Reddy, Kunam

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of post–liver transplant death, and variable care patterns may affect outcomes. We aimed to describe epidemiology and outcomes of inpatient CVD care across US hospitals. Using a merged data set from the 2002‐2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey, we evaluated liver transplant patients admitted primarily with myocardial infarction (MI), stroke (cerebrovascular accident [CVA]), congestive heart failure (CHF), dysrhythmias, cardiac arrest (CA), or malignant hypertension. Patient‐level data include demographics, Charlson comorbidity index, and CVD diagnoses. Facility‐level variables included ownership status, payer‐mix, hospital resources, teaching status, and physician/nursing‐to‐bed ratios. We used generalized estimating equations to evaluate patient‐ and hospital‐level factors associated with mortality. There were 4763 hospitalizations that occurred in 153 facilities (transplant hospitals, n = 80). CVD hospitalizations increased overall by 115% over the decade (P < 0.01). CVA and MI declined over time (both P < 0.05), but CHF and dysrhythmia grew significantly (both P < 0.03); a total of 19% of hospitalizations were for multiple CVD diagnoses. Transplant hospitals had lower comorbidity patients (P < 0.001) and greater resource intensity including presence of cardiac intensive care unit, interventional radiology, operating rooms, teaching status, and nursing density (all P < 0.01). Transplant and nontransplant hospitals had similar unadjusted mortality (overall, 3.9%, P = 0.55; by diagnosis, all P > 0.07). Transplant hospitals had significantly longer overall length of stay, higher total costs, and more high‐cost hospitalizations (all P < 0.05). After risk adjustment, transplant hospitals were associated with higher mortality and high‐cost hospitalizations. In conclusion, CVD after liver transplant is evolving and responsible for growing rates of inpatient care. Transplant hospitals are associated with poor outcomes, even after risk adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics, which may be attributable to selective referral of certain patient phenotypes but could also be related to differences in quality of care. Further study is warranted.

327 Background: The use of preoperative therapy for pancreatic cancer remains controversial. This study reviews our experience using neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiation (CRT) followed by surgery with intraoperative electron irradiation (IOERT) for patients with borderline resectable (BR) or unresectable (UR) tumors. Methods: A retrospective review identified 48 patients (pts) with primary BR/UR pancreas adenocarcinoma treated with preop CRT with intent to proceed to curative surgery with IOERT. Seventeen patients did not undergo attempted resection and are excluded (disease progression, 12; medically inoperable, 3; declined surgery, 2). Thirty-one patients proceeded to resection attempt and are the subject of this analysis. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed using log rank test for significance. Median follow up was 19 months (mo). Results: Complete resection (R0) was achieved in 11 pts, R1 in 5, and R2 or not resected (IOERT alone) in 15 patients. Twenty-six pts died (23 of disease, 2 unrelated causes, 1 uncertain). Median overall survival (OS) was 19 mo for all pts. Local progression was detected in only 5 patients (16%) while distant disease developed in 24 (77%). Resection status significantly correlated with OS; R0/R1 patients had a median survival of 23 mo vs. 10 mo for R2/unresected tumors (p = 0.002). Three-year OS was 35% vs. 0%, respectively. Survival was not influenced by tumor location, CA19-9 baseline or response, tumor size, or initial judgment of resectability (BR vs. UR). BR tumors were resectable after neoadjuvant therapy in 9 of 11 patients (R0, 8; R1, 1) while 8 of 20 initially UR tumors underwent resection (R0, 3; R1, 4; R2, 1). Conclusions: Neoadjuvant therapy combined with IOERT has the possibility to improve patient selection for surgical resection and to optimize local therapy. Although the prognosis for locally advanced pancreatic cancer remains poor, survival was superior among patients for whom R0 or R1 resection was achieved. Distant metastasis remained the dominant pattern of failure, and novel systemic agents are needed. Prospective evaluation of the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, CRT, and IOERT is warranted.