their shots.”
The updated figure adds 9 cases to the previous tally of 695 cases as of April 24, when the CDC announced that the number of cases in 2019 had surpassed the total for any year since the disease was considered effectively eliminated from the country in 2000.
Cases have been reported in 22 states, with the largest outbreaks in Washington and New York. The outbreak in Washington, which included 72 cases, was declared over last week. Two outbreaks in New York, however, are the largest and longest-lasting measles outbreaks since the disease was considered eliminated, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. The longer they continue, the “greater the chance that measles will again gain a foothold in the United States,” she said at CDC telebriefing on measles.
The outbreaks are linked to travelers who are exposed to measles abroad and bring it to the United States. The disease then may spread, especially in communities with high rates of unvaccinated people. “A significant factor contributing to the outbreaks in New York is misinformation in the communities about the safety of the measles/mumps/rubella vaccine,” according to the CDC.
National Infant Immunization Week
Until last week, 2014 – with 667 measles cases – had been the year with the most cases since the disease was effectively eliminated. The last time the United States had more measles cases was in 1994, when there were 963 cases for the year.
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, also at the telebriefing, pointed out that 1994 also was the year that the United States first observed National Infant Immunization Week, which is April 27–May 4 this year. The CDC is marking the 25th anniversary of the annual observance, which highlights “the importance of protecting infants from vaccine-preventable diseases” and celebrates “the achievements of immunization programs in promoting healthy communities,” Secretary Azar said.
Message to health care providers
CDC director Robert Redfield Jr., MD, noted that measles has “no treatment, no cure, and no way to predict how bad a case will be.”
Some patients may have mild symptoms, whereas others may have serious complications such as pneumonia or encephalitis. In 2019, 3% of the patients with measles have developed pneumonia, he said. No patients have died.
Dr. Redfield, a virologist, noted that the CDC is recommending that children aged 6-12 months receive 1 dose of the measles vaccine if traveling abroad.
“As CDC director and as a physician, I have and continue to wholeheartedly advocate for infant immunization,” he said in a statement. “More importantly, as a father and grandfather I have ensured all of my children and grandchildren are vaccinated on the recommended schedule. Vaccines are safe. Vaccines do not cause autism. Vaccine-preventable diseases are dangerous.”
More than 94% of parents vaccinate their children, Dr. Redfield added. “CDC is working to reach the small percentage of vaccine-hesitant individuals so they too understand the importance of vaccines. It is imperative that we correct misinformation and reassure fearful parents so they protect their children from illnesses with long-lasting health impacts.”
About 1.3%, or 100,000 children, in the United States under 2 years old have not been vaccinated, he said.
“I call upon health care providers to encourage parents and expectant parents to vaccinate their children for their own protection and to avoid the spread of vaccine-preventable diseases within their families and communities,” he said. “We must join together as a nation to once again eliminate measles and prevent future disease outbreaks.”
The CDC has a complete list of clinical recommendations for health care providers on its website.
The president weighs in
President Donald Trump said that children should receive vaccinations – his first public comment about vaccines since his inauguration. Previously, he had questioned the safety of vaccines.
Asked by reporters about the measles outbreaks and his message for parents about having their kids vaccinated, he said: “They have to get the shot. The vaccinations are so important. This is really going around now. They have to get their shots.”
FROM A CDC TELEBRIEFING
Combo respiratory pathogen tests miss pertussis
BALTIMORE – Ann Arbor.
Respiratory pathogen panels are popular because they test for many things at once, but providers have to know their limits, said lead investigator Colleen Mayhew, MD, a pediatric emergency medicine fellow at the University of Michigan.
“Should RPAN be used to diagnosis pertussis? No,” she said at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting. RPAN was negative for confirmed pertussis 44% of the time in the study.
“In our cohort, [it] was no better than a coin flip for detecting pertussis,” she said. Also, even when it missed pertussis, it still detected other pathogens, which raises the risk that symptoms might be attributed to a different infection. “This has serious public health implications.”
“The bottom line is, if you are concerned about pertussis, it’s important to use a dedicated pertussis PCR [polymerase chain reaction] assay, and to use comprehensive respiratory pathogen testing only if there are other, specific targets that will change your clinical management,” such as mycoplasma or the flu, Dr. Mayhew said.
In the study, 102 nasopharyngeal swabs positive for pertussis on standalone PCR testing – the university uses an assay from Focus Diagnostics – were thawed and tested with RPAN.
RPAN was negative for pertussis on 45 swabs (44%). “These are the potential missed pertussis cases if RPAN is used alone,” Dr. Mayhew said. RPAN detected other pathogens, such as coronavirus, about half the time, whether or not it tested positive for pertussis. “Those additional pathogens might represent coinfection, but might also represent asymptomatic carriage.” It’s impossible to differentiate between the two, she noted.
In short, “neither positive testing for other respiratory pathogens, nor negative testing for pertussis by RPAN, is reliable for excluding the diagnosis of pertussis. Dedicated pertussis PCR testing should be used for diagnosis,” she and her team concluded.
RPAN also is a PCR test, but with a different, perhaps less robust, genetic target.
The 102 positive swabs were from patients aged 1 month to 73 years, so “it’s important for all of us to keep pertussis on our differential diagnose” no matter how old patients are, Dr. Mayhew said.
Freezing and thawing the swabs shouldn’t have degraded the genetic material, but it might have; that was one of the limits of the study.
The team hopes to run a quality improvement project to encourage the use of standalone pertussis PCR in Ann Arbor.
There was no industry funding. Dr. Mayhew didn’t report any disclosures.
BALTIMORE – Ann Arbor.
Respiratory pathogen panels are popular because they test for many things at once, but providers have to know their limits, said lead investigator Colleen Mayhew, MD, a pediatric emergency medicine fellow at the University of Michigan.
“Should RPAN be used to diagnosis pertussis? No,” she said at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting. RPAN was negative for confirmed pertussis 44% of the time in the study.
“In our cohort, [it] was no better than a coin flip for detecting pertussis,” she said. Also, even when it missed pertussis, it still detected other pathogens, which raises the risk that symptoms might be attributed to a different infection. “This has serious public health implications.”
“The bottom line is, if you are concerned about pertussis, it’s important to use a dedicated pertussis PCR [polymerase chain reaction] assay, and to use comprehensive respiratory pathogen testing only if there are other, specific targets that will change your clinical management,” such as mycoplasma or the flu, Dr. Mayhew said.
