METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of all patients undergoing infrainguinal LEB between 2003 and 2009 within hospitals comprising the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) was performed. Primary study endpoints were major amputation and graft occlusion at 1 year postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital major adverse events (MAE), 1-year mortality, and composite 1-year major adverse limb events (MALE). Event rates were determined using life table analyses and comparisons were performed using the log-rank test. Multivariate predictors were determined using a Cox proportional hazards model with multilevel hierarchical adjustment.

RESULTS: Of 1880 LEBs performed, 32% (n = 603) had a prior infrainguinal revascularization procedure (iPVI, 7%; ipsilateral bypass, 15%; contralateral PVI, 3%; contralateral bypass, 17%). Patients with prior iPVI, compared with those without a prior iPVI, were more likely to be women (32 vs 41%; P = .04), less likely to have tissue loss (52% vs 63%; P = .02), more likely to require arm vein conduit (16% vs 5%; P = .001), and more likely to be on statin (71% vs 54%; P = .01) and beta blocker therapy (92% vs 81%; P = .01) at the time of their bypass procedure. Other demographic factors were similar between these groups. Prior PVI or bypass did not alter 30-day MAE and 1-year mortality after the index bypass. In contrast, 1-year major amputation and 1-year graft occlusion rates were significantly higher in patients who had prior iPVI than those without (31% vs 20%; P = .046 and 28% vs 18%; P = .009), similar to patients who had a prior ipsilateral bypass (1 year major amputation, 29% vs 20%; P = .022; 1 year graft occlusion, 33% vs 18%; P = .001). Independent multivariate predictors of higher 1-year amputation and graft occlusion rates were prior iPVI, prior ipsilateral bypass, dialysis dependence, prosthetic conduit and distal (tibial and pedal) bypass target.

CONCLUSIONS: Prior iPVI is highly predictive for poor outcome in patients undergoing LEB for CLI with higher 1-year amputation and graft occlusion rates than those without prior revascularization, similar to prior ipsilateral bypass These findings provide information, which may help with the complex decisions surrounding revascularization options in patients with CLI. rights reserved.

METHODS: 48,247 adults (>/=18 y old) underwent colectomy in ACS NSQIP, as grouped by surgical approach (laparoscopic versus open), urgency (emergent versus elective), and operative year (2005 to 2008). Primary outcomes measured morbidity, mortality, perioperative, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS: The proportion of laparoscopic colectomies performed increased annually (26.3% to 34.0%), while open colectomies decreased (73.7% to 66.0%; P < 0.0001). Most emergent colectomies were open procedures (93.5%) representing 24.3% of all open cases. The overall risk-adjusted morbidity and mortality for all colectomy procedures did not show a statistically significant change over time, however, morbidity and mortality increased among open colectomies (r = 0.03) and decreased among laparoscopic colectomies (r = -0.04; P < 0.0001). Postoperative complications reduced significantly including superficial surgical site infections (9.17% to 8.20%, P < 0.004), pneumonia (4.60% to 3.97%, P < 0.0001), and sepsis (4.72%, 2005; 6.81%, 2006; 5.62%, 2007; 5.09%, 2008; P < 0.0002). Perioperative improvements included operative time (169.2 to 160.0 min), PRBC transfusions (0.27 to 0.25 units) and length of stay (10.5 to 6.61 d; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION: It appears that laparoscopic colectomies are growing in popularity over open colectomies, but the need for emergent open procedures remains unchanged. Across all colectomies, however, key postoperative and perioperative complications have improved over time. Participation in ACS NSQIP demonstrates quality improvement and may encourage greater enrollment.

OBJECTIVES: We employ the Nationwide Inpatient Sample to look at changes in DBS utilization over time.

METHODS: We identified all individuals with PD (332.0) and essential tremor (ET) (333.1) who underwent DBS (02.93) from 1998 to 2007. We examined demographics, hospital status, comorbidities, and in-hospital systemic/technical complications. DBS patients from 2000 and 2007 were compared using chi(2) tests.

