Donovanemborg9098

BACKGROUND Patients thought to be at greater risk of liver waitlist dropout than their laboratory Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (lMELD) score reflects are commonly given MELD exceptions, where a higher allocation MELD (aMELD) score is assigned that is thought to reflect the patient's risk. This study was undertaken to determine whether exceptions for reasons other than hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are justified, and whether exception aMELD scores appropriately estimate risk. METHODS Adult primary liver transplantation candidates listed in the current era of liver allocation in the United Network for Organ Sharing database were analyzed. Patients granted non-HCC-related MELD exceptions and those without MELD exceptions were compared. Rates of waitlist dropout and liver transplantation were analyzed using cause-specific hazards regression, with separate models fitted to adjust for lMELD and aMELD. RESULTS There were 29,243 patients, with 2,555 in the exception group. Nationally, exception patients were more likely to dropout (hazard ratio [HR] 1.60; 95% CI, 1.45 to 1.76; p less then 0.001) or undergo liver transplantation (HR 3.49; 95% CI, 3.32 to 3.67; p less then 0.001) than their lMELD-adjusted counterparts. Adjusting for aMELD, exception patients were less likely to dropout (HR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.85; p less then 0.001) and less likely to undergo liver transplantation (HR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.80; p less then 0.001). Exception patients were not at significantly increased risk of waitlist dropout when adjusted for lMELD in 4 of 11 United Network for Organ Sharing regions. CONCLUSIONS Despite appropriate use of non-HCC MELD exceptions on a national level, patients with non-HCC MELD exceptions were awarded inappropriately high priority for transplantation in many regions. This highlights the need to consider local conditions faced by transplantation candidates when estimating waitlist mortality and determining priority for transplantation. BACKGROUND Approximately 20% of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) present with synchronous liver metastases (CRLM). The decision to resect simultaneously or sequentially remains controversial. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether simultaneous resection of CRC and CRLM is associated with increased complications compared to isolated resection. STUDY DESIGN Prospective data from the American College of Surgeons (ACS) NSQIP, including the ACS NSQIP procedure-specific colectomy and hepatectomy modules from 2014 to 2017, were reviewed in a retrospective cohort study. Primary study outcome was combined 30-day complication rates; secondary outcomes included colectomy and hepatectomy-specific complication. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to control for confounding factors associated with postoperative complication. RESULTS A total of 23,643 patients underwent colectomy, 7,462 hepatectomy, and 592 simultaneous resection for CRC and CLRM. Overall morbidity was higher among patients re-specific postoperative morbidity. BACKGROUND Approximately 15% of patients with penetrating thoracic trauma require an emergency center or operating room thoracotomy, usually for hemodynamic instability or persistent hemorrhage. The hypothesis in this study was that admission physiology, not vital signs, predicts the need for operating room thoracotomy. STUDY DESIGN We conducted a trauma registry review, 2002 to 2017, of adult patients undergoing operating room thoracotomy within 6 hours of admission (emergency department thoracotomies excluded). Demographics, injuries, admission physiology, time to operating room (OR), operations, and outcomes were reviewed. Data are reported as mean (SD) or median (IQR). RESULTS Of the 301 consecutive patients in this 15-year review, 75.6% were male, mean age was 31.1 years (11.5), and 41.5% had gunshot wounds. The median Injury Severity Score was 25 (range 16 to 29), time to operating room was 38 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 19 to 105 minutes), and 21.9% had a thoracic damage control operation. SP 600125 negative control cell line Mean admission systolic blood pressure was 115 mmHg (SD 37 mmHg), with only 23.9% less then 90 mmHg; however, admission pH 7.22 (SD 0.14), base deficit 7.6 (SD 6.1), and lactate 7.2 (SD 4.5) were markedly abnormal. Overall, there were 136 (45.2%) patients with significant pulmonary injuries treated with 112 major nonanatomic resections, 17 lobectomies, and 7 pneumonectomies; respective mortalities were 2.7%, 11.8%, and 42.9%. There were 100 (33.2%) cardiac, 30 (9.9%) great vessel, 14 (4.7%) aerodigestive, and 58 (19%) combined thoracic injuries. Mortalities for cardiac, great vessel, and aerodigestive injuries were 7%, 0%, and 14.3%, respectively. Overall mortality was 6.6%, 15.2% after damage control, and 4.3% for all others. CONCLUSIONS Shock characterized by acidosis, but not hypotension, is the most common presentation in patients who will need operating room thoracotomy after penetrating thoracic trauma. Survival rates are excellent unless a pneumonectomy or damage control thoracotomy is required. BACKGROUND Cytoreductive surgery plus intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemotherapy (CRS+HIPEC) is a formidable procedure, often affecting the quality of life (QOL) of the caregiver as well as the patient. We explored the impact of quality of life and depressive symptom burdens of CRS+HIPEC caregivers prospectively. STUDY DESIGN Patient and caregiver dyads were both consented per IRB-approved protocol; CRS ± HIPEC was performed. The impact on QOL and depressive symptom burdens was assessed on patient-caregiver dyads via the Caregiver Quality of Life (CG QOL-C), CES-D (Center for Epidemiological Studies - Depression) instruments; pre-CS+HIPEC (T1), postoperative (T2), 6 (T3), and 12 (T4) months. RESULTS Seventy-seven dyads were approached, with 73 participating. Both caregiver and patient depressive symptom trajectories changed significantly. CES-D means for caregivers were (T1-4) 15.1 (SE [standard error] 1.7), 15.0 (1.4), 10.3 (1.4), 13.1 (2.1), p = 0.0008; for patients were 10.3 (SE 1.1), 13.7 (1.4), 9.0 (1.2), and 10.3 (1.5), p = 0.0002. Preoperatively, caregivers scored 4.8 points (SD 13.4) (p = 0.026) higher than patients. Patients experienced an increase in depression scores at the postoperative visit. At T3, both groups dropped to less concerning levels; yet caregiver CES-D scores increased again at T4 4.7 points (SD 12.5) higher than the patients, and financial well-being became worse from T1 to T3. Possible, probable, and "cases" of depression were higher for caregivers were at all measured time points. CONCLUSIONS Significant numbers of caregivers endured high depressive symptom burdens and financial concerns. Different caregiver-patient trajectories reflect the need for differential timing of supportive interventions. Evaluation of quality of life and impact of CRS+HIPEC procedures must move beyond assessment of only the patient.