Early vs Late Readmissions in Pancreaticoduodenectomy Patients: Recognizing Comprehensive Episodic Cost to Help Guide Bundled Payment Plans and Hospital Resource Allocation

Readmission after pancreaticoduodenectomy: Birmingham score validation

BACKGROUND

The Birmingham score predicts the risk of hospital readmission after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). This study aimed to validate the risk score in a different healthcare cohort.

METHODS

From 2017 to 2021, 301 patients underwent PD. The Birmingham score was applied to 276 patients. Postoperative deceased patients (n = 7) or those requiring a completion of pancreatectomy (n = 18) were excluded.

RESULTS

Forty-seven (17%) patients were readmitted after a median delay of 9 (range 1-49) days and stayed for 5 (range 1-27) days; 4 (8.5%) died during the hospital stay. The leading cause of readmission was a septic condition (53%), mostly resolved by medical treatment (77%). A multivariate analysis identified the occurrence of a clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, the score criteria, and the score itself as independent factors favouring readmission. Readmission rates in patients with low [n = 97 (35%)], intermediate [n = 98 (36%)], and high [n = 81 (29%)] scores were 5%, 17%, and 31%, respectively (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed the relevance and robustness of the Birmingham risk score. Patients with a high risk of readmission after PD, identified based on the score, were discharged to a partnership medical centre close to the pancreatic centre to plan readmission and avoid futile unplanned hospitalisation.

Cost-utility advantage of interventional endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Gastroenterologists frequently face the dilemma of how to choose among different management options.

AIM

To develop a tool of medical decision analysis that helps choosing between competing management options of interventional endoscopy and surgery.

METHODS

Carcinoma-in-situ of the esophagus, large colonic polyps, and ampullary adenoma serve as three examples for disorders being managed by both techniques. A threshold analysis using a decision tree was modeled to compare the costs and utility values associated with managing the three examples. If the expected healing or success rate of interventional endoscopy exceeds a threshold calculated as the ratio of endoscopy costs over surgery costs, endoscopy becomes the preferred management option. A low threshold speaks in favor of endoscopic intervention as initial management strategy.

RESULTS

If the decision in favor of surgery is focused exclusively on preventing death from a given disease, surgical intervention may seem to provide the best treatment option. However, interventional endoscopy becomes a viable alternative, if the comparison is based on a broader perspective that includes adverse events and long-term disability, as well as the healthcare costs of both procedures. For carcinoma-in-situ of the esophagus, the threshold for the expected success rate is 24% (range in the sensitivity analysis: 7-29%); for large colonic polyps it is 10% (5-12%), and for duodenal papillary adenoma it is 17% (5-21%).

CONCLUSIONS

Even if a management strategy surpasses its alternative with respect to one important outcome parameter, there is often still room for the lesser alternative to be considered as viable option.

Specialty-Specific Readmission Risk Models Outperform General Models in Estimating Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery Readmission Risk

BACKGROUND

Readmissions are costly and inconvenient for patients, and occur frequently in hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery practice. Readmission prediction tools exist, but most have not been designed or tested in the HPB patient population.

METHODS

Pancreatectomy and hepatectomy operation-specific readmission models defined as subspecialty readmission risk assessments (SRRA) were developed using clinically relevant data from merged 2014-15 ACS NSQIP Participant Use Data Files and Procedure Targeted datasets. The two derived procedure-specific models were tested along with 6 other readmission models in institutional validation cohorts in patients who had pancreatectomy or hepatectomy, respectively, between 2013 and 2017. Models were compared using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC).

RESULTS

A total of 16,884 patients (9169 pancreatectomy and 7715 hepatectomy) were included in the derivation models. A total of 665 patients (383 pancreatectomy and 282 hepatectomy) were included in the validation models. Specialty-specific readmission models outperformed general models. AUC characteristics of the derived pancreatectomy and hepatectomy SRRA (pancreatectomy AUC=0.66, hepatectomy AUC=0.74), modified Readmission After Pancreatectomy (AUC=0.76), and modified Readmission Risk Score for hepatectomy (AUC=0.78) outperformed general models for readmission risk: LOS/2 + ASA integer-based score (pancreatectomy AUC=0.58, hepatectomy AUC=0.66), LACE Index (pancreatectomy AUC=0.54, hepatectomy AUC=0.62), Unplanned Readmission Nomogram (pancreatectomy AUC=0.52, hepatectomy AUC=0.55), and institutional ARIA (pancreatectomy AUC=0.46, hepatectomy AUC=0.58).

CONCLUSION

HPB readmission risk models using 30-day subspecialty-specific data outperform general readmission risk tools. Hospitals and practices aiming to decrease readmissions in HPB surgery patient populations should use specialty-specific readmission reduction strategies.