RESULTS: PD patients from the 2007 sample who underwent DBS were older (p = 0.01). Both ET and PD patients had significantly more comorbidities in 2007 (p < 0.001). In-hospital complications decreased from 3.8 to 2.8%. DBS was performed in medium- or high-volume centers in 70% of cases in 2000 and in 50% in 2007. In all groups, a majority of cases (range 65-71%) underwent DBS at hospitals in the western and southern USA.

CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent DBS in the 2007 sample were older and had more comorbidities than those in the 2000 sample; in-hospital complications remained low. Understanding trends in DBS is helpful in assessing how the technology is adopted and what relationships should be further explored.

METHODS: Within a cohort of 3,198 patients who underwent an LEB between January, 2003 and December, 2008, we studied 436 patients who subsequently received an above-knee (AK), below-knee (BK), or minor (forefoot or toe) ipsilateral or contralateral amputation. Our main outcome measure consisted of a "good functional outcome," defined as living at home and ambulating independently. We calculated univariate and multivariate associations among patient characteristics and our main outcome measure, as well as overall survival.

RESULTS: Of the 436 patients who underwent amputation within the first year following LEB, 224 of 436 (51.4%) had a minor amputation, 105 of 436 (24.1%) had a BK amputation, and 107 of 436 (24.5%) had an AK amputation. The majority of AK (75 of 107, 72.8%) and BK amputations (72 of 105, 70.6%) occurred in the setting of bypass graft thrombosis, whereas nearly all minor amputations (200 of 224, 89.7%) occurred with a patent bypass graft. By life-table analysis at 1 year, we found that the proportion of surviving patients with a good functional outcome varied by the presence and extent of amputation (proportion surviving with good functional outcome = 88% no amputation, 81% minor amputation, 55% BK amputation, and 45% AK amputation, p = 0.001). Among those analyzed at long-term follow-up, survival was slightly lower for those who had a minor amputation when compared with those who did not receive an amputation after LEB (81 vs. 88%, p = 0.02). Survival among major amputation patients did not significantly differ compared with no amputation (BK amputation 87%, p = 0.14, AK amputation 89%, p = 0.27); however, this part of the analysis was limited by its sample size (n = 212). In multivariable analysis, we found that the patients most likely to remain ambulatory and live independently despite undergoing a lower extremity amputation were those living at home preoperatively (hazard ratio [HR]: 6.8, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-49, p = 0.058) and those with preoperative statin use (HR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.2-2.1, p = 0.003), whereas the presence of several comorbidities identified patients less likely to achieve a good functional outcome: coronary disease (HR: 0.6, 95% CI: 0.5-0.9, p = 0.003), dialysis (HR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3-0.9, p = 0.02), and congestive heart failure (HR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3-0.8, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS: A postoperative amputation at any level impacts functional outcomes following LEB surgery, and the extent of amputation is directly related to the effect on functional outcome. It is possible, based on preoperative patient characteristics, to identify patients undergoing LEB who are most or least likely to achieve good functional outcomes even if a major amputation is ultimately required. These findings may assist in patient education and surgical decision making in patients who are poor candidates for lower extremity bypass.

METHODS: Using 2001-2008 California Cancer Registry, we identified 2,229 patients who underwent gastrectomy with adequate nodal evaluation (>/=15 lymph nodes) for American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I-IV M0 gastric adenocarcinoma. Cox proportional hazard analyses were used to evaluate the impact of surgery alone on survival.

RESULTS: Nearly 70% of our cohort had T1/2 tumors and 29% had N0 disease. Forty-nine percent of the cohort underwent surgery alone. These patients were more likely to be older, Medicare-insured, with T1 and N0 disease. On unadjusted analyses, persons who underwent surgery alone for stage I or N0 disease experienced 1- and 3-year overall and cancer-specific survival comparable to those who received adjuvant therapy. On multivariate analyses for stage I or N0 disease, surgery alone predicted superior survival outcomes than when combined with adjuvant therapies.

CONCLUSION: Surgery alone with adequate nodal evaluation may have a role in low-risk gastric cancer. To corroborate these findings, surgery with adequate lymphadenectomy alone (as treatment arm) deserves consideration in the design of gastric cancer trials to provide effective yet resource-conserving, rather than maximally tolerated, treatments.

