Citations 61

Calf Vein Thrombosis Comparison of Outcomes for Axial and Muscular Venous Thrombosis

Thrombosis and Haemostasis | August 22, 2020 | Volume: 121 | Issue: 02 | Pages: 216-223

10.1055/s-0040-1715646 | PMID 32828073

Abstract Background The objective of this study was to characterize clinical features and outcomes among patients with calf deep vein thrombosis (DVT) limited to the muscular veins compared with axial veins. Methods Consecutive patients with ultrasound confirmed acute DVT involving the calf veins (January 1, 2016–August 1, 2018) were identified from the Gonda Vascular Center ultrasound database. Patients were divided into axial or muscular groups based on thrombus location. Demographics, management, and outcomes were compared. Results Over the study period, there were 647 patients with calf DVT equally distributed between axial (n = 321) and muscular (n = 326) locations. Within these groups, peroneal and soleal veins were most commonly involved. Nearly all cases were provoked (97%). Synchronous pulmonary embolism (PE) were more common for axial (30.8%) compared to muscular groups (20.2%; p = 0.001); nearly one-third had no pulmonary symptoms. Anticoagulation for a median of 3 months was initiated for 85.5% of both groups. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence was more common in the axial group (15.9% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.0015) including more frequent DVT propagation (9.4% vs. 3.1%; p = 0.0017) and PE (3.4% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.0168). Major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, and mortality rates did not differ between groups. Withholding anticoagulation led to more frequent thrombus propagation in the axial group (3.4% vs. 0.9%; p = 0.029). Conclusion Several important features distinguish muscular from axial DVT. Axial DVT are more likely to have an associated PE and are more likely to experience recurrent VTE, particularly if anticoagulation is withheld.
Neuro R 2 score

Neurology | March 14, 2020 | Volume: 94 | Issue: 15 | Pages: No page available

10.1212/wnl.0000000000009252 | PMID 32170035

Opioid Use in Fibromyalgia Continues Despite Guidelines That Do Not Support Its Efficacy or Risk

JCR: Journal of Clinical Rheumatology | February 10, 2020 | Volume: 27 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 187-193

10.1097/rhu.0000000000001273 | PMID 32040055

Background/Objective The aim of this cross-sectional study is to determine the prevalence of opioid use in a large sample of fibromyalgia (FM) patients and examine the factors associated with opioid prescription/use despite multiple clinical guidelines that do not recommend opioid use in this population. Methods Data were collected from a convenience sample of 698 patients admitted from August 2017 to May 2019 into an intensive 2-day Fibromyalgia Treatment Program at a tertiary medical center in the United States after FM diagnosis. Patients were administered the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire–Revised, the Center for Epidemiologic Study of Depression Scale, and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale upon admission to the program. Demographic information and opioid use were self-reported. Logistic regression analysis was utilized to determine associations between patient-related variables and opioid use in this prospective study. Results Of 698 patients, 27.1% (n = 189) were taking opioids at intake. Extended duration of symptoms (>3 years), increased age, higher degree of functional impairment, and increased pain catastrophizing were significantly associated with opioid use. Conclusions Opioids are not recommended for the treatment of FM under current guidelines. Greater burden of illness appeared to be associated with the prescription and use of opioids in this population. These findings suggest that some providers may not be aware of current recommendations that have been found to be effective in the management of FM that are contained in guidelines. Alternative approaches to the management of FM that do not involve opioids are reviewed in an effort to improve care.
An Investigation of Healthcare Worker Perception of Their Workplace Safety and Incidence of Injury

Workplace Health & Safety | January 26, 2020 | Volume: 68 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 214-225

10.1177/2165079919883293 | PMID 31983297

Background: Managing the safety climate in health care is a promising tool for improving employee and patient safety in the health care work environment. Gaps in the theoretical and conceptual underpinnings of safety climate, as well as the evidence base for its practical application in health care remain. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the number of work injuries occurring in health care work units and associated safety climate beliefs. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted utilizing organizational staff survey data collected by a large medical hospital in the Midwest in 2015. Employees ( n = 32,327) were invited to identify safety climate perceptions via survey. Injuries, days restricted, and days absent were identified through the Hospital’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) log. Zero inflated negative binomial regressions used injuries as dependent variables and safety climate perceptions as independent variables. Findings: In all, 23,599 employees completed the survey (73% response rate) across 1,805 employee work units which were defined as groupings of employees reporting to a single supervisor. We found that there was an association between fewer injuries and health care workers indicating that they share responsibility for compliance with safety rules and procedures (relative risk [RR] = 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.98, 0.99]). Conclusion/Application to Practice: This study supports the use of a safety climate measure to assess working units’ perceptions of employee safety. A continued focus on the health and safety of employees who interact directly with patients is warranted, as well as employees who do not provide direct patient care.
1350: NEUROSCIENCE INTENSIVE CARE UNIT READMISSION RISK: ARE MEDICAL PREDICTION MODELS ACCURATE?

