Citations

Background: Normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) may reduce preservation injury in donation-after-circulatory-death (DCD) liver transplantation, but its association with patient-centered recovery and longer-term graft survival remains uncertain. Study Design: We retrospectively analyzed 306 consecutive adult DCD liver transplant recipients at a single center from January 2019 through December 2022, comparing NMP (n=95) with static cold storage (SCS; n=211). The primary endpoint was days alive and out of hospital at 365 days (DAOH365). Quasi-Poisson regression evaluated factors associated with DAOH365, and Cox regression evaluated graft survival. Propensity-matched and calendar-year sensitivity analyses assessed measured confounding. Results: Median DAOH365 was 357.0 (352.0, 360.0) days with NMP versus 353.0 (336.0, 359.0) with SCS (p<0.001), but preservation strategy was not independently associated with DAOH365 (adjusted rate ratio 1.02; p=0.331). NMP recipients had less early allograft dysfunction (35.8% vs 59.7%; p<0.001), ischemic cholangiopathy (4.2% vs 23.7%; p<0.001), and retransplantation within 2 years (0.0% vs 6.6%; p=0.007). Two-year patient survival did not differ significantly. NMP was associated with improved twoF-year graft survival (HR 2.9, 95% CI 1.23–6.87; p=0.015), an association maintained in propensity-matched and calendar-year sensitivity analyses. Adjusted total 1-year costs did not differ (p=0.512). Conclusions: In this single-center DCD cohort, NMP was associated with superior 2-year graft survival but not independently with DAOH365. These hypothesis-generating findings support multicenter prospective evaluation of NMP using both graft survival and patient-centered recovery endpoints.

566 Background: Video telemedicine visits (VTVs) have the potential to overcome disparities in access to cancer care for many socially, geographically, and economically disadvantaged populations. Internet connectivity, digital literacy, and socioeconomic factors are traditionally cited as influencing VTV utilization. However, digital diffusion has occurred rapidly across several sectors, including healthcare, since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and less is known about how these factors have evolved to influence VTV utilization behavior over this time. Through a qualitative approach, we aimed to: (1) explore the lived experiences of cancer patients who transitioned to VTV use as compared to those who persistently did not, and (2) identify similarities and differences between these two groups that could inform targeted interventions to support access and patient acceptance of VTVs in the setting of cancer care. Methods: During June 2024, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 patients (Mean age 71.3 years, range 42-88; female 50%) receiving ongoing, longitudinal cancer care at our academic medical center since July 2021 who had not used VTVs through at least October 2022. Using purposeful sampling, patients were equally divided according to VTV utilization behaviors defined as “transitioned users” (TU; i.e. those who transitioned to VTV utilization after October 2022) and “persistent non-users” (PNU). Transcripts were analyzed using a combined deductive–inductive thematic approach and categorized into themes of barriers and facilitators across three domains consistent with the COM-B model: capabilities (C), opportunities (O), and motivations (M). Results: TU patients frequently cited a reduction in travel and logistical considerations as a primary reason for uptake of VTVs. PNU patients frequently reported digital literacy barriers, particularly among older patients, as primary reasons for lack of VTV utilization. TU patients reported more experience and comfort in technical skills as compared to PNU participants. PNU patients also reported less frequent offering of VTV as an option by their care teams over time, implying they may have transitioned to VTV utilization if it had been offered with more regularity. Both study groups desired improved internet access and technical support to enhance (or, in the case of PNU patients, enable) VTV utilization. Conclusions: These findings suggest that multi-modal care delivery may best serve current patient populations, not requiring, yet offering VTV services as an adjunct to in-person care. Longer term, individual barriers to VTV use will also need to be addressed to further optimize access for patients who desire to incorporate this care modality.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Rising US healthcare costs and the COVID-19 pandemic put increased pressure on hospitals to reduce patient length of stay (LOS) while maintaining high-quality care. We aimed to determine if implementing a pathway for same-day discharge after elective neuroendovascular procedures to a monitored hotel setting is safe, feasible, and cost-effective. METHODS: We evaluated patient outcomes after elective neuroendovascular procedures and same-day discharge to an on-campus Care Hotel. The study enrolled patients aged ≥18 years from October 1, 2020, to February 28, 2023. Exclusion criteria comprised major comorbidities, additional care necessitating hospitalization, absence of a caregiver, insurer-mandated hospitalization, or patient refusal of the Care Hotel model. Primary outcomes were readmission rate or prolonged LOS, new ischemic or hemorrhagic complications rate, and death rate from vascular causes within 6 months. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and deaths related to causes other than vascular complications within 6 months and changes in modified Rankin Scale score by 1 or more points at last follow-up. Healthcare cost savings associated with same-day discharge were analyzed using a control group. RESULTS: The study included 42 patients discharged to the Care Hotel and 84 controls. The average age was 61 years in the Care Hotel group and 64 years in the control group, and aneurysm treatment was the most frequent neuroendovascular procedure (83.3% and 79.8%, respectively). The readmission and extended LOS rates were 4.8% for the Care Hotel group. The rate of new ischemic or hemorrhagic complications was 4.8%. Cost analysis estimated savings of $7730.12 per procedure. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the Care Hotel model is a safe, feasible, and cost-effective option for carefully selected patients undergoing elective neuroendovascular interventions. Adherence to discharge readiness criteria and meticulous patient selection are critical to minimizing complications and readmissions.

