Search

Background: Food deserts are low-income census tracts with poor access to supermarkets and are associated with worse outcomes in breast, colon, and a small number of esophageal cancer patients. This study investigated residency in food deserts on readmission rates in a multi-institutional cohort of esophageal cancer patients undergoing trimodality therapy., Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent trimodality therapy at 6 high-volume institutions from January 2015 to July 2019 was performed. Food desert status was defined by the United States Department of Agriculture by patient ZIP Code. The primary outcome was 30-day readmission after esophagectomy. Multilevel, multivariable logistic regression was used to model readmission on food desert status adjusted for diabetes, insurance type, length of stay, and any complication, treating the institution as a random factor., Results: Of the 453 records evaluated, 425 were included in the analysis. Seventy-three patients (17.4%) resided in a food desert. Univariate analysis demonstrated food desert patients had significantly increased 30-day readmission. No differences were seen in length of stay, complications, or 30-day mortality. In the adjusted logistic regression model, residing in a food desert remained a significant risk factor for readmission (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.07-4.15). There were no differences in 30-day, 90-day, or 1-year mortality based on food desert status, although readmission was associated with worse 90-day and 1-year mortality., Conclusions: Food desert residence was associated with 30-day readmission after esophagectomy in patients undergoing trimodality treatment for esophageal cancer in this multi-institutional population. Identification of patients residing in a food desert may allow surgeons to focus preventative interventions during treatment and postoperatively to improve outcomes., (Copyright © 2023 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of unplanned conversion to open esophagectomy during minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) on postoperative morbidity and mortality for patients with esophageal cancer, as well as to evaluate the variables that influence the need for conversion., Methods: This study was a retrospective analysis of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent open esophagectomy or MIE by either a laparothoracoscopic approach or a robotic approach from 2016 to 2018 by using the esophagectomy-specific American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Poisson regression models were used to analyze 30-day outcomes and risk factors for conversion to open esophagectomy during attempted MIE., Results: A total of 2616 patients were identified. The overall conversion rate for MIE was 6.3%. Compared with completed MIE, patients requiring conversion to open esophagectomy had a significantly increased risk of 30-day mortality (risk ratio, 2.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 6.69) and experienced a variety of other postoperative complications. Patients requiring conversion to open esophagectomy during MIE also experienced worse perioperative outcomes when compared to patients who underwent planned open esophagectomy. Estimated surgical risk on the basis of the ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator was the only variable found to be independently associated with conversion from minimally invasive to open esophagectomy (risk ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.04, for each 10% increase in risk score)., Conclusions: Unplanned conversion to open esophagectomy during MIE is associated with significantly greater morbidity and a 2.6-fold increased risk of death when compared with both completed MIE and planned open esophagectomy. The ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator may help identify patients preoperatively who are at higher risk for conversion to open esophagectomy during MIE., (Copyright © 2021 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Postoperative analgesia is paramount to recovery after thoracic surgery, and opioids play an invaluable role in this process. However, current 1-size-fits-all prescribing practices produce large quantities of unused opioids, thereby increasing the risk of nonmedical use and overdose. This study hypothesized that patient and perioperative characteristics, including 24-hour before-discharge opioid intake, could inform more appropriate postdischarge prescriptions after thoracic surgery., Methods: This prospective observational cohort study was conducted in 200 adult thoracic surgical patients. The cohort was divided into 3 groups on the basis of 24-hour before-discharge opioid intake in morphine milligram equivalents (MME): (1) no (0 MME), (2) low (>0 to ≤22.5 MME), or (3) high (>22.5 MME) before-discharge opioid intake. Logistic regression was used to analyze the association of patient and perioperative characteristics with self-reported after-discharge opioid use., Results: Univariate analysis showed that preoperative opioid use, 24-hour before-discharge acetaminophen and gabapentinoid intake, and 24-hour before-discharge opioid intake were associated with higher after-discharge opioid use. Multivariable modeling demonstrated that 24-hour before-discharge opioid intake was most significantly associated with after-discharge opioid use. For example, compared with patients who took high amounts of opioids before discharge, patients who took no opioids before discharge were 99% less likely to take a high amount of opioids after discharge compared with taking none (odds ratio, 0.011; 95% confidence interval, 0.003 to 0.047; P < .001)., Conclusions: Assessment of 24-hour before-discharge opioid intake may inform patient requirements after discharge. Opioid prescriptions after thoracic surgery can thereby be targeted on the basis of anticipated needs., (Copyright © 2020 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The extraordinary demands of managing the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the world's ability to care for patients with thoracic malignancies. As a hospital's COVID-19 population increases