In the study, 102 nasopharyngeal swabs positive for pertussis on standalone PCR testing – the university uses an assay from Focus Diagnostics – were thawed and tested with RPAN.
RPAN was negative for pertussis on 45 swabs (44%). “These are the potential missed pertussis cases if RPAN is used alone,” Dr. Mayhew said. RPAN detected other pathogens, such as coronavirus, about half the time, whether or not it tested positive for pertussis. “Those additional pathogens might represent coinfection, but might also represent asymptomatic carriage.” It’s impossible to differentiate between the two, she noted.
In short, “neither positive testing for other respiratory pathogens, nor negative testing for pertussis by RPAN, is reliable for excluding the diagnosis of pertussis. Dedicated pertussis PCR testing should be used for diagnosis,” she and her team concluded.
RPAN also is a PCR test, but with a different, perhaps less robust, genetic target.
The 102 positive swabs were from patients aged 1 month to 73 years, so “it’s important for all of us to keep pertussis on our differential diagnose” no matter how old patients are, Dr. Mayhew said.
Freezing and thawing the swabs shouldn’t have degraded the genetic material, but it might have; that was one of the limits of the study.
The team hopes to run a quality improvement project to encourage the use of standalone pertussis PCR in Ann Arbor.
There was no industry funding. Dr. Mayhew didn’t report any disclosures.
BALTIMORE – Ann Arbor.
Respiratory pathogen panels are popular because they test for many things at once, but providers have to know their limits, said lead investigator Colleen Mayhew, MD, a pediatric emergency medicine fellow at the University of Michigan.
“Should RPAN be used to diagnosis pertussis? No,” she said at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting. RPAN was negative for confirmed pertussis 44% of the time in the study.
“In our cohort, [it] was no better than a coin flip for detecting pertussis,” she said. Also, even when it missed pertussis, it still detected other pathogens, which raises the risk that symptoms might be attributed to a different infection. “This has serious public health implications.”
“The bottom line is, if you are concerned about pertussis, it’s important to use a dedicated pertussis PCR [polymerase chain reaction] assay, and to use comprehensive respiratory pathogen testing only if there are other, specific targets that will change your clinical management,” such as mycoplasma or the flu, Dr. Mayhew said.
In the study, 102 nasopharyngeal swabs positive for pertussis on standalone PCR testing – the university uses an assay from Focus Diagnostics – were thawed and tested with RPAN.
RPAN was negative for pertussis on 45 swabs (44%). “These are the potential missed pertussis cases if RPAN is used alone,” Dr. Mayhew said. RPAN detected other pathogens, such as coronavirus, about half the time, whether or not it tested positive for pertussis. “Those additional pathogens might represent coinfection, but might also represent asymptomatic carriage.” It’s impossible to differentiate between the two, she noted.
In short, “neither positive testing for other respiratory pathogens, nor negative testing for pertussis by RPAN, is reliable for excluding the diagnosis of pertussis. Dedicated pertussis PCR testing should be used for diagnosis,” she and her team concluded.
RPAN also is a PCR test, but with a different, perhaps less robust, genetic target.
The 102 positive swabs were from patients aged 1 month to 73 years, so “it’s important for all of us to keep pertussis on our differential diagnose” no matter how old patients are, Dr. Mayhew said.
Freezing and thawing the swabs shouldn’t have degraded the genetic material, but it might have; that was one of the limits of the study.
The team hopes to run a quality improvement project to encourage the use of standalone pertussis PCR in Ann Arbor.
There was no industry funding. Dr. Mayhew didn’t report any disclosures.
REPORTING FROM PAS 2019
Poststroke hemorrhage risk higher with clopidogrel/aspirin than aspirin
A secondary analysis of the POINT randomized, clinical trial found that the risk of major hemorrhage associated with clopidogrel plus aspirin was higher than that with placebo plus aspirin (0.9% vs. 0.2%; hazard ratio, 3.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.44-8.85; P = .003). The study, which was published in JAMA Neurology, randomized nearly 4,900 patients at centers worldwide and concluded that overall the risk for hemorrhage was low with either treatment, although it did also find higher risk of minor hemorrhage with the combination than aspirin alone.
We previously covered results from POINT when they were presented at the World Stroke Congress, which can be found below.
SOURCE: Tillman H et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Apr 29. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.0932.
A secondary analysis of the POINT randomized, clinical trial found that the risk of major hemorrhage associated with clopidogrel plus aspirin was higher than that with placebo plus aspirin (0.9% vs. 0.2%; hazard ratio, 3.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.44-8.85; P = .003). The study, which was published in JAMA Neurology, randomized nearly 4,900 patients at centers worldwide and concluded that overall the risk for hemorrhage was low with either treatment, although it did also find higher risk of minor hemorrhage with the combination than aspirin alone.
We previously covered results from POINT when they were presented at the World Stroke Congress, which can be found below.
SOURCE: Tillman H et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Apr 29. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.0932.
A secondary analysis of the POINT randomized, clinical trial found that the risk of major hemorrhage associated with clopidogrel plus aspirin was higher than that with placebo plus aspirin (0.9% vs. 0.2%; hazard ratio, 3.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.44-8.85; P = .003). The study, which was published in JAMA Neurology, randomized nearly 4,900 patients at centers worldwide and concluded that overall the risk for hemorrhage was low with either treatment, although it did also find higher risk of minor hemorrhage with the combination than aspirin alone.
We previously covered results from POINT when they were presented at the World Stroke Congress, which can be found below.
SOURCE: Tillman H et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Apr 29. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.0932.
FROM JAMA NEUROLOGY
What’s Happening on Connect?
Do you allow your patients to eat during thrombolysis? Do you have any difficulties with your EMR? Have questions about the upcoming Vascular Annual Meeting? Sign in to SVSConnect and participate in discussions surrounding all things vascular. Your SVS credentials will get you into the community, and from there you’ll be able to ask questions, reply to discussions, post resources and network with other members. Log in to SVSConnect here. If you encounter sign-in difficulties, email [email protected] or call 312-334-2300.
Do you allow your patients to eat during thrombolysis? Do you have any difficulties with your EMR? Have questions about the upcoming Vascular Annual Meeting? Sign in to SVSConnect and participate in discussions surrounding all things vascular. Your SVS credentials will get you into the community, and from there you’ll be able to ask questions, reply to discussions, post resources and network with other members. Log in to SVSConnect here. If you encounter sign-in difficulties, email [email protected] or call 312-334-2300.