METHODS: We identified patients who were surgically treated for gastric cancer at Commission on Cancer (CoC) hospitals from 2001 to 2006. Patient, tumor, and treatment factors were compared separately by hospital volume and type. Multivariable analyses were used to evaluate the impact of hospital attributes on delivery of guideline recommended gastric cancer care: adequate lymphadenectomy (>/=15 lymph nodes), and adjuvant multimodality therapy (for AJCC Ib-IVM0), controlling for covariates.

RESULTS: More than 1,490 CoC hospitals performed 37,124 gastrectomies. High-volume and teaching CoC hospitals were more likely to treat younger patients, non-whites, patients with lower AJCC stage, and to perform adequate lymphadenectomy than low-volume and community CoC hospitals (p ≤ 0.001). Hospital volume and type, however, were not associated with receipt of adjuvant multimodality therapy. These associations persisted in our multivariable analyses to show that CoC hospital attributes were associated with adequate lymphadenectomy, but marginally predictive of receipt of adjuvant multimodality therapy.

CONCLUSIONS: The strong association between CoC hospital volume or type and guideline-recommended care diminishes after gastric cancer surgery. Variations in referral, insurance, and documentation patterns are potential explanations for these findings. These results highlight some limitations of using hospital attributes as a sole predictor of optimal cancer care.

METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of 7649 CEA and 430 CAS performed at 17 centers from 2003 to 2010 within the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE). The primary outcome measures were (1) any in-hospital stroke or death and (2) any stroke, death, or myocardial infarction (MI). Patients undergoing CEA in conjunction with cardiac surgery were excluded. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of stroke or death in patients undergoing CAS.

RESULTS: CEA was performed in 17 centers by 111 surgeons, while CAS was performed in 6 centers by 30 surgeons and 8 interventionalists. Patient characteristics varied by procedure. Patients undergoing CAS had a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, and prior ipsilateral CEA. Embolic protection was used in 97% of CAS. Shunts were used in 48% and patches in 86% of CEA. The overall in-hospital stroke or death rate was higher among patients undergoing CAS (2.3% vs 1.1%; P = .03). Overall stroke, death, or MI (2.8% CAS vs 2.1% CEA; P = .32) were not different. Asymptomatic patients had similar rates of stroke or death (CAS 0.73% vs CEA 0.89%; P = .78) and stroke, death, or MI (CAS 1.1% vs CEA 1.8%; P = .40). Symptomatic patients undergoing CAS had higher rates of stroke or death (5.1% vs 1.6%; P = .001), and stroke, death, or MI (5.8% vs 2.7%; P = .02). By multivariate analysis, major stroke (odds ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-10.8), minor stroke (2.7; CI, 1.5-4.8), prior ipsilateral CEA (3.2, CI, 1.7-6.1), age >80 (2.1; CI, 1.3-3.4), hypertension (2.6; CI, 1.0-6.3), and a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1.6; CI, 1.0-2.4) were predictors of stroke or death in patients undergoing carotid revascularization.

CONCLUSIONS: In our regional vascular surgical practices, the overall outcomes of CAS and CEA are similar for asymptomatic patients. However, symptomatic patients treated with CAS are at a higher risk for stroke or death. rights reserved.

METHODS: The Vascular Study Group of New England database was used to identify all infrainguinal LEB procedures performed between 2003 and 2009. The primary study endpoint was 1-year amputation-free survival (AFS). Secondary endpoints included in-hospital mortality and morbidity, including major adverse cardiac events. Trend analyses were conducted to identify annual trends in the proportion of LEBs performed for an indication of IC, in-hospital outcomes, including mortality and morbidity, and 1-year outcomes, including AFS. Analyses were performed on the entire cohort and then stratified by indication.

RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2009, 2907 patients were identified who underwent LEBs (72% for CLI; 28% for IC). The proportion that underwent LEB for IC increased significantly over the study period (from 19% to 31%; P < .0001). There was a significant increase over time in the proportion of LEBs performed after a previous endovascular intervention among both CLIs (from 11% to 24%; P < .0001) and ICs (from 13% to 23%; P = .02). Neither in-hospital mortality nor cardiac event rates changed significantly among either group. There was no significant change in 1-year AFS in patients with IC (97% in 2003 and 98% in 2008; P for trend .63) or in patients with CLI (73% in 2003 and 81% in 2008; P = .10).