and hospital resources are depleted, the ability to provide surgical care is progressively restricted, forcing surgeons to prioritize among their cancer populations. Representatives from multiple cancer, surgical, and research organizations have come together to provide a guide for triaging patients with thoracic malignancies as the impact of COVID-19 evolves as each hospital., (Copyright © 2020 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients express strong opinion regarding discharge destination, preferring discharge home vs elsewhere. As focus on patient satisfaction increases, we sought to understand differences in postoperative discharge destination after minimally invasive vs open anatomic lung resection for lung cancer to guide patient education and management and better understand the postoperative patient experience., Methods: Procedures were identified by Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases codes using the 2012-2017 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program dataset. Propensity score analysis was used to assess the relationship between the surgical approach and nonhome discharge destination (primary outcome) and postoperative complications; related, unplanned readmission; and mortality (secondary outcomes)., Results: A total of 17,303 patients underwent anatomic lung resection for lung cancer, including 10,121 (58.5%) minimally invasive and 7182 (41.5%) open resections. Patients undergoing open resection had 60% greater odds of nonhome discharge (P < .001), 58% greater odds of postoperative mortality (P = .003), 36% greater odds of postoperative complication (P < .001), and 17% greater odds of readmission (P = .04) compared with patients undergoing minimally invasive resection., Conclusions: The minimally invasive approach to lung resection for lung cancer offers patients a more desirable patient-centered postoperative experience, as well as more favorable clinical outcomes, and should be favored when feasible., (Copyright © 2020 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Sarcopenia may be an important predictive factor of outcomes after lung transplantation (LTx). Serum albumin and the 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) have been shown to be a marker of LTx outcomes. We measured sarcopenia, albumin, and 6MWD in a cohort of LTx patients and analyzed the utility of these as markers of outcomes for LTx patients., Methods: We retrospectively identified LTx recipients from 2013-2018 at our institution who underwent computed tomographic imaging during their listing evaluation. From that image, we measured skeletal muscle cross-sectional surface area at the third lumbar vertebral level, and sarcopenia was diagnosed by established cutoffs. Associations between sarcopenia, albumin, 6MWD, and survival, and hospital length of stay, complications, readmissions, and discharge destination were evaluated., Results: Sarcopenia was found in 72% (95 of 132) of patients, 18% (24 of 131) of patients were hypoalbuminemic, and 41% had a low 6MWD. Survival was not associated with presence of sarcopenia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-2.42) or low 6MWD (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.410-1.83). Hospital length of stay, complications, readmissions, and discharge destination were not influenced by sarcopenia or 6MWD. In contrast, hypoalbuminemia was independently associated with decreased survival (HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.04-4.85) and a higher grade of postoperative complications (P = .04)., Conclusions: Sarcopenia is prevalent in LTx patients. Neither sarcopenia nor 6MWD predicted mortality or short-term outcomes after LTx. This is in contrast to albumin levels, which were inversely associated with survival and complications. Albumin shows promise as an important predictor of mortality and short-term outcomes after LTx., (Copyright © 2020 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Our objective was to evaluate the association of bridge to transplant (BTT) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) on survival after lung transplantation (LTx) and determine the degree to which transplant center volume affects this relationship., Methods: Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, we performed a retrospective cohort study evaluating the survival of patients undergoing LTx between 2005 and 2017. On the basis of previous literature, LTx centers were classified into 3 groups using their average annual LTx volume over the preceding 5 years: less than 25, 25 to 49, and more than 50. Survival of BTT ECMO and non-ECMO patients was analyzed using a log-rank test. Propensity scores for BTT ECMO were calculated, and a weighted proportional hazards model was used to compare BTT ECMO and non-ECMO patients by center volume., Results: There were 20,976 patients who met inclusion criteria, with 611 (2.9%) undergoing BTT ECMO. Overall, BTT ECMO was associated with increased posttransplantation hazard of mortality (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.14 to 1.64). Kaplan-Meier plots by center volume suggest that BTT ECMO-associated mortality may be mitigated at high-volume LTx centers. In the propensity score-weighted proportional hazards model, we determined that when centers perform more than 35 LTxs per year, the increased hazard of BTT ECMO on mortality is no longer observed., Conclusions: BTT ECMO can be performed as a bridge to LTx without significantly increasing patient mortality in high-volume centers. Patients undergoing BTT ECMO at LTx centers that perform more than 35 LTxs annually have equivalent mortality to those who do not require ECMO before transplantation., (Copyright © 2019 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hospital readmissions are increasingly viewed as a marker of inferior health care quality and penalized with decreased reimbursement. The timing of, and reasons for, readmissions after esophagectomy for cancer are not well understood. We examined the association of complications to 30-day postoperative-related, unplanned readmission to identify opportunities for improvement in patient care., Methods: We