Do you allow your patients to eat during thrombolysis? Do you have any difficulties with your EMR? Have questions about the upcoming Vascular Annual Meeting? Sign in to SVSConnect and participate in discussions surrounding all things vascular. Your SVS credentials will get you into the community, and from there you’ll be able to ask questions, reply to discussions, post resources and network with other members. Log in to SVSConnect here. If you encounter sign-in difficulties, email [email protected] or call 312-334-2300.
Join SVS Section on Outpatient & Office Vascular Care
The SVS recently established the Section on Outpatient & Office Vascular Care (SOOVC) for clinicians who work in outpatient and office vascular care centers. SOOVC membership is available to all SVS members in good standing, and hospital/practice administrators are welcome to join as Affiliate Members. Benefits for SOOVC members include, but are not limited to, specific programming at the Vascular Annual Meeting, discounts on SVS events, networking opportunities and access to SVSConnect. Please reach out to [email protected] or 312-334-2349 with questions.
The SVS recently established the Section on Outpatient & Office Vascular Care (SOOVC) for clinicians who work in outpatient and office vascular care centers. SOOVC membership is available to all SVS members in good standing, and hospital/practice administrators are welcome to join as Affiliate Members. Benefits for SOOVC members include, but are not limited to, specific programming at the Vascular Annual Meeting, discounts on SVS events, networking opportunities and access to SVSConnect. Please reach out to [email protected] or 312-334-2349 with questions.
The SVS recently established the Section on Outpatient & Office Vascular Care (SOOVC) for clinicians who work in outpatient and office vascular care centers. SOOVC membership is available to all SVS members in good standing, and hospital/practice administrators are welcome to join as Affiliate Members. Benefits for SOOVC members include, but are not limited to, specific programming at the Vascular Annual Meeting, discounts on SVS events, networking opportunities and access to SVSConnect. Please reach out to [email protected] or 312-334-2349 with questions.
Register for VRIC
The Vascular Research Initiatives Conference (VRIC) is a few short weeks away, and it’s still not too late to register. Don’t miss your chance to connect with vascular researchers at the 2019 program, “Hard Science: Calcification and Vascular Solutions,” on May 13 in Boston. Learning objectives at the meeting range from vascular regeneration, stem cells and wound healing to aortopathies and novel vascular devices. Register for VRIC here. If you have questions, please reach out to the SVS Education Department at [email protected].
The Vascular Research Initiatives Conference (VRIC) is a few short weeks away, and it’s still not too late to register. Don’t miss your chance to connect with vascular researchers at the 2019 program, “Hard Science: Calcification and Vascular Solutions,” on May 13 in Boston. Learning objectives at the meeting range from vascular regeneration, stem cells and wound healing to aortopathies and novel vascular devices. Register for VRIC here. If you have questions, please reach out to the SVS Education Department at [email protected].
The Vascular Research Initiatives Conference (VRIC) is a few short weeks away, and it’s still not too late to register. Don’t miss your chance to connect with vascular researchers at the 2019 program, “Hard Science: Calcification and Vascular Solutions,” on May 13 in Boston. Learning objectives at the meeting range from vascular regeneration, stem cells and wound healing to aortopathies and novel vascular devices. Register for VRIC here. If you have questions, please reach out to the SVS Education Department at [email protected].
Lymphoma rate in RA patients is falling
MAUI, HAWAII – The incidence of lymphoma in patients with RA appears to have been dropping during the past 2 decades – and for rheumatologists, that’s news you can use.
“I think this is encouraging data about where we’re headed with therapy. And it’s encouraging data for your patients, that maybe more effective therapies can lead to a lower risk of cancer,” John J. Cush, MD, commented at the 2019 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
“Patients are always worried about cancer,” observed symposium director Arthur Kavanaugh, MD. “I think this is very useful data to bring to a discussion with patients.”
The study they highlighted was presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by Namrata Singh, MD, of the University of Iowa, Iowa City and coinvestigators from Veterans Affairs medical centers around the country. They analyzed the incidence of lymphomas as well as all-site cancers in 50,870 men with RA in the national VA health care system during 2001-2015 and compared the rates with the background rates in the general U.S. population as captured in the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.
The key finding: While the standardized incidence ratio for the development of lymphoma in the RA patients during 2001-2005 was 190% greater than in the SEER population, the SIR dropped to 1.6 in 2006-2010 and stayed low in 2011-2015.
“These are the only data I’m aware of that say maybe lymphomas are becoming less frequent among RA patients,” said Dr. Kavanaugh, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Historically, RA has been associated with roughly a 100% increased risk of lymphoma. The source of the increased risk has been a matter of controversy: Is it the result of immunostimulation triggered by high RA disease activity, or a side effect of the drugs employed in treatment of the disease? The clear implication of the VA study is that it’s all about disease activity.
“The lymphoma rate is higher early in the use of our new therapies, in 2001-2005, because the patients who went on TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors then had the most disease activity. But with time, patients are getting those treatments earlier. Does this [lower lymphoma rate] reflect a change in the practice of rheumatology? I think it does,” according to Dr. Cush, professor of medicine and rheumatology at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas.
Dr. Kavanaugh agreed. “Now, if we’re treating early and treating to target, we should see less lymphomas than we did back in the day.”
The rate of cancers at all sites in the VA RA patients has been going down as well, with the SIR dropping from 1.8 in 2001-2005 to close to 1, the background rate in the general population.
“What’s great about this study is this is a large data set. You really can’t compare an RA population on and off treatment. The right comparison is to a normal population – and SEER accounts for something like 14% of the U.S. population,” Dr. Cush said.
Previous support for the notion that the increased lymphoma risk associated with RA was a function of disease activity came from a Swedish study of 378 RA patients in the prebiologic era who developed lymphoma and a matched cohort of 378 others without lymphoma. The investigators found that patients with moderate overall RA disease activity were at a 700% increased risk of lymphoma, compared with those with low overall disease activity, and that patients with high RA disease activity were at a 6,900% increased risk (Arthritis Rheum. 2006 Mar;54[3]:692-701). But that was a cross-sectional study, whereas the VA study examined trends over time.
The VA RA cohort had a mean age of 64 years. About 60% were current or ex-smokers, 65% were positive for rheumatoid factor, and 62% were positive for anticyclic citrullinated peptide.
Dr. Kavanaugh said that, because of the potential for referral bias in the VA study, he’s eager to see the findings reproduced in another data set.
