Search

Background Out-of-pocket (OOP) costs can be substantial financial burdens for patients and may even cause patients to delay or forgo necessary medical procedures. Although overall healthcare costs are rising in the United States, recent trends in patient OOP costs for foot and ankle orthopaedic surgical procedures have not been reported. Fully understanding patient OOP costs for common orthopaedic surgical procedures, such as those performed on the foot and ankle, might help patients and professionals make informed decisions regarding treatment options and demonstrate to policymakers the growing unaffordability of these procedures. Questions/purposes (1) How do OOP costs for common outpatient foot and ankle surgical procedures for commercially insured patients compare between elective and trauma surgical procedures? (2) How do these OOP costs compare between patients enrolled in various insurance plan types? (3) How do these OOP costs compare between surgical procedures performed in hospital-based outpatient departments and ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs)? (4) How have these OOP costs changed over time? Methods This was a retrospective, comparative study drawn from a large, longitudinally maintained database. Data on adult patients who underwent elective or trauma outpatient foot or ankle surgical procedures between 2010 and 2020 were extracted using the MarketScan Database, which contains well-delineated cost variables for all patient claims, which are particularly advantageous for assessing OOP costs. Of the 1,031,279 patient encounters initially identified, 41% (427,879) met the inclusion criteria. Demographic, procedural, and financial data were recorded. The median patient age was 50 years (IQR 39 to 57); 65% were women, and more than half of patients were enrolled in preferred provider organization insurance plans. Approximately 75% of surgical procedures were classified as elective (rather than trauma), and 69% of procedures were performed in hospital-based outpatient departments (rather than ASCs). The primary outcome was OOP costs incurred by the patient, which were defined as the sum of the deductible, coinsurance, and copayment paid for each episode of care. Monetary data were adjusted to 2020 USD. A general linear regression, the Kruskal-Wallis test, and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test were used for analysis, as appropriate. Alpha was set at 0.05. Results For foot and ankle indications, trauma surgical procedures generated higher median OOP costs than elective procedures (USD 942 [IQR USD 150 to 2052] versus USD 568 [IQR USD 51 to 1426], difference of medians USD 374; p < 0.001). Of the insurance plans studied, high-deductible health plans had the highest median OOP costs. OOP costs were lower for procedures performed in ASCs than in hospital-based outpatient departments (USD 645 [IQR USD 114 to 1447] versus USD 681 [IQR USD 64 to 1683], difference of medians USD 36; p < 0.001). This trend was driven by higher coinsurance for hospital-based outpatient departments than for ASCs (USD 391 [IQR USD 0 to 1136] versus USD 337 [IQR USD 0 to 797], difference of medians USD 54; p < 0.001). The median OOP costs for common outpatient foot and ankle surgical procedures increased by 102%, from USD 450 in 2010 to USD 907 in 2020. Conclusion Rapidly increasing OOP costs of common foot and ankle orthopaedic surgical procedures warrant a thorough investigation of potential cost-saving strategies and initiatives to enhance healthcare affordability for patients. In particular, measures should be taken to reduce underuse of necessary care for patients enrolled in highdeductible health plans, such as shorter-term deductible timespans and placing additional regulations on the implementation of these plans. Moreover, policymakers and physicians could consider finding ways to increase the proportion of procedures performed at ASCs for procedure types that have been shown to be equally safe and effective as in hospital-based outpatient departments. Future studies should extend this analysis to publicly insured patients and further investigate the health and financial effects of highdeductible health plans and ASCs, respectively. Level of Evidence Level III, economic and decision analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To compare postoperative urinary retention rates in the early postoperative period between home and office catheter removal. Secondary outcomes included pain, difficulty, satisfaction, likelihood to use again, and health care utilization. METHODS: We conducted a nonblinded, randomized controlled, noninferiority trial of women undergoing surgery for stress incontinence and prolapse from March 2021 to June 2022. Exclusion criteria were preoperative voiding dysfunction (need for self-catheterization or postvoid residual [PVR] greater than 150 mL), urethral bulking, and need for prolonged postoperative catheterization. Participants discharged with indwelling catheters because of an initial failed void trial were randomized 1:1 to home compared with office removal on postoperative day 3-4. For home removal, participants were instructed to remove the catheter at 7 am and to drink two glasses of water. If they had difficulty voiding 5 hours after catheter removal, they came to the office for a void trial. For office