analyzed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2012 to 2015) to characterize 30-day postoperative unplanned readmissions after esophagectomy for cancer using descriptive statistics. Type and timing of readmission after discharge was assessed. A Cox proportional hazards model was developed to identify predictors of readmission., Results: Of 3,723 patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer, 1,419 (38.1%) experienced ≥1 complication within 30 days. A total of 400 patients (10.7%) experienced related, unplanned readmissions within 30 days of the operation, and postoperative complications were documented in 263 (65.8%). Leading causes of readmission were infectious, pulmonary, and gastrointestinal complications. Of these patients, 155 (59%) were readmitted within 7 days and 236 (90%) within 14 days of discharge. The Cox proportional hazards model identified readmission being associated with occurrence of postdischarge infectious, pulmonary, venous thromboembolic, and urinary tract infection complications, in-hospital urinary tract infection complications, and log-transformation of length of stay (representing increasing length of stay) (all p < 0.05)., Conclusions: Postoperative occurrence of common complications and prolonged length of stay are associated with unplanned readmission after esophagectomy. Most patients are readmitted within 1 week of discharge. Earlier follow-up after discharge may identify patients with complications and facilitate outpatient intervention to prevent readmission., (Copyright © 2018 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hospital readmissions are viewed as a mark of inferior health care quality and are penalized. Unplanned postoperative readmission reason and timing after lung resection are not well understood. We examine related, unplanned readmissions after thoracoscopic versus open anatomic lung resections to identify opportunities to improve patient care., Methods: We analyzed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) data set, 2012 to 2015, characterizing 30-day related, unplanned postoperative readmissions after anatomic lung resections for primary lung cancer. Risk-adjusted comparison of readmission after thoracoscopic and open resection was performed using propensity matching., Results: Patients (n = 9,510) underwent anatomic lung resections; 4,935 (51.9%) were thoracoscopic resections and 4,575 (48.1%) were open resections. Of the thoracoscopic patients, 10.9% experienced one or more complications, versus 19.4% of patients with open resection (p < 0.0001). Of the thoracoscopic patients 5.5% experienced related, unplanned readmissions versus 7.2% of the patients with open resection (p < 0.001). 24.8% of complications after thoracoscopic approach occurred after discharge, versus 15.5% after open approach (p < 0.0001). Timing of unplanned readmission was similar for both groups. The propensity-matched odds ratio of risk of readmission after thoracoscopic versus open resection was 1.16 (95% confidence interval, 0.949 to 1.411, p = 0.15)., Conclusions: Open anatomic lung resections for primary lung cancer had nearly twice the complication rate but only a slightly higher readmission rate than thoracoscopic resection. More complications occurred after discharge after thoracoscopic than open resections. Most readmissions occurred within 2 weeks after both thoracoscopic and open resections. Risk-adjusted comparison identified no statistically significant difference in risk of related, unplanned readmission after thoracoscopic versus open resections. Future studies should focus on identification of processes of care to decrease complications and unplanned readmissions after lung cancer resection., (Copyright © 2017 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The use of single lung transplantation (SLTx) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is often viewed as inferior therapy compared with bilateral lung transplantation (BLTx). We hypothesized from our experience that subpopulations of recipients with emphysema exist in which SLTx represents therapy that is equivalent to BLTx, therefore allowing more patients access to transplantation., Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing LTx for emphysema between 1992 and 2012 at a single institution were identified and analyzed retrospectively. A similar cohort from the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) national database was identified for comparison. Five-year survival in patients receiving SLTx and those receiving BLTx were compared using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank tests., Results: Two hundred thirty-six patients meeting criteria were identified from our institution. Two hundred six underwent SLTx, and 30 underwent BLTx. Five-year survival for single-center SLTx (53.2% ± 3.6%) and BLTx (56.7% ± 10.2%) was not significantly different (p = 0.753). The national database included 7,256 patients meeting selection criteria, with 4,408 undergoing SLTx and 2,848 undergoing BLTx. Five-year survival among the national cohorts was lower for SLTx (46.4% ± 0.8%) compared with BLTx (55.9% ± 1.1%) (p < 0.0001). However, 5-year survival for our single-center SLTx experience (53.2% ± 3.6%) was comparable to the national BLTx cohort (55.9% ± 1.1%) (p = 0.539)., Conclusions: Five-year survival after SLTx for emphysema was comparable to that for BLTx in cohorts from our institution and from the UNOS national database. Further study should focus on the mechanism behind these improved outcomes. Given the potential for a larger number of life-years saved, SLTx should continue to be considered a therapeutic option in appropriately selected patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)., (Copyright © 2015 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection on postoperative survival among non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients., Methods: A retrospective cohort study compared 22 HIV-infected lung cancer patients to 2,430 lung cancer patients with HIV-unspecified status who underwent resection at Johns Hopkins Hospital from 1985 to 2009. Subcohort comparative analyses were performed using individual matching