CONCLUSIONS: Over the last 7 years, significant changes in patient selection for LEBs have occurred in New England. The proportion of LEBs performed for ICs as opposed to CLIs has increased. Patients are much more likely to have undergone prior endovascular interventions before undergoing a bypass. In-hospital and 1-year outcomes after LEB for both IC and CLI have remained excellent with no significant changes in AFS. rights reserved.

METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing infrainguinal LEB for CLI between 2003 and 2010 within hospitals comprising the Vascular Study Group of New England was performed. Patients were stratified according to whether or not they had previously undergone a contralateral major or minor amputation before LEB. Primary end points included major amputation and graft occlusion at 1 year postoperatively. Secondary end points included in-hospital major adverse events, discharge status, and mortality at 1 year.

RESULTS: Of 2636 LEB procedures, 228 (8.6%) were performed in the setting of a prior contralateral amputation. Patients with a prior amputation compared to those without were younger (66.5 vs 68.7; P = .034), more like to have congestive heart failure (CHF; 25% vs 16%; P = .002), hypertension (94% vs 85%; P = .015), renal insufficiency (26% vs 14%; P = .0002), and hemodialysis-dependent renal failure (14% vs 6%; P = .0002). They were also more likely to be nursing home residents (8.0% vs 3.6%; P = .036), less likely to ambulate without assistance (41% vs 80%; P < .0002), and more likely to have had a prior ipsilateral bypass (20% vs 12%; P = .0005). These patients experience increased in-hospital major adverse events, including myocardial infarction (MI; 8.9% vs 4.2%; P = .002), CHF (6.1% vs 3.4%; P = .044), deterioration in renal function (9.0% vs 4.7%; P = .006), and respiratory complications (4.2% vs 2.3%; P = .034). They were less likely to be discharged home (52% vs 72%; P < .0001) and less likely to be ambulatory on discharge (25% vs 55%; P < .0001). Although patients with a prior contralateral amputation experienced increased rates of graft occlusion (38% vs 17%; P < .0001) and major amputation (16% vs 7%; P < .0001) at 1 year, there was not a significant difference in mortality (16% vs 10%; P = .160). On multivariable analysis, prior contralateral amputation was an independent predictor of both major amputation (odds ratio, 1.73; confidence interval, 1.06-2.83; P = .027) and graft occlusion (odds ratio, 1.93; confidence interval, 1.39-2.68; P < .0001) at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS: Patients with prior contralateral amputations who present with CLI in the intact limb represent a high-risk population, even among patients with advanced peripheral arterial disease. When considering LEB in this setting, both physicians and patients should expect increased rates of perioperative adverse events, increased rates of 1-year graft occlusion, and decreased rates of limb salvage, when compared with patients who have not undergone a contralateral amputation. rights reserved.

METHODS: We queried our trauma registry for all adult patients (age, >/=18 years) with injury codes for "fall-from-height" or "struck-by-tree" (2005-present) and reviewed charts to determine injuries sustained during home roof or tree work. Patients injured during occupational duties (indicated by Workman's Compensation) were excluded. Descriptive statistics were used to determine patient demographics, injury patterns, and outcomes.

RESULTS: A total of 129 patients were injured performing roof and tree maintenance during the study period. Of these patients, 90 (69.8%) were fall from height and 39 (30.2%) were struck by tree. Mean (SD) age was 45 (14) years. The majority were male (124, 96.1%) and white (116, 89.9%). Nearly half (59, 45.7%) were privately insured; a quarter (32, 24.8%) had no insurance. Mean (SD) Injury Severity Score was 12.7 (9.3). Injury distributions were as follows: head injury, 48.8%; facial fractures, 10.1%; cervical spine fractures, 3.9%; thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine fractures, 28.1%; rib fractures, 27.3%; intrathoracic injuries, 22.5%; liver/spleen injuries, 6.2%; pelvic fractures, 15.6%; upper-extremity fractures, 27.3%; and lower-extremity fractures, 14.7%. Of the patients, 19 (14.7%) had one or more regions with Abbreviated Injury Scale score of higher than 3. Mean (SD) length of stay was 5.3 (7.6) days. Except for 2 deaths (1.6%), discharge dispositions were as follows: home, 64.2%; home with services, 10.1%; rehabilitation, 17.8%; and skilled nursing, 5.4%.

