Young-Fadok, Tonia

BACKGROUND: Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer face substantial costs related to multimodal therapy. However, the extent of this burden is poorly characterized. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the prevalence and predictors of patient-reported financial toxicity after treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort study with a cross-sectional survey administered to assess patients’ financial concerns as well as clinicodemographic data. SETTING: Three high-volume tertiary academic centers. PATIENTS: Patients who completed treatment for pathological stage II to III rectal adenocarcinoma between 2000 and 2019 and were alive. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported financial toxicity and risk factors associated with financial toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 523 patients were identified, 190 (36.3%) responded to the survey, and 2 were excluded for incomplete surveys. Of the responders, 163 (86.7%) were identified as having financial toxicity related to their cancer diagnosis, and most (96.8%) had insurance. Patients with financial toxicity were less likely to have fully paid medical leave (39.8% vs 75%; p = 0.03) compared to patients without financial toxicity. They also reported increased difficulty paying bills ( p < 0.001) and decreased monthly household income ( p < 0.001) due to their diagnosis. Furthermore, these patients reported increased difficulty paying for transportation to medical appointments ( p = 0.002) and were less likely to be completely satisfied with their insurance coverage ( p = 0.003). Feeling well informed regarding treatment-related costs was associated with decreased odds of financial toxicity (OR 0.14; 95% CI, 0.02–0.78; p = 0.02), whereas taking unpaid leave for treatment was associated with increased odds of financial toxicity (OR 4.71; 95% CI, 1.36–16.34; p = 0.01). LIMITATIONS: Cross-sectional design and moderate response rate may introduce selection and recall bias. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer, including those insured, are at risk for financial toxicity due to direct and indirect costs. Effective communication between these patients and physicians regarding the economic implications of treatment is essential to reducing financial toxicity. See Video Abstract . TOXICIDAD FINANCIERA TRAS EL TRATAMIENTO DEL CÁNCER RECTAL LOCALMENTE AVANZADO ANTECEDENTES: Los pacientes con cáncer de recto localmente avanzado enfrentan costos sustanciales relacionados con la terapia multimodal. Sin embargo, la magnitud de esta carga está poco caracterizada. OBJETIVO: Caracterizar la prevalencia y los predictores de la toxicidad financiera reportada por los pacientes después del tratamiento para el cáncer de recto localmente avanzado. DISEÑO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo multicéntrico con una encuesta transversal para evaluar las preocupaciones financieras de los pacientes, así como datos clínico-demográficos. ESCENARIO: Tres centros académicos terciarios de alto volumen. PACIENTES: Pacientes que completaron el tratamiento para el adenocarcinoma de recto en estadio patológico II-III entre 2000 y 2019 y estaban vivos. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS: Toxicidad financiera reportada por los pacientes y factores de riesgo asociados con la toxicidad financiera. RESULTADOS: Se identificó a un total de 523 pacientes, 190 (36,3%) respondieron a la encuesta y 2 fueron excluidos por encuestas incompletas. De los encuestados, 163 (86,7 %) presentaron toxicidad financiera relacionada con su diagnóstico de cáncer, y la mayoría (96,8 %) contaba con seguro médico. Los pacientes con toxicidad financiera tuvieron menos probabilidades de tener licencia médica con goce de sueldo completo (39,8 % frente a 75 %; p = 0,03) en comparación con los pacientes sin toxicidad financiera. También informaron mayor dificultad para pagar facturas ( p < 0,001) y una disminución de los ingresos familiares mensuales ( p < 0,001) debido a su diagnóstico. Además, estos pacientes informaron mayor dificultad para pagar el transporte a las citas médicas ( p = 0,002) y menor probabilidad de estar completamente satisfechos con su cobertura médica ( p = 0,003). Sentirse bien informado sobre los costos relacionados con el tratamiento se asoció con una menor probabilidad de toxicidad financiera (OR: 0,14; IC del 95 %: 0,02-0,78; p = 0,02), mientras que tomar una licencia sin sueldo para el tratamiento se asoció con una mayor probabilidad de toxicidad financiera (OR: 4,71; IC del 95 %: 1,36-16,34; p = 0,01). LIMITACIONES: El diseño transversal y la tasa de respuesta moderada pueden introducir sesgos de selección y de recuerdo. CONCLUSIONES: Los pacientes en tratamiento para el cáncer de recto localmente avanzado, incluidos los asegurados, corren el riesgo de sufrir toxicidad financiera debido a los costos directos e indirectos. Una comunicación eficaz entre estos pacientes y los médicos sobre las implicaciones económicas del tratamiento es esencial para reducir la toxicidad financiera. ( AI-generated translation )

AbstractBackgroundThis is Part 3 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy using an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses organizational aspects of care.MethodsExperts in management of the high‐risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta‐analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations.ResultsComponents of organizational aspects of care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi process.ConclusionsThese guidelines are based on best current available evidence for organizational aspects of an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy and include discussion of less common aspects of care for the surgical patient, including end‐of‐life issues. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high‐risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

Abstract Background This is Part 2 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL) using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses intra‐ and postoperative aspects of care. Methods Experts in aspects of management of high‐risk and emergency general surgical patients were invited to contribute by the International ERAS ® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Medline database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta‐analyses, and large cohort studies and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. Some ERAS ® components covered in other guideline papers are outlined only briefly, with the bulk of the text focusing on key areas pertaining specifically to EL. Results Twenty‐three components of intraoperative and postoperative care were defined. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi Process. Conclusions These guidelines are based on best available evidence for an ERAS ® approach to patients undergoing EL. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high‐risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