Both Dr. Cush and Dr. Kavanaugh reported serving as a consultant to and/or receiving research funding from numerous pharmaceutical companies.
MAUI, HAWAII – The incidence of lymphoma in patients with RA appears to have been dropping during the past 2 decades – and for rheumatologists, that’s news you can use.
“I think this is encouraging data about where we’re headed with therapy. And it’s encouraging data for your patients, that maybe more effective therapies can lead to a lower risk of cancer,” John J. Cush, MD, commented at the 2019 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
“Patients are always worried about cancer,” observed symposium director Arthur Kavanaugh, MD. “I think this is very useful data to bring to a discussion with patients.”
The study they highlighted was presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by Namrata Singh, MD, of the University of Iowa, Iowa City and coinvestigators from Veterans Affairs medical centers around the country. They analyzed the incidence of lymphomas as well as all-site cancers in 50,870 men with RA in the national VA health care system during 2001-2015 and compared the rates with the background rates in the general U.S. population as captured in the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.
The key finding: While the standardized incidence ratio for the development of lymphoma in the RA patients during 2001-2005 was 190% greater than in the SEER population, the SIR dropped to 1.6 in 2006-2010 and stayed low in 2011-2015.
“These are the only data I’m aware of that say maybe lymphomas are becoming less frequent among RA patients,” said Dr. Kavanaugh, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Historically, RA has been associated with roughly a 100% increased risk of lymphoma. The source of the increased risk has been a matter of controversy: Is it the result of immunostimulation triggered by high RA disease activity, or a side effect of the drugs employed in treatment of the disease? The clear implication of the VA study is that it’s all about disease activity.
“The lymphoma rate is higher early in the use of our new therapies, in 2001-2005, because the patients who went on TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors then had the most disease activity. But with time, patients are getting those treatments earlier. Does this [lower lymphoma rate] reflect a change in the practice of rheumatology? I think it does,” according to Dr. Cush, professor of medicine and rheumatology at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas.
Dr. Kavanaugh agreed. “Now, if we’re treating early and treating to target, we should see less lymphomas than we did back in the day.”
The rate of cancers at all sites in the VA RA patients has been going down as well, with the SIR dropping from 1.8 in 2001-2005 to close to 1, the background rate in the general population.
“What’s great about this study is this is a large data set. You really can’t compare an RA population on and off treatment. The right comparison is to a normal population – and SEER accounts for something like 14% of the U.S. population,” Dr. Cush said.
Previous support for the notion that the increased lymphoma risk associated with RA was a function of disease activity came from a Swedish study of 378 RA patients in the prebiologic era who developed lymphoma and a matched cohort of 378 others without lymphoma. The investigators found that patients with moderate overall RA disease activity were at a 700% increased risk of lymphoma, compared with those with low overall disease activity, and that patients with high RA disease activity were at a 6,900% increased risk (Arthritis Rheum. 2006 Mar;54[3]:692-701). But that was a cross-sectional study, whereas the VA study examined trends over time.
The VA RA cohort had a mean age of 64 years. About 60% were current or ex-smokers, 65% were positive for rheumatoid factor, and 62% were positive for anticyclic citrullinated peptide.
Dr. Kavanaugh said that, because of the potential for referral bias in the VA study, he’s eager to see the findings reproduced in another data set.
Both Dr. Cush and Dr. Kavanaugh reported serving as a consultant to and/or receiving research funding from numerous pharmaceutical companies.
MAUI, HAWAII – The incidence of lymphoma in patients with RA appears to have been dropping during the past 2 decades – and for rheumatologists, that’s news you can use.
“I think this is encouraging data about where we’re headed with therapy. And it’s encouraging data for your patients, that maybe more effective therapies can lead to a lower risk of cancer,” John J. Cush, MD, commented at the 2019 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
“Patients are always worried about cancer,” observed symposium director Arthur Kavanaugh, MD. “I think this is very useful data to bring to a discussion with patients.”
The study they highlighted was presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by Namrata Singh, MD, of the University of Iowa, Iowa City and coinvestigators from Veterans Affairs medical centers around the country. They analyzed the incidence of lymphomas as well as all-site cancers in 50,870 men with RA in the national VA health care system during 2001-2015 and compared the rates with the background rates in the general U.S. population as captured in the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.
The key finding: While the standardized incidence ratio for the development of lymphoma in the RA patients during 2001-2005 was 190% greater than in the SEER population, the SIR dropped to 1.6 in 2006-2010 and stayed low in 2011-2015.
“These are the only data I’m aware of that say maybe lymphomas are becoming less frequent among RA patients,” said Dr. Kavanaugh, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego.
Historically, RA has been associated with roughly a 100% increased risk of lymphoma. The source of the increased risk has been a matter of controversy: Is it the result of immunostimulation triggered by high RA disease activity, or a side effect of the drugs employed in treatment of the disease? The clear implication of the VA study is that it’s all about disease activity.
“The lymphoma rate is higher early in the use of our new therapies, in 2001-2005, because the patients who went on TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors then had the most disease activity. But with time, patients are getting those treatments earlier. Does this [lower lymphoma rate] reflect a change in the practice of rheumatology? I think it does,” according to Dr. Cush, professor of medicine and rheumatology at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas.
Dr. Kavanaugh agreed. “Now, if we’re treating early and treating to target, we should see less lymphomas than we did back in the day.”
The rate of cancers at all sites in the VA RA patients has been going down as well, with the SIR dropping from 1.8 in 2001-2005 to close to 1, the background rate in the general population.
“What’s great about this study is this is a large data set. You really can’t compare an RA population on and off treatment. The right comparison is to a normal population – and SEER accounts for something like 14% of the U.S. population,” Dr. Cush said.
Previous support for the notion that the increased lymphoma risk associated with RA was a function of disease activity came from a Swedish study of 378 RA patients in the prebiologic era who developed lymphoma and a matched cohort of 378 others without lymphoma. The investigators found that patients with moderate overall RA disease activity were at a 700% increased risk of lymphoma, compared with those with low overall disease activity, and that patients with high RA disease activity were at a 6,900% increased risk (Arthritis Rheum. 2006 Mar;54[3]:692-701). But that was a cross-sectional study, whereas the VA study examined trends over time.
The VA RA cohort had a mean age of 64 years. About 60% were current or ex-smokers, 65% were positive for rheumatoid factor, and 62% were positive for anticyclic citrullinated peptide.