AbstractThe Adult Medical Care Coordination program (“the program”) was implemented at Mayo Clinic to promote patient self‐management and improve 30‐day unplanned readmission for patients with high risk for readmission after hospital discharge. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the program compared to usual care using a pragmatic, stepped wedge cluster randomized trial (“stepped wedge trial”). However, several challenges arose including large differences between the study arms. Our goal is to describe the challenges and present lessons learned on how to overcome such challenges and generate evidence to support practice decisions. We describe the challenges encountered during the trial, the approach to addressing these challenges, and lessons learned for other learning health system researchers facing similar challenges. The trial experienced several challenges in implementation including several clinics dropping from the study and care disruptions due to COVID‐19. Additionally, there were large differences in the patient population between the program and usual care arms. For example, the mean age was 76.8 for the program and 68.1 for usual care. Due to these differences, we adapted the methods using the propensity score matching approach that is traditionally applied to observational designs and adjusted for differences in observable characteristics. When conducting pragmatic research, researchers will encounter factors beyond their control that may introduce bias. The lessons learned include the need to weigh the tradeoffs of pragmatic design elements and the potential value of adaptive designs for pragmatic trials. Applying these lessons would promote the successful generation of evidence that informs practice decisions.

ImportanceImplementing multidisciplinary teams for treatment of complex brain tumors needing awake craniotomies is associated with significant costs. To date, there is a paucity of analysis on the cost utility of introducing advanced multidisciplinary standardized teams to enable awake craniotomies.ObjectiveTo assess the cost utility of introducing a standardized program of awake craniotomies.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA retrospective economic evaluation was conducted at Mayo Clinic Florida. All patients with single, unilateral lesions who underwent elective awake craniotomies between January 2016 and December 2021 were considered eligible for inclusion. The economic perspective of the health care institution and a time horizon of 1 year were considered. Data were analyzed from October 2022 to May 2023.ExposureTreatment with an awake craniotomy before standardization (2016-2018) compared with treatment with awake craniotomy after standardization (2018-2021).Main Outcomes and MeasuresPatient demographics, perioperative, and postoperative outcomes, including length of stay, intensive care (ICU) admission, extent of resection, readmission rates, and 1-year mortality were compared between patients undergoing surgery before and after standardization. Direct medical costs were estimated from Medicare reimbursement rates for all billed procedures. A cost-utility analysis was performed considering differences in direct medical costs and in 1-year mortality within the periods before and after standardization of procedures. Uncertainty was explored in probability sensitivity analysis.ResultsA total of 164 patients (mean [SD] age, 49.9 [15.7] years; 98 [60%] male patients) were included in the study. Of those, 56 underwent surgery before and 108 after implementation of procedure standardization. Procedure standardization was associated with reductions in length of stay from a mean (SD) of 3.34 (1.79) to 2.46 (1.61) days (difference, 0.88 days; 95% CI, 0.33-1.42 days; P = .002), length of stay in ICU from a mean (SD) of 1.32 (0.69) to 0.99 (0.90) nights (difference, 0.33 nights; 95% CI, 0.06-0.60 nights; P = .02), 30-day readmission rate from 14% (8 patients) in the prestandardization cohort to 5% (5 patients) (difference, 9%; 95% CI, 19.6%-0.3%; P = .03), while extent of resection and intraoperative complication rates were similar between both cohorts. The standardized protocol was associated with mean (SD) savings of $7088.80 ($12 389.50) and decreases in 1-year mortality (dominant intervention). This protocol was found to be cost saving in 75.5% of all simulations in probability sensitivity analysis.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this economic evaluation of standardization of awake craniotomy, there was a generalized reduction in length of stay, ICU admission time, and direct medical costs with implementation of an optimized protocol. This was achieved without compromising patient outcomes and with similar extent of resection, complication rates, and reduced readmission rates.