removal, participants returned for a backfill void trial with PVR assessment. Our primary outcome was rate of early postoperative urinary retention, defined as confirmed retention (PVR greater than half the voided volume) after catheter removal. Secondary outcomes were assessed at a 2-week call. Health care utilization (telephone calls and office visits) related to catheter issues was also assessed. At 80% power and a=0.05, we needed 100 participants (50/group) to detect a noninferiority margin of 11%. RESULTS: Among 117 participants, the home (n=59) and office (n=58) removal groups were similar in mean age (60 years vs 61 years), mean body mass index (29 vs 30), pelvic organ prolapse quantification system stage 3 or 4, and proportion who underwent hysterectomy or apical suspension. Sling procedures were more common in the office group (45.8% vs 77.6%). For our primary outcome, the rate of early postoperative retention was 11.9% in the home group and 22.4% in the office group (P=.13). Our predetermined noninferiority margin was greater than the upper bound of our 95% CI;thus, we conclude non-inferiority of home removal. For secondary outcomes, the home removal group was more likely to report "no pain" (P=.02) and "very likely" to use this method again (P=.004). There were no differences in difficulty or satisfaction between groups. Number of nursing calls was not different (P=.66);however, number of office visits was higher in the office group (median 0 [interquartile range 0-1] vs 1 [1-1], PC001). CONCLUSION: Postoperative urinary catheter removal by the patient at home was noninferior to office removal when early urinary retention rates were compared. Participants in the home removal group had fewer office visits and reported low pain, low difficulty, and high satisfaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Although methamphetamine use is common, the scope of methamphetamine use and outcomes for patients admitted to the hospital is unclear. This study aims to identify the prevalence of methamphetamine use from January 2012 to January 2022, coingestions, hospital course, and readmission rate of admitted patients. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted on patients admitted to our center with the following inclusions: age older than 18 years, positive/"pending confirm" value for methamphetamine on urine drug screen, and/or an International Classification of Diseases , Tenth Revision , code related to stimulant use disorder as an active issue. Urine drug screen data are reported as methamphetamine +/− and polysubstance (PS) +/−. Patient demographics, admission diagnosis, and hospital course were extracted. Statistical tests used included t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: A total of 19,159 encounters were included, representing 12,057 unique patients. The median (interquartile range) age was 43 (33–54) years. Of all encounters, 35.3% were methamphetamine + and PS −, and 46.3% were methamphetamine + and PS +. Hospitalizations increased from 883 in 2012 to 2532 in 2021. The median (IQR) hospital stay was 48 (48–120) hours. Of all encounters, 16.8% included an intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and the median ICU stay was 42 (21–87) hours. A total of 2988 patients (24.7%) were readmitted within the study period, and 4988 (71.5%) returned within 1 year of the previous encounter. In context of all emergency department admissions from 2013 to 2022, 13.1% had a urine drug screen + for methamphetamine. Conclusions: Hospitalizations with recent methamphetamine use doubled at our institution from 2012 to 2022. In addition, 1 in 4 is readmitted (typically within 1 year), and a minority requires ICU care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The translational development of pediatric ventricular assist devices (VADs) lags years behind adult device options, negatively impacting pediatric patient outcomes. To address this need, we are developing a novel, series-flow, double-blood pump VAD that integrates an axial and centrifugal pump into a single device. The axial pump is used for initial circulatory assistance in younger patients; then, an internal activation mechanism triggers the centrifugal pump to activate in line with the axial pump, providing additional pressure and flow to match pediatric patient growth cycles. Here, we focused on the design and improvement of the device flow paths through computational analysis and in vitro hydraulic testing of a prototype. We estimated pressure-flow generation, fluid scalar stresses, and blood damage levels. In vitro hydraulic tests correlated well with shear stress transport (SST) predictions, with an average deviation of 4.5% for the complex, combined flow path. All data followed expected pump performance trends. The device exceeded target levels for blood damage in the blade tip clearances, and this must be both investigated and addressed in the next design phase. These study findings establish a strong foundation for the future development of the Drexel Double-Dragon VAD., Competing Interests: Disclosure: T.C.P., A.L.T., H.S. are inventors on patents and provisional patents for related blood pump designs by the USPTO. This research was performed in its entirety at Drexel University. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to report., (Copyright © ASAIO 2024.)