Critical Care Medicine | December 18, 2019 | Volume: 48 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 652-652

10.1097/01.ccm.0000645316.26854.71

1638: READMISSION PREVENTION IN SEPSIS: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A PREDICTION MODEL: REPRESS

Critical Care Medicine | December 18, 2019 | Volume: 48 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 794-794

10.1097/01.ccm.0000648456.08467.67

Identifying the Most Costly Patients in Radiation Oncology and Predicting the Top Spenders

Journal of Oncology Practice | June 17, 2019 | Volume: 15 | Issue: 8 | Pages: e704-e716

10.1200/jop.18.00627 | PMID 31206338

PURPOSE: Quality payment programs aim to adjust payments on the basis of quality and cost; however, few quality metrics exist in radiation oncology. This study evaluates and predicts the top spenders (TS) after radiation therapy (RT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient characteristics, cancer details, treatments, toxicity, and survival data were collected for patients treated with RT at Mayo Clinic from 2007 to 2016. Standardized costs were obtained and adjusted for inflation. TSs were identified as those with greater than 93rd percentile costs (≥ $120,812). Prediction models were developed to predict TSs using training and validation sets using information available at consultation, after RT, and at last follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 15,131 patients were included and 1,065 TSs identified. Mean cost overall was $55,290 (median, $39,996) for all patients. Prediction models 1, 2, and 3 had concordance statistics of 0.83 to 0.83, 0.85 to 0.85, and 0.87 to 0.88, respectively in training and validation, indicating excellent prediction of TSs. Factors that were most predictive of TSs included stage N/A and stage 4 ( v stage 0; odds ratio [OR], 18.23 and 8.44, respectively; P < .001); hematologic, upper GI, skin and lung cancers ( v breast; OR, 11.45, 7.69, 3.81, and 2.43, respectively; P < .01); immunotherapy, surgery, and chemotherapy use (OR, 4.36, 2.51, and 1.61, respectively; P < .01); hospitalizations within 90 days of RT (OR, 2.26; P < .01); or death during the episode (OR, 1.56; P < .01). CONCLUSION: This is the first study of its kind to predict with high accuracy the highest spenders in radiation oncology. These patients may benefit from pre-emptive management to mitigate costs, or may require exclusion or adjustment from quality payment programs.
Identifying and predicting the most costly patients in oncology.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | May 27, 2019 | Volume: 37 | Issue: 15_suppl | Pages: 6633-6633

10.1200/jco.2019.37.15_suppl.6633

6633 Background: Quality based payment programs in medicine are currently being introduced nationally, aimed to improve care and reduce cost. This study aimed to evaluate the top spenders (TS) after cancer diagnosis and predict TS at two separate time points using predictive analytics. Methods: Patient characteristics, cancer details, treatments, adverse events, and outcomes were collected for patients treated for cancer at Mayo Clinic from 2007 - 2017. Standardized costs over a 2 year period after first treatment were obtained from the Mayo Clinic Cost Data Warehouse with Medicare reimbursements assigned to all services and adjusted to the 2017 GDP Implicit Price Deflator for inflation. TS were identified as those with greater than 93rd percentile costs (≥$113,158) due to a sharp rise in cost at that level. Descriptive statistics and univariate analysis were used for comparison. A prediction model with a training (80%) and validation set (20%) using multivariate selection was used to predict TS and was repeated using information available at 1) the time of consultation and 2) at last follow-up. Results: A total of 80,385 patients were included and 5,626 TS were identified. Mean cost (25th, 75th percentile) overall was $44,953 ($16,776, $51,889). Prediction models at time 1 and 2 had ROC AUC statistics of 0.82 and 0.89 in training and 0.82 and 0.88 in the validation indicating good prediction of high costs. Factors most predictive of TS included need for blood transfusions within 90 days of treatment (OR 5.3), bone marrow transplant (OR 4.0), mild liver disease (OR 3.5), hemiplegia (OR 3.4), weight loss > 10% within 90 days of treatment (OR 3.3), upper GI cancer (OR 3.0), ‘other’ cancer type (OR 2.8), immunotherapy use (OR 2.7), and hospitalizations within 90 days (OR 2.4), all p < 0.001, among others. The largest costs were due to hospital services in the TS and non-TS groups, mean costs $114,258 and $13,185 respectively. Conclusions: This is the first study to predict with high accuracy the top spenders in Oncology. Patient comorbidities and toxicities were among the strongest predictors of high costs, along with certain treatments (bone marrow transplant and immunotherapy). Our findings suggest that quality payment programs should adjust for comorbidities, and that reducing toxicity may be an effective method at reducing costs.
The cost implications of palliative radiation therapy dose and fractionation for painful metastatic bone lesions.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | November 28, 2018 | Volume: 36 | Issue: 34_suppl | Pages: 145-145