Abstract Background Remdesivir is FDA-approved for the treatment of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. Many patients improve clinically to allow for hospital dismissal before completing the 5-day course. In prior work, those who continued remdesivir in an outpatient setting had better outcomes. Here, we assessed patients’ perspectives and the economic impact of this outpatient practice. Methods During a one-year period, 3,029 patients received remdesivir for COVID-19 in the hospital; of them, 542 were dismissed to continue remdesivir in the outpatient setting and were surveyed. The cost of care was compared between those who remained in the hospital vs. those who were dismissed. Results 470 of 542 patients were surveyed, and 93 (19.8%) responded. Responders were older than non-responders (median, 63 vs. 58 years). The majority (70.5%) had symptoms resolved by the time of the survey. Ten patients (11.4%) had persistent symptoms attributed to long COVID-19, including fatigue (30.1%), brain fog (23.7%), and insomnia (18.3%). 73.8% were excited to learn about the outpatient remdesivir program. The majority (81.0%) felt that receiving therapy at home was the right decision; 79.5% had support and felt the benefits of completing treatment at home. The majority were satisfied with communication before (75.6%) and during (80.5%) the outpatient appointment, information on benefits (80.3%) and risks (58.5%), time spent at the infusion center (88.6%), quality of care (82.3%) and overall experience (76.0%). The benefits of treatment were high-value (82.6%), while the infusions' cost, inconvenience, and discomfort were unimportant for most responders. After adjusting for gender, comorbidity score, and WHO scale, the predicted costs for the groups were $16,544 (inpatient) and $9,097 (outpatient) per patient (difference of $7,447; p&lt; .01). During this study, we estimated a total of 1,077 hospital room-days were made available to other patients. Conclusion An outpatient remdesivir program that allowed for early dismissal was perceived favorably by patients hospitalized for COVID-19. The program resulted in significant cost and resource savings, the latter in terms of the availability of hospital rooms for other patients needing critical services. Disclosures Christina G. Rivera (O'Connor), Pharm.D, Gilead Sciences: Advisor/Consultant|Gilead Sciences: Board Member|Gilead Sciences: Grant/Research Support|Gilead Sciences: Honoraria Bijan J. Borah, Ph.D., Boehringer Ingelheim: Advisor/Consultant|Exact Sciences: Advisor/Consultant Ravindra Ganesh, M.B.B.S., M.D., Alpaca Health: Advisor/Consultant Raymund R. Razonable, MD, Allovir: Endpoint Adjudication Committee|American Society of Transplantation: Board Member|Gilead: Grant/Research Support|Novartis: DSMB|Regeneron: Grant/Research Support|Roche: Grant/Research Support

