Value of Wedge Resection for Lung Cancer in Poor Cardiopulmonary Status Patients

Postoperative atrial fibrillation prophylaxis using a novel amiodarone order set

Background

Studies have demonstrated that chemoprophylaxis following anatomic lung resection can reduce post-operative atrial fibrillation (POAF). However, it is unclear if non-anatomic wedge resection warrants prophylaxis, as previously published rates vary widely. The primary goal of this study was to assess an institutional rate of POAF following anatomic resections with implementation of a novel amiodarone administration regimen compared to wedge resections without prophylaxis.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained database and compared anatomic and wedge lung resection patients from 1/2015 to 4/2018. During the study period, a previously unpublished amiodarone order set consisting of a 300 mg IV bolus followed by 400 mg tablets TID ×3 days was administered to anatomic resection patients ≥65 who met criteria. Wedge resection patients were not intended to receive amiodarone prophylaxis. The primary outcome was POAF incidence. Risk factors for developing POAF were assessed.

Results

A total of 537 patients met inclusion where 56% underwent anatomic resection and 44% wedge resection. Overall, 5.4% of patients experienced POAF. There was a significant reduction in post-anatomic resection POAF as compared to historic rates without prophylaxis (9.3% vs. 20.3%, P<0.001). A single wedge resection patient (0.4%) developed POAF. On multivariable analysis, the only independent POAF risk factor was age ≥65 (OR: 5.41, 95% CI: 1.47-19.85).

Conclusions

Administration of our novel amiodarone order set reduces POAF after anatomic resection; however, POAF following wedge resection is too rare to warrant chemoprophylaxis.

A comparison of surgical intervention and stereotactic body radiation therapy for stage I lung cancer in high-risk patients: a decision analysis

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the relative cost-effectiveness of surgical intervention and stereotactic body radiation therapy in high risk patients with clinical stage I lung cancer (non-small cell lung cancer).

METHODS

We compared patients chosen for surgical intervention or SBRT for clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Propensity score matching was used to adjust estimated treatment hazard ratios for the confounding effects of age, comorbidity index, and clinical stage. We assumed that Medicare-allowable charges were $15,034 for surgical intervention and $13,964 for stereotactic body radiation therapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated as the cost per life year gained over the patient's remaining lifetime by using a decision model.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients in each arm were selected by means of propensity score matching. Median survival with surgical intervention was 4.1 years, and 4-year survival was 51.4%. With stereotactic body radiation therapy, median survival was 2.9 years, and 4-year survival was 30.1%. Cause-specific survival was identical between the 2 groups, and the difference in overall survival was not statistically significant. For decision modeling, stereotactic body radiation therapy was estimated to have a mean expected survival of 2.94 years at a cost of $14,153 and mean expected survival with surgical intervention was 3.39 years at a cost of $17,629, for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $7753.

CONCLUSIONS

In our analysis stereotactic body radiation therapy appears to be less costly than surgical intervention in high-risk patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer. However, surgical intervention appears to meet the standards for cost-effectiveness because of a longer expected overall survival. Should this advantage not be confirmed in other studies, the cost-effectiveness decision would be likely to change. Prospective randomized studies are necessary to strengthen confidence in these results.