Salvage versus primary holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: trends, outcomes and safety analysis

PURPOSE

To study the safety, efficacy and trends in index procedures leading to salvage holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (S-HoLEP).

METHODS

This was a single-institution retrospective review of HoLEPs performed between 2006 and 2020. Patients who underwent S-HoLEP were compared to those undergoing primary holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (P-HoLEP). The endpoint of primary interest were functional outcomes. Changes in index procedures over the study period were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 633 HoLEPs were performed during the study, with 217 being S-HoLEP. The S-HoLEP cohort was older than P-HoLEP cohort, 71.2 years vs 68.8 years (p = 0.03). All other factors were well matched. The most common index procedures prior to S-HoLEP included transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) (87, 40.1%), transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) (44, 20.3%), photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) (24, 11.1%) and prostatic urethral lift (PUL) (24, 11.1%). Preoperative prostate volume, IPSS and Q_max were similar between groups. Intra-operatively, S-HoLEP had longer procedure and morcellation times (p = 0.01 and 0.007). Postoperatively, the S-HoLEP cohort had longer catheter duration and hospitalization (both p < 0.001). Postoperative Q_max, IPSS and 90-day complication rates were similar. On temporal analysis, minimally invasive surgical therapies (MIST) have become more prevalent as index procedures.

CONCLUSION

S-HoLEP is safe and efficacious for patients requiring additional BPH surgical intervention. S-HoLEP patients had longer operative times and hospital stays but equivalent postoperative functional outcomes compared to P-HoLEP. As MIST mature and gain traction, it is expected that rates of S-HoLEP will continue to rise.

Association of Health Insurance Literacy With Financial Hardship in Patients With Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Patient-reported financial hardship is an increasing challenge in cancer care delivery. Health insurance literacy and its association with financial hardship in patients with cancer, especially after controlling for financial literacy, have not been well examined.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the prevalence of and factors in the association between health insurance literacy and financial literacy as well as the overall and individual domains of financial hardship and their association with health insurance literacy, both independently and when adjusted for financial literacy, in patients with cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional survey study recruited and enrolled patients from 2 separate ambulatory infusion centers at Mayo Clinic Arizona in Phoenix, Arizona, and the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi. Adult patients aged 18 years or older were enrolled from December 2019 to February 2020 and from August to October 2020 at Mayo Clinic Arizona (n = 299) and from September 2020 through January 2021 at the University of Mississippi Medical Center (n = 105). Survey respondents received a $5 gift card.

EXPOSURES

Surveys included questions about sociodemographic characteristics, health insurance literacy and financial literacy, financial knowledge, and financial hardship and its domains (material hardship, psychological hardship, and behavioral hardship).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Financial hardship was assessed using the COST-FACIT (Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity-Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy) measure and National Health Interview Survey questions to capture information about the domains of financial hardship. The Health Insurance Literacy Measure is a validated 21-item measure of a consumer's ability to select and use health insurance. Five questions from the National Financial Capability Study assessed financial literacy.

RESULTS

A total of 404 participants were enrolled in the study. Median (IQR) age of the respondents was 63 (54-71) years, and 219 were women (54%), 307 were non-Hispanic White individuals (76%), 153 (38%) had private insurance, and 289 (72%) had solid tumors. Overall financial hardship (denoted by median COST-FACIT score <27 points) was reported by 49% (95% CI, 44%-53%) of the cohort. Prevalence of financial hardship was higher using the National Health Interview Survey questions, with 68% (95% CI, 63%-72%) of respondents reporting at least 1 hardship domain (n = 276). Sixty-six percent (95% CI, 60%-69%) of respondents (n = 265) had a high level of financial literacy. The mean (SD) Health Insurance Literacy Measure score was 64.9 (13.3) points. In multivariable analyses, each 10-point increase in the Health Insurance Literacy Measure score was associated with lower odds of financial hardship (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99; P = .04). However, this association was no longer significant after adjusting for financial literacy.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Results of this study showed that, despite a high level of health insurance literacy and financial literacy, the prevalence of financial hardship was high. Although there were lower odds of financial hardship with increased health insurance literacy, the association was no longer significant when financial literacy was added to the model, suggesting that a high level of financial literacy may help mitigate the adverse outcome of lower health insurance literacy levels in patients with cancer.

Patient Suggestions to Improve Emergency Physician Empathy and Communication

Emergency physician empathy and communication is increasingly important and influences patient satisfaction. This study investigated if there is a need for improvement in provider empathy and communication in our emergency department and what areas could be targeted for future improvement. Patients cared for by emergency physicians with the lowest satisfaction scores were surveyed within 1 week of discharge. Patients rated their emergency provider’s empathy and communication and provided feedback on the patient–provider interaction. Compared to survey responses nationally, our providers fell between the 10th and 25th percentiles for all questions, except question 5 (making a plan of action with [the patient]) which was between the 5th and 10th percentile. Areas most frequently cited for improvement were “wanting to know why” (N = 30), “time is short” (N = 15), and “listen to the patient” (N = 13). Survey percentiles and open-ended suggestions demonstrate a need for providers to give thorough explanations, spend more time with the patient, and demonstrate active listening. These themes can be used to strengthen the provider–patient relationship.