CONCLUSION: Weekend warriors performing home roof and tree maintenance sustain serious injuries with a potential for a long-term disability at young ages. Injury prevention efforts should educate the public about the hazards of high-risk home maintenance, possibly encouraging Occupational Health and Safety Administration-regulated protective measures or deferral to trained professionals.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III.

METHODS: Using the UHC database (2009-2010), 63 liver transplant centres were identified that were organized into tertiles based on annual centre case volume and stratified by severity of illness (SOI). Utilization endpoints included hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), cost and in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS: In all, 5130 transplants were identified. Mortality was improved at high volume centres (HVC) vs. low volume centres (LVC), 2.9 vs. 3.4%, respectively. HVC had a lower median LOS than LVC (9 vs. 10 days, P < 0.0001), shorter median ICU stay than LVC and medium volume centres (MVC) (2 vs. 3 and 3 days, respectively, P < 0.0001) and lower direct costs than LVC and MVC ($90,946 vs. $98,055 and $101,014, respectively, P < 0.0001); this effect persisted when adjusted for severity of illness.

CONCLUSIONS: This UHC-based cohort shows that increased centre volume results in improved long-term post-liver transplant outcomes and more efficient use of hospital resources thereby lowering the cost. A better understanding of these mechanisms can lead to informed decisions and optimization of the pay for performance model in liver transplantation.

METHODS: Pancreatic resections were identified from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (1998-2006), and categorized as proximal, distal, or nonspecified by the International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition. Logistic regression and bootstrap methods were used to estimate in-hospital mortality using demographics, diagnosis, comorbidities (Charlson index), procedure, and hospital volume; 80% of this cohort was selected randomly to create the score and 20% was used for validation. Score assignments were subsequently individually fitted to risk distributions around specific mortality rates.

RESULTS: Sixteen thousand one hundred sixteen patient discharges were identified. Nationwide in-hospital mortality was 5.3%. Integers were assigned to predictors (age group, Charlson index, sex, diagnosis, pancreatectomy type, and hospital volume) and applied to an additive score. Three score groups were defined to stratify in-hospital mortality (national mortality, 1.3%, 4.9%, and 14.3%; P < .0001), with sufficient discrimination of derivation and validation sets (C statistics, 0.72 and 0.74). Score groups were shifted algorithmically to calculate risk based on institutional data (eg, with institutional mortality of 2.0%, low-, medium-, and high-risk patient groups had 0.5%, 1.9%, and 5.4% mortality, respectively). A web-based tool was developed and is available online (http://www.umassmed.edu/surgery/panc_mortality_custom.aspx).

CONCLUSION: To maximize patient benefit, objective assessment of risk for major procedures is necessary. We developed a Surgical Outcomes Analysis and Research risk score predicting pancreatectomy mortality that combines national and institution-specific data to enhance decision-making. This type of risk stratification tool may identify opportunities to improve care for patients undergoing specific operative procedures.

METHODS: Patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent resection were identified in Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare (1991-2005). Claims for abdominal imaging

RESULTS: Eleven thousand eight hundred fifty studies were performed on 2,217 patients. Ten thousand five hundred forty-two (89%) were CT scans. The median number of scans doubled from three in 1991 to six in 2005 (p < 0.0001). Among patients with sufficient survival to allow for analysis, 51.3% received annual CT scans, while only 32.4% of top-performing patients received annual scans. Univariate analysis of the 10% of patients with superior survival did not reveal any significant benefit associated with annual imaging.

CONCLUSION: Utilization of complex imaging after pancreatic cancer resection has increased substantially among Medicare beneficiaries, driven primarily by an increasing number of CT scans. Our study demonstrated no significant survival benefit among patients who received scans on a routine basis.

METHODS: A review of the literature describing disparities in aspects of cancer care was performed.

RESULTS: Disparities in outcomes including overall survival for minority populations have been demonstrated to exist for race, age, and socioeconomic status.

CONCLUSION: Disparities in cancer care and outcomes clearly exist for many poorly understood reasons. After a diagnosis of cancer, barriers to care may develop at multiple points along the course of the patient's disease.