Brennan, Emily

Objective: To address whether kidney transplant (KTx) candidates, ages 60+, should accept a high Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) kidney and differences when considering a high (>85%) versus low (<85%) KDPI KTx. Background: To date, there is limited survival data to guide decision-making for patients aged ≥60 years who are faced with the choice of accepting a high KDPI kidney or remaining on the waitlist. Methods: Propensity-matched cohort study using data from United Network on Organ Sharing (2014–2021). Cox proportional hazard models and competing risk models allowed comparison of (1) patient survival on the waitlist or after KTx and (2) patient and graft survival after KTx for the second comparison between matched groups, stratified by age groups: 60 to 65, 66 to 70, and 71+. Results: Receiving a >85% KDPI kidney versus remaining on the waitlist was associated with reduced mortality [Hazard Ratio (HR): 0.68, 95% CI: 0.59–0.80, P < 0.001] overall and across the 2 oldest age groups: 66 to 70 (HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.44–0.73, P < 0.001) and 71+ (HR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.44–0.83, P < 0.001). Those aged 60 to 65 did not experience a survival benefit (HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.67–1.11, P = 0.259). Patients ages 60+ receiving a >85% or ≤85% KDPI kidney experience comparable survival rates. Conclusions: Our study revealed a survival advantage linked to receiving a lower-quality KTx than remaining on the waitlist in the overall sample and for those 66+. Graft failure and survival were independent of the organ quality.

Background: Disparities in postoperative nausea and vomiting and its prophylaxis may exist based on race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. The objective was to evaluate whether patients from racial and ethnic minority groups and patients from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds received less appropriate postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis and experienced higher rates of postoperative and postdischarge nausea and vomiting. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 23,333 adults who underwent major surgeries (total knee arthroplasty, cholecystectomy, hysterectomy, and prostatectomy) from 2017 to 2022 in a single, multistate hospital system. Outcomes included prophylactic antiemetic administration according to consensus guidelines, as well as the occurrence of postoperative and postdischarge nausea and vomiting, with predictors being patient race and ethnicity, payor type, and community-level socioeconomic status. Results: About 45% (n = 10,407) of patients received guideline-recommended postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis. Regression models showed statistically significant differences in appropriate postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis by race and ethnicity, as well as community-level socioeconomic status, with Black (odds ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.92) and Hispanic (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.96) patients having lower odds of receiving appropriate antiemetic prophylaxis compared to non-Hispanic White patients. Approximately 11% of patients (n = 2,522) experienced postoperative nausea and vomiting in the postanesthesia care unit, and about 19.5% of patients (n = 4,540) experienced postdischarge nausea and vomiting. No significant differences in postoperative nausea and vomiting were observed in the postanesthesia care unit among different groups; however, Black, Hispanic, other races and ethnicities, and patients with Medicaid had higher odds of postdischarge nausea and vomiting. Conclusions: The study identified differences in appropriate postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis by race and ethnicity, as well as community-level socioeconomic status. There were no differences in postoperative nausea and vomiting by the predictors, but there were higher odds of postdischarge nausea and vomiting by race and ethnicity and payor. This study underscores the importance of data stratification in quality measures to identify disparities in perioperative care; it can lead to changes in perioperative anesthetic management. Further research should explore these associations in a broader cohort and address potential confounding sources.

Introduction Acute stroke patients presenting with large vessel occlusion secondary to intracranial atherosclerosis (ICAS‐LVO) may require rescue therapy (RT) in addition to mechanical thrombectomy (MT) to achieve and maintain successful recanalization. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of comparative studies that reported outcomes of RT in ICAS‐LVO patients to evaluate its safety and efficacy. Methods Databases searched include PubMed, CINAHL Complete, and Scopus from database date of inception through August 17, 2021. We included comparative studies that reported the outcomes of ICAS‐LVO RT compared to outcomes of ICAS‐LVO patients who did not undergo RT or to those presenting with embolic LVO patients (non‐ICAS LVO). Meta‐analysis using the random effects model was used to combine estimates reporting odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results Total of 9 nonrandomized studies were included: 5 studies in ICAS‐LVO RT vs. ICAS‐LVO non‐RT analysis and 5 ICAS‐LVO RT vs. non‐ICAS LVO analysis. Rescue treatments included intra‐arterial antiplatelets, angioplasty, stenting or combination of treatments. Compared to non‐RT ICAS LVO, RT was associated with increased favorable 90‐day outcome (OR 3.19, 95% CI 1.91‐5.32, I2 14%) and decreased 90‐day mortality (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.16‐0.76, I2 21%) (Figure 1). In the analysis of ICAS LVO vs embolic LVO, the incidence of favorable 90‐day outcome and 90‐day mortality did not differ between the ICAS‐LVO RT and non‐ICAS LVO (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58‐1.64, I2 50%) and (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.90‐1.66, I2 0%), respectively. Conclusions Rescue treatment is associated with better outcomes in ICAS‐LVO patients. The outcomes of ICAS‐LVO patients who receive RT may be comparable to embolic LVO patients (non‐ICAS LVO).