10.1200/jco.2018.36.34_suppl.145

145 Background: Palliative radiation treatment (pRT) is used for symptomatic bone metastases (mets). Several fractionation schedules show equal efficacy for pain relief, and ASTRO’s Choosing Wisely recommends 8Gy x1, 4Gy x5, or 3Gy x10. This study aims to investigate the cost implications of pRT for bone mets. Methods: Patients (Pts) treated with pRT for bone mets at Mayo Clinic from 2007 - 2016 were included in this study. Costs for all services were subdivided into RT and total costs at 30 & 90 days (30D & 90D). Standardized costs were obtained from the Mayo Clinic Cost Data Warehouse and Medicare reimbursements were assigned to all services with cost to charge adjustments and 2017 GDP Implicit Price Deflator for inflation. Cost means were compared via the Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: 538 pts were treated with pRT, 124 receiving 8Gy x1, 204 receiving 4Gy x5, and 210 receiving 3Gy x10. Pts with breast and prostate cancer were most likely to be treated with 3Gy x10 and pts with GI and lung cancer were most likely to be treated with 8Gy x1. RT costs at 30D were $1,497, $1,891, and $1,982 (p=0.03) and RT costs at 90D were $2,602, $2,753, and $3,032 (p=0.08) for initial RT regimens of 8Gy x1, 4Gy x5, and 3Gy x10. Total costs of care at 30D were similar from $15,969 - 17,687 (p=0.6) and total costs at 90D were similar from $22,361 - 23,219 (p=0.7) between arms. A total of 23%, 28%, and 39% of pts were alive 2 years following pRT from each arm (p=0.07). Conclusions: This is the first study of its kind to analyze actual treatment costs for the three most common pRT regimens in bone mets. Single fraction RT was most used for pts with poor prognoses and was associated with lower RT costs at 30D, but similar RT costs at 90D, possibly due to retreatment. RT choice had no impact on overall costs of care at 30D or 90D. pRT remains of high value, representing only 11-13% of total costs.[Table: see text]
Toxicity following palliative radiation therapy for painful metastatic bone lesions.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | November 28, 2018 | Volume: 36 | Issue: 34_suppl | Pages: 126-126

10.1200/jco.2018.36.34_suppl.126

126 Background: Palliative radiation treatment (pRT) is a common and effective treatment for patients with symptomatic bone metastases. However, patients receiving RT for bone metastases often may have a poor performance status and are more likely to experience toxicity during or after treatment. This study aims to investigate the number and type of toxicity event occurring during or after pRT for bone metastases. Methods: Patients treated with RT for bone metastases at Mayo Clinic from 2007 to 2016 were included in this study. Demographic, disease, treatment, and toxicity information were collected. Specifically, toxicity events were identified as emergency department (ED) visits and inpatient hospitalization (IH) within 90 days, breaks in treatment >4 days, and excessive 30 day financial toxicity defined as standardized Medicare costs >1 standard deviation above the mean. RT treatment was compared by dose and fractionation via descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 538 patients treated with pRT were identified, 124 receiving 8Gy x1, 204 receiving 4Gy x5, and 210 receiving 3Gy x10. Patients with breast and prostate cancer were most likely to be treated with 3Gy x10 and patients with GI and Lung cancer were most likely to be treated with 8Gy x1. A description of the patient characteristics and toxicities are shown in Table 1. For 8Gy x1, 4Gy x5, and 3Gy x10 breaks in treatment were rare (0%, 2%, and 3.3%), ED visits (15%, 24%, & 28%), IH (12%, 23%, & 19%), and financial toxicity (13%, 18%, & 21%) were common. A total of 22.6%, 27.5%, and 38.6% of patients were alive two years following pRT from each group. Conclusions: Toxicity during or shortly after pRT of bone metastases is common. This study confirms that additional steps should be taken to monitor and mitigate toxicity in this vulnerable patient group. [Table: see text]