Trends, factors, and disparities associated with length of stay after lower extremity bypass for tissue loss

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine predictors of increased length of stay (LOS) in patients who underwent lower extremity bypass for tissue loss.

METHODS

Using 2011 to 2016 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program vascular targeted databases, we compared demographics, comorbidities, procedural characteristics, and 30-day outcomes of patients who had expected LOS vs extended LOS (>75th percentile, 9 days) after nonemergent lower extremity bypass for tissue loss. We also compared factors associated with short LOS (<25th percentile, 4 days) and extended LOS (>75th percentile, 9 days) vs the interquartile range of LOS (4-9 days). Yearly trends and independent predictors were determined by linear and logistic regression. This study was exempt from Institutional Review Board approval.

RESULTS

In 4964 analyzed patients, there were no significant yearly trends or changes in LOS in the recent 5 years (P > .05). Overall 30-day mortality, major amputation, and reintervention rates were 1.6%, 4.5%, and 4.8%, respectively, also with no significant yearly trends (all P > .05). On univariate analysis, nonwhite race, dependent functional status, transfers, dialysis, congestive heart failure, hypertension, beta blockers, distal bypass targets, and extended operative time were associated with extended LOS (P < .05). Extended LOS was also associated with higher rates of 30-day major adverse limb and cardiac events, additional procedures related to wound care, deep venous thrombosis, complications (pulmonary, renal, septic, bleeding, and wound), and discharge to facility but lower 30-day readmission rates. After adjustment for covariates, the independent factors for extended LOS included dialysis, beta blockers, prolonged operative time, reintervention, major amputation, additional procedures related to wound care, deep venous thrombosis, complications (pulmonary, renal, septic, bleeding, and wound), and discharge to facility (P < .05). On the other hand, multivariable analysis showed that patients with expected LOS were significantly more likely to have been of white race or readmitted postoperatively (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

From 2011 to 2016, there were no significant changes in LOS. Efforts to decrease LOS without increasing readmission rates while focusing on some of the identified factors, including preventable postoperative complications and pre-existing socioeconomic factors, may improve the overall vascular care of these challenging patients.

Beta-blockers in noncardiac surgery: Did observational studies put us back on safe ground?

Based on landmark trials, international guidelines had for years promoted the use of beta-blockers in the setting of non-cardiac surgery. In 2011, concerns were raised regarding the integrity of some of the landmark trials, as the Dutch Erasmus Medical Center found some of them to be scientifically incorrect. Based on the remaining studies that were to be trusted, investigations showed that, in contrast to prior beliefs, the widespread use of perioperative beta-blockers might be harmful. A call for further investigations into the matter ushered in several observational studies evaluating the safety of perioperative beta-blocker therapy in specific patient subgroups. Within this review, we discuss important aspects for making these decisions, and compare the major observational studies and specific estimates of risk in subgroups of interest. We conclude that patients at high risk with heavy co-morbidities, such as heart failure, may benefit from beta-blocker therapy, whereas low-risk patients, such as patients with uncomplicated hypertension, may be at increased risk with beta-blocker therapy. We provide a critical review of current perioperative guidelines in view of the new observational data, suggesting that the recommended schematics, such as the Revised Cardiac Risk Index, for risk stratification of patients in this setting may be suboptimal. Further, we provide discussions of other aspects, including risk of sepsis, type of beta-blocker, and the potential of perioperative beta-blocker withdrawal, which may be important in guiding future studies. Summarising the current evidence, we argue that, after a precarious decade, we may just now, be back on safe ground.

Quantity Over Quality: How the Rise in Quality Measures is Not Producing Quality Results

Over the past decade, quality measures (QMs) have been implemented nationally in order to establish standards aimed at improving the quality of care. With the expansion of their role in the Affordable Care Act and pay-for-performance, QMs have had an increasingly significant impact on clinical practice. However, adverse patient outcomes have resulted from adherence to some previously promulgated performance measures. Several of these QMs with unintended consequences, including the initiation of perioperative beta-blockers in noncardiac surgery and intensive insulin therapy for critically ill patients, were instituted as QMs years before large randomized trials ultimately refuted their use. The future of quality care should emphasize the importance of evidence-based, peer-reviewed measures.

A new frontier for an old drug? A word of caution for beta-blockers in sepsis!

Recent promising findings indicate a possible benefit of β-blockade in septic patients. Ongoing trials on esmolol in septic shock are investigating its hemodynamic effects, focusing on heart rate control and echocardiographic changes, as well as potential anti-inflammatory effects. However, given the complex physiology of sepsis and pharmacological effects on β-blockade, large multi-center trials are essential before such a therapy may be applied safely.

Regional anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy

Summary Regional anaesthesia is a popular choice for patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Neurological function is easily assessed during carotid cross-clamping; haemodynamic control is predictable; and hospital stay is consistently shorter compared with general anaesthesia (GA). Despite these purported benefits, mortality and stroke rates associated with CEA remain around 5% for both regional anaesthesia and GA. Regional anaesthetic techniques for CEA have improved with improved methods of location of peripheral nerves including nerve stimulators and ultrasound together with a modification in the classification of cervical plexus blocks. There have also been improvements in local anaesthetic, sedative, and arterial pressure-controlling drugs in patients undergoing CEA, together with advances in the management of patients who develop neurological deficit after carotid cross-clamping. In the UK, published national guidelines now require the time between the patient's presenting neurological event and definitive treatment to 1 week or less. This has implications for the ability of vascular centres to provide specialized vascular anaesthetists familiar with regional anaesthetic techniques for CEA. Providing effective regional anaesthesia for CEA is an important component in the armamentarium of techniques for the vascular anaesthetist in 2014.