A biliary stricture is an abnormal narrowing in the ductal drainage system of the liver that can result in clinically and physiologically relevant obstruction to the flow of bile. The most common and ominous etiology is malignancy, underscoring the importance of a high index of suspicion in the evaluation of this condition. The goals of care in patients with a biliary stricture are confirming or excluding malignancy (diagnosis) and reestablishing flow of bile to the duodenum (drainage); the approach to diagnosis and drainage varies according to anatomic location (extrahepatic vs perihilar). For extrahepatic strictures, endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition is highly accurate and has become the diagnostic mainstay. In contrast, the diagnosis of perihilar strictures remains a challenge. Similarly, the drainage of extrahepatic strictures tends to be more straightforward and safer and less controversial than that of perihilar strictures. Recent evidence has provided some clarity in multiple important areas pertaining to biliary strictures, whereas several remaining controversies require additional research. The goal of this guideline is to provide practicing clinicians with the most evidence-based guidance on the approach to patients with extrahepatic and perihilar strictures, focusing on diagnosis and drainage.

Background Patients with acute stroke presenting with large vessel occlusion secondary to intracranial atherosclerosis (ICAS‐LVO) may require rescue therapy (RT) in addition to mechanical thrombectomy to achieve and maintain successful recanalization. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of comparative studies that reported outcomes of RT in patients with ICAS‐LVO to evaluate its safety and efficacy. Methods Databases searched include PubMed, CINAHL Complete, and Scopus from database date of inception through August 17, 2021. We included comparative studies that reported the outcomes of ICAS‐LVO RT compared with outcomes of patients with ICAS‐LVO who did not undergo RT or to those patients presenting with embolic large vessel occlusion (non–ICAS‐LVO). Meta‐analysis using the random‐effects model was used to combine estimates reporting odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. Results A total of 9 nonrandomized studies were included: 5 studies in ICAS‐LVO RT versus ICAS‐LVO non‐RT analysis and 5 in ICAS‐LVO RT versus non‐ICAS LVO analysis. Rescue treatments included intra‐arterial antiplatelets, angioplasty, stenting, or a combination of treatments. Compared with non‐RT ICAS‐LVO, RT was associated with an increased favorable 90‐day outcome (OR, 3.19 [95% CI, 1.91–5.32]; I 2 = 14%) and decreased 90‐day mortality (OR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.16–0.76]; I 2 = 21%). In the analysis of ICAS‐LVO RT versus embolic LV, the incidence of favorable 90‐day outcome and 90‐day mortality did not differ between ICAS‐LVO RT and non–ICAS‐LVO (OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.58–1.64; I 2 = 50%]; and OR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.90–1.66; I 2 = 0%], respectively). Conclusions Rescue treatment is likely associated with better outcomes in patients with ICAS‐LVO. The outcomes of patients with ICAS‐LVO who receive RT may be comparable with patients with embolic large vessel occlusion (non–ICAS‐LVO).

Objectives Pancreas transplant is the only treatment that establishes normal glucose levels for patients diagnosed with diabetes. We analyzed the outcome of pancreas transplant alone (PTA) versus standard of care in the United States from 2008 to 2018. We also developed an economic model to analyze the cost-effectiveness of pancreas transplant versus continuing standard of care. Methods We used the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database and analyzed PTA recipient survival. Using those results, we developed a Markov model that followed a cohort of 40-year-old patients with type 1 diabetes over a 10-year time horizon. The primary outcomes were (i) the survival benefit of a pancreas transplant, (ii) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and (iii) total costs. Results We found no difference in survival advantage of PTA compared with standard of care (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.56–2.14). However, pancreas transplant ($172,823, 6.87 QALY) was cost-saving compared with standard of care ($232,897, 6.04 QALY) for type 1 diabetes. Pancreas transplantation was cost-effective in 95% of 10,000 simulations in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, using a $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Conclusions Although there is no difference in survival for PTA compared with standard of care, PTA is a cost-saving therapy for type 1 diabetes.

Background: It is standard of care and an accreditation requirement to screen for and address distress and psychosocial needs in patients with cancer. This study assessed the availability of mental health (MH) and chemical dependency (CD) services at US cancer centers. Methods: The 2017–2018 American Hospital Association (AHA) survey, Area Health Resource File, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Compare databases were used to assess availability of services and associations with hospital-level and health services area (HSA)–level characteristics. Results: Of 1,144 cancer centers surveyed, 85.4% offered MH services and 45.5% offered CD services; only 44.1% provided both. Factors associated with increased adjusted odds of offering MH services were teaching status (odds ratio [OR], 1.76; 95% CI, 1.18–2.62), being a member of a hospital system (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.31–3.07), and having more beds (OR, 1.04 per 10-bed increase; 95% CI, 1.02–1.05). Higher population estimate (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97–0.99), higher percentage uninsured (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86–0.95), and higher Mental Health Professional Shortage Area level in the HSA (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98–1.00) were associated with decreased odds of offering MH services. Government-run (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.30–6.22) and nonprofit centers (OR, 3.48; 95% CI, 1.78–6.79) showed increased odds of offering CD services compared with for-profit centers. Those that were members of hospital systems (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.14–2.29) and had more beds (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01–1.03) also showed increased odds of offering these services. A higher percentage of uninsured patients in the HSA (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88–0.97) was associated with decreased odds of offering CD services. Conclusions: Patients’ ability to pay, membership in a hospital system, and organization size may be drivers of decisions to co-locate services within cancer centers. Larger organizations may be better able to financially support offering these services despite poor reimbursement rates. Innovations in specialty payment models highlight opportunities to drive transformation in delivering MH and CD services for high-need patients with cancer.