Background: The majority of opioid analgesics prescribed for pain after ambulatory pediatric surgery remain unused. Most parents do not dispose of these leftover opioids or dispose of them in an unsafe manner. We aimed to evaluate the association of optimal opioid disposal with a multidisciplinary quality improvement (QI) initiative that proactively educated parents about the importance of optimal opioid disposal practices and provided a home opioid disposal kit before discharge after pediatric ambulatory surgery., Methods: Opioid disposal behaviors were assessed during a brief telephone interview pre- (Phase I) and post-implementation (Phase II) after surgery. For each phase, we aimed to contact the parents of 300 pediatric patients ages 0 to 17 years who were prescribed an opioid after an ambulatory surgery. The QI initiative included enhanced education and a home opioid disposal kit including DisposeRX®, a medication disposal packet that renders medications inert within a polymeric gel when mixed with water. Weighted segmented regression models evaluated the association between the QI initiative and outcomes. We considered the association between the QI initiative and outcome significant if the beta coefficient for the change in intercept between the end of Phase I and the beginning of Phase II was significant. Safe opioid disposal and any opioid disposal were evaluated as secondary outcomes., Results: The analyzed sample contained 161 pediatric patients in Phase I and 190 pediatric patients in Phase II. Phase II (post-QI initiative) cohort compared to Phase I cohort reported higher rates of optimal (58%, n = 111/190 vs 11%, n = 18/161) and safe (66%, n = 125/190 vs 34%, n = 55/161) opioid disposal. Weighted segmented regression analyses demonstrated significant increases in the odds of optimal (odds ratio [OR], 26.5, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.0-177.0) and safe (OR, 4.4, 95% CI, 1.1-18.4) opioid disposal at the beginning of Phase II compared to the end of Phase I. The trends over time (slopes) within phases were nonsignificant and close to 0. The numbers needed to be exposed to achieve one new disposal event were 2.2 (95% CI, 1.4-3.7]), 3.1 (95% CI, 1.6-7.4), and 4.3 (95% CI, 1.7-13.6) for optimal, safe, and any disposal, respectively., Conclusions: A multidisciplinary approach to educating parents on the importance of safe disposal of leftover opioids paired with dispensing a convenient opioid disposal kit was associated with increased odds of optimal opioid disposal., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 International Anesthesia Research Society.)

Purpose of Review: Newborn screening is one of the most successful public health programs of the last century and offers unparalleled access to universal screening for a variety of metabolic and other disorders. Interest in development of newborn screening for lipid disorders has intensified in recent years. Screening newborns for lipid disorders has important implications for the health of the newborn as well as their relatives, and in the case of more common lipid disorders like familial hypercholesterolemia, could have important public health implications., Recent Findings: Recent studies have demonstrated feasibility of measuring biomarkers for heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia from newborn screening dried blood spot specimens. Another lipid disorder, cerebrotendinous xanthomatosis, is currently amenable to newborn screening utilizing currently available assays. New research in next-generation sequencing as a primary screen in newborns will also identify both common and rare lipid disorders in newborns., Summary: Historically, newborn screening for lipid disorders was not done for many reasons, but new research has developed testing methods that may successfully identify common and rare lipid disorders. This will impact the health of the newborn but could also impact family members and public health., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is often diagnosed in school-age children between 6- and 9-year-old. There is less known about those who are diagnosed with EoE that are younger than 6 years old. The objective of this study is to compare clinical presentation, comorbidities, and outcomes based on age at diagnosis of EoE., Methods: Single-center retrospective chart review of children (<18 years) diagnosed with EoE between 2005 and 2020. We recorded demographics, clinical presentation, family history, past medical history, treatment, and endoscopic findings. Children in this cohort were classified based on age into three age groups: <2 years, 2-<6 years, and 6-<18 years., Results: We identified 256 children with EoE, the mean age (SD) at the time of diagnosis was 9 (5.2) years and 184 (72%) were male. We had 164 (64%) patients with available follow-up esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs) data (495 EGDs in total) of those 99/164 (60%) reached mucosal remission. In the very young children (<2 years) vomiting was the most common presentation, while poor weight gain was seen more in the 2-<6-year group in comparison to the >6-years. Food impaction and abdominal pain were most likely to present in older children 6-18 years. Combination therapy, as opposed to a single therapy, induced remission at a higher frequency in the <6-year group in comparison to the 6-<18-year group (85% vs. 66%)., Conclusion: EoE should be considered in younger children presenting with feeding difficulty and poor weight gain. Combination therapy seems to be more effective in younger children with EoE, but further studies with bigger sample size are needed to study the efficacy of the different combination therapies., (© 2024 European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition and North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition.)