Dr. Kavanaugh said that, because of the potential for referral bias in the VA study, he’s eager to see the findings reproduced in another data set.
Both Dr. Cush and Dr. Kavanaugh reported serving as a consultant to and/or receiving research funding from numerous pharmaceutical companies.
REPORTING FROM RWCS 2019
Systematic review: Patient navigation programs improve outcomes, have financial benefits
finds a systematic review.
The study, which was published in Cancer (2019 Apr 29. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32147) also found methodologic limitations and gaps in the research regarding cancer sites and steps in care, highlighting areas needing more focus.
The patient navigation model, introduced in 1990 to address poverty-related disparities in cancer care (Cancer. 2011;117(15 Suppl):3539-42), is now widely used in chronic illness management and has support from legislation as well as public and private funding. However, a 2011 review of patient navigation programs used in cancer care identified only 33 articles assessing impact and yielded mixed results, suggesting improvement in some out-comes but not others (CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:237-49), and there has been scant research on their cost-effectiveness.
Investigators led by Brittany M. Bernardo, MPH, Division of Population Sciences, Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, searched PubMed and EMBASE databases for studies investigating the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of patient navigation across the cancer continuum, with aims of summarizing their results, assessing quality, determining gaps, and identifying avenues for future research.
Ultimately, the investigators included 113 articles published between August 1, 2010, and February 1, 2018. A total of 14 reported on the cost-effectiveness of patient navigation programs.
Results reported in Cancer showed that the largest share of the articles focused on the effectiveness of patient navigation in screening (50%) and diagnosis (27%), while few focused on treatment (15%), survivorship (9%), clinical trial enrollment (2 articles), and prevention (1 article). With respect to cancer site, the majority of programs pertained to breast cancer (52%) and colorectal cancer (51%).
Overall, studies reported patient navigation programs had positive outcomes. For example, they improved uptake of and adherence to cancer screenings, timely diagnostic resolution and follow-up, completion rates for cancer therapy, and rates of attending medical appointments.
The 14 studies focusing on cost-effectiveness suggested that patient navigation programs had financial benefits as well. Two found that the programs generated net revenue for clinics and hospitals. Programs additionally reduced medical treatment costs, improved life expectancy and quality-adjusted life-years, and decreased health care use.
When the quality of studies was assessed with the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies, just 5% had strong methodology (having no weak components) and 30% had moderate methodology (having 1 weak component), while 65% had weak methodology (greater than or equal to 2 weak components).
“[Patient navigation] continues to be an effective method for overcoming barriers to care and should be integrated into more health care systems,” Ms. Bernardo and coinvestigators concluded. “With the encouraging results of this review and past reviews, it is hoped that new research will be conducted to fill in the remaining gaps and further elucidate the benefits of [patient navigation] in health care.”
One investigator disclosed having grant funding from the Merck Foundation and being a stockholder in Pfizer and a member of the American Cancer Society Patient Navigation Round Table; the other investigators made no disclosures. The study was supported by the Susan G. Komen Foundation and the Bradley Charles Cooper Foundation.
SOURCE: Bernardo BM et al. Cancer. 2019 Apr 29. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32147.
finds a systematic review.
The study, which was published in Cancer (2019 Apr 29. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32147) also found methodologic limitations and gaps in the research regarding cancer sites and steps in care, highlighting areas needing more focus.
The patient navigation model, introduced in 1990 to address poverty-related disparities in cancer care (Cancer. 2011;117(15 Suppl):3539-42), is now widely used in chronic illness management and has support from legislation as well as public and private funding. However, a 2011 review of patient navigation programs used in cancer care identified only 33 articles assessing impact and yielded mixed results, suggesting improvement in some out-comes but not others (CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:237-49), and there has been scant research on their cost-effectiveness.
Investigators led by Brittany M. Bernardo, MPH, Division of Population Sciences, Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, searched PubMed and EMBASE databases for studies investigating the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of patient navigation across the cancer continuum, with aims of summarizing their results, assessing quality, determining gaps, and identifying avenues for future research.
Ultimately, the investigators included 113 articles published between August 1, 2010, and February 1, 2018. A total of 14 reported on the cost-effectiveness of patient navigation programs.
Results reported in Cancer showed that the largest share of the articles focused on the effectiveness of patient navigation in screening (50%) and diagnosis (27%), while few focused on treatment (15%), survivorship (9%), clinical trial enrollment (2 articles), and prevention (1 article). With respect to cancer site, the majority of programs pertained to breast cancer (52%) and colorectal cancer (51%).
Overall, studies reported patient navigation programs had positive outcomes. For example, they improved uptake of and adherence to cancer screenings, timely diagnostic resolution and follow-up, completion rates for cancer therapy, and rates of attending medical appointments.
The 14 studies focusing on cost-effectiveness suggested that patient navigation programs had financial benefits as well. Two found that the programs generated net revenue for clinics and hospitals. Programs additionally reduced medical treatment costs, improved life expectancy and quality-adjusted life-years, and decreased health care use.
When the quality of studies was assessed with the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies, just 5% had strong methodology (having no weak components) and 30% had moderate methodology (having 1 weak component), while 65% had weak methodology (greater than or equal to 2 weak components).
“[Patient navigation] continues to be an effective method for overcoming barriers to care and should be integrated into more health care systems,” Ms. Bernardo and coinvestigators concluded. “With the encouraging results of this review and past reviews, it is hoped that new research will be conducted to fill in the remaining gaps and further elucidate the benefits of [patient navigation] in health care.”
One investigator disclosed having grant funding from the Merck Foundation and being a stockholder in Pfizer and a member of the American Cancer Society Patient Navigation Round Table; the other investigators made no disclosures. The study was supported by the Susan G. Komen Foundation and the Bradley Charles Cooper Foundation.
SOURCE: Bernardo BM et al. Cancer. 2019 Apr 29. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32147.
finds a systematic review.
The study, which was published in Cancer (2019 Apr 29. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32147) also found methodologic limitations and gaps in the research regarding cancer sites and steps in care, highlighting areas needing more focus.
The patient navigation model, introduced in 1990 to address poverty-related disparities in cancer care (Cancer. 2011;117(15 Suppl):3539-42), is now widely used in chronic illness management and has support from legislation as well as public and private funding. However, a 2011 review of patient navigation programs used in cancer care identified only 33 articles assessing impact and yielded mixed results, suggesting improvement in some out-comes but not others (CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:237-49), and there has been scant research on their cost-effectiveness.
