Vernissia Tam1, James D Luketich2, Daniel G Winger3, Inderpal S Sarkaria2, Ryan M Levy2, Neil A Christie2, Omar Awais2, Manisha R Shende2, Katie S Nason4. 1. Department of General Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 2. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, 5200 Center Ave, Shadyside Medical Building, Suite 715, Pittsburgh, PA, 15232, USA. 3. University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 4. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, 5200 Center Ave, Shadyside Medical Building, Suite 715, Pittsburgh, PA, 15232, USA. nasonks@upmc.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients undergoing non-elective paraesophageal hernia repair (PEHR) have worse perioperative outcomes. Because they are usually older and sicker, however, these patients may be more prone to adverse events, independent of surgical urgency. Our study aimed to determine whether non-elective PEHR is associated with differential postoperative outcome compared to elective repair, using propensity-score weighting. METHODS: We abstracted data for patients undergoing PEHR (n = 924; non-elective n = 171 (19 %); 1997-2010). Using boosted regression, we generated a propensity-weighted dataset. Odds of 30-day/in-hospital mortality and major complications after non-elective surgery were determined. RESULTS: Patients undergoing non-elective repair were significantly older, had more adverse prognostic factors, and significantly more major complications (38 versus 18 %; p < 0.001) and death (8 versus 1 %; p < 0.001). After propensity weighting, median absolute percentage bias across 28 propensity-score variables improved from 19 % (significant imbalance) to 5.6 % (well-balanced). After adjusting propensity-weighted data for age and comorbidity score, odds of major complications were still nearly two times greater (OR 1.67, CI 1.07-2.61) and mortality nearly three times greater (OR 2.74, CI 0.93-8.1) than for elective repair. CONCLUSIONS: Even after balancing significant differences in baseline characteristics, non-elective PEHR was associated with worse outcomes than elective repair. Symptomatic patients should be referred for elective repair by experienced surgeons.
INTRODUCTION:Patients undergoing non-elective paraesophageal hernia repair (PEHR) have worse perioperative outcomes. Because they are usually older and sicker, however, these patients may be more prone to adverse events, independent of surgical urgency. Our study aimed to determine whether non-elective PEHR is associated with differential postoperative outcome compared to elective repair, using propensity-score weighting. METHODS: We abstracted data for patients undergoing PEHR (n = 924; non-elective n = 171 (19 %); 1997-2010). Using boosted regression, we generated a propensity-weighted dataset. Odds of 30-day/in-hospital mortality and major complications after non-elective surgery were determined. RESULTS:Patients undergoing non-elective repair were significantly older, had more adverse prognostic factors, and significantly more major complications (38 versus 18 %; p < 0.001) and death (8 versus 1 %; p < 0.001). After propensity weighting, median absolute percentage bias across 28 propensity-score variables improved from 19 % (significant imbalance) to 5.6 % (well-balanced). After adjusting propensity-weighted data for age and comorbidity score, odds of major complications were still nearly two times greater (OR 1.67, CI 1.07-2.61) and mortality nearly three times greater (OR 2.74, CI 0.93-8.1) than for elective repair. CONCLUSIONS: Even after balancing significant differences in baseline characteristics, non-elective PEHR was associated with worse outcomes than elective repair. Symptomatic patients should be referred for elective repair by experienced surgeons.
Authors: Noopur Gangopadhyay; Juan M Perrone; Nathaniel J Soper; Brent D Matthews; J Christopher Eagon; Mary E Klingensmith; Margaret M Frisella; L Michael Brunt Journal: Surgery Date: 2006-09-06 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Ralph F Staerkle; Richard J E Skipworth; Ross D Hansen; Eric J Hazebroek; Garett S Smith; Steven Leibman Journal: Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 1.719
Authors: Hassanain Jassim; Johnathan T Seligman; Matthew Frelich; Matthew Goldblatt; Andrew Kastenmeier; James Wallace; Heather S Zhao; Aniko Szabo; Jon C Gould Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: James D Luketich; Katie S Nason; Neil A Christie; Arjun Pennathur; Blair A Jobe; Rodney J Landreneau; Matthew J Schuchert Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2009-12-11 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Joseph Karam; Athanasios Tsiouris; Alexander Shepard; Vic Velanovich; Ilan Rubinfeld Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2013-05-24 Impact factor: 1.466
Authors: David M Parker; Amrit Rambhajan; Katherine Johanson; Anna Ibele; Jon D Gabrielsen; Anthony T Petrick Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-08-16 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Andrea Wirsching; Moustapha A El Lakis; Kamran Mohiuddin; Agostino Pozzi; Michal Hubka; Donald E Low Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Henriikka Hietaniemi; Ilkka Ilonen; Tommi Järvinen; Juha Kauppi; Saana Andersson; Harri Sintonen; Jari Räsänen Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Brian Shea; William Boyan; Jonathan Decker; Vincent Almagno; Steven Binenbaum; Gurdeep Matharoo; Anthony Squillaro; Frank Borao Journal: JSLS Date: 2019 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Ralph F Staerkle; Ilan Rosenblum; Ferdinand Köckerling; Daniela Adolf; Reinhard Bittner; Philipp Kirchhoff; Frank S Lehmann; Henry Hoffmann; Philippe M Glauser Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-12-10 Impact factor: 4.584