BACKGROUND: Acute diverticulitis in immunocompromised patients is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates with either medical or surgical treatment. Thus, management approach is controversial, especially for patients presenting with nonperforated disease. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to report the Mayo clinic experience of acute diverticulitis management in immunocompromised patients. DESIGN: This design is based on a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: This study was conducted with institutional data composed from 3 tertiary referral centers. PATIENTS: Immunocompromised patients presenting with acute diverticulitis at 3 Mayo clinic sites between 2016 and 2020 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were the management algorithm and short-term outcomes. RESULTS: Immunocompromised patients presenting with acute uncomplicated diverticulitis (86) were all managed nonoperatively at presentation with a success rate of 93% (80/86). Two patients (2.3%, 2/86) required surgery during the same admission, and 4 patients (4.8%, 4/84) had 30-day readmission. Complicated diverticulitis patients with abscess (22) were all managed nonoperatively first with a success rate of 95.4% (21/22). One patient (4.6%, 1/22) required surgery during the same admission. All the patients who presented with obstruction (2), fistula (1), or free perforation (11) underwent surgery except one who chose hospice. Overall, the major complication rate was 50% (8/16) and mortality rate was 18.8% (3/16) among patients who underwent surgery during the same admission. For patients who presented with perforated diverticulitis, the mortality rate was 27.3% (3/11), compared with 0% (0/111) for patients who presented with nonperforated disease. LIMITATIONS: This cohort was limited by its retrospective nature and heterogeneity of the patient population. CONCLUSIONS: Nonoperative management was safe and feasible for immunocompromised patients with colonic diverticulitis without perforation at our center. Perforated colonic diverticulitis in immunocompromised patients was associated with high morbidity and mortality rate. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B988. MANEJO DE LA DIVERTICULITIS AGUDA EN PACIENTES INMUNOCOMPROMETIDOS: EXPERIENCIA DE LA CLINICA MAYO ANTECEDENTES: La diverticulitis aguda en pacientes inmunocomprometidos se asocia con una alta tasa de morbilidad y mortalidad con el tratamiento médico o quirúrgico. Por lo tanto, el enfoque de manejo es controvertido, especialmente para pacientes que presentan enfermedad no perforada. OBJETIVO: El propósito fue informar la experiencia de la clínica Mayo en el manejo de la diverticulitis aguda en pacientes inmunocomprometidos. DISEÑO: Este es un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo ENTORNO CLÍNICO: Este estudio se realizó con datos institucionales compuestos de tres centros de referencia terciarios. PACIENTES: Se incluyeron pacientes inmunocomprometidos que presentaron diverticulitis aguda en tres sitios de la clínica Mayo entre 2016 y 2020. RESULTADO PRINCIPAL: Algoritmo de gestión y resultados a corto plazo. RESULTADOS: Los pacientes inmunocomprometidos que presentaban diverticulitis aguda no complicada (86) fueron tratados de forma no quirúrgica en la presentación inicial con una tasa de éxito del 93 % (80/86). Dos pacientes (2,3%, 2/86) requirieron cirugía durante el mismo ingreso y cuatro pacientes (4,8%, 4/84) tuvieron reingreso a los 30 días. Todos los pacientes con diverticulitis complicada con absceso (22) fueron tratados primero de forma no quirúrgica con una tasa de éxito del 95,4 % (21/22). Un paciente (4,6%, 1/22) requirió cirugía durante el mismo ingreso. Todos los pacientes que presentaron obstrucción (2), fístula (1) o perforación libre (11) fueron intervenidos excepto uno que optó por hospicio. La tasa global de complicaciones mayores fue del 50 % (8/16) y la tasa de mortalidad fue del 18,8 % (3/16) entre los pacientes que se sometieron a cirugía durante el mismo ingreso. Para los pacientes que presentaban diverticulitis perforada, la tasa de mortalidad fue del 27,3 % (3/11), en comparación con el 0 % (0/111) de los pacientes que presentaban enfermedad no perforada. LIMITACIONES: Esta cohorte estuvo limitada por su naturaleza retrospectiva y la heterogeneidad de la población de pacientes. CoNCLUSIÓNES: El manejo no quirúrgico fue seguro y factible para pacientes inmunocomprometidos con diverticulitis colónica sin perforación en nuestro centro. La diverticulitis colónica perforada en pacientes inmunocomprometidos se asoció con una alta tasa de morbilidad y mortalidad. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B988. (Traducción— Dr. Ingrid Melo)

Abstract Background Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols reduce length of stay, complications and costs for a large number of elective surgical procedures. A similar, structured approach appears to improve outcomes, including mortality, for patients undergoing high‐risk emergency general surgery, and specifically emergency laparotomy. These are the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of these patients using an ERAS approach. Methods Experts in aspects of management of the high‐risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches on English language publications were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta‐analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on non‐emergency patients when appropriate. The Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. The guideline has been divided into two parts: Part 1—Preoperative Care and Part 2—Intraoperative and Postoperative management. This paper provides guidelines for Part 1. Results Twelve components of preoperative care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds. Conclusions These guidelines are based on the best available evidence for an ERAS approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Initial management is particularly important for patients with sepsis and physiological derangement. These guidelines should be used to improve outcomes for these high‐risk patients.