Research Spotlight

Keller, D. S., N. Parikh and A. J. Senagore (2017). “Predicting opportunities to increase utilization of laparoscopy for colon cancer.” Surg Endosc 31(4): 1855-1862.

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: Despite proven safety and efficacy, rates of minimally invasive approaches for colon cancer remain low in the USA. Given the known benefits, investigating the root causes of underutilization and methods to increase laparoscopy is warranted. Our goal was to develop a predictive model of factors impacting use of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer. METHODS: The Premier Hospital Database was reviewed for elective colorectal resections for colon cancer (2009-2014). Patients were identified by ICD-9-CM diagnosis code and then stratified into open or laparoscopic approaches by ICD-9-CM procedure codes. An adjusted multivariate logistic regression model identified variables predictive of use of laparoscopy for colon cancer. RESULTS: A total of 24,245 patients were included-12,523 (52 %) laparoscopic and 11,722 (48 %) open. General surgeons performed the majority of all procedures (77.99 % open, 71.60 % laparoscopic). Overall use of laparoscopy increased from 48.94 to 52.03 % over the study period (p < 0.0001). Patients with private insurance were more likely to have laparoscopy compared with Medicare patients (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.089, 95 % CI [1.004, 1.181], p = 0.0388). Higher volume of surgeons (OR 3.518, 95 % CI [2.796, 4.428], p < 0.0001) and larger hospitals by bed size were more likely to approach colon cancer laparoscopically. Colorectal surgeons were 32 % more likely to approach a case laparoscopically than general surgeons (OR 1.315, 95 % CI [1.222, 1.415], p < 0.0001). Teaching hospitals, hospitals in the Midwest, and hospitals with less than 500 beds were less likely to use laparoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: There are patient, provider, and hospital characteristics that can be identified preoperatively to predict who will undergo surgery for colon cancer using laparoscopy. However, additional patients may be eligible for laparoscopy based on patient-level characteristics. These results have implications for regionalization and increasing teaching of MIS. Recognizing and addressing these variables with training and recruiting could increase use of minimally invasive approaches, with the associated clinical and financial benefits.

Keller, D. S., D. Kroll, H. T. Papaconstantinou and C. N. Ellis (2017). “Development and Validation of a Methodology to Reduce Mortality Using the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program Risk Calculator.” J Am Coll Surg 224(4): 602-607.

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: To identify patients with a high risk of 30-day mortality after elective surgery, who may benefit from referral for tertiary care, an institution-specific process using the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) Risk Calculator was developed. The goal was to develop and validate the methodology. Our hypothesis was that the process could optimize referrals and reduce mortality. STUDY DESIGN: A VASQIP risk score was calculated for all patients undergoing elective noncardiac surgery at a single Veterans Affairs (VA) facility. After statistical analysis, a VASQIP risk score of 3.3% predicted mortality was selected as the institutional threshold for referral to a tertiary care center. The model predicted that 16% of patients would require referral, and 30-day mortality would be reduced by 73% at the referring institution. The main outcomes measures were the actual vs predicted referrals and mortality rates at the referring and receiving facilities. RESULTS: The validation included 565 patients; 90 (16%) had VASQIP risk scores greater than 3.3% and were identified for referral; 60 consented. In these patients, there were 16 (27%) predicted mortalities, but only 4 actual deaths (p = 0.007) at the receiving institution. When referral was not indicated, the model predicted 4 mortalities (1%), but no actual deaths (p = 0.1241). CONCLUSIONS: These data validate this methodology to identify patients for referral to a higher level of care, reducing mortality at the referring institutions and significantly improving patient outcomes. This methodology can help guide decisions on referrals and optimize patient care. Further application and studies are warranted.

Joseph, S. M. and M. W. Rich (2017). “Targeting Frailty in Heart Failure.” Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med 19(4): 31.

Full text of this article.

OPINION STATEMENT: Frailty is a systemic syndrome characterized by impaired physiologic reserve, slowness, weakness, and wasting. It is associated with, but distinct from, aging, disability, and multimorbidity. Frailty is extremely common in patients with heart failure and portends a worse prognosis. The two syndromes worsen one another via complex molecular and cellular mechanisms which are not fully understood but include increased levels of stress hormones and cytokines. In this article, we discuss the mechanisms of frailty and review common frailty metrics. We review and summarize the literature on the impact of frailty in heart failure and discuss treatment and management options.

Jacquart, J., S. Papini, M. L. Davis, D. Rosenfield, M. B. Powers, G. M. Frierson, L. B. Hopkins, S. O. Baird, B. H. Marcus, T. S. Church, M. W. Otto, M. J. Zvolensky and J. A. Smits (2017). “Identifying attendance patterns in a smoking cessation treatment and their relationships with quit success.” Drug Alcohol Depend 174: 65-69.

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: While important for substance use outcomes, knowledge about treatment attendance patterns, and their relation with clinical outcomes is limited. We examined the association between attendance patterns and smoking outcomes in a randomized, controlled smoking cessation intervention trial. METHODS: In addition to standard smoking cessation treatment, participants were randomized to 15 weeks of an exercise intervention (n=72) or an education control condition (n=64). Latent class growth analysis (LCGA) tested whether intervention attendance would be better modeled as qualitatively distinct attendance patterns rather than as a single mean pattern. Multivariate generalized linear mixed modeling (GLMM) was used to evaluate associations between the attendance patterns and abstinence at the end of treatment and at 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: The LCGA solution with three patterns characterized by high probability of attendance throughout (Completers, 46.3%), gradual decreasing probability of attendance (Titrators, 23.5%), and high probability of dropout within the first few weeks (Droppers, 30.1%) provided the best fit. The GLMM analysis indicated an interaction of attendance pattern by treatment condition, such that titration was associated with lower probability of quit success for those in the control condition. Probability of quit success was not significantly different between Titrators and Completers in the exercise condition. CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the importance of examining how treatment efficacy may vary as a function of attendance patterns. Importantly, treatment discontinuation is not necessarily indicative of poorer abstinence outcome.

Hirano, I., S. Spechler, G. Furuta and E. S. Dellon (2017). “White Paper AGA: Eosinophilic esophagitis.” Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol: 2017 Mar [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

Since first characterized in two small case series in the early 1990s, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has emerged as a commonly identified cause of esophageal symptoms in children and adults.(1, 2) While several highly effectively dietary, pharmacologic, and endoscopic therapies have been reported, none is currently approved by either the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or European regulatory authorities. Evolving diagnostic criteria have challenged drug development, in particular the recognition of complex interactions with the most prevalent esophageal disorder, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Heterogeneity in the clinical presentations of affected children and adults has created difficulties with uniform inclusion criteria and the development of disease-specific, patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. Furthermore, controversies regarding the appropriate therapeutic endpoints of EoE have impeded the design of clinical trials. Despite these obstacles, collaborative efforts by investigators, industry, the FDA, and patient advocacy groups have resulted in substantial progress in drug development in EoE over the past two decades.(3) The purpose of this article is to summarize discussions on EoE based on the 2016 Drug Development Conference sponsored by the Center for Diagnostics and Therapeutics of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).