Investigators led by Brittany M. Bernardo, MPH, Division of Population Sciences, Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, searched PubMed and EMBASE databases for studies investigating the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of patient navigation across the cancer continuum, with aims of summarizing their results, assessing quality, determining gaps, and identifying avenues for future research.
Ultimately, the investigators included 113 articles published between August 1, 2010, and February 1, 2018. A total of 14 reported on the cost-effectiveness of patient navigation programs.
Results reported in Cancer showed that the largest share of the articles focused on the effectiveness of patient navigation in screening (50%) and diagnosis (27%), while few focused on treatment (15%), survivorship (9%), clinical trial enrollment (2 articles), and prevention (1 article). With respect to cancer site, the majority of programs pertained to breast cancer (52%) and colorectal cancer (51%).
Overall, studies reported patient navigation programs had positive outcomes. For example, they improved uptake of and adherence to cancer screenings, timely diagnostic resolution and follow-up, completion rates for cancer therapy, and rates of attending medical appointments.
The 14 studies focusing on cost-effectiveness suggested that patient navigation programs had financial benefits as well. Two found that the programs generated net revenue for clinics and hospitals. Programs additionally reduced medical treatment costs, improved life expectancy and quality-adjusted life-years, and decreased health care use.
When the quality of studies was assessed with the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies, just 5% had strong methodology (having no weak components) and 30% had moderate methodology (having 1 weak component), while 65% had weak methodology (greater than or equal to 2 weak components).
“[Patient navigation] continues to be an effective method for overcoming barriers to care and should be integrated into more health care systems,” Ms. Bernardo and coinvestigators concluded. “With the encouraging results of this review and past reviews, it is hoped that new research will be conducted to fill in the remaining gaps and further elucidate the benefits of [patient navigation] in health care.”
One investigator disclosed having grant funding from the Merck Foundation and being a stockholder in Pfizer and a member of the American Cancer Society Patient Navigation Round Table; the other investigators made no disclosures. The study was supported by the Susan G. Komen Foundation and the Bradley Charles Cooper Foundation.
SOURCE: Bernardo BM et al. Cancer. 2019 Apr 29. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32147.
FROM CANCER
Novel strategies may help curb bariatric SSI
BALTIMORE – While rates of surgical site infections after bariatric surgery have been reported in the low single digits, SSIs have continued to be a persistent complication.
At the annual meeting of the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons, researchers reported on two strategies to reduce SSI in bariatric surgery: a predictive tool that identifies risk factors for wound infection, allowing surgeons to employ protective measures before and during surgery, and a change in surgical practice leading to a 78% reduction in wound infection rates that resulted from a single-center study.
Jerry Dang, MD, of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, reported that the BariWound predictive tool designed to stratify patients into risk categories showed a high level of accuracy with an area under the curve of 0.73. Cynthia Weber, MD, of University Hospitals, Cleveland, reported that changing the method for performing circular-stapled gastrojejunostomy (GJ) from the transoral to the transabdominal approach along with more vigilant use of wound protection reduced wound infection rates from 6% to 1.3%.
Dr. Dang noted that SSI has been reported as the most common hospital-acquired complication in bariatric surgery, with reported rates of between 1% and 10%. A 2014 analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database reported an SSI rate of 1.8% (Surg Endosc. 2014;28:3285-92). Although these rates are low, Dr. Dang explained that his group wanted to identify factors associated with SSI within 30 days of bariatric surgery. They analyzed outcomes data of 274,187 patients in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database who had bariatric surgery in 2015 and 2016 (196,608 by laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy [SG] and 77,579 laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass [RYGB]). Their analysis determined an incisional SSI rate of 0.47% (n = 1,291). “Incisional SSI rates were four times higher for laparoscopic RYGB: 1.04% vs. 0.25%,” Dr. Dang said.
On multivariable logistic regression, the adjusted odds ratio of SSI after RYGB vs. SG was 3.13 (P less than .001). Other significant risk factors were chronic steroid or immunosuppressant use (odds ratio, 1.75; P = .001), female sex (OR, 1.48; P less than .001) and history of gastroesophageal reflux disease (OR, 1.45; P less than .001). Other factors with a 21%-31% greater risk of SSI were white race (P = .002), history of diabetes (P less than .001), hypertension (P less than .001), obstructive sleep apnea (P = .001), and longer operation times (P less than .001). Each single-digit increase in body mass index increased risk by 3%, and older age actually had a protective effect for unknown reasons, Dr. Dang noted.
The BariWound tool assigns points to each risk factor. Each hour of operation time and each 10 kg/m2 of weight carry a value of 1 point, with partial points allowed. RYGB equals 5 points, and chronic steroid/immunosuppressant use, 4 points. The tool assigns risk to four categories based on score and 30-day SSI rate:
- Low, less than 15 (1% risk of SSI).
- Moderate, 15-21.9 (1%-5%).
- High, 22-26.9 (5%-10%).
- Very high, greater than 27 (greater than 10%).
“The BariWound tool can help to inform clinical decision making so patients can know they’re at higher risk, and this could allow for us to target high-risk patients with preventive packages, such as the Cleveland Clinic Technique of wound protection, wound irrigation, and wound packing as a resource-saving measure,” Dr. Dang said. “Targeting high-risk populations can reduce cost and operating time.”
Dr. Weber reported on her institution’s study of SSIs using two different methods for circular stapling of GJ that involved two different surgeons who performed 333 RYGB procedures from January 2016 to March 2018. Surgeon “A” had traditionally used the transoral technique without wound protection to insert the anvil of the stapler; surgeon “B” used wound protection and the transabdominal technique for stapler insertion. Wound protection involves draping of the stapler with sterile plastic.
“In a quarterly review, we detected a higher than expected wound complication rate of 6%,” Dr. Weber said. “Of particular concern was the development of five recent wound infection cases, which all occurred in the transoral group for a rate of 8.9% in that cohort.”
That left the quality team questioning the safety profile of the transoral technique, Dr. Weber said. “We wanted to know why and whether or not the main contributor to the development of a wound infection was the technique for the anvil introduction or was it the difference between surgeons using wound protection.”