PURPOSE In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many cancer practices rapidly adopted telehealth services. However, there is a paucity of data regarding ongoing telehealth visit utilization beyond this initial response. The purpose of this study was to assess changes in variables associated with telehealth visit utilization over time. METHODS This is a cross-sectional, year-over-year, retrospective analysis of telehealth visits conducted across a multisite, multiregional cancer practice in the United States. Multivariable models examined the association of patient- and provider-level variables with telehealth utilization across outpatient visits conducted over three 8-week periods from July to August in 2019 (n = 32,537), 2020 (n = 33,399), and 2021 (n = 35,820). RESULTS The rate of telehealth utilization increased from <0.01% (2019) to 11% (2020) to 14% (2021). The most significant patient-level factors associated with increased telehealth utilization included nonrural residence and age ≤65 years. Among patients residing in rural settings, video visit utilization rates were significantly lower and phone visit utilization rates were significantly higher compared with patients from nonrural residences. Regarding provider-level factors, widening differences in telehealth utilization were observed at tertiary versus community-based practice settings. Increased telehealth utilization was not associated with duplicative care as per-patient and per-physician visit volumes in 2021 remained consistent with prepandemic levels. CONCLUSION We observed continuous expansion in telehealth visit utilization from 2020 to 2021. Our experiences suggest that telehealth can be integrated into cancer practices without evidence of duplicative care. Future work should examine sustainable reimbursement structures and policies to ensure accessibility of telehealth as a means to facilitate equitable, patient-centered cancer care.

AbstractBackgroundThe Merlin assay for melanoma‐risk assessment has become commercially available to reduce the rate of unnecessary sentinel lymph node biopsies (SLNB) in SLNB‐eligible patients with cutaneous melanoma. Merlin low‐risk patients are recommended to undergo wide local excision (WLE) of the primary tumor, whereas Merlin high‐risk patients are recommended to undergo both SLNB and WLE. Here, we compared the cost of a Merlin testing strategy to that of a no‐testing strategy (usual care) before prescribing SLNB.MethodsWe identified T1 and T2 patients who underwent WLE and SLNB but not completion lymph node dissection between 2007 and 2018. Controls were T1 patients who only underwent WLE. Costs for WLE and SLNB were calculated by converting institutional cost data to standardized Medicare reimbursement rates. We then developed a decision tree to compare the cost of Merlin testing to that of a no‐testing strategy (usual care).ResultsThe average standardized cost of WLE was $2066, whereas the cost of WLE and SLNB was $11,976 based on Medicare rates. At a cost below $7350 for T1b melanoma and $4600 for T1b to T2 melanoma, Merlin testing was cost‐saving compared to a no‐testing strategy (usual care), assuming Medicare reimbursement rates.ConclusionMerlin testing for T1b and T2 melanoma is potentially cost saving depending on the cost of the molecular assay and SLNB reimbursement rates. In addition to being cost saving, Merlin is expected to improve health‐related quality of life.

26 Background: We previously demonstrated that utilization of a Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) program – characterized by the use of in-home technology for symptom and vital signs assessments with a centralized care team responding to alerts – is associated with a significant reduction in 30-day hospitalization rate among cancer patients with COVID-19. We have subsequently performed a 90-day comparative cost-of-care analysis in this prospectively enrolled, validated cohort of 71 patients who received RPM and 116 patients who received usual care without RPM. Methods: Primary outcomes included 90-day all-cause costs (categorized as hospital and outpatient costs) following the index date (date of COVID-19 diagnosis). Differences in patient characteristics and baseline costs (incurred 90 days prior to index date) were determined using Standardized Differences and controlled for using Inverse Probability Weighting (IPW). IPW balancing was based on baseline covariates known to be associated with poorer COVID-19 outcomes, as previously described. Association of costs with RPM was examined by generalized linear modeling while adjusting for relevant variables. Outcomes are reported as the average treatment effect on the treated (ATET). Results: Differences in patient characteristics and baseline costs were well-balanced following IPW modeling. The index ATET was found to be comparable among patients receiving RPM and usual care on the date of COVID-19 diagnosis -$89.75 (95% CI: -$144.33 to $323.84; p = 0.452). However, patients receiving RPM experienced a 90-day ATET of -$6,994 (95% CI: -$14,635 to $646; p = 0.073) when compared with patients receiving usual care. Conclusions: There was a trend towards decreased 90-day all-cause costs for cancer patients with COVID-19 who utilized the RPM program as compared with usual care. Larger studies are needed to understand the true cost (and cost savings) associated with this innovative model of care delivery which can be leveraged for cancer care beyond COVID-19.