methods., Results: Thirty-day mortality rates did not differ between HIV-infected and HIV-unspecified patients. Survival rates for HIV-infected lung cancer patients were significantly shorter than for HIV-unspecified patients (median, 26 versus 48 months; p=0.001). After adjustment, the relative hazard of mortality among HIV-infected NSCLC patients was more than threefold that of HIV-unspecified patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.08; 95% confidence interval: 1.85 to 5.13). When additional surgical characteristics were modeled in a matched subcohort, the association remained statistically significant (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval: 1.11 to 4.81). Moreover, HIV-infected lung cancer patients with CD4 counts less than 200 cells/mm3 had shortened median survival compared with patients whose CD4 counts were 200 cells/mm3 or greater (8 versus 40 months; p=0.031). Postoperative pulmonary and infectious complications were also elevated in the HIV-infected group (p=0.001 and p<0.001, respectively). After surgery, median time to cancer progression was shorter among HIV-infected patients (20.4 months) versus HIV-unspecified patients (p=0.061)., Conclusions: The HIV-infected NSCLC patients have more postoperative complications, rapid progression to disease recurrence, and poorer postoperative survival. Optimizing immune status before surgery and careful patient selection based on diffusion capacity of lung for carbon monoxide may improve patient outcomes., (Copyright © 2012 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Whether center volume influences outcomes in lung transplantation is unknown. We reviewed United Network for Organ Sharing data to examine the effect of center volume on short-term mortality., Methods: We reviewed United Network for Organ Sharing data (1998 through 2007) to identify 10,496 first-time adult lung transplantation recipients at 79 centers. Centers were stratified by quartiles of mean annual volume. Risk of 30-day mortality and 1- and 5-year mortality (censored for 30-day death) were assessed by multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression., Results: Mean center volume ranged from less than 1 to 58.2 (median, 9.4 cases/year; volume quartiles: 0 to 2.1, 2.2 to 9.4, 9.5 to 19.9, and 20 to 58.2 cases). Each 1 case/year decrease led to a 2% increase in 30-day mortality (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.02; p < 0.001). Centers of lowest quartile (performing or=20 lung transplantations/year) had the lowest 30-day mortality (4.1%)., Conclusions: We provide an initial examination of the relationship of volume and lung allocation score to outcomes for lung transplantation. Low center volume is associated with increased short-term and cumulative mortality despite fewer idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis patients and younger patients.

Background: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) mandate that orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) centers perform 10 transplants per year to qualify for funding. We sought to determine whether this cutoff is meaningful and establish recommendations for optimal center volume using the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry., Methods: We reviewed UNOS data (years 1999 to 2006) identifying 14,401 first-time adult OHTs conducted at 143 centers. Stratification was by mean annual institution volume. Primary outcomes of 30-day and 1-year mortality were assessed by multivariable logistic regression (adjusted for comorbidities and risk factors for death). Sequential volume cutoffs were examined to determine if current CMS standards are optimal. Pseudo R2 and area under the receiver operating curve assessed goodness of fit., Results: Mean annual volume ranged from 1 to 90. One-year mortality was 12.6% (n = 1,800). Increased center volume was associated with decreased 30-day mortality (p < 0.001). Decreased center volume was associated with increases in 30-day (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02 to 1.03, p < 0.001) and 1-year mortality (OR 1.01, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.02, p = 0.03--censored for 30-day death). The greatest mortality risk occurred at very low volume centers (

Background: Defining centers of excellence for complex surgical procedures, including pulmonary resection, reveals lower mortality at high-volume centers. We postulate that short-term outcome after lung cancer resection is better at teaching hospitals (TH) compared with nonteaching hospitals (non-TH), independent of volume., Methods: Lung cancer resections in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) dataset from 1998 to 2004 were stratified by resection type (segmentectomy, lobectomy, and pneumonectomy). The TH identified in the NIS include those with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-approved general surgery (GSTH) and thoracic surgery (TSTH) residency programs. The association of hospital teaching status with in-hospital mortality was assessed by multivariate logistic regression, adjusting for patient demographics and comorbidities., Results: Of 46,951 lung resections (5,651 segmentectomies, 37,027 lobectomies, 4,273 pneumonectomies), 56% were performed at TH. Overall mortality was significantly lower at TH versus non-TH (3.2% vs 4.0%; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis for GSTH and TSTH confirmed this decrease. On multivariate regression, overall odds of death was independently reduced by 17% at TH versus non-TH (95% confidence interval: 0.73 to 0.93; p = 0.002). At TH, odds of death for pneumonectomy and lobectomy were significantly reduced independent of surgical volume, except for the latter at the highest hospital volume strata., Conclusions: In-hospital mortality is reduced for patients undergoing lung cancer resections at teaching hospitals, with results prominent at all but the highest volume institutions. Lower mortality rates persisted at GSTH and TSTH. Understanding and disseminating the processes of care associated with these settings may improve quality of care for lung cancer patients, and decrease patient bias against teaching hospitals.