Halfway through the study period, surgeon A made two modifications: He adopted the transabdominal technique for a subset of patients; and because of the surgeon’s comfort level and expertise with the transoral approach, he continued using that approach but added wound protection. Surgeon B continued with the transabdominal approach with wound protection. The share of transabdominal insertions in the study population increased from 69.2% before the change to 75% after. Demographics between the pre- and postchange patient populations were similar, as were the rates of revision surgery between the two groups.
“We noticed a significant reduction in total wound complications from 6% to 1.3%, and we noticed a complete elimination of surgical site infections after adding wound protection to the transoral technique,” Dr. Weber said.
Dr. Weber noted a number of limitations with the study: its retrospective nature; the lack of control for other intraoperative factors that contribute to SSIs; relatively low incidence of SSI; and surgeon’s choice to determine the technique of anvil insertion.
“We found that our quality improvement intervention was efficacious and decided that it was not the technique of anvil insertion, but it was the wound protection that was key to preventing wound infections, as we saw complete elimination after we added wound protection to the transoral technique,” Dr. Weber said. “Using proper precautions with the circular stapler and anastomosis can be done using either technique for anvil insertion. Overall self-assessment of outcomes leads to best practice.”
Dr. Dang had no financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Weber’s coauthor Leena Khatian, MD, MPH, disclosed relationships with Torax Medical, Medtronic, and Gore.
SOURCES: Weber C et al. SAGES 2109, Presentation S049; Dang J et al. SAGES 2019, Presentation S050.
BALTIMORE – While rates of surgical site infections after bariatric surgery have been reported in the low single digits, SSIs have continued to be a persistent complication.
At the annual meeting of the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons, researchers reported on two strategies to reduce SSI in bariatric surgery: a predictive tool that identifies risk factors for wound infection, allowing surgeons to employ protective measures before and during surgery, and a change in surgical practice leading to a 78% reduction in wound infection rates that resulted from a single-center study.
Jerry Dang, MD, of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, reported that the BariWound predictive tool designed to stratify patients into risk categories showed a high level of accuracy with an area under the curve of 0.73. Cynthia Weber, MD, of University Hospitals, Cleveland, reported that changing the method for performing circular-stapled gastrojejunostomy (GJ) from the transoral to the transabdominal approach along with more vigilant use of wound protection reduced wound infection rates from 6% to 1.3%.
Dr. Dang noted that SSI has been reported as the most common hospital-acquired complication in bariatric surgery, with reported rates of between 1% and 10%. A 2014 analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database reported an SSI rate of 1.8% (Surg Endosc. 2014;28:3285-92). Although these rates are low, Dr. Dang explained that his group wanted to identify factors associated with SSI within 30 days of bariatric surgery. They analyzed outcomes data of 274,187 patients in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database who had bariatric surgery in 2015 and 2016 (196,608 by laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy [SG] and 77,579 laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass [RYGB]). Their analysis determined an incisional SSI rate of 0.47% (n = 1,291). “Incisional SSI rates were four times higher for laparoscopic RYGB: 1.04% vs. 0.25%,” Dr. Dang said.
On multivariable logistic regression, the adjusted odds ratio of SSI after RYGB vs. SG was 3.13 (P less than .001). Other significant risk factors were chronic steroid or immunosuppressant use (odds ratio, 1.75; P = .001), female sex (OR, 1.48; P less than .001) and history of gastroesophageal reflux disease (OR, 1.45; P less than .001). Other factors with a 21%-31% greater risk of SSI were white race (P = .002), history of diabetes (P less than .001), hypertension (P less than .001), obstructive sleep apnea (P = .001), and longer operation times (P less than .001). Each single-digit increase in body mass index increased risk by 3%, and older age actually had a protective effect for unknown reasons, Dr. Dang noted.
The BariWound tool assigns points to each risk factor. Each hour of operation time and each 10 kg/m2 of weight carry a value of 1 point, with partial points allowed. RYGB equals 5 points, and chronic steroid/immunosuppressant use, 4 points. The tool assigns risk to four categories based on score and 30-day SSI rate:
- Low, less than 15 (1% risk of SSI).
- Moderate, 15-21.9 (1%-5%).
- High, 22-26.9 (5%-10%).
- Very high, greater than 27 (greater than 10%).
“The BariWound tool can help to inform clinical decision making so patients can know they’re at higher risk, and this could allow for us to target high-risk patients with preventive packages, such as the Cleveland Clinic Technique of wound protection, wound irrigation, and wound packing as a resource-saving measure,” Dr. Dang said. “Targeting high-risk populations can reduce cost and operating time.”
Dr. Weber reported on her institution’s study of SSIs using two different methods for circular stapling of GJ that involved two different surgeons who performed 333 RYGB procedures from January 2016 to March 2018. Surgeon “A” had traditionally used the transoral technique without wound protection to insert the anvil of the stapler; surgeon “B” used wound protection and the transabdominal technique for stapler insertion. Wound protection involves draping of the stapler with sterile plastic.
“In a quarterly review, we detected a higher than expected wound complication rate of 6%,” Dr. Weber said. “Of particular concern was the development of five recent wound infection cases, which all occurred in the transoral group for a rate of 8.9% in that cohort.”
That left the quality team questioning the safety profile of the transoral technique, Dr. Weber said. “We wanted to know why and whether or not the main contributor to the development of a wound infection was the technique for the anvil introduction or was it the difference between surgeons using wound protection.”
Halfway through the study period, surgeon A made two modifications: He adopted the transabdominal technique for a subset of patients; and because of the surgeon’s comfort level and expertise with the transoral approach, he continued using that approach but added wound protection. Surgeon B continued with the transabdominal approach with wound protection. The share of transabdominal insertions in the study population increased from 69.2% before the change to 75% after. Demographics between the pre- and postchange patient populations were similar, as were the rates of revision surgery between the two groups.
“We noticed a significant reduction in total wound complications from 6% to 1.3%, and we noticed a complete elimination of surgical site infections after adding wound protection to the transoral technique,” Dr. Weber said.
Dr. Weber noted a number of limitations with the study: its retrospective nature; the lack of control for other intraoperative factors that contribute to SSIs; relatively low incidence of SSI; and surgeon’s choice to determine the technique of anvil insertion.
“We found that our quality improvement intervention was efficacious and decided that it was not the technique of anvil insertion, but it was the wound protection that was key to preventing wound infections, as we saw complete elimination after we added wound protection to the transoral technique,” Dr. Weber said. “Using proper precautions with the circular stapler and anastomosis can be done using either technique for anvil insertion. Overall self-assessment of outcomes leads to best practice.”
