Relationship Between Neighborhood Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Severe Maternal Morbidity and Maternal Mortality

Background

Rates of severe maternal morbidity and maternal mortality (SMM/MM) in the United States are rising. Disparities in SMM/MM persist by race, ethnicity and geography, and could partially be attributed to social determinants of health.

Purpose

Utilizing data from the largest, statewide referral hospital in Alabama, we investigated the relationship between residence in disadvantaged neighborhoods and SMM/MM.

Methods

Data on all pregnancies between 2010 and 2020 were included; SMM/MM cases were identified using CDC definitions. Area deprivation index (ADI) available at the census-block group was geographically linked to individual records and categorized using quintile cutoffs; higher ADI score indicated higher socioeconomic disadvantage. Generalized estimating equation models were used to adjust for spatial autocorrelation and ORs were computed to evaluate the relationship between ADI and SMM/MM, adjusted for covariates including age, race, insurance, residence in medically underserved areas/population (MUAP), and urban/rural residence.

Results

Overall, 32,909 live-birth deliveries were identified, with a prevalence of 9.8% deliveries with SMM/MM with blood transfusion and 5.3% without blood transfusion, respectively. Increased levels of ADI were associated with increased odds of SMM/MM. Compared to women in the lowest quintile, the adjusted OR for SMM/MM among women in highest quintile was 1.78 (95%CI, 1.22-2.59, P=.0027); increasing age, non-Hispanic Black, government insurance and residence in MUAP were also significantly associated with increased odds of SMM/MM.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that residence within disadvantaged neighborhoods may contribute to SMM/MM even after adjusting for patient-level factors. Measures such as ADI can help identify the most vulnerable populations and provide points to intervene.

Perspectives of Pharmacists on the Structure, Decision-Making, and Communication Practices of Multidisciplinary Cancer Teams in Alabama

Introduction: A multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach within cancer care settings is increasingly being adopted to improve patient outcomes due to the rising complexity of diagnosis and treatment. This study aims to explore the perspective of pharmacists on the structure, decision-making process, and communication practices of cancer MDTs. Methods: A 25‐item online questionnaire was distributed to oncology‐related clinical pharmacists in Alabama. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 15 pharmacists completed the survey. More than half of the respondents reported that MDT meetings were held mostly in person on a set schedule. While physicians primarily facilitated the meetings, patients and/or their caregivers were largely not invited to participate in them. The treating physician oversaw delivering and update to the patient and/or their caregivers after the MDT meetings. Most respondents indicated that positron emission and computed tomography were the most common sources of information available at initial case presentations. Overall, respondents strongly agreed that they felt comfortable sharing their opinions with others health professionals during MDT meetings. Conclusions: This study provides evidence that oncology pharmacists are involved in MDT decision-making processes and communications but suggests the need to promote conditions to further their participation.

Trends in the use of cerebrospinal drains and outcomes related to spinal cord ischemia after thoracic endovascular aortic repair and complex endovascular aortic repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative database

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is a dreaded complication of thoracic and complex endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR/cEVAR). Controversy exists surrounding cerebrospinal fluid drain (CSFD) use, especially preoperative prophylactic placement, owing to concerns regarding catheter-related complications. However, these risks are balanced by the widely accepted benefits of CSFDs during open repair to prevent and/or rescue patients with SCI. The importance of this issue is underscored by the paucity of data on CSFD practice patterns, limiting the development of practice guidelines. Therefore, the purpose of the present analysis was to evaluate the differences between patients who developed SCI despite preoperative CSFD placement and those treated with therapeutic postoperative CSFD placement.

METHODS

All elective TEVAR/cEVAR procedures for degenerative aneurysm pathology in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative from 2014 to 2019 were analyzed. CSFD use over time, the factors associated with preoperative prophylactic vs postoperative therapeutic CSFD placement in patients with SCI (transient or permanent), and outcomes were evaluated. Survival differences were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 3406 TEVAR/cEVAR procedures met the inclusion criteria, with an overall SCI rate of 2.3% (n = 88). The SCI rate decreased from 4.55% in 2014 to 1.43% in 2018. Prophylactic preoperative CSFD use was similar over time (2014, 30%; vs 2018, 27%; P = .8). After further exclusions to evaluate CSFD use in those who had developed SCI, 72 patients were available for analysis, 48 with SCI and prophylactic CSFD placement and 24 with SCI and therapeutic CSFD placement. Specific to SCI, the patient demographics and comorbidities were not significantly different between the prophylactic and therapeutic groups, with the exception of previous aortic surgery, which was more common in the prophylactic CSFD cohort (46% vs 23%; P < .001). The SCI outcome was significantly worse for the therapeutic group because 79% had documented permanent paraplegia at discharge compared with 54% of the prophylactic group (P = .04). SCI patients receiving a postoperative therapeutic CSFD had had worse survival than those with a preoperative prophylactic CSFD (50% ± 10% vs 71% ± 9%; log-rank P = .1; Wilcoxon P = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic CSFD use with TEVAR/cEVAR remained stable during the study period. Of the SCI patients, postoperative therapeutic CSFD placement was associated with worse sustained neurologic outcomes and overall survival compared with preoperative prophylactic CSFD placement. These findings highlight the need for a randomized clinical trial to examine prophylactic vs therapeutic CSFD placement in association with TEVAR/cEVAR.