Dr. Dang had no financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Weber’s coauthor Leena Khatian, MD, MPH, disclosed relationships with Torax Medical, Medtronic, and Gore.
SOURCES: Weber C et al. SAGES 2109, Presentation S049; Dang J et al. SAGES 2019, Presentation S050.
BALTIMORE – While rates of surgical site infections after bariatric surgery have been reported in the low single digits, SSIs have continued to be a persistent complication.
At the annual meeting of the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons, researchers reported on two strategies to reduce SSI in bariatric surgery: a predictive tool that identifies risk factors for wound infection, allowing surgeons to employ protective measures before and during surgery, and a change in surgical practice leading to a 78% reduction in wound infection rates that resulted from a single-center study.
Jerry Dang, MD, of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, reported that the BariWound predictive tool designed to stratify patients into risk categories showed a high level of accuracy with an area under the curve of 0.73. Cynthia Weber, MD, of University Hospitals, Cleveland, reported that changing the method for performing circular-stapled gastrojejunostomy (GJ) from the transoral to the transabdominal approach along with more vigilant use of wound protection reduced wound infection rates from 6% to 1.3%.
Dr. Dang noted that SSI has been reported as the most common hospital-acquired complication in bariatric surgery, with reported rates of between 1% and 10%. A 2014 analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database reported an SSI rate of 1.8% (Surg Endosc. 2014;28:3285-92). Although these rates are low, Dr. Dang explained that his group wanted to identify factors associated with SSI within 30 days of bariatric surgery. They analyzed outcomes data of 274,187 patients in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database who had bariatric surgery in 2015 and 2016 (196,608 by laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy [SG] and 77,579 laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass [RYGB]). Their analysis determined an incisional SSI rate of 0.47% (n = 1,291). “Incisional SSI rates were four times higher for laparoscopic RYGB: 1.04% vs. 0.25%,” Dr. Dang said.
On multivariable logistic regression, the adjusted odds ratio of SSI after RYGB vs. SG was 3.13 (P less than .001). Other significant risk factors were chronic steroid or immunosuppressant use (odds ratio, 1.75; P = .001), female sex (OR, 1.48; P less than .001) and history of gastroesophageal reflux disease (OR, 1.45; P less than .001). Other factors with a 21%-31% greater risk of SSI were white race (P = .002), history of diabetes (P less than .001), hypertension (P less than .001), obstructive sleep apnea (P = .001), and longer operation times (P less than .001). Each single-digit increase in body mass index increased risk by 3%, and older age actually had a protective effect for unknown reasons, Dr. Dang noted.
The BariWound tool assigns points to each risk factor. Each hour of operation time and each 10 kg/m2 of weight carry a value of 1 point, with partial points allowed. RYGB equals 5 points, and chronic steroid/immunosuppressant use, 4 points. The tool assigns risk to four categories based on score and 30-day SSI rate:
- Low, less than 15 (1% risk of SSI).
- Moderate, 15-21.9 (1%-5%).
- High, 22-26.9 (5%-10%).
- Very high, greater than 27 (greater than 10%).
“The BariWound tool can help to inform clinical decision making so patients can know they’re at higher risk, and this could allow for us to target high-risk patients with preventive packages, such as the Cleveland Clinic Technique of wound protection, wound irrigation, and wound packing as a resource-saving measure,” Dr. Dang said. “Targeting high-risk populations can reduce cost and operating time.”
Dr. Weber reported on her institution’s study of SSIs using two different methods for circular stapling of GJ that involved two different surgeons who performed 333 RYGB procedures from January 2016 to March 2018. Surgeon “A” had traditionally used the transoral technique without wound protection to insert the anvil of the stapler; surgeon “B” used wound protection and the transabdominal technique for stapler insertion. Wound protection involves draping of the stapler with sterile plastic.
“In a quarterly review, we detected a higher than expected wound complication rate of 6%,” Dr. Weber said. “Of particular concern was the development of five recent wound infection cases, which all occurred in the transoral group for a rate of 8.9% in that cohort.”
That left the quality team questioning the safety profile of the transoral technique, Dr. Weber said. “We wanted to know why and whether or not the main contributor to the development of a wound infection was the technique for the anvil introduction or was it the difference between surgeons using wound protection.”
Halfway through the study period, surgeon A made two modifications: He adopted the transabdominal technique for a subset of patients; and because of the surgeon’s comfort level and expertise with the transoral approach, he continued using that approach but added wound protection. Surgeon B continued with the transabdominal approach with wound protection. The share of transabdominal insertions in the study population increased from 69.2% before the change to 75% after. Demographics between the pre- and postchange patient populations were similar, as were the rates of revision surgery between the two groups.
“We noticed a significant reduction in total wound complications from 6% to 1.3%, and we noticed a complete elimination of surgical site infections after adding wound protection to the transoral technique,” Dr. Weber said.
Dr. Weber noted a number of limitations with the study: its retrospective nature; the lack of control for other intraoperative factors that contribute to SSIs; relatively low incidence of SSI; and surgeon’s choice to determine the technique of anvil insertion.
“We found that our quality improvement intervention was efficacious and decided that it was not the technique of anvil insertion, but it was the wound protection that was key to preventing wound infections, as we saw complete elimination after we added wound protection to the transoral technique,” Dr. Weber said. “Using proper precautions with the circular stapler and anastomosis can be done using either technique for anvil insertion. Overall self-assessment of outcomes leads to best practice.”
Dr. Dang had no financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Weber’s coauthor Leena Khatian, MD, MPH, disclosed relationships with Torax Medical, Medtronic, and Gore.
SOURCES: Weber C et al. SAGES 2109, Presentation S049; Dang J et al. SAGES 2019, Presentation S050.
REPORTING FROM SAGES 2019
Key clinical point: .
Major findings: The BariWound predictive model had an accuracy of area under the curve of 0.73; wound infection rates decreased from 6% to 1.3% after the change in practice.
Study details: Analysis of 274,187 cases from the 2015 MBSAQIP database; and a retrospective analysis of 333 bariatric cases performed from January 2016 to March 2018 at a single center.
Disclosures: Dr. Dang has no relationships to disclose. Dr. Weber has no disclosures, although coauthor Leena Khatian, MD, MPH, disclosed relationships with Torax Medical, Medtronic, and Gore.
Sources: Weber C et al. SAGES 2109, Presentation S049; Dang J et al. SAGES 2019, Presentation S050.